Untold Facts

What ‘Punjabi’ Taliban?

It is not enough that Washington limit India’s role in Afghanistan, which expanded in the first place due to Bush administration’s double game with Pakistan. US policymaking circles need to be cleansed of the flawed theories on Pakistan and the region fed to US by Indian sources. There is no such thing as Pashtun Taliban or Punjabi Taliban. Beware Pakistanis. Washington and its allies in Islamabad are out to mislead you. There is one real Afghan Taliban and another fake one, the TTP [aka Indo-American Taliban]. By using the term Punjabi Taliban, they want to divide Pakistanis and get at some Kashmiri freedom groups that might be based in the plains of central and northern Pakistan.

South Waziristan is an Indian outpost on Pakistani soil with a religious version of Mukti Bahini in place, the terror militia created by India in 1969 before its full-fledged and unprovoked invasion of East Pakistan two years later. The similarity is in using proxies. This is not an outlandish theory but an emerging fact anchored in hundreds of pieces of information and intelligence that Pakistani security forces have gathered from the western strip of Pakistan stretching from Balochistan and all the way to the tribal agencies in the north.

To simplify this, let’s start with the series of attacks on Lahore in the past fifteen months.

Attacking Pakistan’s military and attacking Lahore has been an old Indian obsession. The link was first made by Indian analysts associated with Indian military and intelligence. They theorized that since Pakistan’s military is mostly drawn from Punjab province, it only makes sense that the best way to punish it for involvement in occupied Kashmir is to attack that part of Pakistan where the families of Pakistani military officers live. Indian propagandists have long been promoting this flawed line of thinking. Explaining Pakistan in lingo-ethnic terms is something New Delhi turned into an art form after 1971. That’s when it successfully exploited this lingo-ethnic card to invade East Pakistan. Our Indian friends later took the same idea to Soviet Moscow to encourage them to meddle in Balochistan and NWFP using Afghan soil.

But after 9/11, this flawed theory was taken by the Indians to a new place: Washington, along with the ideas of independent Balochistan, Pashtunistan and the alleged ‘lingo-ethnic’ divide in Pakistan. Some US powerbrokers took fancy to this theory. To cut a long story short, that’s how US media’s anti-Pakistan bias in the past five years was heavily tinged with this Indian theory on Pakistan. It is also one way of explaining why Afghanistan gradually turned into an anti-Pakistan territory and India was empowered at Pakistan’s expense despite being celebrated by US officials as a ‘major non-NATO ally.’

It is interesting to see an overlap between this Indian security mindset and the TTP. This so-called Pakistani Taliban group attacks the same targets today that New Delhi’s security establishment has been focused on for decades: the army and Lahore.

‘Punjabi Taliban’ is another misnomer that serves the same agenda of forcing Pakistanis to see one another through lingo-ethnic glasses. There is no such thing in Pakistan. Those Pakistanis who volunteered with the Afghan Taliban or with Kashmiri freedom groups during the 1990s came from all linguistic backgrounds [Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Pashtun, Urdu-speaking, and Balochs]. To lump all of them together in one ‘Punjabi’ Taliban is wrong and malicious.

It is also part of the indirect desire to attack the geographic position of the Punjab province, where much of Pakistan’s strategic installations and military units are based. It would also mean taking the war to the heart of Pakistani military’s base as defined by the Indians who see it as Punjab-focused.

Pakistan’s political and military leaders should tell their friends in Washington that freezing the expansion in India’s role in Afghanistan is not enough. It should be accompanied by a cleansing within US policymaking circles to remove the poisonous Indian theories on Pakistan that so many within the US academia and media have embraced. Washington should understand that strategies such as inserting pro-US elements into power in Islamabad to contain Pakistan from within won’t work. A better course of action is to genuinely understand and respect Pakistani strategic concerns and interests and work with them, not covertly undermine them when the time is right and grudgingly accept them when the tides are rough.

Pakistanis will also have to understand that they will pay a heavy price for insisting on securing their own interests in the region. And it’s not hard to identify the culprits. India won’t just roll over with punches. And there are lobbies in Washington that won’t simply let go of Afghanistan after experiencing the sweet taste of regional imperialism.

All terror in Pakistan is linked to South Waziristan, where Pakistanis are recruited, brainwashed and then used to kill other Pakistanis. South Waziristan has been turned into Pakistan’s Tibet or Xinjiang. Our strategists understand this. It is time for our public opinion to see this reality without the distortions created by the multimillion dollar media campaigns by foreign governments that want us to see our problems through their eyes.

Author: Ahmed Quraishi

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan

India Tightens its Stranglehold on Bangladesh

The colonization by India of Bangladesh is now in its final phase as the Indian puppet Prime Minister - Hasina Wazed – is complying with India’s orders unafraid of the military or the judiciary

The colonization by India of Bangladesh is now in its final phase as the Indian puppet Prime Minister Hasina Wazed – is complying with India’s orders unafraid of the military or the judiciary. The military has been restrained in performing its statutory role to safeguard the national interest as RAW demonstrated its hold on the country in the Peelkhana massacre of Army officers and rapes of their wives by BDR personnel in which Awami League ministers were complicit; the Prime Minister herself gave the rebels three days of time to surrender – time enough for murderers and rapists to escape and some of them even to go abroad while the government spokesmen were creating a smoke screen blaming the Islamists for the massacre. No wonder the senior officers of the military are afraid they might be dismissed or murdered by RAW agents if they are suspected to be patriots unafraid of India.

The judiciary of Bangladesh has shown that it will also obey India’s wishes as a Supreme Court Bench, which had two Hindu members, upheld the death sentences awarded to the patriotic young officers who over-threw the government of Sheikh Mujib on 15 August 1975. (Sheikh Mujib is seen as a traitor worse than Mir Jaffer who also became the ruler of Bengal as reward for cooperating with the enemy – the British). The courts ignored the fact that these officers had acted as commanders of their units and should have been tried by a court martial. They also ignored the law of ‘double jeopardy’ as the case of these officers had been considered and they had been given pardon and immunity from prosecution by a constitutional amendment. Hasina Administration has shown its obsequiousness to Indian interests also by handing over ULFA leaders to India even though there is no extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh.

With the Armed Forces and the Judiciary so intimidated ‘new realities’ are being created quick and fast to prevent any future government of Bangladesh to be able to say ‘no’ to anything that India asks. The construction of Tipaimukh Dam is one; more agreements and contracts to tie Bangladesh to India are in the pipeline. It is once again time that the armed forces rise to guard national interests: 1) hold an impartial inquiry into Peelkhana massacre and the role of RAW and the Awami League in it; 2) declare the trial of the officers who carried out the coup d’état in Bangladesh on 15 August 1975 to be unlawful being in violation of the principle of ‘double jeopardy’: 3) hold the Awami League Government to account for handing over ULFA leaders to India: 4) take the case of Tipaimukh Dam to the UN and the ICJ.

