پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Newspaper reports have speculated that the presence of American military personnel in the hotel at the time of the blast points to a US covert operation whose aim could be anything from the capture of Osama bin Laden to the seizing of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad (Daily Telegraph, UK-Sept 23rd, 2008)
Islamabad Pakistan Marriot: What was the US Marine role? (http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/21/islamabad-pakistan-marriot-what-was-the-us-marine-role/)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the massive blast that caused 53 deaths at the Islamabad Marriott hotel in Pakistan was an operation conducted by India's foreign intelligence agency The Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] in an attempt to ‘decapitate’ Pakistan’s entire leadership. India had become ‘alarmed’ by the United States and Pakistan’s ISI plan...
Americans’ presence at Marriott not a secret: US embassy
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani authorities are trying to solve the riddle of US Marines and their mysterious steel cases, which were shifted to the Marriott Hotel four days before the hotel was reduced to ashes by the worst ever terrorist attack in the history of the federal capital.
These authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the Government of Pakistan.
The US embassy insists the activity witnessed was a team of support personnel that often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US officials. However, the government authorities probing the matter have already got most of the facts ascertained as mentioned in The News story on Sunday.
According to an official source, the authorities were told that mysterious activity of the US Marines took place around 12:00 midnight on 16 September. Already the government has got the information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage.
Sadruddin Hashwani, the owner of the Marriott, when approached denied that the Americans had any such presence in the hotel and said that like any such hotel in the world his guests included people of different nationalities. “Why focus on the Americans unnecessarily,” Hashwani wondered. He refuted that the US embassy had permanently hired several rooms in his hotel.
The US embassy spokesperson Lou Fintor, however, when asked if the US embassy had hired several rooms in the Marriott Hotel for years, said in his written reply that the US embassy has been a frequent customer of the Marriott Hotel for many years. On any given day, he said, there were employees of the American embassy and official American visitors staying at the hotel. “There is nothing unusual, secretive or ‘mysterious’ about this,” he said.
When asked if three of these permanently hired rooms were interconnected, Fintor said, “For our frequent visiting delegations, the embassy often rented adjoining rooms — as we often do in other hotels in Pakistan and in the world.”
Responding to unconfirmed reports that the US-rented rooms in the Marriott Hotel were being used by the CIA for espionage purposes, he said, “Unfortunately, far too many things have been ‘said’ that have absolutely no basis in fact. There is no truth whatsoever in allegations that covert activity was taking place on the part of the United States government.”
The spokesman said that these allegations are inaccurate, irresponsible, baseless and completely without any foundation whatsoever.
About the Marines and the steel cases which were reported to have been shifted to the hotel between the night of 16 and 17 September and whether these Marines and the suitcases were in the hotel on the day of the blast or evacuated before, he said, “A team of support personnel often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US government officials. They often carry communication and office equipment required to support large delegations, such as high-level administration officials and members of the US Congress.”
He added that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would travel with communications equipment. “It is quite possible that some saw this communications equipment moved into the hotel. This equipment would leave with the CJCS. If the equipment was transported in full public view then obviously there was no attempt made to conceal its movement.”
Witnessed by many, including a PPP MNA and his friends, a US embassy’s truckload of steel boxes was unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott Hotel on September 16 midnight only after Mike Mullen, the US Admiral, had met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad and had already left. Both the main gates (the entrance and the exit) of the hotel were closed while no one except the US Marines was either allowed to go near the truck or get the steel boxes unloaded or shift them inside the hotel. These steel boxes were not being passed through the scanners installed at the entrance of the hotel’s lobby, and were reportedly shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the Marriott.
The US embassy spokesman also confirmed that the Marriott rooms, which were in use of the US officials, had the communication and office equipment, which were transported for use by Admiral Mullen.
[contact-form]
A hotel employee, on condition of not being named, confided that the hotel management had been receiving threats from unknown persons for the last six months to get the US officials vacated from the hotel. However, Mr Hashwani when confronted said that there has been no threat received by the hotel management.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Origins or Terror in Pakistan: Across the border
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
How to build a relationship with the Pakistanis
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Marines Mystery at Marriott? What, How, Why?
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Islamabad Pakistan Marriot: What was the US Marine role?
(http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/21/islamabad-pakistan-marriot-what-was-the-us-marine-role/)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the massive blast that caused 53 deaths at the Islamabad Marriott hotel in Pakistan was an operation conducted by India's foreign intelligence agency The Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] in an attempt to ‘decapitate’ Pakistan’s entire leadership. India had become ‘alarmed’ by the United States and Pakistan’s ISI plan...
Americans’ presence at Marriott not a secret: US embassy
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani authorities are trying to solve the riddle of US Marines and their mysterious steel cases, which were shifted to the Marriott Hotel four days before the hotel was reduced to ashes by the worst ever terrorist attack in the history of the federal capital.
These authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the Government of Pakistan.
The US embassy insists the activity witnessed was a team of support personnel that often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US officials. However, the government authorities probing the matter have already got most of the facts ascertained as mentioned in The News story on Sunday.
According to an official source, the authorities were told that mysterious activity of the US Marines took place around 12:00 midnight on 16 September. Already the government has got the information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage.
Sadruddin Hashwani, the owner of the Marriott, when approached denied that the Americans had any such presence in the hotel and said that like any such hotel in the world his guests included people of different nationalities. “Why focus on the Americans unnecessarily,” Hashwani wondered. He refuted that the US embassy had permanently hired several rooms in his hotel.
The US embassy spokesperson Lou Fintor, however, when asked if the US embassy had hired several rooms in the Marriott Hotel for years, said in his written reply that the US embassy has been a frequent customer of the Marriott Hotel for many years. On any given day, he said, there were employees of the American embassy and official American visitors staying at the hotel. “There is nothing unusual, secretive or ‘mysterious’ about this,” he said.
When asked if three of these permanently hired rooms were interconnected, Fintor said, “For our frequent visiting delegations, the embassy often rented adjoining rooms — as we often do in other hotels in Pakistan and in the world.”
Responding to unconfirmed reports that the US-rented rooms in the Marriott Hotel were being used by the CIA for espionage purposes, he said, “Unfortunately, far too many things have been ‘said’ that have absolutely no basis in fact. There is no truth whatsoever in allegations that covert activity was taking place on the part of the United States government.”
The spokesman said that these allegations are inaccurate, irresponsible, baseless and completely without any foundation whatsoever.
About the Marines and the steel cases which were reported to have been shifted to the hotel between the night of 16 and 17 September and whether these Marines and the suitcases were in the hotel on the day of the blast or evacuated before, he said, “A team of support personnel often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US government officials. They often carry communication and office equipment required to support large delegations, such as high-level administration officials and members of the US Congress.”
He added that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would travel with communications equipment. “It is quite possible that some saw this communications equipment moved into the hotel. This equipment would leave with the CJCS. If the equipment was transported in full public view then obviously there was no attempt made to conceal its movement.”
Witnessed by many, including a PPP MNA and his friends, a US embassy’s truckload of steel boxes was unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott Hotel on September 16 midnight only after Mike Mullen, the US Admiral, had met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad and had already left. Both the main gates (the entrance and the exit) of the hotel were closed while no one except the US Marines was either allowed to go near the truck or get the steel boxes unloaded or shift them inside the hotel. These steel boxes were not being passed through the scanners installed at the entrance of the hotel’s lobby, and were reportedly shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the Marriott.
The US embassy spokesman also confirmed that the Marriott rooms, which were in use of the US officials, had the communication and office equipment, which were transported for use by Admiral Mullen.
[contact-form]
A hotel employee, on condition of not being named, confided that the hotel management had been receiving threats from unknown persons for the last six months to get the US officials vacated from the hotel. However, Mr Hashwani when confronted said that there has been no threat received by the hotel management.
Islamabad Pakistan Marriot: What was the US Marine role?
(http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/21/islamabad-pakistan-marriot-what-was-the-us-marine-role/)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the massive blast that caused 53 deaths at the Islamabad Marriott hotel in Pakistan was an operation conducted by India's foreign intelligence agency The Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] in an attempt to ‘decapitate’ Pakistan’s entire leadership. India had become ‘alarmed’ by the United States and Pakistan’s ISI plan...
Americans’ presence at Marriott not a secret: US embassy
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani authorities are trying to solve the riddle of US Marines and their mysterious steel cases, which were shifted to the Marriott Hotel four days before the hotel was reduced to ashes by the worst ever terrorist attack in the history of the federal capital.
These authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the Government of Pakistan.
The US embassy insists the activity witnessed was a team of support personnel that often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US officials. However, the government authorities probing the matter have already got most of the facts ascertained as mentioned in The News story on Sunday.
According to an official source, the authorities were told that mysterious activity of the US Marines took place around 12:00 midnight on 16 September. Already the government has got the information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage.
Sadruddin Hashwani, the owner of the Marriott, when approached denied that the Americans had any such presence in the hotel and said that like any such hotel in the world his guests included people of different nationalities. “Why focus on the Americans unnecessarily,” Hashwani wondered. He refuted that the US embassy had permanently hired several rooms in his hotel.
The US embassy spokesperson Lou Fintor, however, when asked if the US embassy had hired several rooms in the Marriott Hotel for years, said in his written reply that the US embassy has been a frequent customer of the Marriott Hotel for many years. On any given day, he said, there were employees of the American embassy and official American visitors staying at the hotel. “There is nothing unusual, secretive or ‘mysterious’ about this,” he said.
When asked if three of these permanently hired rooms were interconnected, Fintor said, “For our frequent visiting delegations, the embassy often rented adjoining rooms — as we often do in other hotels in Pakistan and in the world.”
Responding to unconfirmed reports that the US-rented rooms in the Marriott Hotel were being used by the CIA for espionage purposes, he said, “Unfortunately, far too many things have been ‘said’ that have absolutely no basis in fact. There is no truth whatsoever in allegations that covert activity was taking place on the part of the United States government.”
The spokesman said that these allegations are inaccurate, irresponsible, baseless and completely without any foundation whatsoever.
About the Marines and the steel cases which were reported to have been shifted to the hotel between the night of 16 and 17 September and whether these Marines and the suitcases were in the hotel on the day of the blast or evacuated before, he said, “A team of support personnel often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US government officials. They often carry communication and office equipment required to support large delegations, such as high-level administration officials and members of the US Congress.”
He added that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would travel with communications equipment. “It is quite possible that some saw this communications equipment moved into the hotel. This equipment would leave with the CJCS. If the equipment was transported in full public view then obviously there was no attempt made to conceal its movement.”
Witnessed by many, including a PPP MNA and his friends, a US embassy’s truckload of steel boxes was unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott Hotel on September 16 midnight only after Mike Mullen, the US Admiral, had met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad and had already left. Both the main gates (the entrance and the exit) of the hotel were closed while no one except the US Marines was either allowed to go near the truck or get the steel boxes unloaded or shift them inside the hotel. These steel boxes were not being passed through the scanners installed at the entrance of the hotel’s lobby, and were reportedly shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the Marriott.
The US embassy spokesman also confirmed that the Marriott rooms, which were in use of the US officials, had the communication and office equipment, which were transported for use by Admiral Mullen.
[contact-form]
A hotel employee, on condition of not being named, confided that the hotel management had been receiving threats from unknown persons for the last six months to get the US officials vacated from the hotel. However, Mr Hashwani when confronted said that there has been no threat received by the hotel management.
Will US drones defy flying pigs and stop bombing Pakistan?
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 21, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Is the sway of the US drones over? Will US troops stop landing in Pakistan and shooting people, many of which turned out to be women and children. The US may stop the attacks. yes pigs can fly with our without lipstick.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
Recently -- and naively -- Donald Camp, the U.S.’s deputy assistant secretary of state, said there is no situation in which the U.S. and Pakistan will shoot at each other. That view ignores the role Islamic thinking plays in Pakistan’s military and among a sizable portion of the population. There are no guarantees that Pakistan will see things America’s way, and it is possible Islamabad could change course for our worse.
That’s why America’s new strategy regarding Pakistan must go beyond talk. It must deal with substantive issues that threaten to push the region into war, like the long-term tensions between Pakistan and India which have festered to near blows in the recent past. Human Events dot com
Zardari deplores U.S. intrusions in Pak soil Updated at: 0825 PST, Tuesday, September 23, 2008
NEW YORK: Calling the fight against terrorists as Pakistan’s war, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked American troops to stay away and leave the Pakistani forces to do the job. “Our orders are clear: not to allow any incursion of anybody in Pakistan.
American troops are coming, without letting us know, without Pakistan’s permission, they are violating the United Nations Charter,” he said in a television interview Monday.
The president said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
The president voiced the confidence that the country would be able to defeat the menace of terrorism with the cooperation of its anti-terrorism partners.
“Pakistan is capable (of fighting terrorism) with the help of the world, yes we are capable,” he told news channel in an interview.
Is the sway of the US drones over? Will US troops stop landing in Pakistan and shooting people, many of which turned out to be women and children. The US may stop the attacks. yes pigs can fly with our without lipstick.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
Recently -- and naively -- Donald Camp, the U.S.’s deputy assistant secretary of state, said there is no situation in which the U.S. and Pakistan will shoot at each other. That view ignores the role Islamic thinking plays in Pakistan’s military and among a sizable portion of the population. There are no guarantees that Pakistan will see things America’s way, and it is possible Islamabad could change course for our worse.
That’s why America’s new strategy regarding Pakistan must go beyond talk. It must deal with substantive issues that threaten to push the region into war, like the long-term tensions between Pakistan and India which have festered to near blows in the recent past. Human Events dot com
Zardari deplores U.S. intrusions in Pak soil Updated at: 0825 PST, Tuesday, September 23, 2008
NEW YORK: Calling the fight against terrorists as Pakistan’s war, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked American troops to stay away and leave the Pakistani forces to do the job. “Our orders are clear: not to allow any incursion of anybody in Pakistan.
American troops are coming, without letting us know, without Pakistan’s permission, they are violating the United Nations Charter,” he said in a television interview Monday.
The president said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
The president voiced the confidence that the country would be able to defeat the menace of terrorism with the cooperation of its anti-terrorism partners.
“Pakistan is capable (of fighting terrorism) with the help of the world, yes we are capable,” he told news channel in an interview.
Will US drone shooting change the Afghan war?
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
On May 1st, 1960 an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union. Ironically the U2 took off from the Badabare US Airforce base near Peshawar. At first the US denied it. When it finally accepted that the existence of the plane , it was too late, Gary Powell, the spy plane's pilot had already spilled the beans."the incident was a great embarrassment to the United States and prompted a marked deterioration in its relations with the Soviet Union."
In July 1957, Pakistani Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was requested by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of his government's agreement for the U.S. to establish a secret U.S. intelligence facility in Pakistan and permission for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. A facility established in Badaber, 10 miles (16 km) from Peshawar, was a cover for a major communications intercept operation run by the American National Security Agency (NSA). Badaber was an excellent choice because of its proximity to Soviet Central Asia. This enabled monitoring of missile test sites and other communications. U-2 "spy-in-the-sky" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of the Peshawar airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation. Wikipedia
A lot of water has gone down the Potomac, the Indus and the Volga since those days when Pakistan was part of SEATO, CENTO and had two executive defense agreements with the USA.
Americans will selective amnesia have forgotten all that. Who cares if Pakistan assisted the US for 60 years and all through the cold war. Who cares if Pakistan risked nuclear annihilation. Ingrates don't remember favors. Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan and all of Afghanistan was simply a Soviet colony at the time. After a direct threat from Kruschev, and President Ayub Khan realized that he wanted "Friends no Masters" the Badabare Airforce base was closed. In 1965 the US imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan.
Precisely 14 years later when Pakistan needed help against India, the 7th fleet headed towards to the Bay of Bangal didn't quite have the warp power to reach Chittagong before December 16th 1971. That date and the whereabouts of the 7th fleet are etched in the minds of all Pakistanis who were alive on December 16th, 1971.
Ingrates don't remember favors. Richard Armitage on September 11th 2001 informed the then president that "he would bomb Pakistan to the stone age" if it did not agree to the seven demands that he had presented. When reminded of history of the US-Pakistan relations, he said "history begins today"-- letting Musharraf and the Pakistan nation know in no uncertain terms that this was a transactional relationship.
Fast forward to September 23rd, 2008. A US had been shot down in Pakistan. This one did not take off from Pakistani territory to spy on Russia. This one took off from Bagram Airforce base Afghanistan to spy on Pakistani territory. the purpose of the drone was not only to spy but also to bomb Paksitani territory.
NEW YORK: An influential United Stated newspaper on Monday cautioned the Bush administration against attacks inside Pakistani territory and called for devising a policy to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government while enlisting its full support in the fight against extremists.Pakistan News reporting on the New York Times article
The impact of this "crash" may be very profound. It may signal that the Pakistanis have developed the technology to shoot down drones. If so, the US war in Afghanistan will face new challenges. The tide shifted against the USSR after Charlie Wilson introduced the Stinger missiles in Afghanistan. After the introduction of the Stingers no Soviet chopper was safe in Afghan air.
