Friday, March 31, 2006

‘92% of Pakistanis oppose violent cartoon protests’

Daily Times, April 1, 2006
‘92% of Pakistanis oppose violent cartoon protests’

LAHORE: At least 92 percent of Pakistanis support peaceful demonstrations to protest the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and oppose violent demonstrations.

A poll was recently conducted by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) in Islamabad, Lahore and Peshawar to gauge public opinion about the publication of the cartoons and the subsequent rioting that killed around 10 people. The cartoons were first published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and later in publications across Europe.

Around 97 percent of those interviewed felt that the publication of the cartoons was a violation of freedom of expression. Ninety-five percent of those surveyed opposed attacking embassies of European countries in reaction to the publication of cartoons in newspapers there. Almost everyone also opposed the publication of the holy personages of other religions in retribution to the Prophet’s (PBUH) cartoons. However, 62.26 percent favoured the economic boycott of countries where the cartoons had been published, while round 52 percent called for suspending all diplomatic ties with such countries. staff report

Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Karachi Social Forum: Tariq Ali's viewpoint



Counterpunch: March 28, 2006
NGOs or WGOs?: The Karachi Social Forum
By TARIQ ALI
in Karachi, Pakistan.

While we were opening the World Social Forum in Karachi last weekend with virtuoso performances of sufi music and speeches, the country's rulers were marking the centenary of the Muslim League [the party that created Pakistan and has ever since been passed on from one bunch of rogues to another till now it is in the hands of political pimps who treat it like a bordello] by gifting the organisation to General Pervaiz Musharaf, the country's uniformed ruler.

The secular opposition leaders, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, who used to compete with each other to see who could amass more funds while in power, are both in exile. To return home would mean to face arrest for corruption. Neither is in the mood for martyrdom or relinquishing control of their organizations. Meanwhile, the religious parties are happily implementing neo-liberal policies in the North-West Frontier province that is under their control. Incapable of catering to the real needs of the poor they concentrate their fire on women and the godless liberals who defend them.

The military is so secure in its rule and the official politicians so useless that 'civil society' is booming. Private TV channels, like NGOs, have mushroomed and most views are permissible (I was interviewed for an hour by one of these on the "fate of the world communist movement") except a frontal assault on religion or the military and its networks that govern the country. If civil society posed any real threat to the elite, the plaudits it receives would rapidly turn to menace.

It was, thus, no surprise that the WSF, too, had been permitted and facilitated by the local administration in Karachi. It is now part of the globalized landscape and helps backward rulers feel modern. The event itself was no different from the others. Present are several thousand people, mainly from Pakistan, but with a sprinkling of delegates from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Korea and a few other countries.

Absent was any representation from China's burgeoning peasant and workers movements or its critical intelligentsia. Iran, too, was unrepresented as was Malaysia. The Israeli enforcers who run the Jordanian administration harassed a Palestinian delegation. Only a handful of delegates managed to get through the checkpoints and reach Karachi. The huge earthquake in Pakistan last year had disrupted many plans and the organizers were not able to travel and persuade people elsewhere in the continent to come. Otherwise, insisted the organisers, the voices of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Fallujah would have been heard.

The fact that it happened at all in Pakistan was positive. People here are not used to hearing different voices and views. The Forum enabled many from repressed social layers and minority religions to assemble make their voices heard: persecuted Christians from the Punjab, Hindus from Sind, women from everywhere told heart-rending stories of discrimination and oppression.

Present too was a sizeable class-struggle element: peasants fighting against the privatization of military farms in Okara, the fisher-folk from Sind whose livelihoods are under threat and who complained about the great Indus river being diverted to deprive the common people of water they had enjoyed since the beginning of human civilization thousands of years ago, workers from Baluchistan complaining about military brutalities in the region.

Teachers who explained how the educational system in the country had virtually ceased to exist. The common people who spoke were articulate, analytical and angry, in polar contrast to the stale rhetoric of Pakistan's political class. Much of what was said was broadcast on radio and television with the main private networks---Geo, Hum and Indus--- vying with each other to ensure blanket coverage.

And so the WSF like a big feel-good travelling road show came to Pakistan and went. What will it leave behind? Very little, apart from goodwill and the feeling that it has happened here. For the fact remains the elite dominates that politics in the country. Little else matters. Small radical groups are doing their best, but there is no state-wide organisation or movement that speaks for the dispossessed. The social situation is grim, despite the massaged statistics circulated by the World Bank's Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

The NGOs are no substitute for genuine social and political movements. They may be NGOs in Pakistan but in the global scale they are WGOs (Western Governmental Organizations), their cash-flow conditioned by restricted agendas. It is not that some of them are not doing good work, but the overall effect of this has been to atomize the tiny layer of left and liberal intellectuals. Most of these men and women (those who are not in NGOs are embedded in the private media networks) struggle for their individual NGOs to keep the money coming; petty rivalries assumed exaggerated proportions; politics in the sense of grass-roots organisation is virtually non-existent. The Latin American model as emerging in the victories of Chavez and Morales is a far cry from Mumbai or Karachi.

Tariq Ali is author of the recently released Street Fighting Years (new edition) and, with David Barsamian, Speaking of Empires & Resistance. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

4 Pakistani women fighter pilots graduate from Air Force Academy



Daily Times, March 31, 2006
PAF’s first 4 women fighter pilots graduate
RISALPUR: Defence services are a challenging and daunting job but our aim to join Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is to serve Pakistan, said Saba Khan, one of the four women general duty (GDP) pilots who are the first women to earn flying badges from PAF.

Talking to reporters after the passing out parade at the PAF Academy, Khan, flanked by Nadia Gul, Mariam Khalil and Saira Batool, said that they were proud of joining PAF as cadets. They urged women to join air force “because it is an attractive and honourable service”.

The four women pilots joined the PAF Academy in October 2002 and during three-year stay they had gone through demanding general service training. Two of them are from Quetta, one from Peshawar and one from Bahawalpur. Air Commodore Abid Khawaja told reporters that the women pilots performed well in all fields during their training. He said although they faced some difficulties at the start of their training, they made rapid improvement to overcome all hurdles with hard work and dedication.