Unlike the past wars, which were fought with tanks and guns, war today is carried out by subversion and imposition of puppet rulers. Bangladesh is one country created entirely by clandestine operations by RAW with military force being used in the final stages in 1971. When the people of Bangladesh realised that their alleged redeemer – Sheikh Mujib – had been an Indian agent, they rose in rebellion against him. He was gunned down in a popular coup d’état carried out by young officers, none above the rank of Major, on 15 August 1975. Sadly for Bangladesh, India saw the popular coup d’etat as its defeat and it has been engaged in reversing it impact ever since. There was counter coup d’état led by Major General Khalid Musharraf in November the same year. The troops believed India was behind the new coup. They reacted spontaneously en masse, lynched Khalid Musharraf, and restored General Zia ur Rehman (who had been removed by Khalid Mushharaf) as the COAS. Zia ruled Bangladesh effectively for a decade – some of the time as a dictator and most of the time as an elected President – until he was himself assassinated by military officers in Chittagong. Today, the daughter of one slain President Sheikh Mujib – Hasina Wazed – is the leader of the ruling Awami League and Begum Khaleda Zia, wife of the other slain President Zia ur Rehman, is the leader of the opposition.
Both ladies have won elections twice and served as Prime Ministers but neither has been able to shake off the legacy of blood that hangs over Bangladesh. Support or intervention by the military is still the only means by which a government secures legitimacy. Bangladesh was liberated by a ‘liberation war’ fought primarily by deserters from the Pakistan Army. East Pakistani soldiers killed their erstwhile comrades from West Pakistan; there was no mutiny. just murders. Yet this is called ‘War of Liberation. It was fratricide cleverly conceived by India to make the secession of Bangladesh irreversible. The officers’ who carried out the coup d’état on 15 August 1975 were all ‘freedom fighters’ who had served in the Pakistan Army with distinction. They were led to believe that it was right for them to fight their erstwhile comrades for they represented ‘oppressive rule of West Pakistan’. Imagine how they felt when they found that the self proclaimed father of the nation was in cahoots with Indian Intelligence to bring about the defeat of Pakistan’s armed forces and destruction of their country the movement for which was started by the Muslims of Bengal. They, not the politicians who collaborated with the enemy and were in Calcutta or West Pakistan for the duration of the war, were the liberators of Bangladesh. If it was right for them to fight allegedly oppressive rule by West Pakistan they had much more reason and duty to rid the country of a traitor masquerading as a leader under the shadow of Indian guns. If ever there was a coup d’état that was for the good of the state this was one.

The shadow of India has loomed large during the rule of both ladies. When RAW has control over the levers of power, the Awami League wins; when RAW sees Indian rule to be widely resented, it allows the BNP to win. The military has been the power behind the throne under both the ladies. The military officers, because of their role and statutory obligations, are patriotic and look at India with mixture of fear, disdain and apprehension. That disturbs India because its civilian puppet is always uneasy in power and not able to deliver. What India wants is Hindus or its collaborators in key places. India has now set about doing just that.

Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) are civil armed forces – organised and equipped like the infantry, commanded by military officers on secondment from the Army, but paid by the scales of the police because their role is that of border police. There is a relationship of tension between the BDR and the Army. BDR is in closer contact with civil administration as it is deployed and used to reinforce the police without reference to the Army HQ. Credit should be given to India that it created and exploited the situation for soldiers to murder their own officers thus sowing such fear and suspicion that the entire edifice of discipline crumbled. Today the officers in the armed forces officers court the favour of India for their promotions and appointments even survival. Bangladesh pays the salaries of the members of the armed forces but it is India that controls it. The organisation that is the symbol as well as the custodian of the sovereignty of the state does not work for the state but its hostile neighbour. Even the states inside India enjoy more autonomy than Bangladesh. That country is controlled from Delhi but has no representative there. The Indian High Commissioner is the viceroy of India in its colony Bangladesh.

The judiciary is the custodian of peoples’ rights – life, liberty and livelihood. Until recently, it had a good record. But it has been under pressure to execute the death sentences awarded by a kangaroo court that was especially composed to ensure it would over-ride all legitimate objections. The universal ‘law of double jeopardy’ that disallows any one to be tried for the same offence more than once has been blatantly ignored. These officers had been given pardon which was authenticated by a constitutional amendment. It was the right for the parliament to do because these officers had not acted for any personal reason or benefit but in the interest of the state. The high judiciary withheld the go ahead on executions for good reasons of public good. After the BDR massacre, the Awami League felt confident that it could get away with the executions as the public feels so unprotected by the institutions of the state that the government can literally get away with murder.

India’s plan for the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam has been made public as the puppet rulers of Bangladesh are expected to stay mute in the face of such diabolical Indian excesses. Built on River Barak, the dam is part of its most dangerous scheme against the economy of Bangladesh. Those who felt that having an Indian puppet as a ruler provided some protection against the worst excesses of India have been disabused of the illogical belief. India started it bloodless war against Bangladesh when it constructed the Farakka Barrage on the Indian side of the Ganges River to stop flow of water to Bangladesh. Despite the protest of Dhaka, Indian rulers used various delaying tactics to avoid resolving the issue. Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) met many a times to settle the issue, but could not produce any positive results. In April 1975, India assured that it would not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between New Delhi and Dhaka on sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of 40,000 cusecs during the dry season.

After the assassination of Sheik Mujib’s, India exploited the situation and diverted all of the 40,000 cusecs of water. The matter was brought to the attention of UN General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a resolution directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. But the JRC statistics shows that Bangladesh did not get her due share. After Sheikh Hasina was first elected Prime Minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on December 12, 1996. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. But New Delhi has continued to violate the treaty by using more than its share of the water of the river. The JRC report of March 9, 2009 revealed that from 1999 to 2009, India intermittently reduced the water flow to Bangladesh.

A study conducted in the US by Bridge and Husain, identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning of groundwater in Bangladesh. While cries of anguish over Farakka Barrage remained unheeded, the proposed construction of Tipaimukh Dam in the neighbouring Manipur state is another Indian water-bomb. The Tipaimukh multipurpose hydel project on Barak River is located about 200 km upstream of the border of Bangladesh. A Bangladesh delegation led by Abdur Razzaq, chairman of the standing committee of the parliament on water resources, held a meeting with Indian Power Minister Sushilkumar Shinde. He was told that the “Tipaimukh project is not an irrigation project or a water diversion scheme; it is a hydel project and in no way will harm Bangladesh’s interest.” In fact, just as in the case of Farakka, India is lying in trying to satisfy Dhaka by false assurances.

Tipaimukh Dam would affect the already precarious livelihood of millions making them internally displaced persons. In the light of New Delhi’s record over agreements on Farakka Barrage, Bangladesh cannot trust any new promise. If India wants to meet energy needs of its people, it can better do so through nuclear power plants. But India appears determined to build the Tipaimukh Dam as part of its effort to tighten its stranglehold over Bangladesh. Tempers are rising in Bangladesh as India does not appear to care that its lackeys (Awami League) is the ruling party in Bangladesh. It is evident that role of lackeys is not to obtain concessions from India but to give in to every thing India seeks without even a whimper in protest and suppressing public protests instead.

Author: Sajjad Shaukat and Usman Khalid
Source: Lisa Journal, UK

Zardari & Geelani: Who are they Working for? India?

Every time the Afghan President in dressing gown visits Pakistan, the people become very apprehensive. Who does this fellow - Karzai - represent? Not Afghans! Who does he work for? Not Afghanistan! He will be on the first plane out of Afghanistan when the US withdrawal, if its disorderly, begins. Why is President Zardari so eager to please him? Does he want to secure a seat on the same plane? But it does not matter what either of them wants because the people of Pakistan see Zardari’s role to be to frustrate every effort to safeguard Pakistan’s national interests and to advance India’s agenda.