The president [Zardari] said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
Is this drone shooting a seminal event. The events which will unfold in the next few weeks will inform the world if another drone "crashes". If so, GWOT is in real trouble and Pakistan's help in the war will become more important.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
US drone 'crashes in Pakistan'
A suspected US drone aircraft has crashed in northwest Pakistan's South Waziristan region, according to Pakistani security officials and media reports.
"A pilotless spy plane, we believe it is US, crashed in Pakistani territory but it did not disintegrate," a senior Pakistani security official said on Tuesday.
"Tribesmen picked it up and then Pakistani security forces retrieved it. No firing was heard in the area so there is no question of it being shot down."
Christian Patterson, a US military spokesman in Afghanistan, said officials were investigating the reports.
Wreckage found
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright, a US Pentagon spokesman, said the CIA had "no reports of any loss of DoD (Department of Defence) drones," on Tuesday.
Dawn News, one of several Pakistani channels reporting the incident, said security forces had found the wreckage of the drone 8km from Angor Adda, near the village of Jalal Khel, and 3km from the border with Afghanistan.
US commandos launched a ground assault on September 3 in Angor Adda, which Pakistani officials said killed 20 people, including women and children.
The incident is likely to add to tensions between Washington and Pakistan
following a spate of recent American cross-border incursions and drone attacks targeting suspected fighters.
Pakistani sovereignty
George Bush, the US president, said in New York on Tuesday that Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president visiting the country, had spoken strongly about protecting Pakistani sovereignty.
"Your words have been very strong about Pakistan's sovereign right and sovereign duty to protect your country, and the United States wants to help," Bush said before meeting Zardari.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said on Tuesday that Washington would continue to take military action in Pakistan and called for co-operation from the government in Islamabad.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," Gates said, expressing hope for "an even stronger partnership" with Zardari.
Pakistan's support is regarded as crucial to the success of US-led forces trying to stabilise Afghanistan and fight al-Qaeda in the region.
Mounting anger
But Pakistanis have become increasing angered over the heightened use of drones and ground units in the area bordering Afghanistan.
Pakistanis were outraged by the US September 3 raid - the first known ground assault by US troops into Pakistan - and the six-month-old civilian government issued a diplomatic protest.
General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's army chief, said foreign troops would not be allowed on Pakistani soil and Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all costs.
Residents and some security officers said Pakistani troops fired on two US helicopters that crossed the border near Angor Adda a week ago, forcing them to turn back.
Pakistan and the United States denied the reports.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Hanif Abbasi: Who died and left you God?-Kashmir
Hanif Abbasi: Who died and left you God on Kashmir? You don't represent the government or Pakistan
Mr. Hanif Abbasi, and PMLN MNA from Rawalpindi (NA 55) in condemning the Musharraf policies on Kashmir made an enormous blunder which should have been questioned by Mr. Mazhar Abbas, the host of the program called "Deadline" on ARYoneWorld.
Mr. Mazhar Abbas, the host either didn't have the intelligence or the guts to challenge the ramblings of Mr. Hanif Abbasi (PMLN spokesman) on Kashmir.
Mr. Mazhar Abbas, why did you ask that question? This is the Indian position, to create small states around herself. Why did you ask the Indian position? Do you have an agenda? Once you asked the stupid question, you should have challenged Mr. Abbaissi's wild rambling?
MR. ABBASI YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK ON KASHMIR. If you don't have the intelligence keep the trap shut.
This is what happens when illiterate or half-literate idiots are elected to parliament and put in front of a camera.
In one stroke Mr. Abbassi has changed the position of Pakistan for which it has stood for more than 60 years. There is no question of a third option for Kashmir. According to the independence act of 1947, all states were given only two options. One option was to join the Republic of India, the other option was to allow each one of the 570 states to join Pakistan. All UN resolution and Mr. Nehrus promises are about those two options. Kashmiris want to join Pakistan.
The Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to exercise the third option, but was not given that option
If Kashmir is given a third option, then Hyderabad and all 570 states should be given the third option.
Mr. Hanif Abbais has put his foot in his mouth and should retract it by apologizing to the entire nation and the people of Kashmir. If Mr. Abbasi does not have any sense, he should keep his mouth shut.
No doubt India will make hay of this nonsensical statement.
If you agree, write to the following add res and protest Mr. Abbasi's statement
Mr. Hanif Abbasi, and PMLN MNA from Rawalpindi (NA 55) in condemning the Musharraf policies on Kashmir made an enormous blunder which should have been questioned by Mr. Mazhar Abbas, the host of the program called "Deadline" on ARYoneWorld.
Mr. Mazhar Abbas, the host either didn't have the intelligence or the guts to challenge the ramblings of Mr. Hanif Abbasi (PMLN spokesman) on Kashmir.
Mr. Mazhar Abbas, why did you ask that question? This is the Indian position, to create small states around herself. Why did you ask the Indian position? Do you have an agenda? Once you asked the stupid question, you should have challenged Mr. Abbaissi's wild rambling?
MR. ABBASI YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK ON KASHMIR. If you don't have the intelligence keep the trap shut.
This is what happens when illiterate or half-literate idiots are elected to parliament and put in front of a camera.
In one stroke Mr. Abbassi has changed the position of Pakistan for which it has stood for more than 60 years. There is no question of a third option for Kashmir. According to the independence act of 1947, all states were given only two options. One option was to join the Republic of India, the other option was to allow each one of the 570 states to join Pakistan. All UN resolution and Mr. Nehrus promises are about those two options. Kashmiris want to join Pakistan.
The Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to exercise the third option, but was not given that option
If Kashmir is given a third option, then Hyderabad and all 570 states should be given the third option.
Mr. Hanif Abbais has put his foot in his mouth and should retract it by apologizing to the entire nation and the people of Kashmir. If Mr. Abbasi does not have any sense, he should keep his mouth shut.
No doubt India will make hay of this nonsensical statement.
If you agree, write to the following add res and protest Mr. Abbasi's statement
Friday, May 16, 2008
To OBL: Stop killing Muslims!
The message to OBL: Stop killing Muslims!
Once upon a time, you were a hero in Pakistan. When you and the other mujihideen faught the Russians, Pakistanis used decorate their homes with your posters. Then to executed 911! Did you? If you did, it gave America a reason to attack Afghanistan and destroy Iraq? How did this help Islam, Muslim?
Now your clones attack Pakistan and the Pakistani army. You have become very unpopular in Pakistan. Hmas, Hizuballah and Iran are popular in the Middle East. They don't attack Muslims and defend themselves.
Pakistan is the citadel of Islam. Your attacks on Pakistan harm Pakistanis and Muslims. The attacks on Pakistan have been on the common people of Pakistan. What does this achieve?
More than 5000 families in Pakistan suffer because of your attacks on the army. Your biggest help would be to help them and others build bridges, roads, dams and electrical grid stations.
Killing women and children is not "jihad". What is wrong with you?
You have made bombastic statements against Israel. Yet you attack civilians, women and children in Pakistan. You are supposed to defend Muslims. Your attacks weaken Pakistan.
If you have a problem with the policies of the leaders, why do you attack mosques, and markets? If you are not doing the attacks, you should ask your number 2 to disavow the attacks, condemn them and track the culprits and stop them from attacking Pakistan.
Bin Laden marks Israel anniversary with combat vow Fri May 16, 2008 2:23pm BST
By Lin Noueihed
DUBAI (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden vowed in an audio tape to mark Israel's 60th anniversary to continue to fight the Jewish state and its allies in the West.
The al Qaeda leader, who has placed growing emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said it was at the heart of the Muslim battle with the West and an inspiration to the 19 bombers who carried out the attacks on U.S. cities on September 11, 2001.
"We will continue, God permitting, the fight against the Israelis and their allies ... and will not give up a single inch of Palestine as long as there is one true Muslim on Earth," he said in the message, posted on an Islamist website on Friday.
Bin Laden said Israel's anniversary celebrations were a reminder that it did not exist 60 years ago, and had been established on land seized from Palestinians by force.
"This is evidence that Palestine is our land, and the Israelis are invaders and occupiers who should be fought," he said in the tape, which was addressed to the Western public.
The Saudi-born militant also said that decades of peace initiatives had failed to establish a Palestinian state, and the West had proved time and again that it sided with Israel.
"The participation of Western leaders with the Jews in this celebration confirms that the West backs this Jewish occupation of our land, and that they stand in the Israeli corner against us," he said. "They proved this in practice by sending their forces to southern Lebanon."
He also said Western media had over the years painted Israelis as victims, and the Palestinians who had been displaced from their land as terrorists.
"CRAZY TERRORIST"
The authenticity of the tape could not immediately be verified but the voice sounded like bin Laden's.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel dismissed the tape as the ravings of a terrorist.
"We don't pay any attention to the threats of a crazy terrorist. The time has come for him to be caught and to be punished for all his crimes," Mekel said.
A U.S. official in Washington said the tape was being reviewed to establish if it was genuinely from bin Laden but the content came as no surprise.
"There's been a recent spate of terrorist messages in which Israel has been a central theme -- one that al Qaeda believes resonates in the Muslim world," the official said.
In a message on March 20, bin Laden urged Muslims to maintain the struggle against U.S. forces in Iraq as a path toward "liberating Palestine."
Al Qaeda has vowed attacks on Jews both inside and outside Israel and regularly expresses support for the Palestinians.
Al Qaeda is widely blamed for a suicide attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya and a simultaneous failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli charter jet near Mombasa airport in Kenya in 2002.
But despite calls by al Qaeda supporters for the militant network to establish a presence in Palestinian areas, U.S. intelligence officials see no evidence it has done so.
Analysts say it faces competition for turf, in particular in the Gaza Strip, from the well-established Hamas.
Bin Laden said the Palestinians in Gaza were being subjected to a "slow death" and blamed U.S.-allied Egypt for helping Israel to besiege the overcrowded Hamas-run area.
Once upon a time, you were a hero in Pakistan. When you and the other mujihideen faught the Russians, Pakistanis used decorate their homes with your posters. Then to executed 911! Did you? If you did, it gave America a reason to attack Afghanistan and destroy Iraq? How did this help Islam, Muslim?
Now your clones attack Pakistan and the Pakistani army. You have become very unpopular in Pakistan. Hmas, Hizuballah and Iran are popular in the Middle East. They don't attack Muslims and defend themselves.
Pakistan is the citadel of Islam. Your attacks on Pakistan harm Pakistanis and Muslims. The attacks on Pakistan have been on the common people of Pakistan. What does this achieve?
More than 5000 families in Pakistan suffer because of your attacks on the army. Your biggest help would be to help them and others build bridges, roads, dams and electrical grid stations.
Killing women and children is not "jihad". What is wrong with you?
You have made bombastic statements against Israel. Yet you attack civilians, women and children in Pakistan. You are supposed to defend Muslims. Your attacks weaken Pakistan.
If you have a problem with the policies of the leaders, why do you attack mosques, and markets? If you are not doing the attacks, you should ask your number 2 to disavow the attacks, condemn them and track the culprits and stop them from attacking Pakistan.
Bin Laden marks Israel anniversary with combat vow Fri May 16, 2008 2:23pm BST
By Lin Noueihed
DUBAI (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden vowed in an audio tape to mark Israel's 60th anniversary to continue to fight the Jewish state and its allies in the West.
The al Qaeda leader, who has placed growing emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said it was at the heart of the Muslim battle with the West and an inspiration to the 19 bombers who carried out the attacks on U.S. cities on September 11, 2001.
"We will continue, God permitting, the fight against the Israelis and their allies ... and will not give up a single inch of Palestine as long as there is one true Muslim on Earth," he said in the message, posted on an Islamist website on Friday.
Bin Laden said Israel's anniversary celebrations were a reminder that it did not exist 60 years ago, and had been established on land seized from Palestinians by force.
"This is evidence that Palestine is our land, and the Israelis are invaders and occupiers who should be fought," he said in the tape, which was addressed to the Western public.
The Saudi-born militant also said that decades of peace initiatives had failed to establish a Palestinian state, and the West had proved time and again that it sided with Israel.
"The participation of Western leaders with the Jews in this celebration confirms that the West backs this Jewish occupation of our land, and that they stand in the Israeli corner against us," he said. "They proved this in practice by sending their forces to southern Lebanon."
He also said Western media had over the years painted Israelis as victims, and the Palestinians who had been displaced from their land as terrorists.
"CRAZY TERRORIST"
The authenticity of the tape could not immediately be verified but the voice sounded like bin Laden's.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel dismissed the tape as the ravings of a terrorist.
"We don't pay any attention to the threats of a crazy terrorist. The time has come for him to be caught and to be punished for all his crimes," Mekel said.
A U.S. official in Washington said the tape was being reviewed to establish if it was genuinely from bin Laden but the content came as no surprise.
"There's been a recent spate of terrorist messages in which Israel has been a central theme -- one that al Qaeda believes resonates in the Muslim world," the official said.
In a message on March 20, bin Laden urged Muslims to maintain the struggle against U.S. forces in Iraq as a path toward "liberating Palestine."
Al Qaeda has vowed attacks on Jews both inside and outside Israel and regularly expresses support for the Palestinians.
Al Qaeda is widely blamed for a suicide attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya and a simultaneous failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli charter jet near Mombasa airport in Kenya in 2002.
But despite calls by al Qaeda supporters for the militant network to establish a presence in Palestinian areas, U.S. intelligence officials see no evidence it has done so.
Analysts say it faces competition for turf, in particular in the Gaza Strip, from the well-established Hamas.
Bin Laden said the Palestinians in Gaza were being subjected to a "slow death" and blamed U.S.-allied Egypt for helping Israel to besiege the overcrowded Hamas-run area.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
3 day supply: Looming crisis of Flour in Karachi
According to news reports, all wheat shipment to Karachi have been halted, and Karachi has only 3 days of supply left in the mills.
If the situation is not corrected immediately, there will be food riots in the streets. The government has lost its priorities.
While the previous government was raked over the coals for a brief shortage of food and probably led to the downfall of the Chaudhry government.
South Asia hit by food shortages
Women buy flour in Karachi - many have gone without
People across South Asia are struggling to cope with a severe shortage of affordable wheat and rice.
There have been queues outside Pakistani shops in towns around the country, and flour prices have shot up.
Wheat flour is a staple foodstuff in Pakistan, where rotis or unleavened bread are eaten with almost every meal.
Last week Afghanistan appealed for foreign help to combat a wheat shortage while Bangladesh recently warned it faced a crisis over rice supplies.
Global wheat prices are at record highs. Problems have been compounded by crop failures in the northern hemisphere and an increase in demand from developing countries.
Afghan Commerce Minister Mohammad Amin Farhang said wheat shortages could lead to serious problems during the winter.
His call came amid rising discontent inside Afghanistan at the spiralling cost of wheat and other basic foods.
The price of rice in many parts of South Asia is rising fast
Afghanistan does not grow enough wheat to feed all its people and is partially dependent on imports.
On Thursday, the chief of the Bangladesh army, Gen Moeen U Ahmed, said that he was "very concerned" about the problem of rice supplies which he said must be redressed immediately.
Many people in the country have been hit hard by spiralling food prices, which in some cases have doubled over the last year, mostly because of damage caused by heavy monsoon rain.
A delegation from Bangladesh is now in India to discuss importing rice to offset the shortages.
Increase in demand
Pakistan's government says it has no lack of wheat supplies and blames distribution problems and hoarders, as well as smuggling by suppliers.
Officials say the price is fixed in consultation with representatives of flour mill owners.
The BBC 's M Ilyas Khan in Karachi says that the Pakistani government buys wheat in bulk at the time of harvesting, and then releases stocks to flour mills according to a pre-determined quota.
It now says it has increased the quota allocated to the mills, warning them of penalties if they are found selling flour at prices higher than fixed by the government.
Rice in Bangladesh is having to be imported (Photo: Daily Star)
Pakistanis consume an estimated 22m tonnes of wheat annually, and last season's yield was more than 23m tonnes.
Officials accuse suppliers in Punjab, the breadbasket of Pakistan, of smuggling wheat intended for domestic use to Afghanistan and Central Asia to take advantage of price differences.
Flour ran short in Pakistan when many areas saw rioting after the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in late December.
With the security situation in Pakistan now calmer, correspondents say it is not clear why apparent problems in distributing flour are persisting.
One reason cited is frequent power cuts which have led to flour mills stopping work.
"It's not fair," one retired worker, Younis, told Reuters news agency. "We are very angry."
He said he had waited for hours outside a government store in the southern city of Karachi, hoping to buy flour - but to no avail. Dozens of others went empty-handed, Reuters reported.