He said they had gone through strenuous academic education and rigorous flying training on MFI-17 Super Mushshak and T-37 Jet aircraft. He added that three more women pilots were getting training at the PAF Academy under the 117th GD Course and would pass out within six months. Khawaja said the induction of women GD pilots had been stopped. “We want to check operational fitness of these women officers after which a decision about the induction of more women officers would be taken,” he said.

Vice Chief of the Army Staff General Ahsan Saleem Hayat was the chief guest at the graduation ceremony. The VCOAS staff awarded the Quaid-e-Azam Banner to the 4th Squadron. The trophy for the best performance in General Service Training went to Cadet Taimoor Khan Jadoon. Female Cadet Nadia Gul was awarded with Asghar Hussain Trophy for best performance in academics. The Chief of Air Staff’s Trophy for Best Performance in Flying was lifted by Iraj Jamal. The graduation ceremony also included display of immaculate and thrilling aerobatics by the flyers of Karakoram-8 (K-8 Academy Hawks) and T-37 aircraft (Sherdils). APP
PAKISTAN: FORMER BIN LADEN AIDE AND MILITANT FIGHTS FOR LIFE AFTER ATTACK

Karachi, 29 March (AKI) - (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) - The leader of one of Pakistan's most feared militant groups, who was also once a close aide to Osama bin Laden, is currently in critical condition in a Rawalpindi hospital after surviving an attempt on his life. Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil, the chief of the banned Harkat-ul-Mujahadeen, was dumped in front of a mosque in the outskirts of the Pakistani capital Islamabad.

"Don't call it an accident," said Harkat-ul-Mujahadeen's official spokesperson Sultan Zia in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI). "It was a fully managed episode," he said.

The militant organisation, which was then known as Harkat-ul-Ansar, was blacklisted as a terror group by the US State Department in 1994.

Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf banned the organisation in 2001 and Khalil has kept a low profile ever since.

"Fazlur Rehman Khalil does not have any personal feud against anybody," said Zia. "In the incident it seems that a few people were chasing him and when he reached Tarnol and offered his Magrib prayers on Tuesday evening at a prayer's place (not a proper mosque), around five people kidnapped him and his driver. They beat him mercilessly and suffocated him. Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil was unconscious and so they believed that he was dead and left him and his driver with their hands tied with ropes," said Zia.

"It was coincidence that people nearby found them and provided first aid so that they survived," Zia maintained.

According to Sultan Zia, the abductors were repeatedly saying that they were after Khalil for quite some time but they did not have a chance to get him.

Fazlur Rehman Khalil was one of the oldest jihadi leaders in Afghanistan, famed for fighting against the Soviets. He founded Harkat after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and fought alongside the mujahadeen forces.

Harkat was respected in jihadi circles for its role in the defeat of the communist Afghan Army of Afghanistan in the south-eastern Afghan province of Khost where the militant group then seized control in 1991. Khost was the first major city which fell to the mujahadeen fighters. The Harkat fighters also fought along side with the fugitive Taliban leader Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani.

When the United States under the administration of Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles to target bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, Kandahar was attacked in a bid to kill the al-Qaeda leader and Khost was attacked to destroy the bases of the Harkat-ul-Mujahadeen in the province.

After the attacks, bin Laden held a press conference in Afghanistan, while at the same time Khalil held a separate press conference in Pakistan in which he supported bin Laden's statement to attack American interests all over the world. At the press conference, he also asserted that the Harkat-ul-Mujahadeen would take revenge on the US attack on Afghanistan.

After the 1998 attacks, Khalil also went on to hold many seminars in Pakistan in favour of bin Laden. The al-Qaeda leader provided him with large sums of money which he is believed to have embezzeled, after which he fell out of favour with bin Laden.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the FBI sought to interrogate him. It is believed they managed to do so and that Khalil was injected with various medicines which eventually affected his mental health. He often complained of physical problems as a result of the FBI interrogation

Sources said that although Khalil reportedly had abandoned all jihadi activities, the Pakistani authorities recently became suspicious about his activities and have interrogated him regarding his alleged ties with the Taliban fighters in the tribal region of Waziristan which borders Afghanistan.
(Syed Saleem Shahzad)

A Study of the A Q Khan Network



"The A.Q. Khan Network: Causes and Implications"
by Christopher O.Clary,
Naval Postgraduate School, December 2005

The activities of Pakistan's notorious Abdul Qadeer Khan in
proliferating nuclear weapons technology are examined in detail in a
recent Master's Thesis, along with an analysis of their enabling
conditions and some of their larger implications.

"The A. Q. Khan nuclear supplier network constitutes the most severe
loss of control over nuclear technology ever," wrote author
Christopher O. Clary.

"For the first time in history all of the keys to a nuclear weapon--
the supplier networks, the material, the enrichment technology, and
the warhead designs--were outside of state oversight and control."

"This thesis demonstrates that Khan's nuclear enterprise evolved out
of a portion of the Pakistani procurement network of the 1970s and
1980s. It presents new information on how the Pakistani state
organized, managed, and oversaw its nuclear weapons laboratories."

For Complete text click the title above:

President Carter on US - India nuclear deal



Dawn, March 30, 2006
A dangerous deal with India
By Jimmy Carter


DURING the past five years the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower.

This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option. The proposed nuclear deal with India is just one more step in opening a Pandora’s box of nuclear proliferation.

The only substantive commitment among nuclear-weapon states and others is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), accepted by the five original nuclear powers and 182 other nations. Its key objective is “to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology ... and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.” At the five-year UN review conference in 2005, only Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan were not participating — three with proven arsenals.

Our government has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and spent more than $80 billion on a doubtful effort to intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental missiles, with annual costs of about $9 billion. We have also forgone compliance with the previously binding limitation on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, with announced plans for earth-penetrating “bunker busters,” some secret new “small” bombs, and a move toward deployment of destructive weapons in space.