Pakistan’s military has with some consistency argued that the Americans can make a dignified withdrawal from Afghanistan only if Pakistan helps. Generals Petraeus and MacChrystal now agree with General Kiani and they are writing a narrative which makes that possible. But India is very upset and is acting the role of a spoiler. Even in its ‘strategic partnership’ with erstwhile USSR, all the damage was suffered by the Soviet Union while India walked away un-blamed from the disastrous Soviet exit from Afghanistan. Typical of its past conduct, India wants the USA to dig in and ‘tough it out’ but is not ready to send fighting formations to Afghanistan. India needs the US presence to continue its support to the Baloch and TTP terrorists. That is all it cares about.

It is clear what India wants whereas Pakistan is working with the Americans to bring a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. But what do (President) Zardari and (Prime Minister) Geelani want? Geelani, typically, usually does not know what he wants, drags his feet for a while to make public show of defiance, and then submits to the wish of Zardari. This ‘Punch and Judy show’ has been mildly amusing when it comes to ‘minor matters’ like load shedding that has blighted the industry; like precipitous decline in the value of Rupee, declining exports and rising imports; like stealing of billions from public sector corporations by Zardari appointed kleptomaniacs in charge. But it is in foreign policy that the most damage – largely irreversible - is being done to Pakistan’s national interests.

Messrs Zardari and Geelani do not even understand the question on policy matters let alone provide answers or give guidance. The military was able to sideline India over Afghanistan because its role is that of a spoiler. But Karzai promptly turned up in Islamabad to secure endorsement of an Indian role in Afghanistan. Not just that, the Punch and Judy ‘duo’ are prepared to facilitate the Indian role. They have privately told India that they will not oppose India getting a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Until now, Pakistan had not just objected but mobilised opposition to a seat for India until ‘it implements the UN Security Council Resolutions on Kashmir.’ Who are these people? Who is the ‘duo’ working for? Clearly it is for the archenemy India!

As if that was not bad enough the Minister of Railway, one Mr Billor from ANP - protégés of India of long standing – has said that he is going to move a resolution in the parliament to allow SAARC to be connected by rail with Central Asia through Afghanistan. Thankfully, the insurrection in FATA makes that impossible, but the readiness of the ruling coalition parties in Pakistan, all of who are pro-India, to allow Indian vehicles through passage into Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond, is mind boggling. Has India decided to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir? Has India decided not to build dams on Rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus in Jammu and Kashmir? What has India done to deserve so many favours from the ‘duo’? It just could not be pressure from the USA not to defend Pakistan against military or water aggression by India! That is of long standing; that is not a change.

I am reminded of a research paper by ‘Global Research’ of Toronto, Canada, which was printed in LISA Journal two years ago. In this paper Professor Michel Chossudovsky stated that the objective (from 2008 Elections in Pakistan) of the USA is: 1) to install a government in Pakistan that does not care about national interests, and 2) which allows Pakistan to suffer the fate of Yugoslavia under pressure from a demand for “Provincial Autonomy”. It appears that Zardari’ is under pressure to deliver. He has to deliver on 1) ‘economic collapse’, 2) break-down of law and order, and 3) ‘Provincial Autonomy’ that propel Pakistan towards chaos and disintegration. Zardari has made sure that energy crisis is exacerbated by the day leading to fall in industrial production and exports and ballooning balance of payment deficit. It has to be deliberate because solution to the energy crisis was simple. All that was needed was to address the issue of ‘circular’ debt; restart closed down thermal power plants; provide electricity without load shedding; provide gas to industry and power plants; carry out load shedding of gas to domestic users for as much as 20 hours a day providing gas only for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. It is not rocket science and yet it is not being done. The sabotage of industry is indeed deliberate and Zardari-Geelani Administration is culpable.

The Government has not deployed the arguments that al-Qaeda and TTP are Takfiri; like the Khawarji before them, they are the instruments of kufr. On the contrary, the Government has allowed JI, JUI, and TI to decry Pakistan as the agents of kufr i.e, America. The law and order minister – Rehman Malik – does look and behave like the agent of kufr thus giving some credibility to the Takfiri argument. But the real test of Zardari-Geelani Administration would come perhaps this month when a consensus on constitutional amendments at Committee Stage would come before the parliament. That would show if the MQM-ANP view of provincial autonomy has been accommodated. If it is, Pakistan would be ready to follow the example of Yugoslavia. However, it is unclear yet if the Obama Administration has indeed changed its policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan and is ready to give non-military measures a chance with a view to stay in Afghanistan and have some influence over Central Asia. But it is quite clear that India wants the ISAF to keep fighting in Afghanistan so that India can continue to use its soil for clandestine operations against Pakistan.

It was not just Hamid Karzai who is pleading India’s case, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried to outflank Pakistan and warm up towards Saudi Arabia. The objectives of India are not mysterious. India plays its card of 150 million Muslims in that country very skilfully but has not been confronted with the cries of anguish that India keeps muted by portraying the Muslims as terrorists and thus successfully terrorising them into submitting to structural unemployment, alienation, repression and social decline. India may want to buy oil from Saudi Arabia which is no bad thing. But India wants to pay for it by Saudi investment in India. No one has made money by investing in India – not even America. Indian companies like Tata and Mittal Steel have become big in UK and Europe by transferring their capital outside. It would be very foolish Arab who saw investment in India to be secure let alone lucrative. But the effort to lure the Arab capital to India is being led by Jewish banks in the USA because decline in economic prospects of North America has made every investor wary of investment in the USA. The Arabs have better beware; the trap is being set by the experts – the Jews.

The most pressing problems of Pakistan spring from the Zardari-Geelani administration being unwilling as well as unable to safeguard Pakistan’s interests. They are on probation and the people are watching how they deal with India over Afghanistan, Kashmir and the issue of water of river flowing into Pakistan from Kashmir. Militarily, India is not a bigger problem than what Pakistan has faced and defeated in FATA and NWFP. After all, India is not stronger than the USA and the Kashmiris are not as friendless as the resistance in Afghanistan. Those who say there is no military solution to the problem of River water and Kashmir should look at the example set by the USA. When your national interests are at stake, be ready to fight. If you are not, the enemy would not be softened by flattery, concessions or begging. The answer to clever tricks of India is to confront them with risk of war. ++

Author: Brigadier (retd) Usman Khalid
The writer is Director of London Institute of South Asia.

India Challenges Pakistan, on New Turfs

Last week witnessed profound changes to the complex and delicate South Asian strategic calculus, which despite the diplomatic niceties being exchanged between the foreign secretaries of New Delhi and Islamabad, clearly reflect the alarming direction of Indian strategic ambitions and warrant a thoughtful and thorough review of Pakistan’s national security doctrine.

Firstly, in an unprecedented high-level effort to discover a common ground in Afghanistan with Saudi Arabia, Manmohan Singh paid a historic visit to Saudi Arabia and in return for isolating Pakistan in the hectic multi-lateral diplomatic efforts currently afoot, offered Riyadh large-scale Indian investment and oil contracts. Commenting audaciously on the first visit by an Indian prime minister to the Saudi Kingdom in 28 years, Shashi Tharoor, the Indian Minister of State for External affairs, publicly suggested that India should ask Saudi Arabia to pressurise Pakistan regarding its Afghan policy.

Secondly, despite both overt and covert US prodding, the recent foreign secretary level Indo-Pak talks yielded only an unequivocal Indian refusal to restart the stalled composite dialogue and were conspicuous by the absence of both desire and effort on either side to go beyond reiteration of their historical positions.