Initially, flour shortages pushed up the price on the open market in Pakistan to as much as 60 rupees (about $1) per kilogram in some areas. The average day labourer earns only 100 rupees a day.
The state-run Utility Stores Corporation has been selling flour at 18 rupees per kilogram, but it does not have enough outlets to serve the population of 160 million.
If the situation is not corrected immediately, there will be food riots in the streets. The government has lost its priorities.
While the previous government was raked over the coals for a brief shortage of food and probably led to the downfall of the Chaudhry government.
South Asia hit by food shortages
Women buy flour in Karachi - many have gone without
People across South Asia are struggling to cope with a severe shortage of affordable wheat and rice.
There have been queues outside Pakistani shops in towns around the country, and flour prices have shot up.
Wheat flour is a staple foodstuff in Pakistan, where rotis or unleavened bread are eaten with almost every meal.
Last week Afghanistan appealed for foreign help to combat a wheat shortage while Bangladesh recently warned it faced a crisis over rice supplies.
Global wheat prices are at record highs. Problems have been compounded by crop failures in the northern hemisphere and an increase in demand from developing countries.
Afghan Commerce Minister Mohammad Amin Farhang said wheat shortages could lead to serious problems during the winter.
His call came amid rising discontent inside Afghanistan at the spiralling cost of wheat and other basic foods.
The price of rice in many parts of South Asia is rising fast
Afghanistan does not grow enough wheat to feed all its people and is partially dependent on imports.
On Thursday, the chief of the Bangladesh army, Gen Moeen U Ahmed, said that he was "very concerned" about the problem of rice supplies which he said must be redressed immediately.
Many people in the country have been hit hard by spiralling food prices, which in some cases have doubled over the last year, mostly because of damage caused by heavy monsoon rain.
A delegation from Bangladesh is now in India to discuss importing rice to offset the shortages.
Increase in demand
Pakistan's government says it has no lack of wheat supplies and blames distribution problems and hoarders, as well as smuggling by suppliers.
Officials say the price is fixed in consultation with representatives of flour mill owners.
The BBC 's M Ilyas Khan in Karachi says that the Pakistani government buys wheat in bulk at the time of harvesting, and then releases stocks to flour mills according to a pre-determined quota.
It now says it has increased the quota allocated to the mills, warning them of penalties if they are found selling flour at prices higher than fixed by the government.
Rice in Bangladesh is having to be imported (Photo: Daily Star)
Pakistanis consume an estimated 22m tonnes of wheat annually, and last season's yield was more than 23m tonnes.
Officials accuse suppliers in Punjab, the breadbasket of Pakistan, of smuggling wheat intended for domestic use to Afghanistan and Central Asia to take advantage of price differences.
Flour ran short in Pakistan when many areas saw rioting after the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in late December.
With the security situation in Pakistan now calmer, correspondents say it is not clear why apparent problems in distributing flour are persisting.
One reason cited is frequent power cuts which have led to flour mills stopping work.
"It's not fair," one retired worker, Younis, told Reuters news agency. "We are very angry."
He said he had waited for hours outside a government store in the southern city of Karachi, hoping to buy flour - but to no avail. Dozens of others went empty-handed, Reuters reported.
Initially, flour shortages pushed up the price on the open market in Pakistan to as much as 60 rupees (about $1) per kilogram in some areas. The average day labourer earns only 100 rupees a day.
The state-run Utility Stores Corporation has been selling flour at 18 rupees per kilogram, but it does not have enough outlets to serve the population of 160 million.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The 3 factors inhibiting Afghan peace
Calling the Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" is an attempt to shift the blame on Pakistan. Calling all the Afghan insurgents "Taliban" is a brazen attempt to nullify a popular uprising against foreign occupation. As an analogy it is like calling the Cherokee, Lakota, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickashe, Choctow etc as "Indians".
Pakistan's western front Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Zeenia Satti
Three factors jeopardized Pakistan's security on the western front.
a) Musharraf allowed military action against Afghanistan from Pakistan's soil without first sealing its western border.
b) NATO failed to reconstruct Afghanistan, which rendered its occupation illegitimate and produced an inevitable domestic insurgency for end to occupation.
c) During the war that followed, the Taliban's vengeance, Washington's displeasure with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Indo-Afghan irredentist claims over Pakistan's territory, each found FATA to be an easy conduit of furtherance of their respective designs. Furthermore, the Musharraf regime's domestic legitimacy gap rendered it vulnerable to a myriad of political and military onslaughts, producing an international uproar, often orchestrated, that Pakistan was a failed state and a dangerous nation.
The three factors cited above will overwhelm Islamabad unless it changes its western-front policy. Musharraf cites Washington's threat of bombing Pakistan into the stone age as the reason for his Afghan policy turnabout in 2001. Pakistan's participation in the post-9/11 Afghan war on Washington's terms has taken it close to the brink of disaster. Paradoxically, this very position has equipped Islamabad with the bargaining chips vis a vis the US that it did not possess soon after 9/11. The rapidly decreasing support in the US for Bush's war in Iraq would end entirely if Iraq's insurgents started launching terrorist attacks inside American cities. By the same token, due to countrywide terror attacks, Pakistan's capacity to win greater US acceptance for a more nationalist policy regarding the "war on terror" is now increased.
The strategic context of the Afghan insurgency has been misrepresented by Washington. It states that the Taliban are regrouping in FATA and launching attacks in Afghanistan, thus frustrating ISAF's reconstruction efforts. The western media's scrutiny of Afghan insurgent battles, on the other hand, reveals that the insurgency is spread all over Afghanistan and appears to be without a centralized head. It stems from local hatred due to high civilian casualty rate and disproportionate use of force by US troops in Afghanistan. The fact that acceptable levels of security, prosperity and political identity have not been provided to the Afghans during their six-year-long occupation has augmented local antagonism. This is the strategic context of the Afghan insurgency. It is not cross border terrorism. For as long as the strategic context remains, insurgency will dominate the Afghan scene regardless of FATA's assistance. Furthermore, it will be sustained by tactical, small unit leadership, even if Pak army decimates the Taliban altogether.
The US has chosen to call Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" in order to shift the blame to Pakistan. The only centralized feature of the insurgency is its target; i.e. NATO troops and the Karzai regime. The terror on Pakistani soil may be the centralized work of the Taliban. The same cannot be said of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. It can be concluded that warlord politics in Afghanistan has been replaced by widespread insurgency against western occupation. Because a unified Afghanistan exists as the final reference point of political identity, it could inspire networking amongst insurgents. In calling the insurgents "Taliban" the US is turning away from the agonizing truth. For strategic clarity, the Afghan insurgents have to be de linked from one particular entity and named what they were named during the Soviet Afghan war; i.e. Afghan Mujahideen. The argument that ISAF and Karzai are unable to provide prosperity because of the insurgency is mooted by the time line of the insurgency. It rose slowly as a response to occupied mismanagement. Up to 2004, there was no insurgency.
On Pakistan's front, Washington and Karzai have jeered at Musharraf's every offer of securing the border. Land mines were dismissed on grounds that they were immoral. Barbed wiring was opposed on grounds that it will divide the Pushtun nation! The second objection is tantamount to telling Pakistan "heads you lose, tales we win". The only option presented to Pakistan is internecine warfare on its Pushtun lands, which will turn Pakistan's first line of defence on its western border, the Pushtuns, squarely against Islamabad and render the eastern border insecure due to military's preoccupation with the west. Pakistan need not discuss its border security with Afghanistan or Washington. It needs to decide this matter in its own vital interest, which lies in halting border fluidity on the western front and changing FATA's administrative environment in which crime functions with impunity.
The roughly 800-mile extended Afghan-FATA border has become a conduit of destabilization of Pakistan. Washington's global war on terror should be a campaign against all terrorists, not just those actively targeting the US On this point, Pakistan should elicit Washington's cooperation for its nationalist policy on the "war on terror", which it must implement with the same firmness that Turkey has recently shown on its border with Iraq. This policy should rest on FATA's administrative amalgamation in to NWFP and the physical sealing of Pak-Afghan border, in that order.
State's writ must prevail in FATA. We no longer live in the strategic environment that necessitates parity of force. Terror strikes all over Pakistan and 9/11 testify to the fact that a state's conventional power and its nuclear weapons are of no consequence in dealing with manoeuvre warfare. In such a milieu, an accessory of the nature of FATA and an open border with a restive state under occupation are strategic blunders Pakistan can ill afford. Not only is latest weaponry in abundant supply in FATA, the resurgence of Afghan drug trade under U.S occupation means lethal drugs and black money too is in abundant supply. Pakistani society, including FATA's population, should not be left exposed to this sinister combination. Incremental administrative changes in FATA will not solve the problem. Fundamental reorientation in the nation's best interest is required.
The writer is energy consultant and analyst of energy geopolitics based in Washington DC. Email: zeenia.satti@ yahoo.com
Pakistan's western front Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Zeenia Satti
Three factors jeopardized Pakistan's security on the western front.
a) Musharraf allowed military action against Afghanistan from Pakistan's soil without first sealing its western border.
b) NATO failed to reconstruct Afghanistan, which rendered its occupation illegitimate and produced an inevitable domestic insurgency for end to occupation.
c) During the war that followed, the Taliban's vengeance, Washington's displeasure with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Indo-Afghan irredentist claims over Pakistan's territory, each found FATA to be an easy conduit of furtherance of their respective designs. Furthermore, the Musharraf regime's domestic legitimacy gap rendered it vulnerable to a myriad of political and military onslaughts, producing an international uproar, often orchestrated, that Pakistan was a failed state and a dangerous nation.
The three factors cited above will overwhelm Islamabad unless it changes its western-front policy. Musharraf cites Washington's threat of bombing Pakistan into the stone age as the reason for his Afghan policy turnabout in 2001. Pakistan's participation in the post-9/11 Afghan war on Washington's terms has taken it close to the brink of disaster. Paradoxically, this very position has equipped Islamabad with the bargaining chips vis a vis the US that it did not possess soon after 9/11. The rapidly decreasing support in the US for Bush's war in Iraq would end entirely if Iraq's insurgents started launching terrorist attacks inside American cities. By the same token, due to countrywide terror attacks, Pakistan's capacity to win greater US acceptance for a more nationalist policy regarding the "war on terror" is now increased.
The strategic context of the Afghan insurgency has been misrepresented by Washington. It states that the Taliban are regrouping in FATA and launching attacks in Afghanistan, thus frustrating ISAF's reconstruction efforts. The western media's scrutiny of Afghan insurgent battles, on the other hand, reveals that the insurgency is spread all over Afghanistan and appears to be without a centralized head. It stems from local hatred due to high civilian casualty rate and disproportionate use of force by US troops in Afghanistan. The fact that acceptable levels of security, prosperity and political identity have not been provided to the Afghans during their six-year-long occupation has augmented local antagonism. This is the strategic context of the Afghan insurgency. It is not cross border terrorism. For as long as the strategic context remains, insurgency will dominate the Afghan scene regardless of FATA's assistance. Furthermore, it will be sustained by tactical, small unit leadership, even if Pak army decimates the Taliban altogether.
The US has chosen to call Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" in order to shift the blame to Pakistan. The only centralized feature of the insurgency is its target; i.e. NATO troops and the Karzai regime. The terror on Pakistani soil may be the centralized work of the Taliban. The same cannot be said of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. It can be concluded that warlord politics in Afghanistan has been replaced by widespread insurgency against western occupation. Because a unified Afghanistan exists as the final reference point of political identity, it could inspire networking amongst insurgents. In calling the insurgents "Taliban" the US is turning away from the agonizing truth. For strategic clarity, the Afghan insurgents have to be de linked from one particular entity and named what they were named during the Soviet Afghan war; i.e. Afghan Mujahideen. The argument that ISAF and Karzai are unable to provide prosperity because of the insurgency is mooted by the time line of the insurgency. It rose slowly as a response to occupied mismanagement. Up to 2004, there was no insurgency.
On Pakistan's front, Washington and Karzai have jeered at Musharraf's every offer of securing the border. Land mines were dismissed on grounds that they were immoral. Barbed wiring was opposed on grounds that it will divide the Pushtun nation! The second objection is tantamount to telling Pakistan "heads you lose, tales we win". The only option presented to Pakistan is internecine warfare on its Pushtun lands, which will turn Pakistan's first line of defence on its western border, the Pushtuns, squarely against Islamabad and render the eastern border insecure due to military's preoccupation with the west. Pakistan need not discuss its border security with Afghanistan or Washington. It needs to decide this matter in its own vital interest, which lies in halting border fluidity on the western front and changing FATA's administrative environment in which crime functions with impunity.
The roughly 800-mile extended Afghan-FATA border has become a conduit of destabilization of Pakistan. Washington's global war on terror should be a campaign against all terrorists, not just those actively targeting the US On this point, Pakistan should elicit Washington's cooperation for its nationalist policy on the "war on terror", which it must implement with the same firmness that Turkey has recently shown on its border with Iraq. This policy should rest on FATA's administrative amalgamation in to NWFP and the physical sealing of Pak-Afghan border, in that order.
State's writ must prevail in FATA. We no longer live in the strategic environment that necessitates parity of force. Terror strikes all over Pakistan and 9/11 testify to the fact that a state's conventional power and its nuclear weapons are of no consequence in dealing with manoeuvre warfare. In such a milieu, an accessory of the nature of FATA and an open border with a restive state under occupation are strategic blunders Pakistan can ill afford. Not only is latest weaponry in abundant supply in FATA, the resurgence of Afghan drug trade under U.S occupation means lethal drugs and black money too is in abundant supply. Pakistani society, including FATA's population, should not be left exposed to this sinister combination. Incremental administrative changes in FATA will not solve the problem. Fundamental reorientation in the nation's best interest is required.
The writer is energy consultant and analyst of energy geopolitics based in Washington DC. Email: zeenia.satti@ yahoo.com
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Blunt responses to USA from Nawaz, Zardari and Afundyar
The new government in Pakistan is making the right noises.
Promoting polyarchy in Pakistan (see http://www.rupeenews.com) has been a huge success. US officials insist that the ground realities will not change despite the new nuances out of Islamabad.
The new government has suggested that Pakistan and the United States will hold their third round of strategic dialogue in June in Washington. The third round of talks will held in June in Washington as the on the U.S. US insistence on early dialogue. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher are visiting the country to indoctrinate the new government on the issues that need to be discussed.
The New York Times says
The A.N.P., a Pashtun nationalist party, and Pakistan’s militants speak the same language. Talks between them have already begun quietly, as some militant groups and their supporters send messages and emissaries to the newly elected parties, said Afrasiab Khattak, A.N.P.’s secretary general here. “They saw a government coming with a new paradigm, with a plan that is not just bombarding,” he said.
The A.N.P. says its priority is ending the violence. Like its partners in the national government — the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N — it backs relying less on the military to cut civilian casualties, which have soured Pakistanis on the war. To do so, it proposes development in the tribal areas and a sustained dialogue that, it hopes, will answer many grievances with the government that have pushed ethnic groups toward the militants.
The military must work with the new political forces in the government and with the United States, NATO and other international players, Mr. Khattak said.
“Only if there is a triangle with us, the army and the international community will it work,” he said. “If it works, then there is some hope.”
Test for Pakistan alliance with US Danny Kemp and Isambard Wilkinson, Islamabad, March 27, 2008
PAKISTAN'S new Government will review the country's role in the US-led war on terror, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said after talks with American officials.
Deputy US Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher flew into Islamabad on Tuesday for talks focusing on Pakistan's co-operation in efforts against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.
They met President Pervez Musharraf and Mr Sharif, and were due to see new Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, a senior aide of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Mr Sharif, whose party is in the governing coalition, said he had told Mr Negroponte that Mr Musharraf should quit and that a parliamentary committee would examine his policies since he backed the US campaign in 2001.
"We discussed terrorism. We informed them our point of view is that since 9/11 all decisions were made by one man," Mr Sharif, ousted by Musharraf in a coup in 1999, told reporters in Islamabad.
"Now the situation has changed, a truly representative parliament has come into being … Every decision will be presented before the parliament. They will review Musharraf's policy in the past six years."
Mr Sharif said a lack of public support for Mr Musharraf and his policies, coupled with the deaths of civilians in anti-militant operations, had harmed efforts to curb extremism.
"We want to see peace in every corner of the world and we want to see peace in Pakistan also," he said. "We do not want that in order to give peace to others we turn our own country into a murder house."
Mr Sharif's comments came as a senior former Musharraf ally said the US and Britain's "failure" in Afghanistan had sparked a wave of violence in Pakistan.
Lieutenant-General Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai resigned earlier this year as governor of the restive North-West Frontier Province on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
General Orakzai said US demands for Pakistan "to do more, more and more" had led to the military bombing its own citizens in the border areas, prompting a "war of resistance".
He said the West had "greatly exaggerated" the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the tribal areas.