Another long-standing policy has been publicly reversed by our threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These decisions have aroused negative responses from NPT signatories, including China, Russia and even our nuclear allies, whose competitive alternative is to upgrade their own capabilities without regard to arms control agreements.

Last year former defence secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns in Foreign Policy magazine: “I would characterize current US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous.”

It must be remembered that there are no detectable efforts being made to seek confirmed reductions of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, of which the United States possesses about 12,000, Russia 16,000, China 400, France 350, Israel 200, Britain 185, India and Pakistan 40 each — and North Korea has sufficient enriched nuclear fuel for a half-dozen. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War.

Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders’ nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT.

There was some fanfare in announcing that India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, and that US companies might win two of those reactor contracts, but this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary. The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity.

So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and Congress should preclude the sale of such technology to India. Former senator Sam Nunn said that the current agreement “certainly does not curb in any way the proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material.” India should also join other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms? At the same time, Israel’s uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighbouring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use. The world has observed that among the “axis of evil,” nonnuclear Iraq was invaded and a perhaps more threatening North Korea has not been attacked.

The global threat of proliferation is real, and the destructive capability of irresponsible nations — and perhaps even some terrorist groups — will be enhanced by a lack of leadership among nuclear powers that are not willing to restrain themselves or certain chosen partners. Like it or not, the United States is at the forefront in making these crucial strategic decisions. A world armed with nuclear weapons could be a terrible legacy of the wrong choices. —Dawn/Washington Post Service

The writer is a former US president, a Democrat, and founder of the Carter Centre.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Afghanistan and the Logic of Suicide Bombing: A field study



IDSS Commentaries - March 27, 2006
Afghanistan and the Logic of Suicide Bombing
By Hekmat Karzai

For detailed report, click the title above

How expatriates can help

Dawn, March 29, 2006
How expatriates can help
By Zubeida Mustafa

THE Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy (PCP), set up in 2001 as a non-profit support organisation to facilitate philanthropy, has published a report titled Philanthropy by the Pakistani Diaspora in the USA. Based on a survey it conducted in North America in which 631 Pakistani expatriates participated, this report confirms some trends that have been observed over the years.

It also makes some recommendations, though it is not at all clear if the obstacles faced in channelling philanthropy into an institutional charity in Pakistan can be overcome very easily.

Let us take the findings first which have been reported in more generous terms than how they emerge when read with a measure of objectivity. The PCP report describes the Pakistanis in North America — mainly professionals, quite a few being physicians and surgeons — as a “generous, giving and active community”. They donate 250 million dollars in cash and kind every year apart from 43.5 million hours of volunteered time which is given the monetary value of 750 million dollars by the PCP.

The report describes this amount (a total of one billion dollars) as “very impressive”. This is arguable. The cash and kind donations come to barely one per cent of the expatriates’ income. The time volunteered works out to 1.6 hours a week per head for the 500,000 migrants. It would be slightly more if you exclude the children.

But what cannot be denied is that in absolute terms the amount given as philanthropy is quite a big sum. It has, however, not made much of an impact nationally for several reasons. First, only a sum of 100 million dollars (40 per cent) actually comes to Pakistan. Secondly, most of this amount goes directly to individuals in need and not to institutionalized charities.

Hence the question to be asked is why are Pakistani expatriates not willing to give more generously to the country of their origin when they are in a position to do so? The most important factor is, to quote the report, “the chronic lack of trust in the civic sector in Pakistan; over 80 per cent of our survey respondents believe that such organisations are inefficient and dishonest; over 70 per cent feel that they are also ineffective and inattentive to the most pressing problems in Pakistan.”

One cannot deny that corruption is a bane in Pakistan and donors living in Pakistan also like to check before loosening their purse strings for an institution collecting donations. But that does not mean that there are no honest and efficient charities operating in the country that deserve to be helped.

What is understandable is that people living thousands of miles away find it difficult to obtain information about the performance of various institutions, hence they tend to be wary about giving. Information has never been the Pakistanis’ forte.

Another constraint faced by Pakistani Americans is the structural hurdles in transmitting money to Pakistan. After 9/11, American regulations were been tightened and are at times ambiguous about charitable giving abroad. Neither are there any convenient mechanisms to transfer funds to this country or to obtain information about a charity operating in Pakistan. Small wonder the kundi system has been so popular — its success can be attributed to its convenience and informal method.

Charities have also not been able to go about effectively in their fund raising mission. Some of them seeking donations from the expatriate community do not do their homework. They do not obtain exemption from taxes on donations — a powerful motivating factor — and that discourages many would-be philanthropists.

Experience shows that where an infrastructure is in place, funds flow in more easily. For instance, a few charitable organisations, which have representation abroad, are better known among the expatriates. They also manage to attract funds more easily. Thus the Layton Rehmatullah Benevolent Trust and the Edhi Foundation have successfully mobilized the Pakistani expatriate community for philanthropic causes. But this approach would benefit only large charities for small institutions cannot afford to have a representative in every country where Pakistani expatriates live.

In this context, the PCP offers some suggestions. The three key areas that must be addressed are

• Building confidence in Pakistan’s civic sector

• Facilitating mechanisms for charity giving

• Improving outreach on the achievements of the civic sector in Pakistan

Individual organizations can improve their prospects by adopting transparency in their working to inspire confidence in the public. They will also have to disseminate information about themselves. Many are already doing this yet they have failed to reach out effectively to many expatriates abroad given the considerable scope of the work involved.