In addition, already the fourth largest military spender in the world, India raised its defence budget to an unprecedented level of 32 billion dollars, within a day of Pakistani Foreign Secretary’s criticism of Indian ambitious military modernisation programme as a threat to the stability of a ‘nuclearized South Asia’.

Whilst the Indian Foreign Secretary was entertaining the Pakistani delegation at the Hyderabad House, the Indian Air Force was busy conducting a massive firepower demonstration (FPD) ahead of the ‘Vayu Shakti-2010′ at the Chandan Air-to-Air Range at Pokhran in Rajasthan, only miles away from the Pak-India border. One wonders if the Indo-Pak peace talks are anything to go by, who are these large-scale military deployments and exercises, held so close to the Pakistani border, aimed at.

From the Pakistani perspective, a very interesting and significant component of these Indian Air Force exercises were the IAF’s Special Forces Para-drop operations, aimed at neutralising a terrorist camp inside enemy territory, watched by no less than 30 defence attaches of different countries, minus of course Pakistan and China. Other targets included mock radar sites, tanks, marshalling yards, terrorist camps, runways, infantry fighting vehicles, blast pens and convoys.

This high-tech exercise constitutes day and night operations of the IAF frontline fighters, such as the Su-30 MK1, Mirage-2000, Jaguar, Mig-29 and Mig-21; the transport aircraft include AN-32, Embraer and IL-76, while Mi-17 and Mi-35 attack helicopters represent the rotary wing ingredient. Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is also deployed to monitor these exercises and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) provide a live stream of video images of the target identification, engagement and destruction.

During his recent Indian visit, the Pakistani foreign secretary wisely took the opportunity to warn India that “New war doctrines, a tremendous boost to defence spending and the induction of new sophisticated weapons systems, are prejudicial to regional security and stability.” However, the world also needs to realise that Indian defence policy and mammoth military spending, do not add up with peaceful objectives and betray the ambitions of a regional hegemony, which is determined to waste the wealth of its poor majority not on their welfare but towards browbeating its smaller neighbours. Meanwhile, New Delhi is also forging close strategic ties with Washington and Riyadh, two of Islamabad’s vital allies, apparently at Pakistan’s expense.

It seems that in the absence of a clear threat or provocation from any neighbouring state, Indian coercive diplomatic posturing, aggressive doctrinal orientation and large scale conventional and strategic military muscle flexing will force Pakistan to depart from its policy of ‘minimum credible deterrence’ towards developing a robust second strike capability, in the form of an elaborate triad of nuclear delivery systems, to foreclose all Indian conventional and strategic options. Moreover, Islamabad should use the forums of UN and SCO to consolidate its diplomatic position over Afghanistan. Pakistan desires a peaceful neighbourhood but if India understands only the language of power politics, then so be it. In the interest of regional peace and security, Pakistan must and will make it understand just that.

Author: Syed Muhammad Ali

Afghanistan: The Marjah operations

Marjah is a part of Nad Ali district in Helmand province, Afghanistan. It has 80,000 population and the district headquarter of Nad Ali is situated in Marjah town. Though it is not the main stronghold of the Taliban, it should be noted that its proximity to the Iranian and the Pakistani borders of Baluchistan is intriguing.

So, its location was a factor of consideration when chosen by the US and coalition forces for military operations rather than Washer and Baghiran areas in Helmand province, which are also under control of the Taliban.

Earlier on January 30 this year, Eikenberry, US ambassador to Afghanistan, told reporters that the US and the NATO troops would launch massive operations in Helmand and Kandahar simultaneously, but they chose only Marjah.

Since last Saturday, February 13, 2010, when the operations began, 120 Taliban militants are reported to have been killed, according to the Afghan government and coalition forces. The Taliban, however, do not confirm the accounts. Instead, they claim to have killed more than 25 foreign troops and have downed two predator planes.

Similarly, many civilians have lost their lives in missiles and mortar atacks by coalition forces. Spokespersons of foreign troops put their casualties at 11 soldiers and still counting.

According to media reports, 60 helicopters are taking part in the operation beside 15,000 troops, including the mighty IED-busting 65-ton Trojan tank called The “Swiss Army Knife.” It is built to cut through the harshest of terrains with its monster tool kit

On the basis of human rights organizations, more than 10,000 families have fled Marjah to take refuge in Khash Rod district of neighboring Nimroz province and other parts of Helmand.

According to General Sher Mohammad Zazi, commander of the joint operations, 500-600 Taliban are puting up resistance in Marjah. But, Taliban sources say their number is 1,000 militants. Many of the Taliban groups from northern and southern provinces of Afghanistan have joined them and are now fighting with them.

The Taliban claim that they are still in control of Marjah and put invitation on their website, calling on independent media outlets to visit Marjah to verify that they are still in control. On the first day of the operations, the coalition forces had a spectacular advancement, taking Marjah district headquarter and city markets, but on the following day, the advancement slowed down. Small mobile teams of the armed Taliban and their suicide bombers bounced back, encircling the area.

Now, they repeatedly atack US and Afghan troops with rockets, snipers, and rocket-propelled grenade besides ambushing columns of mine-clearing vehicles, close to the main road of Marjah.

British major general Nick Carter told reporters at the Pentagon via satellite that it would take one month to clear Marjah and 3 months to judge whether the operations were successful or not He said the coalition was facing “stiff resistance” from Taliban small groups.

According to the Afghan government, two thousand police men from the Afghan National Police (ANP) will remain in Marjah to ensure that the Taliban do not return and will start reconstruction work.

But the UN announcing (that they will not participate in the reconstruction in Marjah when the operations are over) came as a hard blow to the Pentagon efforts to win hearts and minds of the local people.

After the London conference on January 28, a trust fund was established with 140 million pledges from donor countries to initiate reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban.

Germany also allocated EUR 20 million for reconciliation in the country, but the Taliban’s leadership council rejected the offer by issuing a statement:

“The defeated invaders should know that their ploys and wiles would not have any achievement to deceive the freedom-loving people of Afghanistan. The invaders have no option but to put an end to the occupation of our country and soil.”

Instead, the Taliban called on Americans to release Taliban prisoners and remove their names from the UN blacklist as a first step for reconciliation.

Washington believes that Marjah operations are necessary to put pressure on the Taliban to come to the table of negotiation and to boost the American position in negotiations.

Some observers believe that the US wants to install some surveillance equipment in Marjah to monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment program. After the failure of the recent efforts by Washington to dissuade Tehran from following its uranium enrichment program, the White House is considering a new package of restrictions on Iran.

So, Washington wants, on the one hand, to put pressure on the Taliban to accept reconciliation on the government terms and, on the other hand, would like to tighten the noose around Tehran by stationing its forces closer to the Iranian border.

On February 1 this year, Afghan president Karzai met King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to request help in bringing the Taliban to dialogue. He also called on the Pakistani government to play their role as mediators between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

On the other hand, Washington now has adopted a two-pronged process: reintegration and reconciliation. By reintegration, they mean to lure away Taliban ranks by giving them cash incentives, job opportunities, and retirement bonuses. By reconciliation, they mean to start dialogue with the leadership of the Taliban.

However, the Afghan government and foreign countries, which have military presence in Afghanistan, have not agreed on a unanimous strategy for reconciliation with the Taliban.

Even, in the Kabul government, some members of the northern alliance whom hold top government positions consider Taliban as their real enemy and not Al-Qaeda. They do not want them to have a share in the government Hence, they are one of the main hurdles in the way of the negotiation with the Taliban.