General Orakzai, a Pashtun from the tribal areas, was reportedly asked to resign as governor after brokering a controversial peace agreement in North Waziristan. US officials said the deal had led to a threefold increase in cross-border infiltration of militants from Pakistan to Afghanistan and allegedly leant on Mr Musharraf to remove him.
AFP, TELEGRAPH
Promoting polyarchy in Pakistan (see http://www.rupeenews.com) has been a huge success. US officials insist that the ground realities will not change despite the new nuances out of Islamabad.
The new government has suggested that Pakistan and the United States will hold their third round of strategic dialogue in June in Washington. The third round of talks will held in June in Washington as the on the U.S. US insistence on early dialogue. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher are visiting the country to indoctrinate the new government on the issues that need to be discussed.
The New York Times says
The A.N.P., a Pashtun nationalist party, and Pakistan’s militants speak the same language. Talks between them have already begun quietly, as some militant groups and their supporters send messages and emissaries to the newly elected parties, said Afrasiab Khattak, A.N.P.’s secretary general here. “They saw a government coming with a new paradigm, with a plan that is not just bombarding,” he said.
The A.N.P. says its priority is ending the violence. Like its partners in the national government — the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N — it backs relying less on the military to cut civilian casualties, which have soured Pakistanis on the war. To do so, it proposes development in the tribal areas and a sustained dialogue that, it hopes, will answer many grievances with the government that have pushed ethnic groups toward the militants.
The military must work with the new political forces in the government and with the United States, NATO and other international players, Mr. Khattak said.
“Only if there is a triangle with us, the army and the international community will it work,” he said. “If it works, then there is some hope.”
Test for Pakistan alliance with US Danny Kemp and Isambard Wilkinson, Islamabad, March 27, 2008
PAKISTAN'S new Government will review the country's role in the US-led war on terror, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said after talks with American officials.
Deputy US Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher flew into Islamabad on Tuesday for talks focusing on Pakistan's co-operation in efforts against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.
They met President Pervez Musharraf and Mr Sharif, and were due to see new Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, a senior aide of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Mr Sharif, whose party is in the governing coalition, said he had told Mr Negroponte that Mr Musharraf should quit and that a parliamentary committee would examine his policies since he backed the US campaign in 2001.
"We discussed terrorism. We informed them our point of view is that since 9/11 all decisions were made by one man," Mr Sharif, ousted by Musharraf in a coup in 1999, told reporters in Islamabad.
"Now the situation has changed, a truly representative parliament has come into being … Every decision will be presented before the parliament. They will review Musharraf's policy in the past six years."
Mr Sharif said a lack of public support for Mr Musharraf and his policies, coupled with the deaths of civilians in anti-militant operations, had harmed efforts to curb extremism.
"We want to see peace in every corner of the world and we want to see peace in Pakistan also," he said. "We do not want that in order to give peace to others we turn our own country into a murder house."
Mr Sharif's comments came as a senior former Musharraf ally said the US and Britain's "failure" in Afghanistan had sparked a wave of violence in Pakistan.
Lieutenant-General Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai resigned earlier this year as governor of the restive North-West Frontier Province on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
General Orakzai said US demands for Pakistan "to do more, more and more" had led to the military bombing its own citizens in the border areas, prompting a "war of resistance".
He said the West had "greatly exaggerated" the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the tribal areas.
General Orakzai, a Pashtun from the tribal areas, was reportedly asked to resign as governor after brokering a controversial peace agreement in North Waziristan. US officials said the deal had led to a threefold increase in cross-border infiltration of militants from Pakistan to Afghanistan and allegedly leant on Mr Musharraf to remove him.
AFP, TELEGRAPH
US Aid: Long on promise. Short on delivery
US support long on promise short on equipment. Frontier corps needs 80,000 M16s and MASH hospitals
The American support for the Pakistani forces has largely been theoretical. America has not supplied the Frontier corps with any weapons and has not helped them establish medical evacuation teams, helicopters, drones, night vision binoculars, all terrain vehicles, helmets. How can they expect the Fronter Corp to fight when the roads leading to the areas are not paved. The US needs to pave the roads, build new airports, and hospitals in the region so that the Frontier Corps is a functional body.
Culture, politics hinder US effort to bolster FC
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: Cultural and political fault lines within the Frontier Corps (FC) and Pakistan itself could undo the United States’ plan to train and equip the 80,000-strong force, according to the Washington Post.
The newspaper quoted US officials as saying that 21 American advisers had been tasked with training a cadre of FC officers in counterinsurgency and intelligence-gathering tactics “as early as this summer”.
It said the bulk of the force’s rank-and-file troops were ethnic Pashtuns, with many wary of going into battle against a Pashtun-dominated insurgent force. Commanders, meanwhile, were regular army officers who often had little in common with their subordinates, the Post added.
Major General Muhammad Alam Khattak, the FC’s top commander, expressed frustration with a “slow-moving military bureaucracy that has left his troops to fight an insurgency with World War II-era rifles”. “It’s very difficult, but our force is an old force ... We are on a global geopolitical fault line,” Khattak told the Post.
The newspaper said that FC units, which were poorly equipped and lacked support from the army, had suffered devastating defeats by the Taliban over the past six years. About 300 troops have been killed since 2001, it said.
Low salaries and inconsistent medical evacuation services for wounded troops have also dimmed morale, Khattak said. “Many of our casualties were not warranted. If we had been better equipped, we would not have seen so many casualties,” he added.
“When you have a position that is only manned by five or six [FC] men and it’s confronted by a contingent of dozens of Taliban militants, there’s not a lot of incentive to stay and fight,” a Western military official said, adding, “As far as some of these FC guys go, they think: What’s the point in resisting these guys? If I don’t fight, I live to see another day.”
“These guys are Pashtuns, so they know the local areas. But there are problems. There’s been this kind of historical stepchild relationship with the army,” said a Western diplomat.
“They’ve got different levels of equipment, different levels of medevac services than the army. One of the concerns we’ve heard about is: What happens if we get killed? What happens to our families?”
Sadiq Ali, a former member of the corps, told the Post that he had joined the FC to help his family financially. But the meagre wages were hardly enough to persuade him to stay.
“No parents would risk their children’s lives just for a few thousand rupees a month,” Ali said.
According to the Post, FC soldiers earn an average of $60 to $70 a month – a little more than half what their counterparts in the regular Pakistani army make, and a third less than what Afghan army troops get.
“I didn’t know why we were fighting this war ... It was all about following the orders of my senior officers, and that’s it,” said Zeeshan, a 21-year-old FC deserter, who gave only his first name for fear of reprisals.
The American support for the Pakistani forces has largely been theoretical. America has not supplied the Frontier corps with any weapons and has not helped them establish medical evacuation teams, helicopters, drones, night vision binoculars, all terrain vehicles, helmets. How can they expect the Fronter Corp to fight when the roads leading to the areas are not paved. The US needs to pave the roads, build new airports, and hospitals in the region so that the Frontier Corps is a functional body.
Culture, politics hinder US effort to bolster FC
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: Cultural and political fault lines within the Frontier Corps (FC) and Pakistan itself could undo the United States’ plan to train and equip the 80,000-strong force, according to the Washington Post.
The newspaper quoted US officials as saying that 21 American advisers had been tasked with training a cadre of FC officers in counterinsurgency and intelligence-gathering tactics “as early as this summer”.
It said the bulk of the force’s rank-and-file troops were ethnic Pashtuns, with many wary of going into battle against a Pashtun-dominated insurgent force. Commanders, meanwhile, were regular army officers who often had little in common with their subordinates, the Post added.
Major General Muhammad Alam Khattak, the FC’s top commander, expressed frustration with a “slow-moving military bureaucracy that has left his troops to fight an insurgency with World War II-era rifles”. “It’s very difficult, but our force is an old force ... We are on a global geopolitical fault line,” Khattak told the Post.
The newspaper said that FC units, which were poorly equipped and lacked support from the army, had suffered devastating defeats by the Taliban over the past six years. About 300 troops have been killed since 2001, it said.
Low salaries and inconsistent medical evacuation services for wounded troops have also dimmed morale, Khattak said. “Many of our casualties were not warranted. If we had been better equipped, we would not have seen so many casualties,” he added.
“When you have a position that is only manned by five or six [FC] men and it’s confronted by a contingent of dozens of Taliban militants, there’s not a lot of incentive to stay and fight,” a Western military official said, adding, “As far as some of these FC guys go, they think: What’s the point in resisting these guys? If I don’t fight, I live to see another day.”
“These guys are Pashtuns, so they know the local areas. But there are problems. There’s been this kind of historical stepchild relationship with the army,” said a Western diplomat.
“They’ve got different levels of equipment, different levels of medevac services than the army. One of the concerns we’ve heard about is: What happens if we get killed? What happens to our families?”
Sadiq Ali, a former member of the corps, told the Post that he had joined the FC to help his family financially. But the meagre wages were hardly enough to persuade him to stay.
“No parents would risk their children’s lives just for a few thousand rupees a month,” Ali said.
According to the Post, FC soldiers earn an average of $60 to $70 a month – a little more than half what their counterparts in the regular Pakistani army make, and a third less than what Afghan army troops get.
“I didn’t know why we were fighting this war ... It was all about following the orders of my senior officers, and that’s it,” said Zeeshan, a 21-year-old FC deserter, who gave only his first name for fear of reprisals.
Pakistan will continue to support Kashmir
Pakistan will continue to support Kashmir
Real Democracy’: Pakistan’s Post-Musharraf Kashmir Policy
Murtaza Shibli ‘Era of real democracy has begun in the country.’
Summary
The recently concluded elections in Pakistan have led to the decline in the fortunes of the General-turned- President Pervez Musharraf. Although he is still hanging onto power thanks to open American support, his influence on the country’s political decision making has weakened significantly. Much before the new government headed by Prime Minister Makhdoom Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani took over; Musharraf’s much publicised Kashmir Policy was on the wane. There seems to be a consensus evolving among the leading politicians and the Army about the unsuitability of the current Kashmir policy that saw Pakistan retreating from its support for the UN Resolutions and right to self determination. Even Musharraf’s former political partners and colleagues from the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) have taken umbrage with the beleaguered President on the issue.
Sensing the mood, the pro-Musharraf Kashmiri groups and activists have gone on defensive; shifting their allegiances in order to stay relevant in the new political milieu. Some of them have apologised for their support to Musharraf or criticized him for his ‘failed’ Kashmir policy. Although pro-Pakistan and anti-Musharraf Kashmiri leaders, including the Hurriyat Conference (G) leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, are jubilant over the developments, Kashmiris are watching with caution.Pakistani politicians like Asif Zardari, Mian Nawaz Sharif and others have issued some statements that smack of traditional rhetoric, while the new Army Chief General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani has also hinted at the policy shift. Despite all this, there isn’t much Pakistan can do with regards to Kashmir; given its current internal crisis and unprecedented American pressure. Pakistan cannot afford to cease the ‘peace process’, but it might gradually retreat to its traditional position; increase its diplomatic efforts and seek international mediation and offer limited but symbolic support for the Kashmiri resistance. The progress on the issue can only be achieved if India is willing to shift from its maximalist position and offer some concrete and sensible options for the solution of the problem. Otherwise, the thaw that was achieved during the last few years in India-Pakistan relations cannot be sustained for long and, as in the past, Kashmir could vitiate the atmosphere with dangerous consequences.
Background
In the aftermath of 9/11, when Pervez Musharraf announced a U-turn on his country’s Kashmir policy, he was met with resistance and open hostility both at home and in Kashmir. However, supported by the US and covert Indian blessing, he propped up ‘yes men’ by buying the loyalty of some Kashmiri leaders through his intelligence agencies. As a result, the Pakistani government recognised the Hurriyat Conference faction led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq while sidelining the most senior Kashmiri resistance leader Syed Ali Geelani, whose rival faction of the Hurriyat Conference was previously declared as the ‘true representative of Kashmiris’ by the Pakistani government. Directed by Pakistan, the Hurriyat Conference (M) started unconditional dialogue with the Indian government ‘within the ambit of the Indian Constitution’ .
Around the same time in 2003, Pakistani intelligence agencies propped up Kashmir Centres in Belgium, London and Washington with the covert aim of promoting Musharraf and his ‘formulas’ on Kashmir. These Centres, in conjunction with the Hurriyat Conference (M) and other splinter groups formed the core group of Musharraf loyalists who promoted his ‘out-of-box’ thinking without any appreciation to its political merits or application. Thus began an unprecedented understanding between India and Pakistan - the bitter rivals who now directed the Kashmiri politicians for a mutual goal of burying the issue for all times to come. The Indian intelligence agencies allowed free flow of the Hurriyat Conference (M) leaders from Srinagar to Islamabad as well as mutual exchange of cultural groups, intellectuals following traditional conflict pacification exercises.
The Kashmir Centres formed the main plank of Musharraf as they promoted him through annual ‘international conferences’ and other such events. Although these centres were never able to inculcate any good faith among Kashmiris and raised nothing but suspicion, they became important tools in the game. Apparently, their utility and function was presented in such an exaggerated form that in September 2006, General Musharraf broke all the protocol and attended the Third Global Discourse on Kashmir 2006 held by the Kashmir Centre, Brussels. Welcoming him to the Discourse held at the European Parliament, Executive Director of the Centre, Barrister Majid Tramboo called Musharraf’s participation as a demonstration of his “love and affection towards Kashmiri people” and commended him “wholeheartedly. .. for … [his] courage and wisdom to offer new and creative thoughts.” In response Musharraf said that it was “indeed a pleasure, unique honour and a privilege to be in this gathering of the Global Discourse on Kashmir.”
In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Muslim Conference run by Sardar Abdul Qayoom Khan and his protégé son and the current Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan also allied with General Musharraf to perpetuate the family grip on power. The veteran Sardar Qayoom who credits himself for being Mujah-e-Awwal or first warrior for his claims to have fired the first bullet in rebellion against the autocratic rule of Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947, supported Musharraf’s Kashmir policy and declared the ‘end of Jihad’ in Kashmir claiming its futility. As a representative of the Musharraf government, Khan on Sunday, September 25, 2005 while speaking at a function in New Delhi declared: “Jihad was terrorism and the mujahideen were saboteurs of peace in the region.”
Azad Kashmir’s opposition alleged that it was due to this unfettered loyalty of Khan’s for Musharraf that the Pakistani intelligence rigged the 2006 elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and installed Sardar Attique Khan in power. In gratitude and to prove his pro-Musharraf credentials beyond doubt, Sardar Attique Khan on August 23, 2007 stated that “General Musharraf should remain the President of Pakistan as long as he was physically fit” adding “the role of military in the civilian affairs in Pakistan was unavoidable.”
These Kashmiri leaders, from the Hurriyat Conference (M), Muslim Conference led by Sardar Qayoom and the Executive Directors of the Kashmir Centres in the West, continued their train of sycophancy till late last year, not only misleading the President about the utility and acceptance of his policies vis-a-vis Kashmir but also for their own financial gain, as they were allegedly being paid hefty sums of money to run these centres. Even when his re-election as President was widely criticised in Pakistan, the activists of Hurriyat Conference (M) took out a procession in Srinagar and burst crackers to celebrate the victory of General Pervez Musharraf.
This symbiotic relationship went beyond political posturing when the Hurriyat Conference (M) openly supported the imposition of Emergency in Pakistan. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was the first Kashmiri to lend his support to Musharraf, while the senior leader Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat criticised the deposed judges claiming “there has to be harmony among the three pillars of the state - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.” Similar sentiments were expressed by a Western based Kashmiri leader when I asked him to comment on the crisis in November 2007 adding that the General Musharraf is the people of Pakistan. Commenting on the relationship of the Hurriyat Conference with General Musharraf, noted Indian columnist and former diplomat Kuldip Nayyar in one of his recent opinion pieces observed that the “Hurriyat [Mirwaiz group] ended up putting all its eggs in Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s basket.”
Kashmir Solidarity Day - Back to Basics
Following massive public outpouring and international criticism against his emergency rule, Musharraf was forced to give up the post of his Army Chief in November 2007. This effectively limited his ability to manoeuvre, interfere or exert pressure on political matters. As soon as General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani took over as Chief of Army Staff, voices against Musharraf’s Kashmir policy grew stronger and turned into an outpouring. As Musharraf’s fortunes started dwindling and his options ran out amidst growing public protest, he tried the age-old gambit that every Pakistani leader had tried successfully - Kashmir. On January 25 his government announced that it was preparing to observe ‘Kashmir Solidarity Day’ on February 5, a yearly celebration that had been virtually thrown into oblivion in the past few years, with ‘renewed commitment’. Musharraf’s Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Muhammad Ali Durrani said “Kashmir Solidarity Day would be observed with zeal and fervour and the entire Pakistani nation would stand shoulder-to- shoulder by their Kashmiri brethren”, adding that it “renews our commitment to the resolution of the long-standing dispute.” He could not hide his government’s intention of using the event as a public relations exercise for the beleaguered President when he claimed “the vision of President Pervez Musharraf on Kashmir dispute is very clear i.e. the resolution of Kashmir issue should be in line with the aspirations and wishes of the Kashmiri people.” Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs, Tahir Iqbal expressed similar thoughts; “Kashmir Solidarity Day would be observed this year with renewed zest as the need for worldwide projection of Kashmir dispute has become imperative.” He too lavished praise on Musharraf claiming he had “adopted an optimistic approach towards the issue and .. succeeded in getting Kashmir issue globally recognized.” “On Solidarity Day”, he said, “Pakistan, through its planned events… would reassure its moral, diplomatic and political support to our Kashmiri brethren.” The immediate reaction to the official plans came from the Jama’at-e-Islami Pakistan when its Secretary General denounced the Interior Ministry saying it was ‘making a mockery of the Kashmir struggle’.