The report suggests that the PCP could play a facilitating role by developing mechanisms for philanthropy. If the organization is not to become the conduit for funding — which it should not if it doesn’t want to lose its credibility — it should confine its role to being a clearing house of information and one providing guidance to philanthropists. Thus it should study the laws of different countries on the transmission of funds by the Pakistani diaspora to guide philanthropists on how to proceed. The organization could emerge as an important source of knowledge by giving essential but authentic facts about the various charities operating in the country. For instance a donor could be guided on how to do a quick check on a charity he wants to support. Some of the guidelines would be:

• determine the trustworthiness of a charity by checking its documentation

• obtain audited financial information

• study the profile of the organization

• look up the number of beneficiaries, their socio-economic status

• ask for the sources of income — are fees charged

This information should be enough to enable any intending expatriate donor to decide where he feels most comfortable about sending his donation.

The centre steps on sensitive ground when it speaks of the newly coined term “non-profit organization” (NPO). Does this suggest charity in the conventional old fashioned sense when people gave donations on humanitarian grounds? The idea was to help meet the basic needs — for food, health, shelter, education and livelihood — of a person who was unable to sustain himself on account of the failure of society to provide him social justice. But today organisations charging exorbitant fees for their services show themselves as NPOs because they show no profits in their accounts — their earnings being shown as their expenditure on keeping themselves functional. Are they deserving of philanthropy?

There is need to define ‘charity’. Under Indian law it is defined as including ‘relief of the poor — their education, health care and the advancement of any other object of general public utility’.

The PCP would do well to study the Indian diaspora’s giving pattern. India has a long tradition of philanthropy and its diaspora has made a big impact on India’s national life. Cultural traits determine a person’s approach to philanthropy and the Muslims of South Asia have not been known for it. A beginning could now be made.

The Pakistani diaspora in North America should be encouraged to make donations to the institutions that really cater to the needs of the poor. Many Americans of Pakistani origin have made a mark in life after graduating from public sector universities in Pakistan. Should they not repay their debt and help these universities in some way?

The health professionals who studied at the public sector medical colleges and are now doing so well in life should be helping their alma mater. After all, these are the institutions that really cater to the needs of the poor. One has to visit them to believe it.

As for the time the Pakistani diaspora volunteers could make an impact if people, especially health professionals and teachers, would return home every year to work for a few weeks to teach and train their own fellow professionals who are not affluent and could never hope to pay for good education abroad. The expatriates could finance the studies of a student who cannot pay for himself.

As for the PCP, it should encourage expatriates to play a direct role in supporting such institutions that really benefit the poor. The problem is that the rampant commercialism, that has overtaken the social sector in the hands of private entrepreneurs, has marginalised the poor. Even philanthropy seems to be sidelining them.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

A Painful Narrative in NYT


Picture: Mukhtaran bibi

The New York Times
March 28, 2006 Tuesday
In Disgrace, And Facing Death By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Aisha Parveen will live another day. Indeed, at least another week.

Ms. Parveen, the young Pashtun woman I wrote about on Sunday, was kidnapped at the age of 14 and imprisoned in a brothel here in southeastern Pakistan for six years. She escaped in January and married the man who helped her flee, but now a Pakistani court has charged her with adultery and is threatening to hand her back to the brothel owner -- even though she is adamant that he will then torture and kill her.

Ms. Parveen's court hearing was yesterday, and I was afraid that would be the end. But the court adjourned the case for one week for further investigation. And Ms. Parveen's lawyer thinks the mood is different now: the Pakistani press picked up on my column, and the attention will make judges more careful about handling her.

So the publicity may save her life, but it won't make much difference for thousands of other Aisha Parveens around the world. Asma Jahangir, the chairwoman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said she sees cases like Ms. Parveen's all the time.

''There is no such thing called justice in Pakistan,'' said Ms. Jahangir, a prominent lawyer in Lahore. ''It has simply collapsed.''

Ms. Jahangir fights heroically for poor women who have been charged -- like Ms. Parveen -- with zina offenses under Islamic law. Zina encompasses fornication and adultery, and accusations of zina are effective weapons against women.

Landlords often evict women tenants, for example, by accusing them of zina. Worse, women who go to the police to report rapes can be arrested for zina, because they have acknowledged illicit sex and yet usually cannot provide four male witnesses to prove that it was rape.

Even professionals like Ms. Jahangir are targeted if they confront the government. Last year, for example, the police attacked her and a group of other middle-class women demonstrating for women's rights. She says that an aide to President Pervez Musharraf gave the police instructions about her: ''Teach the [expletive] a lesson. Strip her in public.'' Sure enough, the police ripped off her shirt.

Ms. Parveen, now living in hiding after several kidnapping attempts in the last few days, faces an even more brutal struggle. Her only stroke of luck is having her new husband, Mohamed Akram, who rescued her from the brothel, on her side. The young couple are lovebirds, and each keeps talking about being so lucky to have found the other.

But Mr. Akram, while unwavering in his love, has disgraced his family by marrying a supposedly fallen woman, and his older sister is suffering.

''My brother-in-law sent me a message: 'Unless you divorce her, I will divorce your sister,' '' Mr. Akram lamented. ''She has two kids. And he's also beating her now. He's very upset because I married a girl who was in a brothel, who is not a virgin.''

The couple cannot seek refuge with Ms. Parveen's parents, because Pashtun parents routinely protect their family honor by killing daughters accused of zina.

''I cannot go back there because if I do, they'll kill me,'' Ms. Parveen said. ''In their eyes I'm dishonored, because even if a girl is kidnapped, then in their eyes she still should be killed.''

Saddest of all, her story isn't newsworthy in a classic sense. There's nothing at all unusual about a young Asian woman suffering years of sexual enslavement, or judicial malpractice or murder.

And that's the challenge for us all, Asians and Americans alike -- to change our worldview and put gender issues like sex trafficking higher on the global agenda.

A quarter-century ago, Jimmy Carter plucked human rights abuses from the backdrop of the international arena and put them on the agenda. Now it's time to focus on gender inequality in the developing world, for that is the greatest single source of human rights violations today.

Political dissidents tend to get the world's attention. But for every dissident who is beaten to death by government torturers somewhere in the world, thousands of ordinary women or girls die prematurely because of the effects of discrimination. In India, for example, girls 1 to 5 years old are 50 percent more likely to die than boys of the same age, because the boys are favored. That differential accounts for the death of a young Indian girl every four minutes.