Earlier, the Afghan government had nominated Arif Noorzai, former minister of tribal affairs of the Karzai cabinet, to conduct negotiation with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan, but had no pragmatic results because without the participation of the Taliban, talks with Hekmatyar will not pay off, even if an agreement is reached.

The reconciliation process should be Afghanized. The Kabul government should be empowered to take independent decision regarding reconciliation. He further says, the US, EU, and the Kabul government should work out a unanimous strategy. This will create an atmosphere of confidence for reconciliation talks to take place.

Since 2001, American and British forces have launched 15 operations in Helmand province. Previously, the Taliban were fighting like a regular army, which caused them huge casualties because of the US and the NATO aerial bombardment But, now, they have turned to guerilla tactics and are organized in small mobile decentralized groups, which ambush coalition forces repeatedly.

With this tactic, the Taliban would be able to extend the Marjah operations until next spring. Other Taliban militants from Afghan provinces, who join the Taliban groups in Marjah from time to time, will keep the momentum high enough to engage the American and British troops there.

Finally, the “together” operations will go into oblivion, like operations Khanjar (Strike of the Sword) and the Panther’s Claw launched in Helmand province in July last year.

As to reconciliation, without a unanimous strategy and confidence-building measures, the reconciliation talks will not proceed. So, before any talks to begin, both sides should create conducive atmosphere of trust and confidence. Then, they can proceed to second phase, which is negotiation for peace.

Author: Suhail Shaheen
(Source IslamOnline. Thewriter in a Former Chief Editor of the Kabul Times)

Salman Bashir’s Kashmir Talk: A Point of Concern

(Foreign Secretary Slaman Bashir, unlike his political bosses, was articulate and professional in his performance before the Press in Delhi. But the important issue is: did he have a brief that departs from the stand of Kashmiris and Pakistanis who view the issue as one of ‘right of self-determination’ not of human rights or any other vague peripheral rights. I am glad that the Kashmiris noticed and are resolute not to allow Pakistan to compromise their right of self-determination. + Usman Khalid +)

Mr Salman Bashir, Foreign Secretary, Government of Pakistan held a press conference in New Delhi at the conclusion of foreign secretary level meeting held between India and Pakistan on 25/02/2010. A little earlier, his Indian counter part, Nirupama Rao also addressed the press, saying we talked about Kashmir but very briefly. Salman Bashir (henceforth SB), later said he disagrees with that, and that Kashmir was discussed at length. We are not going to analyze the results of this secretary level meeting, nor make any judgments about its success or otherwise, the purpose of this brief write-up is to seek the attention of readers towards what seemed to me a sort of contradiction or incoherence in SB’s press briefing. It was not an explicit contradiction, certainly not a contradiction between his utterances, and, therefore, was not easily notable. However, some contradiction, incoherence or inconsistency, whatever you may choose to call it, did definitely exist. It was subtle, and so, to my mind, very serious. This is what I call a point of concern, and its meaning will become clear as we move on.

It should be noted at the outset, that SB’s performance at the press meet was absolutely professional, and highly impressive. He understood very well what he was being asked and answered most appropriately. Particularly to a question from an Indian journalist asking him why Pakistan was not moving bulk of its forces from eastern border to the western given the fact that Pakistan’s military was now actively engaged on that front, SB gave a reply which to my understanding could not have been more precise, meaningful, polished and diplomatic. (It might be well worth one’s time and effort to look for the transcript of this press briefing for a better appreciation of what I am saying).

This was not a policy statement, so we will not look at it in terms of Pakistan’s official position on Kashmir, our interest is more profound, and concerns much deeper and wider. It is in that sense that we believe President’s speech deserves to be put in the perspective, and accordingly appreciated. By saying what has been mentioned above, the President has caught the bull by horn, and has very succinctly captured the essence of Pakistan’s commitment to Kashmir.

Now coming to the contradiction referred to above, let us note that whatever SB spoke at the press meet was precisely measured, targeted at an audience with a purpose, as all such press briefings typically are, and his choice of words was very careful. He talked about so many things, and while we can analyze each and every bit separately, we can treat the whole press briefing as one single event aimed at conveying a message, articulating a position, a stand. After all that is the essence of such events. It was heartening to see, and was absolutely clear that the message given out by SB’s press conference was one of Pakistan’s defiance in face of India’s bullying. Pakistan was standing its ground, ready to talk about anything as an equal sovereign interlocutor of India. This is what cumulatively was the impact of all that SB said. So far so good, but it is here that one can start looking for the inconsistency I am talking about. As is clear, for this press briefing to have created a single effect, it was absolutely necessary that all the individual utterances of SB should have been in full harmony with each other, which by and large was the case. However, two elements did not seem to cohere with each other, with one of these elements violating the overall spirit of the briefing. Both the points are about Kashmir. Let us briefly explain this now.

First Element: SB made it absolutely clear that Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan, and has been so for the past 62 years. He almost repeated it in different contexts, and in response to different questions, he firmly stood his ground. Now, this was one of the two elements, and it was in complete harmony with the spirit of the briefing.

Second Element: What was the other element? It was what SB said regarding the situation in occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan’s support to the people there who he said were fighting for their ‘rights’. SB stopped short of saying, and that is the crux of the whole matter, ‘right of self-determination’. He deliberately chose, as one would tend to believe, the word ‘rights’ instead of the much used, and, therefore, familiar phrase ‘right of self-determination’. He further elaborated it by saying that people should have the right of free movement from one part of Kashmir to another.

The Contradiction: One could justifiably construe this as Pakistan’s climb down from its standard position on Kashmir, but that contradicts the overall spirit of SB’s press interaction. Sending a message of defiance, as SB’s press meet sought to do, effectively articulates Pakistan’s standard position on Kashmir. After all, Kashmir is the barometer where one can read the relative positions of Pakistan and India vis-à-vis each other. So one cannot say this signifies a departure, but certainly, it creates a problem, does not harmonise with the message SB was giving to his hosts and the world at large. That is why I prefer to call it contradiction rather than departure. If the question is simply of the rights, why should Pakistan talk about it? Does Pakistan talk about the rights of the deprived millions in India for whom the Nexalite, Maoist, and Dalit movements claim to be speaking? It defies logic: If Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan, what is the issue there? Fortunately, there is not much room for ‘creativity’ here, as SB himself said, and absolutely rightly, one cannot be dismissive about this issue. This is the title page of the recent post-British south Asian history. Talk of Pakistan, Kashmir will come up, talk of India, you are talking of Kashmir. The point I want to make here is that when Pakistan talks to India about Kashmir (regardless of whether the word ‘core issue’ is mentioned or not), the clock gets automatically reset to 1947, everything becomes manifest, the fact and reality of the Kashmir issue shows up in a crystal clear way, no party or state versions, but the issue as it factually is, becomes absolutely clear. When SB talked about Kashmir as the main issue standing in the way of normalisation of ties between India and Pakistan, he might have uttered a few words, but it meant volumes to any one in his normal senses, whether a genius, a rocket-scientist or not.