On February 5, Kashmir Solidarity Day was celebrated throughout Pakistan reminiscing the early 1990s - euphoric political rallies and ‘Jihad conferences’. Kashmir Solidarity was a public holiday and all the government, semi government offices, educational institutions, commercial centres and markets remained closed. Newspapers brought special supplements while Radio and TV channels aired special programmes and talks. In his ‘Kashmir Day’ message Pervez Musharraf tried to rattle the emotions of his nation as he thundered, “We (Pakistanis) cannot be kept away from the Kashmiris by the Ceasefire Line for much longer.” The leading Pakistani daily The Nation in its editorial termed this statement as a “hidden announcement of pugnacity” while accusing Musharraf of being “architect of the policy of supine acceptance of equating the Kashmiris’ just freedom struggle with terrorism.”
Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) which shared power with Musharraf also held a seminar in Lahore where the speakers “expressed a common view that Kashmir would be liberated only through force” adding that “their party was upholding and continuing the struggle for Kashmir liberation right according to the idea perceived by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.” They reiterated that after the failure of peaceful dialogue with India “now the solution needs settlement by using force.”
Mushahid Hussain Syed, Secretary General of the PML-Q pledged to make a “national Kashmir strategy with all political parties on board if his party came into power.” Speaking at a seminar on Kashmir Day, Syed called for a review of his own government’s Kashmir policy adding “we honestly believe that the United Nations Resolution[s] on Kashmir is a roadmap for solving the issue.”Similar functions were held in Sindh and at its capital Karachi, the stronghold of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) that was part of the previous pro-Musharraf government. “A number of organizations took out rallies and held seminars to show their solidarity with the people of Kashmir and vowed to extend full support to them to help ensure their right of franchise.”
This exhibit of official sentiment for Kashmir was drowned under the mass of unofficial functions of the opposition that condemned Musharraf’s Kashmir policy amid renewing calls of support for their ‘Kashmiri brethren’. In Lahore, a number of Pakistani and Kashmiri political and social organisations arranged rallies, seminars and symposia. Among these were PML-N, Jama’at-e-Islami, Khaksar Tehrik, Jamiat Mashaikh, Peoples Muslim League J&K, Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front, Kashmir Action Committee and extremist organisation Jamat-ud-Dawah etc.
The strongest message emanated from the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) headed by the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief whose party PML-N emerged as the second biggest party in the recent elections. President of the party, Mian Shahbaz Sharif accused the Musharraf government of making a U-turn on Kashmir calling it treachery and “vowed that after coming into power, PML-N would liberate the Kashmiris from the cruel clutches of India and restore the dignity of Army.” Another leader of the party, Dr. Azim-ud-Din Zahid blamed the government that it had “provided an opportunity to India to affix barbed wire along the Line of Control after taking U-turn on Kashmir issue.” The Islamist party, Jama’at-e-Islami Pakistan that boycotted the recent election also held various public functions. In one of its largest public functions in Lahore, one of its senior leaders and former senator Liaquat Baloch said that Kashmir issue can only be resolved through the UN Resolutions, claiming that “solutions proposed by Musharraf are aimed at allowing India to strengthen its grip over the state.” Secretary-General of the party, Syed Munawwar Hasan said “Musharraf lacked the legitimacy and mandate to rule the country … [and as such he] did not have any moral authority or influence to alter the Pakistan’s principled policy and stance over Kashmir.” Head of the party in Karachi, Muhammad Hussain Mahanti said “the success of the Kashmir Day solidarity rally had once again proved that the people were ready to take to streets to support the cause of Kashmiris in their fight for freedom from oppression and pressurise the rulers not to change the Pakistan’s decades-old and time-tested stance over Kashmir.”
General Musharraf could not even escape criticism from his own ilk. A group of former Generals - Mirza Aslam Baig; former Army Chief, Faiz Ali Chishti, Hameed Gul; former head of ISI, Jamshaid Gulzar Kiyani, Asad Durrani, Sardar Anwar Khan; former President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Abdul Qayyum and Ali Quli Khan; former Army Chief - gathered at a seminar in Rawalpindi, the military nerve centre. They criticised Musharraf for his ‘faulty policies on Kashmir’ claiming he ‘had moved the Kashmir issue to the backburner’. Former General Abdul Qayyum claimed “Kashmir could only be liberated by waging Jihad” while the former ISI chief General Hameed Gul said “Srinagar is just as important as Islamabad for Pakistanis,” adding “we have relationship with Kashmiris on the basis of life and death.”
Winds of Change
As the situation unfolded, the pro-Musharraf Kashmiris slowly started shifting their postures. In December 2007, the Hurriyat Conference (M) Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq not only admitted that talks with India had been un-productive but also blamed New Delhi of engaging Kashmiri leadership “in talks not for the solution of Kashmir … but for stop gap arrangements.” Ultimately, the Mirwaiz led Hurriyat Conference pulled out of talks with the Indian government less than three weeks before the 18 February elections in Pakistan. Speaking to reporters in Srinagar, Mirwaiz said that his group was pulling out of the four-year old dialogue process as it did not yield anything. Admitting the unpopularity of dialogue with New Delhi, senior Hurriyat leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan said “the dialogue process had affected their credibility among the Kashmiri people.”
Frustrated and dejected, many pro-Musharraf Kashmiri loyalists were boosting their sagging morale with spurious forecasts they were receiving from their pro-Musharraf contacts in Pakistan. Only a couple of months before the elections, one of the senior Kashmiri ‘leaders’ warned me about the futility of my writings against Musharraf’s imposition of Emergency, prophesying that Musharraf’s supported party PML-Q was definitely winning the elections and that the new Prime Minister would be Mushahid Hussain Syed. Similar information was perhaps passed to a noted Srinagar based columnist, Zahid Ghulam Muhammad, who attended the Kashmir Centre, London sponsored, 3rd International Kashmir Peace Conference on 28th and 29th of November in London. A week prior to the elections, he predicted in his weekly column, Punchline in Srinagar based daily Greater Kashmir: “In the given scenario there seems better chance for the Muslim League (Q) and other allied parties for coming to power in Pakistan.” He went further to complete the puzzle; “If the ability to understand the nuances of the domestic politics and to gauge the pulse of international politics are the criteria for the new Prime Minister then there is every likelihood of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) Mushaid Hussain Syed becoming the next Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
‘Naya Kashmir’
After fiddling with many ‘out-of-box’ ideas and ‘formulas’, Pervez Musharraf’s government was to implement a new and fast action plan for Kashmir - pro-Musharraf Kashmiri leaders will participate in the elections and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq will take over as Chief Minister, a la Showkat Aziz or Hamid Karzai and his faction of the Hurriyat Conference will call for the resistance militants to disarm with similar calls from Azad Kashmir Government and other pro-Musharraf Kashmiri activists, effectively ending the resistance movement repeating Sheikh Abdullah’s disbanding of Mahaz-e-Rai Shumari or Plebiscite Front in 1974 after he was given the position of Chief Minister-ship without even contesting elections.
Although the background preparatory work had been in full swing for more than last two years, some public functions were planned for favourable symbolic value that could soften the public opinion and thus lessen any public outrage or reaction. This also included a comprehensive ‘media plan’ – buying out the journalists and newspapers in order to stop negative media coverage. One such alleged public function was the 3rd International Kashmir Peace Conference held at London on 28-29 November 2007 where the Hurriyat Conference (M) Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and pro-India National Conference President Omar Abdullah were invited among other Kashmiri leaders. Allegedly, the two leaders were to address a joint press conference calling for peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem and launch a joint communiqué to work together for the peace and resolution of Kashmir. Had this followed according to the plan, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Omar Abdullah might have joined forces and launched a joint election campaign by now. However, the conference received unprecedented opposition for its organiser Professor Nazir Ahmad Shawl could not handle the operation and raised suspicions. This created public concerns amid condemnations and a rival conference in the British Parliament. There was a general feeling that the Conference was offering a platform to Omar Abdullah and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq for their future electoral alliance. A leader of the UK based All Party Kashmir Coordination Committee while opposing the conference claimed that it “was a joint game plan of both the countries and aims to create harmony between pro-India and pro-Pakistan groups for the sake of coming elections in the Indian side of Kashmir.” Due to massive public outcry, the conference aims could not be achieved and the planned joint communiqué was abandoned. In addition, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq had to publicly deny any pre-election equation with Omar Abdullah.
This failure was so upsetting that only a week later when Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Inamul Haq visited New Delhi, he did not meet any Kashmiri leaders, a departure from Pakistan’s practice “perhaps for the first time in the last two decades.” During his three day stay in New Delhi, Haq did not invite any Kashmiri leaders for any formal or informal interaction perhaps to avoid questions from Hurriyat Conference (G) which had planned a strong protest with the visiting dignitary about Pakistan’s ’shameful’ role. The Kashmir Peace Conference created such an embarrassment for the Musharraf regime that any public communiqués or interactions between pro-Musharraf Hurriyat leaders and pro-India Kashmiri politicians were suspended, at least in public.
However, the Musharraf regime continued to work with its Indian counterparts to further the plan. According to a news report by a leading Pakistani journalist, Hamid Mir, only days before 18 February 2008 elections, Musharraf’s advisor Tariq Aziz, Srinagar based Hurriyat leaders and Indian officials met in Dubai to discuss the Naya Kashmir Plan exploring various options on Kashmir after the elections. According to informed sources, the meeting was attended by many Hurriyat leaders including Mirwaiz Umar Farooq along with Indian and Pakistani diplomats and intelligence officials. But the Pakistan election results left these plans in tatters with the pro-Musharraf Kashmiri leaders searching for a new cause and identity.
New Army chief, New Thinking
Pervez Musharraf sealed his fate the day he handed over the reins of powerful Army to his new Chief General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani. Soon after his takeover, Kayani set out his priority to repair the image of his Army. He gradually distanced the Army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) from political activities; thus tilting the balance against Musharraf loyalists. This was precisely due to the new Army Chief that the elections could not be rigged as Musharraf had done in 2002.
In order to restore confidence among the public, General Kayani, earlier this year issued directives barring army personnel from holding civilian offices. He showed determination to curtail any public perception of the Army’s involvement in politics and sent a ‘note of displeasure’ to the Corps Commander Lt. General Shafaatullah Shah for holding an unauthorised meeting with the caretaker Prime Minister Muhammadmian Soomro. Lt. General Shah was one of the most favourite Corps Commanders of President General Musharraf.
On 25th March, only a few hours after the New Prime Minister took over, General Kayani announced a major reshuffle in the army appointing new corps commanders at Mangla and Lahore, “triggering off speculation that Musharraf’s authority is being undermined.”He also removed President Musharraf’s favourite Corps Commander Lt. General Shafaatullah Shah. The News in its editorial: A clear message, (26 March 2008), called it a major reshuffle and commented “it is now obvious that the support structure in the administration which President Pervez Musharraf was ordering around has collapsed and the centre of power has shifted.”
Elections and Beyond
On the election date on 18 February 2008, acting chairman of the Hurriyat Conference (G), Ghulam Nabi Sumji predicted that the polls in Pakistan would end the rule of President Musharraf who, according to him, is responsible for the mess in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir. The election defeat of Musharraf loyalists was widely hailed both in Pakistan and Kashmir. The Kashmiri leaders opposed to Musharraf’s policies welcomed the result with Syed Ali Shah Geelani leading the group. In his first reaction, Geelani called it a good sign for the future of Pakistan and for the ‘Kashmiri freedom movement’ accusing Musharraf that “with the support of his handpicked stooges they compromised … on the Kashmir issue.” He also accused that Musharraf “yielded much ground to India on the Kashmir issue despite enormous sacrifices rendered both by Pakistan and people of Kashmir during the past 60 years.” Terming the election results as defeat of Musharraf and rejection of his ‘apologetic Kashmir policy’, he also hoped that the new government will “stick to… traditional stand on Kashmir.” Asiya Andrabi, leader of the woman’s organisation, Dukhtaran-e- Millat, expressed similar sentiments saying “anybody who comes to power will be better than Musharraf”, who according to her “betrayed ideology [of]… Pakistan … and … the Kashmir cause.”
The immediate reaction of the pro-Musharraf Hurrriyat Conference was that of frustration and desperation. Senior leader of the group, Shabir Shah hoped that “whosoever comes to power… will support our cause in future” while apologetically admitting that his group had made mistakes in the past like “celebrating Pervez Musharraf’s re-election as the President when the Hurriyat activists burst crackers in Srinagar.” A splinter group of JKLF led by Barrister Majid Tramboo came out with the strongest statement against General Musharraf, saying that “the people of Pakistan have rejected the negative approach of their President Gen Pervez Musharraf regarding the solution of Kashmir issue”. A senior leader of the party, Farooq Ahmad Dar, termed the election results as “clear answer to the four point formula of Musharraf.” It is worth mentioning that not long ago, in September 2007 (24-25) Barrister Tramboo’s Kashmir Centre sponsored a two day Geneva Convention on Kashmir that supported Musharraf’s Four Point Formula. Not strange, the first theme of the Convention discussed on 24th September was titled: The challenging times – a review of President Musharraf’s four point formula, wherein the speakers commended General Musharraf for his ‘vision and leadership’.
The election results have created a mood of indignation in India about a possible policy change with a growing feeling in New Delhi that it may not now be possible to settle Kashmir on the Indian terms as accepted and agreed by General Musharraf. The pro-India National Conference leader Omar Abdullah, who had met with General Musharraf in Pakistan in 2006, said that India has missed the ‘golden opportunity’ to settle Kashmir while Musharraf was in power.Many Kashmiri analysts have made similar observations. New Delhi based Kashmiri journalist Iftikhar Gilani was of the opinion that the poll results will impact the situation in Kashmir.
Athar Parvaiz, a Kashmir Times writer opined that Pakistan’s Kashmir policy was bound to undergo a lot of transformation adding that Pakistan might not give accordance to pro-India Kashmiri leaders and may go into “old time revulsion towards them thanks to the return of a truly popular government”. The author was of the view that, “whatever the new dispensation in Pakistan, Pakistan’s policy about Kashmir issue is bound to witness a transformation”, observing that “defeats suffered by most of the ministers in the former Musharraf-led government, can be traced, among other reasons, to Pakistan’s renewed policy about Kashmir in recent years.”Sensing change, senior pro-India politician and leader of National Conference Ali Mohammad Sagar said “New Government in Pakistan can have a different Kashmir policy and for [the] time being it seems that the dialogue process between India and Pakistan would get delayed.”
Asif Ali Zardari: Boomerang Effect
While the negotiations for the new government were full on, Asif Ali Zardari was being courted by the American diplomats on daily basis trying to influence him to stay away from Nawaz Sharif and accept a deal with Musharraf on the basis of a working relationship.The Americans also reportedly wanted his assurances on the India-Pakistan ‘peace process’ and that the future government will continue with Musharraf’s Kashmir policy. Under intense US pressure, Asif Asif Ali Zardari, in a television interview made a statement calling for freezing the Kashmir issue for future generations in order to continue trade and dialogue with India. Zardari, while speaking to a leading Indian journalist Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate programme, said that “Kashmir issue should be left aside for future generations to solve and right now India and Pakistan should focus on improving the bilateral relations by strengthening trade and economic ties.” He also opined that “normalisation of relations between the two countries should not become hostage to the Kashmir issue.”
The reaction that followed was unprecedented and gave a strong indication of pent up anger that Musharraf’s Kashmir policy had created. Zardari’s statement led to strong condemnation from all the Kashmiri groups – pro-freedom, pro-India and resistance militant groups alike. Even those who were die-hard supporters of Musharraf only days ago lent their support to the growing condemnation indicating that they can’t remain oblivious to the new political realities.