Since these victims usually are voiceless, I'll give Ms. Parveen the last word so she can prick our consciences.

''God should not give daughters to poor people,'' she said in despair. ''And if a daughter is born, God should grant her death.''

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Monday, March 27, 2006

Extremism of the Pakistani Expatriate

Daily Times, March 28, 2006
SECOND OPINION: The extremism of the expatriate — Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review

We are all aware that our brother Muslims living abroad, particularly in the secular West, have become intensely Islamic. This is quite natural when you are living abroad and wish to retain your identity. But religious extremism has cut two ways. Sectarian feelings are alive too and that should worry us.

Digital TV (February 8, 2006) showed clerics in the UK discussing Muharram in a spirit of Shia-Sunni amity. They highlighted the common points of devotion in both sects. The programme was interactive. When the calls came in they were mostly Sunnis raising objections to the Shia faith. The clerics on the show kept reminding the callers of the goodwill-orientation of the programme but the callers insisted on asking about the “fact” that the Shias had killed Ali and his offspring and that the narrative of Karbala was not real but concocted.

GEO TV (February 9, 2006) faced the problem of identifying Yazid today. The politicians kept identifying each other as Yazid while the combined opposition identified Musharraf as Yazid.

It is obvious that the callers were deep into the Shia-Sunni rift and were quite taken up with their “new knowledge” of the heresy of the sect. Their knowledge was acquired from the cleric in the mosque and religious discourse at home. Once again the dominance on them of Arab Islam was clear. The Shia callers did not ring because of the presumed prejudice of the channel, which was in fact airing a non-sectarian worldview.

The switchover from Barelvi Islam to Deobandi Islam in the UK has resulted in the conversion of the mystically minded Kashmiri expatriates to hardline Muslims. The reason was import of wrong mullahs from Pakistan by the UK government and by the influence wielded on the mosques by rich Arabs scholars. Back in Pakistan the person of Yazid was being abused for the service of a brand of politics that lacks morality.

BBC (February 8, 2006) re-ran its interview with Abu Hamza al Masari who was sentenced to seven years in prison in the UK for inciting people to terrorism. Out in the streets, BBC showed Al Masari’s supporters condemning the British Muslim Council for not favouring the vandalism of Muslims in the UK protesting against Danish cartoons. The protest was led by a Pakistani Muslim Anjum Chaudhry speaking for Al Fuqara organisation. Anjum Chaudhry was condemning the sentencing of Abu Hamza al Masari.

Al Fuqara was/is the outfit run by Gilani who trained the British shoe-bomber Reid who was sent by Al Masari to Pakistan for training. Journalist Daniel Pearl was trying to meet Gilani in Karachi when he was killed.

Labbaik TV Channel (February 9, 2006) had Allama Tahir ul Qadiri lecturing on the sacrifice of Imam Husain. He said Muhammad (peace be upon him) was created before the creation of the Universe. Allah did hamd and Muhammad was created. Then Muhammad did hamd and Ahmad was created. When Allah loved, Mustafa was created. Hasan and Husain as names were coined in Paradise. These names had never appeared among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times.

This was a good programme by a Sunni scholar. Typically a Barelvi scholar like Mr Qadiri will reach out and try to play down the sectarian rift. His audience was mixed because Barelvis and the Shia are known to mix better than Shia with Deobandi. In the Digital TV discussion and BBC news referred to above, the Barelvi influence in the UK appeared to be definitely in decline.

ARY (February 9, 2006) Dr Shahid Masud asked Oriya Maqbool Jan if the riots in the Muslim world had scared the Europeans sufficiently about the Danish cartoons. Oriya said the Europeans had got scared of the Muslims but the Muslims of the world should unite and collectively boycott the West and inflict economic damage on it. He lamented the fact that the rulers of Pakistan were not sufficiently naraz (angry) with Europe. The narazgi (anger) of the people was not officially expressed by the governments the way it should have been.

The presumption here is that the violence resorted to by Muslims in their own countries will somehow scare the Europeans. Why should the Europeans be scared of us while we kill ourselves and destroy our own property? The argument here is quite convoluted. It goes like this. The European civilisation is based on humanism and therefore tends to be feminine as opposed to our own which is masculine. The Europeans have the tendency to cringe when they see violence even to their enemies. Hence, let us kill ourselves to make the Europeans cringe and finally surrender.

HUM TV (February 12, 2006) Naeem Bukhari talked to Rahat Kazmi about his life and times. Rahat recalled that to get married to Sahira he had to become a civil servant. He got in together with his two other friends Aitzaz Ahsan and late Asif Sajjad Jan, but the two did not join the academy as he did. Later he too ducked out. Rahat spoke about his career in the films and then on TV as an actor in plays when they reached their climax. The show was frank and sincere.

Rahat Kazmi is one of a group of rare persons in Pakistan who have developed as deeply cultured human beings. As an actor, his grasp of the Urdu language is correct. His civilisational perspective is inclusive rather than paranoid. People like him make one wonder why most actors are so inarticulate in contrast? A true actor will always be (or should be) a great communicator. *

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Pakistani Dilemma: A Perspective



Harvard Political Review, Spring 2006
Pakistani Dilemma:America’s uneasy ally searches for a way forward
By BECCA FRIEDMAN

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf is in trouble. Since seizing power in a military coup in October 1999, Musharraf has been trying to lead the country toward stability and modernization. Beleaguered by problems ranging from a sluggish economy to Islamist extremism to tense relations with India, many Pakistanis initially looked at Musharraf’s administration as a positive force for change. And after September 11, Musharraf became an important ally to the United States in the War on Terror. But today his authority is growing more precarious and his future is in doubt. Ensuring a lasting alliance with Pakistan will require the United States to disentangle itself from the embattled leader and build an institutionalized bilateral relationship that can survive a power turnover.