It harmonises with the rest of what he said, and creates one single effect. But when he asks his hosts that Kashmiri people should be given their ‘rights’, and includes the right of free travel between two Kashmirs in that, he is indirectly defining the issue, and bringing it to a level where it defies common sense why it should be an issue so central to Indo-Pak relations. Actually, one fails to understand then, why there should be any discord in the first place at all. The discord arises only when Pakistan insists on sovereign equality, a claim that is integrally bound to its position on Kashmir, and cannot sustain if that position is given up. SB’s talk of sovereign equality at the press briefing and an overall position of defiance cannot go hand in hand with his reference to the struggle in Kashmir as a struggle for ‘rights’. The message of defiance or firmness, as SB’s press meet sought to gave, would then lack credibility and also meaning. Not that it will mean any bad thing like surrender, climb down, etc. etc.; it will not mean anything at all.

***

Author: Dr. Syed M Inayatullah Andrabi
From: Occupied Kashmir

The misery on our faces

We were Muslims in 1947; we are Muslims now. There is a difference, however. Today we wear our religion on our sleeves and shout it from the housetops.

Times may be hard but why add to the sum of national misery? Some of our afflictions, like the economic downturn and the war raging along the Afghan frontier, may be beyond anyone’s control. But some are entirely self-created.

We are not a police state in the political sense of the term. This is not a country behind any kind of iron curtain and, the notoriety of our intelligence services notwithstanding, we do not have anything like the East German Stasi prying into every aspect of national life. We have one of the freest media in the Islamic world. Our kind of talk shows would not be permitted in most Muslim countries.
While we should count our blessings we should not forget that in the social sense this is a very repressed society.

The pity of it is that it wasn’t always like this. Once upon a time mosque and tavern stood side by side (in a metaphorical sense of course) and even as they did, no one said Islam was in danger. How distant that time seems.

We were Muslims in 1947; we are Muslims now. There is a difference, however. Today we wear our religion on our sleeves and shout it from the housetops.

Protesting too much about anything betrays a sense of insecurity. An honest man, not given to self-righteousness, feels no necessity to proclaim his honesty. An honest woman, normally, does not protest her virtue — unless there be the memory of a past sitting uneasily on her conscience.
Just as Italy will always be Catholic, and just as there will always be a Pope in the Vatican, we will be Muslims until the end of time. This is our destiny, something that we were born into. So what is there to be so worked up about? Hinduism stood in danger at the hands of Islam. Islam in the sub-continent was never threatened by Hinduism.

But if someone were to read our Constitution, with its repetitive references to Islam, or if someone were to read our court judgments wherein our learned judges are hard put not to deliver extended lectures on Islam, or if someone were to hear political speeches being delivered at public meeting where references to the faith are virtually endless, he/she would come away convinced that here was a people in perpetual fear of something dreadful happening to their faith.

The problems we were called upon to solve at our birth were political and economic in nature: temporal problems, secular problems, not problems of the hereafter. We solved some, failed to solve others. But every time we ran into difficulties, we retreated into the bosom of extraneous issues, seeking comfort under the banner of Islam. This has been an extreme form of national escapism.
Soon after independence we should have been able to frame a constitution. But our attempts at constitution-making were sidetracked by a never-ending debate about the role of Islam in our collective life. It was amidst the cacophony of this debate that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly.

What is this Resolution? Read it and it is hard to escape the impression that it is a tribute to needless rhetoric. Many years later, Gen Ziaul Haq, not famous as a respecter of constitutions, made the Resolution a substantive part of the 1973 Constitution, his move another Islamisation gimmick at which he was so good. Since Zia, many parliaments have come and gone. None thought it fit to do away with his constitutional innovations.

The people of East Pakistan were as good or bad Muslims as we in the West. They had issues with us regarding language, the sharing of political power, the distribution of national resources. Not being able to address those issues we discovered to our cost in 1970-71 that religion alone was not enough of a force to keep the country together. Just as we are discovering today that religion alone is irrelevant to the grievances of Balochistan.

Today we present the picture not of a house divided — which would be too harsh an indictment — but of a fractured society. The share of other faiths in our population is miniscule. We are an overwhelmingly Muslim country. But if we are still a fractured society, this should give us pause to think whether our problems are related to religion or other things.

If our cities are unclean we need better municipal services. Islamabad is dotted with mosques, large and small, which is a very good thing because at least it shows that while we may not be serious about other things, eternity figures high in the list of our preoccupations. But how does it help to have a capital which even after 50 years of its founding does not have an adequate system of solid waste disposal?

Islamabad should have been a model city in more senses than one. The city should have meandered around the many clear water springs flowing down from the Margalla Hills. Today there is not one which is not a monument to pollution. There are schools in this capital city for the rich and poor. At least here we could have experimented with a uniform education system. One can go on and on about Islamabad but that’s not the point of this journey.

The problems of Pakistan will not be fixed overnight. My generation can now write its epitaph. It has failed this country by not providing the leadership and direction needed. We could not set out on the golden road to Samarkand. We lacked the imagination for it and no doubt the vigour of action. But we are not unique on the planet. Every place has its problems, in many cases worse than ours. We stand alone in making our problems worse by shackling ourselves in fetters we could have done without.
We don’t look a happy people. Other things may abound in the Islamic Republic but not the spirit of joy. There are people who celebrate life. There are people who carry a cross all the time and mourn about life. We fall in the second category. Partly through choice, partly through the sheer force of circumstances, we have elected to become a killjoy society.

This is not what we deserve. People laugh and cry. Tragedy triggers sorrow. But that is not the whole truth. When the shadows of tragedy depart people still have a yearning for some fun. This is part of our inheritance as human beings, an inalienable aspect of the human condition. But since the Islamic Republic, and what we have made of it, frowns upon the outward expression of joy, things to do with joy and happiness have been driven indoors.

The veil in Pakistan is not just an item of female clothing. It is also the cover behind which lurks social hypocrisy: outward piety masking inward licence. But inward licence only for the rich. Since the many dimensions of happiness are forbidden fruit in the broad spaces of the Republic, small wonder if the price of sin has become prohibitive.

Hypocrisy as a national characteristic, an all-pervading phenomenon, is not a good thing. It makes a people sick and stunted. It makes them less free. Isn’t it time the veil was rent asunder?

That parliament could cleanse the Constitution and return it to the form in which it existed on the eve of Zia’s coup is hoping for too much. There is nothing in parliament to indicate the audacity required for such a leap. But appealing to the god of lesser things, why can’t we do away with the Hadood Ordinance, one of Zia’s most poisonous gifts at the altar of hypocrisy. Many of our social shackles derive their strength from this iniquitous legislation. What allows the police to smell breaths and ask for marriage papers is this ordinance. Scrapping it would allow the people of Pakistan to breathe more freely. The frontiers of the social police state would contract.

Forget about universal solutions. Forget about appeals to revolutionary arms. This won’t happen. In the season of our discontent if only two small miracles can happen — getting rid of the plastic shopping bag, more of a long-term threat than the Taliban, and the Hadood Ordinance — Pakistan will look a cleaner and healthier place. Along with the social police state, the frontiers of morbidity will also contract.

Author: Ayaz Amir
Ayaz Amir is a distinguished Pakistani commentator and Member of National Assembly (parliament).

Challenges to Deterrence in South Asia -A credible Balance of Terror also implies a balance within the elements of national power

Deterrence is a subject studied feverishly in all academic and policy making forums of South Asia. Yet there remains a visible deficit in comprehension and practice of the concept. Few realise that the only tangible case in which deterrence as a stand alone worked was the Korean War; not against the Chinese or North Koreans, but against the strategic thought of US Military Command, when General Douglas McArthur wanted to bomb Manchurian corridor. It was then that nuclear strategist from both sides of the Atlantic got together and rediscovered Clausewitz and the adage that ‘War is too serious a matter to be left in the hands of Generals’. At the extreme end of coercive diplomacy, it was now possible for civilian statesmen to bypass the entire military instrument. Leaders in South Asia choose to ignore this lesson.