The United Jihad Council (UJC), conglomerate of 13 militant outfits termed Zardari’s statement as “political immaturity’ accusing him of being ‘unaware about the history and ignorant about the Kashmir issue.” Giving an indication about the change in Pakistan’s policy, Muzzaffarabad based spokesman of the UJC, Syed Sadaqat Hussain said that Zardari “does not know anything about his country’s policies.” The chairman of the Hurriyat conference (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that Zaradari’s statement will have no affect on the disputed nature of Kashmir. “He can talk whatever he wants, who cares,” Geelani told Rising Kashmir. Pro-Musharraf Hurriyat leader Shabir Ahmad Shah termed the statement irrelevant while Abbas Ansari said “till Kashmir issue is solved, the distances [between India and Pakistan] would not vanish.” Later the Hurriyat Conference (M) called its Executive Council meeting which expressed deep concerns over Zardari’s statement and said that Zardari’s statement “was not in line with the Pakistan Peoples Party’s Kashmir policy.” Pro-Musharraf JKLF led by Majid Tramboo strongly condemned Zardari’s unrealistic statement. Commenting on Zardari’s statement, the spokesman of the group said that it “gives an indication about his political bankruptcy. We have not given him any mandate on Kashmir issue [so] he should mind his own business.”
Zardari even drew flak from the pro-India politicians. Chairman of the Peoples’ Conference Sajad Gani Lone called it an “idealistic statement”, urging “the people to protest.” Leader of the opposition in the pro-India Kashmiri Assembly and the National Conference senior functionary, Abdul Rahim Rather told Kashmir Times that his party was “pretty upset”. Elaborating, he said, “how else can we react to such a statement when our people are getting killed because of the non-resolution of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan?” Omar Abdullah, President of National Conference “warned that freezing Kashmir without finding a solution would prove dangerous not only for India but for Pakistan as well.”Another prominent pro-India politician and chairperson of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Mehbooba Mufti questioned the need for issuing such statements saying that the resolution of Kashmir needs to be carried forward rather than putting in cold storage.
Sardar Qayoom Khan, the octogenarian Azad Kashmiri politician and former Prime Minister, who is known for making U-turns also lashed out at Zardari. Khan who had joined Musharraf’s Kashmir policy ditching his old avatar of Mujahid-e-Awwal had previously condemned Kashmiri militants and declared ‘end of Jihad’ in Kashmir, calling it a futile exercise. Under the new political order, Sardar Qayoom took strong exception to Zardari’s statement warning that “friendly relations between India and Pakistan would always be short-lived and unpredictable until the root cause of all problems – Kashmir issue was resolved.” Qayoom went further and justified the need for militant resistance saying: “militancy… should remain … a force to reckon with for forcing India to agree on a negotiated settlement of the issue.”
Asif Zardari couldn’t resist the barrage of criticism and had to ‘clarify’ his position. Retracting from his old statement, he described Kashmir “as an integral part of Pakistan and said that he would never betray the sacrifices of those who had given their lives for Kashmir.” He called Kashmir issue as the reason for the founding of the PPP by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; “I started my political mission from Shaheed Benazir Bhutto’s grave at Garhi Khuda Bhuksh. If I have to keep her trust, how can I betray the trust of 90,000 other martyrs who have lost their lives in Kashmir?”
Zardari made subsequent clarifications to assuage the tempers. He revealed that his father Hakim Ali Zardari fought as a volunteer in the 1948 war to liberate Kashmir and was proud of that. The public pressure that forced powerful Zardari to issue ‘clarification’ indicates that Kashmir policy is certainly shifting from Musharraf’s so-called pro-India policy directed by the US. The Executive Director of Kashmir Centre Washington, Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai ‘expressed satisfaction over the statement saying “the clarification by the PPP … has been viewed as reassuring by the general public in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir.” Dr. Fai, who is well known for his caution and conformism, was surprisingly firm and advised Pakistani leaders “in responsible positions … to exercise discretion when issuing statements that may undermine Kashmiri aspiration.” In his press statement he called upon the leaders for “a more nuanced approach to such a sensitive and emotive issue as freedom struggle of the people of Kashmir [which] will help lessen the public’s distrust of politicians” and demanded that the Kashmir conflict must be resolved prognosticating that any “attempts at conflict management will never succeed.”
The American ‘meddling’
The proverbial trio of Pakistan’s politics – Allah, Army and America seems to have been reconfigured in reverse order with the Americans enjoying on the top. The US influence is so powerful that they virtually seem to be running every aspect of Pakistani life as allowed by Musharraf in his last eight years of rule. They are said to have unacknowledged military basis, secret prisons and torture centres with powers to detain Pakistani citizens and thousands of secret agents running around in the country without any legal or bureaucratic fetters. This is the main reason that the Americans are against the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary who was adamant in upholding the law and wanted to know the fate of thousands that have gone missing in Musharraf’s regime with many of them ending up in secret American prisons and torture cells. The majority of the Pakistanis see the US and its War on Terror the main reason for problems in the tribal areas and resultant suicide bombings. Speaking at a Kashmir rally on 5 February in Lahore, Jama’at-e-Islami leader Liaqat Baloch “castigated President Musharraf for acting as a tool in the hands of Washington to make Pakistan a failed state as per US agenda.” Many also blame US pressure for Musharraf’s U-turn on Kashmir. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader, Dr Azim ud Din Zahid while speaking at a meeting to commemorate Kashmir Solidarity Day said “on the direction of the US administration, moral and financial help to Kashmiris was stopped”.
The American support for Musharraf - from sacking of the judges to the imposition of Emergency and tacit approval for his crackdown on the secular civil society has given rise to massive anger against the US. Such sentiments are no more confined to the Islamist fringe groups. As the first election results were out, former Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg called it a decision against America in his comment on Pakistani television channel Geo TV, saying that the next Prime Minister will be elected by the people of Pakistan and not by the US. Buoyed by the election results, when the calls for Musharraf’s resignation grew louder, the US Secretary of the State Condoleezza Rice openly came to the rescue of General Musharraf; “The President of Pakistan is Pervez Musharraf … And so, of course, we will deal with him. We will continue to pursue the American interests, which are for a stable and democratic Pakistan.”
Since the elections, the American influence in Pakistan has become more pronounced, open and corrosive. Soon after the results, it was a strange scene to see the American diplomats literally taking charge for the formation of the new government as well as trying to block potential political alliances. The American Ambassador in Islamabad, Anne W Patterson openly held meetings with the Pakistani politicians suggesting future role for Musharraf. On 25 March, the day the new Prime Minister Makhdoom Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was sworn in, the American presence in Islamabad was felt very strongly and raised a lot of suspicion that they are trying to hijack the democratic government. When the Pakistani politicians were busy in forming the new government, the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte along with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher held meetings with Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army Staff and top politicians of the new coalition government including Prime Minister Gilani, Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar called it ‘crude diplomacy’. In his comments with the leading Pakistani anchor Kamran Khan in Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Sath he accused the Americans of arm twisting. In the same programme, Pakistani analyst Shafqat Mehmood commented that Americans are showing the power and influence they have got in Pakistan. Frustrated by this brazen behaviour, Kamran Khan threw a general question at the Pakistani audience; “Where is our honour and dignity?”
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could not tolerate the US pressure on the Musharraf issue and he told the US delegation that he “considered Musharraf an unconstitutional and illegal head of state.” Sharif later told a press conference that the “new government would review Pakistan’s role in the War on Terror after holding a debate in the parliament and that Pakistan will not play in the US hands.”The timing of this visit by the US envoys caused outrage with the newspapers decrying the visit as ‘American meddling’. “Protestors in at least three cities burned the US flags and waved banners demanding the envoys to go home.” Leading English daily The Dawn titled its editorial about the visit as American Impatience terming the arrival of the US envoys “in indecent haste”, not “in keeping with diplomatic propriety” and calling its objective as “undesirable”. Another leading newspaper, The News urged the US officials to “restrain themselves in further meddling in Pakistan’s affairs.”
Given the US influence, its strong presence in the region and its closest ties with India, the new government would be severely restricted and limited in any approach that tries to deal with the Kashmir issue differently from the previous government, knowing the fact that the US is committed to pursue Pakistan to abandon Kashmir in totality.
‘National Consensus’ - The Balancing Act
As the anti-Musharraf political forces moved to centre stage, the Army Chief, who was considered a Musharraf ally also started to make more pronounced statements indicating a move from his predecessor’s policies. Therefore, when General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani made open references to ‘National Consensus’ on Kashmir, it was seen as an indication of a possible shift. During his visit to a forward location near the Line of Control (LoC) in Azad Kashmir on 12 February, General Kayani while addressing Army officers highlighted the ‘national consensus’ that exists on Kashmir and “reaffirmed commitment of Pakistan Army to the Kashmir cause, in line with aspirations of Pakistani nation.”
Kayani’s statement was widely hailed in Pakistan as well in Kashmir. Hurriyat Conference (G) Convenor “warmly welcomed the statement” and many Pakistani newspapers praised it in their editorials. The English daily Pakistan Observer in its editorial Kayani’s Solidarity with Kashmir Cause dated 14 February called his statement as reassuring “in the perspective of some statements in the recent past by certain political quarters which were disapproved by the people of Pakistan.” Observing that “the people of Pakistan and the armed forces during the last sixty years [have] had a strong commitment to the Kashmir cause”, it called the assurance by the COAS [Chief of the Army Staff] as “satisfying for the people of Pakistan as well as to the Kashmiris”, and hoped that “the new political leadership would keep the resolution of Kashmir issue as the top priority on its agenda while dealing on different issues with India.” Leading English daily The Nation in its editorial called the statement as heartening and “an index of the affinity all the jawans [soldiers] of our armed forces feel for the Kashmir cause.” The paper affirmed Kayani’s statement that there is a national consensus on the issue adding “all genuine political forces with mass appeal agree on the right of the people of Kashmir to choose their own destinies.”Criticizing Musharraf regime’s initiative of peace process, the newspaper observed; “All the miscalculated and overly conciliatory efforts of the regime have been met by Indian smugness and aggression every step of the way” and “sincerely hoped that these leaders can counter some of the damage done on this front by the previous leadership.” Another English daily The Post sought to link the Army Chief’s statement with the earlier statement of Asif Ali Zardari on Kashmir saying “General Kayani wished to set the record straight by reaffirming the army’s commitment to the Kashmir cause.”
The utility of General Kayani’s statement can be seen at multiple levels. There is a strong argument that because of the War on Terror and U-turn on Kashmir, the Army is unpopular and therefore it wants to get back into the good books of the people by latching on to Kashmir. Asserting the traditional stand on Kashmir, the Army could certainly help amend some of its tarnished image. There have been many public calls to the new Army Chief from various political and social quarters about many issues including Kashmir and the War on Terror. While General Kayani cannot afford to make a statement over the War on Terror, Kashmir remains the only plausible choice. This would certainly soften the image of army among the local people including Islamic fundamentalists who could thus be persuaded not to attack their own army. His statement could also be seen as a subtle rebuff to the US and an attempt to curtail their unwarranted and crude influence in the Pakistani affairs mainly Kashmir. By highlighting ‘consensus’, Kayani sought to place Kashmir in the centre of his nation’s conscience that cannot be bartered away under any outside pressure.
Another function of Kayani’s statement could be to re-assert the Army’s traditional role and authority on the matters of defence as well as Kashmir while the civilian government with a strong mandate has taken over. Previously, the Army has viewed any bonhomie of its politicians with India with suspicion. “Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was pilloried for being “pro-India” when she attempted to reach an understanding with her counterpart [Indian Prime Minister] Rajiv Gandhi in 1989. Her party was accused of being a “security risk” by the state’s intelligence agencies.” Similarly when “Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif … tried to reach out to his Indian counterpart Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1999 … the [Pakistan Army] …was busy executing its disastrous Kargil Operation in Kashmir.”
General Pervez Kayani sent another subtle but strong message about his priorities and persuasions. On Pakistan Day, 23 March, he hosted a reception in honour of the retired Army officers who attended in a large number. Many of these retired officers have publicly criticised Musharraf’s Kashmir policy and called for his resignation. Speaking at the occasion, the Army Chief reiterated that the “Army will always live up to the expectations of the nation”, clearly giving a message of defiance against Musharraf while at the same time seeking reconciliation with his nation.
Kashmiri Response
Pakistan has always been an important factor in the survival and existence of the Kashmiri political struggle. Whether rightly or wrongly, Pakistan has fired the imagination of Kashmiri people and despite the lack of uniformity in its approach, Pakistan remains a major emotional force for Kashmiris that is deeply embedded in their psyche. Commenting upon the recent elections and its effect on Kashmir, pro-India politician Mehbooba Mufti acknowledged the role and function of the symbol of Pakistan in the Kashmir’s socio-political landscape; “We have a sentimental and geographical affinity with Pakistan.”
However, this ’sentimental’ relationship touched nadir during General Musharraf’s rule. In the aftermath of 9/11, he not only gave up support for the Kashmiris’ freedom and self-determination, but also branded Kashmiri resistance as terrorists.The change meant that the Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’ in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir were hounded, tortured, arrested and even killed. In March 2006, the ISI arrested and threatened Syed Salahudin, the chief of Hizbul Mujahideen along with many other prominent Kashmiri resistance leaders who were protesting against Musharraf’s Kashmir policy.
[Murtaza Shibli is the Editor of Kashmir Affairs, London [www.kashmiraffairs .org]
Real Democracy’: Pakistan’s Post-Musharraf Kashmir Policy
Murtaza Shibli ‘Era of real democracy has begun in the country.’
Summary
The recently concluded elections in Pakistan have led to the decline in the fortunes of the General-turned- President Pervez Musharraf. Although he is still hanging onto power thanks to open American support, his influence on the country’s political decision making has weakened significantly. Much before the new government headed by Prime Minister Makhdoom Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani took over; Musharraf’s much publicised Kashmir Policy was on the wane. There seems to be a consensus evolving among the leading politicians and the Army about the unsuitability of the current Kashmir policy that saw Pakistan retreating from its support for the UN Resolutions and right to self determination. Even Musharraf’s former political partners and colleagues from the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) have taken umbrage with the beleaguered President on the issue.
Sensing the mood, the pro-Musharraf Kashmiri groups and activists have gone on defensive; shifting their allegiances in order to stay relevant in the new political milieu. Some of them have apologised for their support to Musharraf or criticized him for his ‘failed’ Kashmir policy. Although pro-Pakistan and anti-Musharraf Kashmiri leaders, including the Hurriyat Conference (G) leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, are jubilant over the developments, Kashmiris are watching with caution.Pakistani politicians like Asif Zardari, Mian Nawaz Sharif and others have issued some statements that smack of traditional rhetoric, while the new Army Chief General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani has also hinted at the policy shift. Despite all this, there isn’t much Pakistan can do with regards to Kashmir; given its current internal crisis and unprecedented American pressure. Pakistan cannot afford to cease the ‘peace process’, but it might gradually retreat to its traditional position; increase its diplomatic efforts and seek international mediation and offer limited but symbolic support for the Kashmiri resistance. The progress on the issue can only be achieved if India is willing to shift from its maximalist position and offer some concrete and sensible options for the solution of the problem. Otherwise, the thaw that was achieved during the last few years in India-Pakistan relations cannot be sustained for long and, as in the past, Kashmir could vitiate the atmosphere with dangerous consequences.
Background
In the aftermath of 9/11, when Pervez Musharraf announced a U-turn on his country’s Kashmir policy, he was met with resistance and open hostility both at home and in Kashmir. However, supported by the US and covert Indian blessing, he propped up ‘yes men’ by buying the loyalty of some Kashmiri leaders through his intelligence agencies. As a result, the Pakistani government recognised the Hurriyat Conference faction led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq while sidelining the most senior Kashmiri resistance leader Syed Ali Geelani, whose rival faction of the Hurriyat Conference was previously declared as the ‘true representative of Kashmiris’ by the Pakistani government. Directed by Pakistan, the Hurriyat Conference (M) started unconditional dialogue with the Indian government ‘within the ambit of the Indian Constitution’ .
Around the same time in 2003, Pakistani intelligence agencies propped up Kashmir Centres in Belgium, London and Washington with the covert aim of promoting Musharraf and his ‘formulas’ on Kashmir. These Centres, in conjunction with the Hurriyat Conference (M) and other splinter groups formed the core group of Musharraf loyalists who promoted his ‘out-of-box’ thinking without any appreciation to its political merits or application. Thus began an unprecedented understanding between India and Pakistan - the bitter rivals who now directed the Kashmiri politicians for a mutual goal of burying the issue for all times to come. The Indian intelligence agencies allowed free flow of the Hurriyat Conference (M) leaders from Srinagar to Islamabad as well as mutual exchange of cultural groups, intellectuals following traditional conflict pacification exercises.