Ambivalent Ally

For the United States , the greatest geo-strategic benefit of an alliance with Pakistan lies in its ability to play a progressive role in a turbulent region. Hassan Abbas, a former official in the last two presidential administrations, explained to the HPR that Pakistan "has a strong army, a history of democracy, and it has potential… we need more Islamic countries on the side of progressivism instead of dogmatism… with the proper nurturing, Pakistan can be a very positive country for the U.S. as an ally 20 to 25 years down the line.” But recent developments make it clear that such a future will not be realized under Musharraf’s leadership.

Since taking power, America’s partnership with Musharraf centered on his willingness to respond to U.S. demands to crack down on terrorist organizations within Pakistani borders. It seems, however, that Musharraf has not upheld his end of the bargain, largely because he has a political interest in the continued existence of radical Muslim groups. Vali Nasr, a Pakistan expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the HPR that Musharraf “has been tough… on Arab extremists, but he has been soft on domestic extremists… [The Taliban] was a way to influence and control Afghanistan; extremists were a way to put Kashmir on the boiler… These groups are like weapons systems for Pakistan, they won’t give them up that easily.”

In fact, Islamic radicals offer crucial support in Musharraf’s continued campaign to marginalize the liberal parties, who pose the biggest threat to his power and legitimacy. Abbas explained that if there were a transparent election today, Musharraf would lose to exiled progressive leaders such as former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The Pakistani people, it seems, are suffering from authoritarian fatigue after seven years of military rule.

Troubled Times Ahead

Beset by difficulties, Musharraf faces many challenges without clear-cut solutions. Tensions in Baluchistan, the poorest of Pakistan’s four provinces, have erupted into violence over the tribal people’s claims to a greater portion of the profits from their natural gas and mineral wealth. Joint Chinese-Pakistani cooperation on a new port in Gwadar has further incited rebellion, as Baluch radicals demand a share in the profits. These developments are troubling to America: stability in Baluchistan is paramount for the War on Terror; it lies on the border with Afghanistan and is a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. Cooperation with China might mean an increased Chinese presence in Pakistan’s affairs.

A disgruntled America is in turn deeply troubling for Musharraf, as American support has long played a crucial role in sustaining his regime. Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute told the HPR that the government in Islamabad is receiving huge amounts of aid for cooperation in the War on Terror. But there are indications that even Washington is losing faith in Musharraf’s capability. Christine Fair, a specialist on South Asia at the U.S. Institute of Peace, told the HPR that the manner in which the military conducted recent American air strikes in northern Pakistan signals a changing attitude. Whereas before Musharraf would have received political cover for what would obviously be a domestically contentious issue, such assistance was not forthcoming from Washington.

For the near future, his support from Pakistan’s armed forces ensures Musharraf’s continued rule. To overthrow the dictatorship would take “either serious dissent within the military – and Musharraf has purged the military repeatedly to make sure that that doesn’t happen – or you need a serious uprising to challenge the military in the street,” according to Nasr. Despite some vociferous dissent, such revolutionary circumstances are not yet at hand in Pakistan.

Despite their misgivings, Washington must be careful not to undermine Musharraf without a better plan for stability. Anti-Americanism is high in Pakistan, especially among the most powerful opposition groups in Parliament. After Musharraf – a leader with a looming expiration date – Fair believes that for the alliance to continue, American and Pakistani interests must be realigned. She calls for “a complete and total overlap of interests… vis a vis security in South Asia, Afghanistan, [and] security in Pakistan.” If this is unachievable in the foreseeable future, both the United States and Musharraf will have to hold on and hope for the best.

"Moderate Versus Radical Islam": A Perspective

Dawn, March 24, 2006
‘Moderate’ vs. radical Islam
By Ayaz Amir

FEW words today carry a more negative meaning than the term Taliban. It is supposed to stand for everything backward, reactionary and benighted: harsh punishments, the seclusion of women and a mindset conducive to the promotion of ‘terrorism’.

Opposed to Talibanism is something called ‘moderate’ Islam which is supposed to stand for progress and enlightenment. Since September 11 the United States has been spending huge sums of money (ask US-Aid) in this battle of ideas, denouncing ‘extremism’ and promoting a fuzzy picture of ‘moderate’ Islam.

Whether it is meeting with any success in this battle is hard to say because the US has never been more unpopular in the Islamic world. Most rulers of Muslim countries may be America’s friends, if not its satellites, but at the level of popular opinion it doesn’t take much to realize that anti-Americanism is on the rise.

Much of this has to do with American double standards. American atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq, of which there has been no shortage since the invasion of both countries, is all for the good, part of a grand design to promote democracy. Resisting American aggression and occupation is ‘terrorism’.

Dishonesty up to a point is perhaps bearable but when it crosses all limits and becomes a daily occurrence don’t be surprised if the reaction is outrage.

Every time President Bush appears on television and speaks on Iraq it is possible to visualize some more Arabs or Muslims going over to the anti-American camp. Al-Qaeda doesn’t have to stoke anti-American feelings. The Bush administration does that job better than anyone else.

Regarding the Taliban, however, it is easy to be critical about them, less easy to say a word in their praise. But some things stand out and are difficult to ignore.

For instance, for all their narrow-minded interpretation of Islam, the Taliban at least have the courage of their convictions. Many of us supporters may not agree with the austerity and rigour of their doctrine. But it is hard not to admire their courage and tenacity. Against all the odds they are still fighting the Americans and, hard though it may have been to imagine this four years ago, getting stronger by the day.

The best that so-called Islamic ‘moderates’ seem capable of is to curry favour with the US. The long-bearded narrow-mindedness of the Taliban may be frightening but the fawning attitude of the ‘moderates’ is sickening. The Taliban may be too rigid but so-called moderates are too spineless and seem to lack all conviction.

Post-September 11 the US asked the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan to hand over Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Mullah Omar, the Taliban Emir, refused, saying that any charges against bin Laden could be examined by an ‘independent tribunal’. Call the Taliban foolhardy but at least they did not deliver a guest, and an honoured one at that, to his enemies.