Nuclear Absolutism aside, nuclear armed political leaders of South Asia need to realise that solutions to disputes is not in threat or use of violence but rather, in purposeful negotiations. Just like the ultimate objective of any war is peace (Clausewitz), nuclear deterrence averts war and seeks peace (Brodie). If they do not, they could run out of stamina like USSR disintegrating under the weight of its own empire.

Having acquired much of our knowledge on nuclear strategy from Western and American writers, both Pakistan and India have nose-dived into the semantics and simplifications. Military commanders particularly ignore the fact that deterrence in practice and reality is a psychological notion to avert and not fight a war of any description. In simplest terms, it remains a balance of terror wherein equalisation of capabilities brings with it the equalisation of vulnerabilities; simply put: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). If they continue to see them as super bombs, there is always a danger that such notions develop innate tendencies to drift towards a war fighting mindset under a nuclear shadow; a dangerous proposition already put to effect.

To support my argument, we have lessons from history. Nuclear Utilisation Theorists (NUTs) from all blocks toyed with the ideas of limited war, proxy wars, peripheral conflicts and political economy. This kept alive the concept of a super bomb through Flexible Response and Graduated Deterrence. However, the entire nuclear jargon failed to even maintain a status quo. USSR and Eastern Europe disintegrated through domestic political economy, least to mention any grand design of the West. In the ultimate analysis, it was the social and emotive dimension triggered by socio-economic conditions that brought an end to the Cold War.

The biggest danger in South Asia is that both India and Pakistan have chosen the Cold War Template for nuclear thinking. Each day, we see a clear drift from a Mutual Deterrence to the advent of NUTs. This was predictable even before India went nuclear in 1974 and Pakistan in 1998. Unlike the Cold War Theatre separated by the European and APEC landmasses, South Asia had a live Line of Control with a legitimate ongoing freedom struggle in Kashmir. It was inevitable that both countries would ultimately toy with the ideas of limited conflicts despite being nuclear.

Pakistan challenged its own thesis of Nuclear Stability by initiating Kargil despite international isolation. India seems to follow suit through the concepts of Limited War under a Nuclear Shadow and Cold Start Doctrine. However, within the premise of this escalation, the capability of either side to strike, survive and strike again is both progressive and retrogressive. Hypothetically, in nuclear calculus, the adversary with more striking and surviving capability is the ultimate winner. We hear of threshold theories manifesting a willingness to fight a conventional conflict short of a nuclear flash point and hence a constant urge to strike a balance resulting in an expensive conventional and unconventional arms race that hurts Pakistan. India feels assured that it could escalate the conflict to a higher level while international intervention would prevent use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

India appears to follow this logic by boosting its missile defence and surveillance capability with active assistance from Russia, Israel and USA. Indo-US Nuclear cooperation also provides a Nuclear Umbrella of sorts. India also stands taller on the survivability ladder due to Nuclear Powered Submarines, military bases in Nicobar and Andaman and very high altitude strategic bombers (Russia) beyond the range of Pakistan’s air defence capability. This advantage compensates its limited and suspect capability of employing fusion devices. India is also tempted to challenge the status quo and attempt a rot through covert peripheral conflicts against Pakistan through Afghanistan, manipulation of agriculture water and projection of Pakistan as a discredited failing state.

In contrast, the balance between Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence and defence unlike India is primarily indigenous. It maintains the balance of terror more through its striking, rather than its defensive capability. In face of an unequal relationship it is but logical for Pakistan to challenge the status quo through an in extremis conventional/unconventional militarism on the periphery. This explains Indian sensitivity to the attack on Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay though the trails suggest an international operation planned by individuals residing in USA.

Analytically, Pakistan’s nuclear threshold has been driven down not so much by experimentation with low-intensity warfare in Kashmir as by nearly twenty years of starkly unequal arms acquisition trends, and by India’s readiness to exploit its huge build up through Coercive and Compellence Diplomacy in tandem with USA and UK. Pakistan’s asymmetry in surveillance, residual capability and defensive shield has widened. Pakistan is being led into a nuclear and conventional arms race with no choice but a massive first use against any conventional attack. Driven into the corner, Pakistan would have the flair to do just that. However, even this minimum means diversion of major national assets towards security at the cost of national development. Hence a credible Balance of Terror also implies a balance within the elements of national power.

Technically, Pakistan’s strike nuclear forces appear more than equal and in some aspects ahead of India. However, Pakistan’s major problems in political instability, poor governance, institutionalised corruption, militancy, bad economic policies and fragmentation of society make it vulnerable to collapsing under its own weight. It is this phenomena rather than India that remains the biggest threat to the stability of nuclear capability in Pakistan.

Despite major military successes, Pakistan remains at the loosing end of this war of attrition. Other than the endemic Indian and American media scoops, some Pakistani media persons have also joined to discredit patriotic Pakistani journalists and analysts who see the game through and through.

It is in this backdrop that Pakistan will have to conduct its secretary level diplomacy in India and assure the suspect international audience that everything is safe. India is in no mood to negotiate peace.

Pakistan’s gradual surrender to compellence imposed by Indo-US pressures reflects a fragile and self centered bunkered national leadership. This alone remains the most serious aspersion on the will and determination needed to handle a credible deterrence regime. It goes to the character of this nation that despite total lack of national leadership, the people brave the odds and hold their heads high.

Author: Brigadier (retd) Samson Simon Sharaf
(The writer a retired officer of Pakistan Army and a Political Economist)

Plight of Muslims under terrorism

(The waging of ‘War on Terror’ on Muslims by the sole super power – the USA – have given its strategic partners - India and Israel – to kill, humiliate and dispossess the Muslim population under their control with the US public eying it with approval. Thus the USA is seen an accomplice in the murders and mayhem that goes on in Israel and India. +Usman Khalid +)

Never before was the situation for the Muslims in India so awful as today. An accused in terror attack in Mumbai 26/11 Fahim Ansari wants bail to come out and search a lawyer who can defend him. Reason: his lawyer Shahid Azmi has been shot dead by Chhota Rajan gang in the name of “patriotic killing.” His move suggests that he accepts the judicial system. Despite its shortcoming he still trusts it to exonerate him ultimately. Azmi himself had gone through the rigmaroles of the judicial system and had successfully overcome hurdles including five years in jail when he completed junior college education and graduation. He knew that the system was biased against the minority and yet he did not lose faith in the institutions of the country. They redeemed him only to be killed as he was fighting for many others like him who were incarcerated. The Sachar commission has already documented that the highest number of inmates everywhere in the country is of Muslims.

Another accused is Saquib Nachan booked for local train blast at Mulund 2003. He has petitioned the SC to investigate all the cases of terrorism since 2002. There is something terribly wrong with conduct of investigation and the judicial system. According to him the Muslim youths are languishing in prisons across the country without trial. He has spent seven years in prison and others have also gone through the same length of time and even more.

The suffering of Nachan and Ansari or the late Azmi must also be viewed as an off shoot of the global strategy of Americans in the region. The gravitational pull that India and Pakistan exercise over the Americans is reflected in local bomb blasts in India.