The Kashmir Centres formed the main plank of Musharraf as they promoted him through annual ‘international conferences’ and other such events. Although these centres were never able to inculcate any good faith among Kashmiris and raised nothing but suspicion, they became important tools in the game. Apparently, their utility and function was presented in such an exaggerated form that in September 2006, General Musharraf broke all the protocol and attended the Third Global Discourse on Kashmir 2006 held by the Kashmir Centre, Brussels. Welcoming him to the Discourse held at the European Parliament, Executive Director of the Centre, Barrister Majid Tramboo called Musharraf’s participation as a demonstration of his “love and affection towards Kashmiri people” and commended him “wholeheartedly. .. for … [his] courage and wisdom to offer new and creative thoughts.” In response Musharraf said that it was “indeed a pleasure, unique honour and a privilege to be in this gathering of the Global Discourse on Kashmir.”
In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Muslim Conference run by Sardar Abdul Qayoom Khan and his protégé son and the current Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan also allied with General Musharraf to perpetuate the family grip on power. The veteran Sardar Qayoom who credits himself for being Mujah-e-Awwal or first warrior for his claims to have fired the first bullet in rebellion against the autocratic rule of Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947, supported Musharraf’s Kashmir policy and declared the ‘end of Jihad’ in Kashmir claiming its futility. As a representative of the Musharraf government, Khan on Sunday, September 25, 2005 while speaking at a function in New Delhi declared: “Jihad was terrorism and the mujahideen were saboteurs of peace in the region.”
Azad Kashmir’s opposition alleged that it was due to this unfettered loyalty of Khan’s for Musharraf that the Pakistani intelligence rigged the 2006 elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and installed Sardar Attique Khan in power. In gratitude and to prove his pro-Musharraf credentials beyond doubt, Sardar Attique Khan on August 23, 2007 stated that “General Musharraf should remain the President of Pakistan as long as he was physically fit” adding “the role of military in the civilian affairs in Pakistan was unavoidable.”
These Kashmiri leaders, from the Hurriyat Conference (M), Muslim Conference led by Sardar Qayoom and the Executive Directors of the Kashmir Centres in the West, continued their train of sycophancy till late last year, not only misleading the President about the utility and acceptance of his policies vis-a-vis Kashmir but also for their own financial gain, as they were allegedly being paid hefty sums of money to run these centres. Even when his re-election as President was widely criticised in Pakistan, the activists of Hurriyat Conference (M) took out a procession in Srinagar and burst crackers to celebrate the victory of General Pervez Musharraf.
This symbiotic relationship went beyond political posturing when the Hurriyat Conference (M) openly supported the imposition of Emergency in Pakistan. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was the first Kashmiri to lend his support to Musharraf, while the senior leader Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat criticised the deposed judges claiming “there has to be harmony among the three pillars of the state - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.” Similar sentiments were expressed by a Western based Kashmiri leader when I asked him to comment on the crisis in November 2007 adding that the General Musharraf is the people of Pakistan. Commenting on the relationship of the Hurriyat Conference with General Musharraf, noted Indian columnist and former diplomat Kuldip Nayyar in one of his recent opinion pieces observed that the “Hurriyat [Mirwaiz group] ended up putting all its eggs in Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s basket.”
Kashmir Solidarity Day - Back to Basics
Following massive public outpouring and international criticism against his emergency rule, Musharraf was forced to give up the post of his Army Chief in November 2007. This effectively limited his ability to manoeuvre, interfere or exert pressure on political matters. As soon as General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani took over as Chief of Army Staff, voices against Musharraf’s Kashmir policy grew stronger and turned into an outpouring. As Musharraf’s fortunes started dwindling and his options ran out amidst growing public protest, he tried the age-old gambit that every Pakistani leader had tried successfully - Kashmir. On January 25 his government announced that it was preparing to observe ‘Kashmir Solidarity Day’ on February 5, a yearly celebration that had been virtually thrown into oblivion in the past few years, with ‘renewed commitment’. Musharraf’s Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Muhammad Ali Durrani said “Kashmir Solidarity Day would be observed with zeal and fervour and the entire Pakistani nation would stand shoulder-to- shoulder by their Kashmiri brethren”, adding that it “renews our commitment to the resolution of the long-standing dispute.” He could not hide his government’s intention of using the event as a public relations exercise for the beleaguered President when he claimed “the vision of President Pervez Musharraf on Kashmir dispute is very clear i.e. the resolution of Kashmir issue should be in line with the aspirations and wishes of the Kashmiri people.” Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs, Tahir Iqbal expressed similar thoughts; “Kashmir Solidarity Day would be observed this year with renewed zest as the need for worldwide projection of Kashmir dispute has become imperative.” He too lavished praise on Musharraf claiming he had “adopted an optimistic approach towards the issue and .. succeeded in getting Kashmir issue globally recognized.” “On Solidarity Day”, he said, “Pakistan, through its planned events… would reassure its moral, diplomatic and political support to our Kashmiri brethren.” The immediate reaction to the official plans came from the Jama’at-e-Islami Pakistan when its Secretary General denounced the Interior Ministry saying it was ‘making a mockery of the Kashmir struggle’.
On February 5, Kashmir Solidarity Day was celebrated throughout Pakistan reminiscing the early 1990s - euphoric political rallies and ‘Jihad conferences’. Kashmir Solidarity was a public holiday and all the government, semi government offices, educational institutions, commercial centres and markets remained closed. Newspapers brought special supplements while Radio and TV channels aired special programmes and talks. In his ‘Kashmir Day’ message Pervez Musharraf tried to rattle the emotions of his nation as he thundered, “We (Pakistanis) cannot be kept away from the Kashmiris by the Ceasefire Line for much longer.” The leading Pakistani daily The Nation in its editorial termed this statement as a “hidden announcement of pugnacity” while accusing Musharraf of being “architect of the policy of supine acceptance of equating the Kashmiris’ just freedom struggle with terrorism.”
Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) which shared power with Musharraf also held a seminar in Lahore where the speakers “expressed a common view that Kashmir would be liberated only through force” adding that “their party was upholding and continuing the struggle for Kashmir liberation right according to the idea perceived by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.” They reiterated that after the failure of peaceful dialogue with India “now the solution needs settlement by using force.”
Mushahid Hussain Syed, Secretary General of the PML-Q pledged to make a “national Kashmir strategy with all political parties on board if his party came into power.” Speaking at a seminar on Kashmir Day, Syed called for a review of his own government’s Kashmir policy adding “we honestly believe that the United Nations Resolution[s] on Kashmir is a roadmap for solving the issue.”Similar functions were held in Sindh and at its capital Karachi, the stronghold of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) that was part of the previous pro-Musharraf government. “A number of organizations took out rallies and held seminars to show their solidarity with the people of Kashmir and vowed to extend full support to them to help ensure their right of franchise.”
This exhibit of official sentiment for Kashmir was drowned under the mass of unofficial functions of the opposition that condemned Musharraf’s Kashmir policy amid renewing calls of support for their ‘Kashmiri brethren’. In Lahore, a number of Pakistani and Kashmiri political and social organisations arranged rallies, seminars and symposia. Among these were PML-N, Jama’at-e-Islami, Khaksar Tehrik, Jamiat Mashaikh, Peoples Muslim League J&K, Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front, Kashmir Action Committee and extremist organisation Jamat-ud-Dawah etc.
The strongest message emanated from the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) headed by the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief whose party PML-N emerged as the second biggest party in the recent elections. President of the party, Mian Shahbaz Sharif accused the Musharraf government of making a U-turn on Kashmir calling it treachery and “vowed that after coming into power, PML-N would liberate the Kashmiris from the cruel clutches of India and restore the dignity of Army.” Another leader of the party, Dr. Azim-ud-Din Zahid blamed the government that it had “provided an opportunity to India to affix barbed wire along the Line of Control after taking U-turn on Kashmir issue.” The Islamist party, Jama’at-e-Islami Pakistan that boycotted the recent election also held various public functions. In one of its largest public functions in Lahore, one of its senior leaders and former senator Liaquat Baloch said that Kashmir issue can only be resolved through the UN Resolutions, claiming that “solutions proposed by Musharraf are aimed at allowing India to strengthen its grip over the state.” Secretary-General of the party, Syed Munawwar Hasan said “Musharraf lacked the legitimacy and mandate to rule the country … [and as such he] did not have any moral authority or influence to alter the Pakistan’s principled policy and stance over Kashmir.” Head of the party in Karachi, Muhammad Hussain Mahanti said “the success of the Kashmir Day solidarity rally had once again proved that the people were ready to take to streets to support the cause of Kashmiris in their fight for freedom from oppression and pressurise the rulers not to change the Pakistan’s decades-old and time-tested stance over Kashmir.”
General Musharraf could not even escape criticism from his own ilk. A group of former Generals - Mirza Aslam Baig; former Army Chief, Faiz Ali Chishti, Hameed Gul; former head of ISI, Jamshaid Gulzar Kiyani, Asad Durrani, Sardar Anwar Khan; former President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Abdul Qayyum and Ali Quli Khan; former Army Chief - gathered at a seminar in Rawalpindi, the military nerve centre. They criticised Musharraf for his ‘faulty policies on Kashmir’ claiming he ‘had moved the Kashmir issue to the backburner’. Former General Abdul Qayyum claimed “Kashmir could only be liberated by waging Jihad” while the former ISI chief General Hameed Gul said “Srinagar is just as important as Islamabad for Pakistanis,” adding “we have relationship with Kashmiris on the basis of life and death.”
Winds of Change
As the situation unfolded, the pro-Musharraf Kashmiris slowly started shifting their postures. In December 2007, the Hurriyat Conference (M) Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq not only admitted that talks with India had been un-productive but also blamed New Delhi of engaging Kashmiri leadership “in talks not for the solution of Kashmir … but for stop gap arrangements.” Ultimately, the Mirwaiz led Hurriyat Conference pulled out of talks with the Indian government less than three weeks before the 18 February elections in Pakistan. Speaking to reporters in Srinagar, Mirwaiz said that his group was pulling out of the four-year old dialogue process as it did not yield anything. Admitting the unpopularity of dialogue with New Delhi, senior Hurriyat leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan said “the dialogue process had affected their credibility among the Kashmiri people.”
Frustrated and dejected, many pro-Musharraf Kashmiri loyalists were boosting their sagging morale with spurious forecasts they were receiving from their pro-Musharraf contacts in Pakistan. Only a couple of months before the elections, one of the senior Kashmiri ‘leaders’ warned me about the futility of my writings against Musharraf’s imposition of Emergency, prophesying that Musharraf’s supported party PML-Q was definitely winning the elections and that the new Prime Minister would be Mushahid Hussain Syed. Similar information was perhaps passed to a noted Srinagar based columnist, Zahid Ghulam Muhammad, who attended the Kashmir Centre, London sponsored, 3rd International Kashmir Peace Conference on 28th and 29th of November in London. A week prior to the elections, he predicted in his weekly column, Punchline in Srinagar based daily Greater Kashmir: “In the given scenario there seems better chance for the Muslim League (Q) and other allied parties for coming to power in Pakistan.” He went further to complete the puzzle; “If the ability to understand the nuances of the domestic politics and to gauge the pulse of international politics are the criteria for the new Prime Minister then there is every likelihood of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) Mushaid Hussain Syed becoming the next Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
‘Naya Kashmir’
After fiddling with many ‘out-of-box’ ideas and ‘formulas’, Pervez Musharraf’s government was to implement a new and fast action plan for Kashmir - pro-Musharraf Kashmiri leaders will participate in the elections and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq will take over as Chief Minister, a la Showkat Aziz or Hamid Karzai and his faction of the Hurriyat Conference will call for the resistance militants to disarm with similar calls from Azad Kashmir Government and other pro-Musharraf Kashmiri activists, effectively ending the resistance movement repeating Sheikh Abdullah’s disbanding of Mahaz-e-Rai Shumari or Plebiscite Front in 1974 after he was given the position of Chief Minister-ship without even contesting elections.
Although the background preparatory work had been in full swing for more than last two years, some public functions were planned for favourable symbolic value that could soften the public opinion and thus lessen any public outrage or reaction. This also included a comprehensive ‘media plan’ – buying out the journalists and newspapers in order to stop negative media coverage. One such alleged public function was the 3rd International Kashmir Peace Conference held at London on 28-29 November 2007 where the Hurriyat Conference (M) Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and pro-India National Conference President Omar Abdullah were invited among other Kashmiri leaders. Allegedly, the two leaders were to address a joint press conference calling for peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem and launch a joint communiqué to work together for the peace and resolution of Kashmir. Had this followed according to the plan, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Omar Abdullah might have joined forces and launched a joint election campaign by now. However, the conference received unprecedented opposition for its organiser Professor Nazir Ahmad Shawl could not handle the operation and raised suspicions. This created public concerns amid condemnations and a rival conference in the British Parliament. There was a general feeling that the Conference was offering a platform to Omar Abdullah and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq for their future electoral alliance. A leader of the UK based All Party Kashmir Coordination Committee while opposing the conference claimed that it “was a joint game plan of both the countries and aims to create harmony between pro-India and pro-Pakistan groups for the sake of coming elections in the Indian side of Kashmir.” Due to massive public outcry, the conference aims could not be achieved and the planned joint communiqué was abandoned. In addition, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq had to publicly deny any pre-election equation with Omar Abdullah.
This failure was so upsetting that only a week later when Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Inamul Haq visited New Delhi, he did not meet any Kashmiri leaders, a departure from Pakistan’s practice “perhaps for the first time in the last two decades.” During his three day stay in New Delhi, Haq did not invite any Kashmiri leaders for any formal or informal interaction perhaps to avoid questions from Hurriyat Conference (G) which had planned a strong protest with the visiting dignitary about Pakistan’s ’shameful’ role. The Kashmir Peace Conference created such an embarrassment for the Musharraf regime that any public communiqués or interactions between pro-Musharraf Hurriyat leaders and pro-India Kashmiri politicians were suspended, at least in public.
However, the Musharraf regime continued to work with its Indian counterparts to further the plan. According to a news report by a leading Pakistani journalist, Hamid Mir, only days before 18 February 2008 elections, Musharraf’s advisor Tariq Aziz, Srinagar based Hurriyat leaders and Indian officials met in Dubai to discuss the Naya Kashmir Plan exploring various options on Kashmir after the elections. According to informed sources, the meeting was attended by many Hurriyat leaders including Mirwaiz Umar Farooq along with Indian and Pakistani diplomats and intelligence officials. But the Pakistan election results left these plans in tatters with the pro-Musharraf Kashmiri leaders searching for a new cause and identity.
New Army chief, New Thinking
Pervez Musharraf sealed his fate the day he handed over the reins of powerful Army to his new Chief General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani. Soon after his takeover, Kayani set out his priority to repair the image of his Army. He gradually distanced the Army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) from political activities; thus tilting the balance against Musharraf loyalists. This was precisely due to the new Army Chief that the elections could not be rigged as Musharraf had done in 2002.
In order to restore confidence among the public, General Kayani, earlier this year issued directives barring army personnel from holding civilian offices. He showed determination to curtail any public perception of the Army’s involvement in politics and sent a ‘note of displeasure’ to the Corps Commander Lt. General Shafaatullah Shah for holding an unauthorised meeting with the caretaker Prime Minister Muhammadmian Soomro. Lt. General Shah was one of the most favourite Corps Commanders of President General Musharraf.
On 25th March, only a few hours after the New Prime Minister took over, General Kayani announced a major reshuffle in the army appointing new corps commanders at Mangla and Lahore, “triggering off speculation that Musharraf’s authority is being undermined.”He also removed President Musharraf’s favourite Corps Commander Lt. General Shafaatullah Shah. The News in its editorial: A clear message, (26 March 2008), called it a major reshuffle and commented “it is now obvious that the support structure in the administration which President Pervez Musharraf was ordering around has collapsed and the centre of power has shifted.”
Elections and Beyond
On the election date on 18 February 2008, acting chairman of the Hurriyat Conference (G), Ghulam Nabi Sumji predicted that the polls in Pakistan would end the rule of President Musharraf who, according to him, is responsible for the mess in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir. The election defeat of Musharraf loyalists was widely hailed both in Pakistan and Kashmir. The Kashmiri leaders opposed to Musharraf’s policies welcomed the result with Syed Ali Shah Geelani leading the group. In his first reaction, Geelani called it a good sign for the future of Pakistan and for the ‘Kashmiri freedom movement’ accusing Musharraf that “with the support of his handpicked stooges they compromised … on the Kashmir issue.” He also accused that Musharraf “yielded much ground to India on the Kashmir issue despite enormous sacrifices rendered both by Pakistan and people of Kashmir during the past 60 years.” Terming the election results as defeat of Musharraf and rejection of his ‘apologetic Kashmir policy’, he also hoped that the new government will “stick to… traditional stand on Kashmir.” Asiya Andrabi, leader of the woman’s organisation, Dukhtaran-e- Millat, expressed similar sentiments saying “anybody who comes to power will be better than Musharraf”, who according to her “betrayed ideology [of]… Pakistan … and … the Kashmir cause.”