Contrast this with our attitude. Mullah Zareef was the Taliban’s accredited ambassador to Pakistan and as such under our protection. But when the Americans asked for him our military government handed him over without a moment’s hesitation. Come to think of it, hardly something to be proud of.

Would the Americans have been impressed? More likely, they would have caught the impression that the Pakistani leadership could be pushed around. No wonder, they have been pushing it ever since.

Avoiding stupidity or rashness, we should have stayed neutral in the impending conflict over Afghanistan. We had no choice but to cut our links with the Taliban. But our military whiz kids went beyond the dictates of prudence and caution. Far from staying neutral, they offered forward bases and other facilities to the Americans. This was uncalled for and went against the sentiments of most Pakistanis.

The argument given was that Pakistan was being saved. In fact, the military government was saving its own skin, ending its international isolation and getting a new lease of life.

No one is saying, and certainly not I, that we should have followed the path of the Taliban. But it would have done us no harm if we could have borrowed some of their resolve. The Taliban are fighting a difficult war from the mountains but they are still their own masters. They have lost power and much else besides but not their self-respect. Mullah Omar, hiding God knows where, remains as defiant as ever.

We have a huge military, nuke capability and all sorts of missiles named after our vaunted heroes: Ghauri, Abdali and, most recently, Babur. (Although Abdali, incidentally, is a poor choice. Despite being the victor of the third battle of Panipat, his repeated invasions of Punjab caused much devastation and suffering.) But of what use all this military muscle when it does nothing to strengthen self-confidence?

Clinton as president comes here for a few hours and ends up insulting us. Bush comes here and there is more humiliation flung our way despite all the services Pakistan’s military rulers are rendering in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Nukes and missiles are not of much help in such a situation.

We don’t have to seek US hostility. But we can also avoid unnecessary toadying. And we must learn to think for ourselves, which we won’t do unless we get out of the American orbit in which we have revolved for too long.

The demonizing of Islam after September 11 has gone far enough. We don’t have to be apologetic about Islam or fall for the American-inspired dialectic of ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ Islam. As far as the Americans are concerned, any Muslim country toeing the American line is moderate. Any Muslim country standing up for itself is radical.

There is nothing wishy-washy about Islam. The essence of the faith as propagated by Muhammad, (Peace be upon him), is radical and revolutionary. Stripped off the time-serving interpretations of theologians (theologians being the bane of Islam) it stands for the empowerment of the weak, the humbling of the mighty, the liberation of women, government by consent and consultation, and bread, security, learning and hospitals for every citizen, high or low, of the Islamic commonwealth.

The Islam of the Prophet is a fusion (never attempted before or since) of two great principles, socialism and democracy. The spirit of this fusion was best expressed by Hazrat Omar when he said that even if a dog went hungry by the banks of the Euphrates (some distance from Makkah, the Islamic capital) Omar would have to answer for this on the Day of Judgment. And by Hazrat Ali when he said that a tyranny, even if covered in the mantle of Islam can never endure. There’s nothing ‘moderate’ about these thoughts. They are radical to the core.

Lest anyone be in a hurry to revive that tired chestnut of Islam being opposed to reason and learning, let me quote a few lines from William Dalrymple’s excellent essay, Inside the Madrasas (New York Review, December1, 2005):

“In The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West, George Makdisi has demonstrated how terms such as having ‘fellows’ holding a ‘chair’, or students ‘reading’ a subject and obtaining ‘degrees’, as well as practices such as inaugural lectures, the oral defence, even mortar boards, tassels, and academic robes, can all be traced back to the practices of the madrasas.” (There is more on the same lines in the rest of the essay.)

Nothing is funnier than the frequently heard assertion that people associated with al Qaeda are madmen who hate the western worlds wealth and freedoms. To quote Dalrymple again: “As (bin Laden) laconically remarked in his broadcast timed to coincide with the last US election, if it was freedom they were against, al Qaeda would have attacked Sweden.”

Agree or disagree with Osama bin Laden’s tactics, his aims are intensely political: an end to American hegemony over the world of Islam, justice for the Palestinian people, the toppling of ‘apostate’ regimes subservient to America. Al Qaeda may be inspired by Islam but it is not a religious organization in the strict sense of that term. What it stands for and what it strives to achieve is a response, primarily, to the excesses and double standards of American foreign policy in relation to the world of Islam. Ignoring this sequence of cause-and-effect is both misleading and dishonest.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

A new book by Lord Mountbatten’s ADC: Creation of Pakistan a part of the British "great game"?



Daily Times, March 26, 2006
New book by Lord Mountbatten’s ADC:
‘Pakistan was created as part of the great game’
Staff Report

LAHORE: A controversial new book by Lord Mountbatten’s ADC claims that the British nurtured the idea of Pakistan as a sort of pro-West “forward defensive glacis” against the USSR and a potentially pro-Communist Congress dominated India.

The “Untold Story of India’s Partition: The Shadow of the Great Game”, by Narendra Singh Sarila, is a gripping narrative on the basis of the new material he was able to study. Lord Wavell, being a military commander with a global perspective, thought that the Soviet Union would threaten the British empire and the All India Congress would be more prone than the All India Muslim League to side with the Communists.

Wavell was thinking of the Middle East and its oil wealth. Linked to this feeling was the strategic “possibility” that a region within India could be separated to act as the forward defensive glacis against Communism. By 1946, more and more British military leaders were thinking of the threat of “Russia” and anticipating that the next imperial war would be fought in the region.

When the British entered the war against Germany in September 1939, the Congress was ruling in eight out of 11 provinces. It then inexplicably decided to resign from these governments, awarding a walkover to the Muslim League and forcing Wavell to further refine his policy of supporting the Muslim League as a political makeweight. Sarila argues that this Congress resignation not only brought the Muslim League to power through the backdoor, it made partition possible by loosening from the Congress hold the Muslim-majority province of the NWFP.