Of late President Obama has authorized operation Af-Pak; and Marjah in Afghanistan has been baptized in fire. The fall out of this can and does affect situation in India. Muslims as a community in India are unconnected to the war on terror either in Afghanistan or Pakistan or even in Kashmir valley. The Af-Pak strategy and the Pakistan’s strategic depth into Afghanistan primarily bring the US into the subcontinent. Every drone attack or ground advance beyond the Khayber pass means more bomb attacks in Pakistan and its spill over into India.

If Pune blast is a consequence of this it proves foreign secretary Nirupama Rao right because she had pointed out at the possibility. “We have to be constantly alert to this possibility.” However if we have not got the clues and found any lead in the matter, it would give away our weakness in the investigation of the matter. In a hurry, as it often happens, to show some breakthrough to the bosses or to affiliates in ideology, it is also possible that more people like Ansari or Nachan would be made to wear the cross like some of the accused in Malegaon blast of 2006 whose only “crime” was to carry placards depicting Laden and denouncing the unjust war of George Bush on Iraq. The entry of terrorism thanks to America has destroyed what Alexander Pope rejoiced, happy the man whose wish and care a few paternal acres bind, content to breathe his native air in his native town.

Author: Mustafa Khan
Malegaon, Maharashtra

India’s belated turnaround

The Indian proposal to Pakistan for open-ended talks at the level of foreign secretaries to discuss all outstanding issues is a belated admission by New Delhi that its refusal to engage in a dialogue with Pakistan more than a year after Mumbai has been hurting Indian interests more than it is harming Pakistan’s. Reflecting this recognition, Indian officials have uncharacteristically been quite civilised in their language and tone towards Pakistan recently, and especially since the proposal was made.

India has so far shown reluctance to agree to the Pakistani proposal that the old format of “composite dialogue” should be revived, but the last word has not yet been said. When the two foreign secretaries get together later this month, the major task before them will be to prepare the ground for a meeting between their prime ministers at the sidelines of the SAARC Summit in the Bhutanese capital of Thimphu on April 26 and 27. If things go according to plan, a formal resumption of bilateral dialogue will be announced at this summit.

Manmohan Singh’s willingness, if not keenness, to start the dialogue process with Pakistan was evident also at the Sharm el-Shaikh Summit last July, at which he agreed to de-link the issue of talks from that of terrorism. But Manmohan Singh was made to backtrack by the unexpectedly strong backlash which came not only from the opposition BJP but also from within his own party and the Indian foreign policy and security establishments.

More than half a year since then, the Manmohan Singh government has now launched another diplomatic initiative to resume dialogue with Pakistan. He has a difficult balancing act to perform. He has to convince Pakistan that the talks will be not only about terrorism but will cover other issues of interest to it, while assuring domestic public opinion that the focus will be on terrorism and that progress on other issues would be linked to action by Pakistan on punishing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack.

According to Prime Minister Gilani, India has been forced to the negotiating table because of world pressure. This is a mistaken view. True, Washington has been urging Delhi to relieve pressure on Pakistan’s eastern borders to enable the Pakistani army to concentrate more on the fight against terrorists on its western borders. But Delhi’s readiness to resume talks, despite its unhappiness over what it sees as lack of action by Pakistan against terrorists who seek to target India, is founded in India’s own calculation that its wider interests and goals are better served by restarting a dialogue with Pakistan. There are several reasons for this.

First, India recognises that its “coercive diplomacy” towards Pakistan has failed. In 2004, when India last resumed talks after a terrorism-related suspension, it extracted a price: a commitment from Musharraf that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. This time, India initially demanded a bigger price: a dismantling of the “infrastructure of terrorism.” Since then, India has been scaling down its demand. On Feb 3 Foreign Minister S M Krishna said that Pakistan’s readiness to accept Ajmal Kasab’s confessional statement as evidence to prosecute the planners of Mumbai was a constructive signal and that India “should be quite satisfied with Pakistan taking a few steps to investigate the Mumbai attacks.” This is a far cry from the demand made in 2008 by M K Narayanan, then India’s national security adviser, for “destroying” the ISI.

Second, India has been rattled by the recent US readiness to take the Taliban on board in an eventual Afghanistan settlement and by Karzai’s offer to hold talks with their top leaders. India was virtually alone in opposing the endorsement given by the London Conference to the plan to win over the Taliban. Besides, there is the emerging recognition by the international community that Pakistani concerns about Indian domination of Afghanistan are not without foundation and will have to be taken into account.

Delhi’s fear is that it would be marginalised if a peace process which eventually gives the Taliban a share of the power were to take hold. One of India’s great strategic minds has now even proposed that Manmohan Singh should invite Karzai and Zardari for a trilateral summit on Afghanistan.

Third, India is keen to enter into talks with the “moderate” faction of the APHC on the grant of autonomy to Kashmir. But since Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who heads this faction, lacks broad support within Kashmir for such a deal, he is reluctant to take the political risk of negotiating with Delhi without at least the tacit understanding of Pakistan that Musharraf was prepared to give him.

India would also like autonomy talks with “moderate” Kashmiri leaders to proceed in parallel with backchannel talks with Pakistan on a “non-territorial” settlement of Kashmir which were initiated under Musharraf. The deal he was negotiating with Manmohan Singh would have sanctified the division of Kashmir along the Line of Control in return for self-governance in different parts of the divided state. Manmohan Singh sought to revive these talks soon after Musharraf’s ouster from power. This was the “good news” Zardari promised to the nation in his first press conference after taking over the presidency.

Left to himself, Zardari would have followed in Musharraf’s footsteps. But after the Kerry-Lugar fiasco and the NRO judgement, he is not in a position to bypass the foreign ministry and the military establishment in policy-making on issues of national security. In a welcome departure from past practice, the government’s response to the Indian offer of talks has been prepared after careful deliberation involving all the institutions concerned.

The position taken by Foreign Minister Qureshi on Musharraf’s backchannel deal with Manmohan Singh on Kashmir is particularly welcome. On Feb 7 he rejected repeated claims made by his predecessor Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri that the Kashmir dispute had been close to settlement through backchannel diplomacy under the Musharraf regime. Qureshi said that if the previous government had been negotiating with India on any such proposal, it was a “secret” between some “selected individuals.” It had never been debated in the government and there was no record of it in the foreign ministry. If Qureshi’s statement means that the government has now decided to repudiate the deal that Musharraf was negotiating, it is probably the most sensible foreign policy decision that this government has taken.

Qureshi also said that though backchannel diplomacy was important, disputes between nations were always resolved through formal talks. Since this government has also named former foreign secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan as its envoy for talks with India, it owes an explanation to the nation on where it stands on the question of backchannel diplomacy. Was our emissary’s meeting with S K Lambah last November in Bangkok a “secret” between “selected individuals” like those under the Musharraf regime, or was it a part of formal talks? And if it was wrong for Musharraf to negotiate through the backchannel, why is it right for this government to do the same?

Qureshi was right, though, in cautioning that a Kashmir settlement was unlikely during the tenure of the present government. That is not a tragedy because a settlement in the present international environment would be based on the status quo, which is what the Kashmiri people have been fighting against all these years. They have suffered a lot but they can wait because time is on their side.

After a long period of militancy, the movement for azadi has now entered a new phase. It has become a deeply rooted and broad-based political movement that cannot be suppressed indefinitely through brute force. Our policy should aim at generating international pressure on India to allow this movement to operate at the political level, while promoting links between the people in the two parts of the state through increased trade and travel across the Line of Control. The rest will follow.

Author: Asif Ezdi

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service.
Source: The News Pakistan