The immediate reaction of the pro-Musharraf Hurrriyat Conference was that of frustration and desperation. Senior leader of the group, Shabir Shah hoped that “whosoever comes to power… will support our cause in future” while apologetically admitting that his group had made mistakes in the past like “celebrating Pervez Musharraf’s re-election as the President when the Hurriyat activists burst crackers in Srinagar.” A splinter group of JKLF led by Barrister Majid Tramboo came out with the strongest statement against General Musharraf, saying that “the people of Pakistan have rejected the negative approach of their President Gen Pervez Musharraf regarding the solution of Kashmir issue”. A senior leader of the party, Farooq Ahmad Dar, termed the election results as “clear answer to the four point formula of Musharraf.” It is worth mentioning that not long ago, in September 2007 (24-25) Barrister Tramboo’s Kashmir Centre sponsored a two day Geneva Convention on Kashmir that supported Musharraf’s Four Point Formula. Not strange, the first theme of the Convention discussed on 24th September was titled: The challenging times – a review of President Musharraf’s four point formula, wherein the speakers commended General Musharraf for his ‘vision and leadership’.
The election results have created a mood of indignation in India about a possible policy change with a growing feeling in New Delhi that it may not now be possible to settle Kashmir on the Indian terms as accepted and agreed by General Musharraf. The pro-India National Conference leader Omar Abdullah, who had met with General Musharraf in Pakistan in 2006, said that India has missed the ‘golden opportunity’ to settle Kashmir while Musharraf was in power.Many Kashmiri analysts have made similar observations. New Delhi based Kashmiri journalist Iftikhar Gilani was of the opinion that the poll results will impact the situation in Kashmir.
Athar Parvaiz, a Kashmir Times writer opined that Pakistan’s Kashmir policy was bound to undergo a lot of transformation adding that Pakistan might not give accordance to pro-India Kashmiri leaders and may go into “old time revulsion towards them thanks to the return of a truly popular government”. The author was of the view that, “whatever the new dispensation in Pakistan, Pakistan’s policy about Kashmir issue is bound to witness a transformation”, observing that “defeats suffered by most of the ministers in the former Musharraf-led government, can be traced, among other reasons, to Pakistan’s renewed policy about Kashmir in recent years.”Sensing change, senior pro-India politician and leader of National Conference Ali Mohammad Sagar said “New Government in Pakistan can have a different Kashmir policy and for [the] time being it seems that the dialogue process between India and Pakistan would get delayed.”
Asif Ali Zardari: Boomerang Effect
While the negotiations for the new government were full on, Asif Ali Zardari was being courted by the American diplomats on daily basis trying to influence him to stay away from Nawaz Sharif and accept a deal with Musharraf on the basis of a working relationship.The Americans also reportedly wanted his assurances on the India-Pakistan ‘peace process’ and that the future government will continue with Musharraf’s Kashmir policy. Under intense US pressure, Asif Asif Ali Zardari, in a television interview made a statement calling for freezing the Kashmir issue for future generations in order to continue trade and dialogue with India. Zardari, while speaking to a leading Indian journalist Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate programme, said that “Kashmir issue should be left aside for future generations to solve and right now India and Pakistan should focus on improving the bilateral relations by strengthening trade and economic ties.” He also opined that “normalisation of relations between the two countries should not become hostage to the Kashmir issue.”
The reaction that followed was unprecedented and gave a strong indication of pent up anger that Musharraf’s Kashmir policy had created. Zardari’s statement led to strong condemnation from all the Kashmiri groups – pro-freedom, pro-India and resistance militant groups alike. Even those who were die-hard supporters of Musharraf only days ago lent their support to the growing condemnation indicating that they can’t remain oblivious to the new political realities.
The United Jihad Council (UJC), conglomerate of 13 militant outfits termed Zardari’s statement as “political immaturity’ accusing him of being ‘unaware about the history and ignorant about the Kashmir issue.” Giving an indication about the change in Pakistan’s policy, Muzzaffarabad based spokesman of the UJC, Syed Sadaqat Hussain said that Zardari “does not know anything about his country’s policies.” The chairman of the Hurriyat conference (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that Zaradari’s statement will have no affect on the disputed nature of Kashmir. “He can talk whatever he wants, who cares,” Geelani told Rising Kashmir. Pro-Musharraf Hurriyat leader Shabir Ahmad Shah termed the statement irrelevant while Abbas Ansari said “till Kashmir issue is solved, the distances [between India and Pakistan] would not vanish.” Later the Hurriyat Conference (M) called its Executive Council meeting which expressed deep concerns over Zardari’s statement and said that Zardari’s statement “was not in line with the Pakistan Peoples Party’s Kashmir policy.” Pro-Musharraf JKLF led by Majid Tramboo strongly condemned Zardari’s unrealistic statement. Commenting on Zardari’s statement, the spokesman of the group said that it “gives an indication about his political bankruptcy. We have not given him any mandate on Kashmir issue [so] he should mind his own business.”
Zardari even drew flak from the pro-India politicians. Chairman of the Peoples’ Conference Sajad Gani Lone called it an “idealistic statement”, urging “the people to protest.” Leader of the opposition in the pro-India Kashmiri Assembly and the National Conference senior functionary, Abdul Rahim Rather told Kashmir Times that his party was “pretty upset”. Elaborating, he said, “how else can we react to such a statement when our people are getting killed because of the non-resolution of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan?” Omar Abdullah, President of National Conference “warned that freezing Kashmir without finding a solution would prove dangerous not only for India but for Pakistan as well.”Another prominent pro-India politician and chairperson of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Mehbooba Mufti questioned the need for issuing such statements saying that the resolution of Kashmir needs to be carried forward rather than putting in cold storage.
Sardar Qayoom Khan, the octogenarian Azad Kashmiri politician and former Prime Minister, who is known for making U-turns also lashed out at Zardari. Khan who had joined Musharraf’s Kashmir policy ditching his old avatar of Mujahid-e-Awwal had previously condemned Kashmiri militants and declared ‘end of Jihad’ in Kashmir, calling it a futile exercise. Under the new political order, Sardar Qayoom took strong exception to Zardari’s statement warning that “friendly relations between India and Pakistan would always be short-lived and unpredictable until the root cause of all problems – Kashmir issue was resolved.” Qayoom went further and justified the need for militant resistance saying: “militancy… should remain … a force to reckon with for forcing India to agree on a negotiated settlement of the issue.”
Asif Zardari couldn’t resist the barrage of criticism and had to ‘clarify’ his position. Retracting from his old statement, he described Kashmir “as an integral part of Pakistan and said that he would never betray the sacrifices of those who had given their lives for Kashmir.” He called Kashmir issue as the reason for the founding of the PPP by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; “I started my political mission from Shaheed Benazir Bhutto’s grave at Garhi Khuda Bhuksh. If I have to keep her trust, how can I betray the trust of 90,000 other martyrs who have lost their lives in Kashmir?”
Zardari made subsequent clarifications to assuage the tempers. He revealed that his father Hakim Ali Zardari fought as a volunteer in the 1948 war to liberate Kashmir and was proud of that. The public pressure that forced powerful Zardari to issue ‘clarification’ indicates that Kashmir policy is certainly shifting from Musharraf’s so-called pro-India policy directed by the US. The Executive Director of Kashmir Centre Washington, Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai ‘expressed satisfaction over the statement saying “the clarification by the PPP … has been viewed as reassuring by the general public in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir.” Dr. Fai, who is well known for his caution and conformism, was surprisingly firm and advised Pakistani leaders “in responsible positions … to exercise discretion when issuing statements that may undermine Kashmiri aspiration.” In his press statement he called upon the leaders for “a more nuanced approach to such a sensitive and emotive issue as freedom struggle of the people of Kashmir [which] will help lessen the public’s distrust of politicians” and demanded that the Kashmir conflict must be resolved prognosticating that any “attempts at conflict management will never succeed.”
The American ‘meddling’
The proverbial trio of Pakistan’s politics – Allah, Army and America seems to have been reconfigured in reverse order with the Americans enjoying on the top. The US influence is so powerful that they virtually seem to be running every aspect of Pakistani life as allowed by Musharraf in his last eight years of rule. They are said to have unacknowledged military basis, secret prisons and torture centres with powers to detain Pakistani citizens and thousands of secret agents running around in the country without any legal or bureaucratic fetters. This is the main reason that the Americans are against the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary who was adamant in upholding the law and wanted to know the fate of thousands that have gone missing in Musharraf’s regime with many of them ending up in secret American prisons and torture cells. The majority of the Pakistanis see the US and its War on Terror the main reason for problems in the tribal areas and resultant suicide bombings. Speaking at a Kashmir rally on 5 February in Lahore, Jama’at-e-Islami leader Liaqat Baloch “castigated President Musharraf for acting as a tool in the hands of Washington to make Pakistan a failed state as per US agenda.” Many also blame US pressure for Musharraf’s U-turn on Kashmir. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader, Dr Azim ud Din Zahid while speaking at a meeting to commemorate Kashmir Solidarity Day said “on the direction of the US administration, moral and financial help to Kashmiris was stopped”.
The American support for Musharraf - from sacking of the judges to the imposition of Emergency and tacit approval for his crackdown on the secular civil society has given rise to massive anger against the US. Such sentiments are no more confined to the Islamist fringe groups. As the first election results were out, former Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg called it a decision against America in his comment on Pakistani television channel Geo TV, saying that the next Prime Minister will be elected by the people of Pakistan and not by the US. Buoyed by the election results, when the calls for Musharraf’s resignation grew louder, the US Secretary of the State Condoleezza Rice openly came to the rescue of General Musharraf; “The President of Pakistan is Pervez Musharraf … And so, of course, we will deal with him. We will continue to pursue the American interests, which are for a stable and democratic Pakistan.”
Since the elections, the American influence in Pakistan has become more pronounced, open and corrosive. Soon after the results, it was a strange scene to see the American diplomats literally taking charge for the formation of the new government as well as trying to block potential political alliances. The American Ambassador in Islamabad, Anne W Patterson openly held meetings with the Pakistani politicians suggesting future role for Musharraf. On 25 March, the day the new Prime Minister Makhdoom Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was sworn in, the American presence in Islamabad was felt very strongly and raised a lot of suspicion that they are trying to hijack the democratic government. When the Pakistani politicians were busy in forming the new government, the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte along with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher held meetings with Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army Staff and top politicians of the new coalition government including Prime Minister Gilani, Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar called it ‘crude diplomacy’. In his comments with the leading Pakistani anchor Kamran Khan in Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Sath he accused the Americans of arm twisting. In the same programme, Pakistani analyst Shafqat Mehmood commented that Americans are showing the power and influence they have got in Pakistan. Frustrated by this brazen behaviour, Kamran Khan threw a general question at the Pakistani audience; “Where is our honour and dignity?”
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could not tolerate the US pressure on the Musharraf issue and he told the US delegation that he “considered Musharraf an unconstitutional and illegal head of state.” Sharif later told a press conference that the “new government would review Pakistan’s role in the War on Terror after holding a debate in the parliament and that Pakistan will not play in the US hands.”The timing of this visit by the US envoys caused outrage with the newspapers decrying the visit as ‘American meddling’. “Protestors in at least three cities burned the US flags and waved banners demanding the envoys to go home.” Leading English daily The Dawn titled its editorial about the visit as American Impatience terming the arrival of the US envoys “in indecent haste”, not “in keeping with diplomatic propriety” and calling its objective as “undesirable”. Another leading newspaper, The News urged the US officials to “restrain themselves in further meddling in Pakistan’s affairs.”
Given the US influence, its strong presence in the region and its closest ties with India, the new government would be severely restricted and limited in any approach that tries to deal with the Kashmir issue differently from the previous government, knowing the fact that the US is committed to pursue Pakistan to abandon Kashmir in totality.
‘National Consensus’ - The Balancing Act
As the anti-Musharraf political forces moved to centre stage, the Army Chief, who was considered a Musharraf ally also started to make more pronounced statements indicating a move from his predecessor’s policies. Therefore, when General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani made open references to ‘National Consensus’ on Kashmir, it was seen as an indication of a possible shift. During his visit to a forward location near the Line of Control (LoC) in Azad Kashmir on 12 February, General Kayani while addressing Army officers highlighted the ‘national consensus’ that exists on Kashmir and “reaffirmed commitment of Pakistan Army to the Kashmir cause, in line with aspirations of Pakistani nation.”
Kayani’s statement was widely hailed in Pakistan as well in Kashmir. Hurriyat Conference (G) Convenor “warmly welcomed the statement” and many Pakistani newspapers praised it in their editorials. The English daily Pakistan Observer in its editorial Kayani’s Solidarity with Kashmir Cause dated 14 February called his statement as reassuring “in the perspective of some statements in the recent past by certain political quarters which were disapproved by the people of Pakistan.” Observing that “the people of Pakistan and the armed forces during the last sixty years [have] had a strong commitment to the Kashmir cause”, it called the assurance by the COAS [Chief of the Army Staff] as “satisfying for the people of Pakistan as well as to the Kashmiris”, and hoped that “the new political leadership would keep the resolution of Kashmir issue as the top priority on its agenda while dealing on different issues with India.” Leading English daily The Nation in its editorial called the statement as heartening and “an index of the affinity all the jawans [soldiers] of our armed forces feel for the Kashmir cause.” The paper affirmed Kayani’s statement that there is a national consensus on the issue adding “all genuine political forces with mass appeal agree on the right of the people of Kashmir to choose their own destinies.”Criticizing Musharraf regime’s initiative of peace process, the newspaper observed; “All the miscalculated and overly conciliatory efforts of the regime have been met by Indian smugness and aggression every step of the way” and “sincerely hoped that these leaders can counter some of the damage done on this front by the previous leadership.” Another English daily The Post sought to link the Army Chief’s statement with the earlier statement of Asif Ali Zardari on Kashmir saying “General Kayani wished to set the record straight by reaffirming the army’s commitment to the Kashmir cause.”
The utility of General Kayani’s statement can be seen at multiple levels. There is a strong argument that because of the War on Terror and U-turn on Kashmir, the Army is unpopular and therefore it wants to get back into the good books of the people by latching on to Kashmir. Asserting the traditional stand on Kashmir, the Army could certainly help amend some of its tarnished image. There have been many public calls to the new Army Chief from various political and social quarters about many issues including Kashmir and the War on Terror. While General Kayani cannot afford to make a statement over the War on Terror, Kashmir remains the only plausible choice. This would certainly soften the image of army among the local people including Islamic fundamentalists who could thus be persuaded not to attack their own army. His statement could also be seen as a subtle rebuff to the US and an attempt to curtail their unwarranted and crude influence in the Pakistani affairs mainly Kashmir. By highlighting ‘consensus’, Kayani sought to place Kashmir in the centre of his nation’s conscience that cannot be bartered away under any outside pressure.
Another function of Kayani’s statement could be to re-assert the Army’s traditional role and authority on the matters of defence as well as Kashmir while the civilian government with a strong mandate has taken over. Previously, the Army has viewed any bonhomie of its politicians with India with suspicion. “Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was pilloried for being “pro-India” when she attempted to reach an understanding with her counterpart [Indian Prime Minister] Rajiv Gandhi in 1989. Her party was accused of being a “security risk” by the state’s intelligence agencies.” Similarly when “Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif … tried to reach out to his Indian counterpart Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1999 … the [Pakistan Army] …was busy executing its disastrous Kargil Operation in Kashmir.”
General Pervez Kayani sent another subtle but strong message about his priorities and persuasions. On Pakistan Day, 23 March, he hosted a reception in honour of the retired Army officers who attended in a large number. Many of these retired officers have publicly criticised Musharraf’s Kashmir policy and called for his resignation. Speaking at the occasion, the Army Chief reiterated that the “Army will always live up to the expectations of the nation”, clearly giving a message of defiance against Musharraf while at the same time seeking reconciliation with his nation.
Kashmiri Response
Pakistan has always been an important factor in the survival and existence of the Kashmiri political struggle. Whether rightly or wrongly, Pakistan has fired the imagination of Kashmiri people and despite the lack of uniformity in its approach, Pakistan remains a major emotional force for Kashmiris that is deeply embedded in their psyche. Commenting upon the recent elections and its effect on Kashmir, pro-India politician Mehbooba Mufti acknowledged the role and function of the symbol of Pakistan in the Kashmir’s socio-political landscape; “We have a sentimental and geographical affinity with Pakistan.”
However, this ’sentimental’ relationship touched nadir during General Musharraf’s rule. In the aftermath of 9/11, he not only gave up support for the Kashmiris’ freedom and self-determination, but also branded Kashmiri resistance as terrorists.The change meant that the Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’ in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir were hounded, tortured, arrested and even killed. In March 2006, the ISI arrested and threatened Syed Salahudin, the chief of Hizbul Mujahideen along with many other prominent Kashmiri resistance leaders who were protesting against Musharraf’s Kashmir policy.
[Murtaza Shibli is the Editor of Kashmir Affairs, London [www.kashmiraffairs .org]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