In the event, says Sarila, Congress could not set foot in Punjab where men were enlisting for war 200,000-a-month, and Congress supporters from big business were producing overtime for the war effort and making profits hand over fist. Jinnah was more pragmatic. Raj politics was not black and white, it did not lend itself to principles, and that is the way it had to be played. Jinnah became sole spokesman under the Conservative Party, and when the Labour Party came to power its efforts to right the political balance in favour of Congress came up against the “precedents” set by the earlier administration.

In 1942, with the Japanese threatening to invade India, it was Gandhi’s turn to do something inscrutable: he tabled a resolution asking the British to “quit forthwith” and told the Japanese India had no quarrel with them. Almost all the Congress high command disagreed but passed it, only to change it overnight when Nehru threatened to quit Congress instead if it went public.

If Wavell thought of withdrawing the British army from what was to become India and locating it in what was to become Pakistan in order to defend the Middle East from Communism, he was disabused by the lack of support his favourite Jinnah enjoyed in Sindh, the NWFP and Punjab. Sarila captures the weak moments of the leaders that let India be divided. When Partition came, Nehru was “tired, worried and unhappy”.

JI demands about Waziristan Operation




The News, March 25, 2006
JI congregation demands end to Waziristan operation
By Javed Aziz Khan

PESHAWAR: Around 50,000 participants of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) congregation here on Friday roared a loud "yes" when NWFP Senior Minister Sirajul Haq questioned whether they wanted to get rid of the US and "its loyal rulers in the country".

The congregation rejected the US policies regarding the Ummah and asked the federal government to stop operation in Waziristan, initiated at the behest of the US.

The organisers of the gathering have demanded that more than 50,000 workers with over 5,000 women from all over the country registered their names on the first day.

A makeshift village decorated with national and party flags and banners inscribed with welcoming phrases and Qur’aanic verses, has been established at the spacious 32 kanal of ground of Wapda Housing Society on main Grand Trunk Road, eight kilometres from Peshawar city.

Separate tent halls for men and women have been established where they will have all the basic facilities separately. "Separate arrangements of food, health, ablution and shopping are made for 50,000 women who are expected to attend the gathering," an organiser told this scribe. The organisers are expecting 250,000 men along with 50,000 women from all over the country to attend the annual congregation.

"The nation has to support the religious parties of the country if it wanted to get rid of the US and its allies as the so-called moderates are promoting the western agenda," the senior minister asked during his opening speech Friday. He alleged that 80,000 Army men have been deployed only to implement the US agenda.

"Only a few families are dominant in Army and police who have divided the country in past, who handed over air bases to the US and who bring the terrorist Muttahida into power," Sirajul Haq addressed the participants of the JI assembly. He was critical that Army has failed to secure the borders despite 34 per cent budget was spent on it for the past 58 years.

The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and JI chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad was seen on the stage but he did not address the gathering on the opening day. Central Naib Amir of the JI Senator Prof Mohammad Ibrahim and head of Fehmul Qur’aan Maulana Ismail were the main speakers of Friday. A film based on highlights of the three and half years’ performance of the MMA government in the NWFP was screened in the evening.

Provincial Minister for Health Inayatullah who is deputed to welcome and accompany the foreign delegates informed The News that a delegation from Turkey could not come due to congregation in their own country. "We had invited very selected people," the minister replied when asked whether these delegates were accompanied by others or they are here alone.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad, JUI Chief and opposition leader in the National Assembly Maulana Fazlur Rehman and NWFP Chief Minister Akram Khan Durrani would address the congregation today and on the final day (Sunday).

Apart from other arrangements, the authorities have established medical camps and makeshift hospitals in the village where 14 beds have been reserved for men and six others for women. On the first day, 300 patients were treated and provided medicines in these camps, having 40 doctors on duty with six ambulances for emergency purposes.

The party had held their previous congregation last year at the Azakhel Park when heavy rains and windstorm forced many of the participants to run away in hurry after tents fell down. The organisers were also praying for a better weather on Friday when clouds were hovering in the nearby area all the day.

March 26, 2006: The News
Islamic leaders say US war on terror is against Muslims

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: A ranking leader of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said here Saturday that the US and its allies were waging war against all Muslims even if they claimed to be fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban only.

Shaikh Syed Maqsood, a member of parliament in Egypt who also sits on the shura of Muslim Brotherhood and is editor of Islamic research unit in the Al-Azhar University, said President George W Bush had publicly declared that the so-called war on terror was in fact crusades, making it clear that Muslims were the real target. He pointed out that the US had occupied Afghanistan and Iraq as part of this war.

However, he said Islamic movements were adopting different strategies with those fighting in occupied places such as Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir taking up arms. He said in countries like Egypt that weren’t under foreign occupation it would be wrong to fight one’s own army and police. Such a strategy, he stressed, would weaken Islamic countries and help the enemy.

The Muslim Brotherhood leader was talking to newsmen in Peshawar along with Abdur Rahim Ali, chairman of the central council of National Conference party in the Sudan, and Shaikh Siam, a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Movement Hamas living in exile in Yemen and formerly Imam of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. They are all visiting Pakistan on the invitation of Jamaat-e-Islami to attend the party’s three-day gathering near Peshawar.

Asif Luqman Qazi, an aide to his father and JI leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad, introduced the three guests on the occasion. Abdul Ghaffar Aziz, director, foreign affairs department of the JI and special assistant to the party chief, acted as interpreter. The NWFP health minister Inayatullah Khan was also present.

Shaikh Syed Maqsood explained the origin of the Muslim Brotherhood and its policies. He said the party has been waging peaceful political struggle and creating awareness among Muslims not only in Egypt but also in other Islamic countries through its branches and sister organizations. He recalled that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Bana had preached jehad in Palestine against the Israeli occupiers and their Western sponsors. He said the spectacular electoral success of Muslim Brotherhood recently in Egypt and that of Hamas in Palestine were glad tidings and would herald more successes in future.

Hamas leader Shaikh Siam said Palestinians were angered by Pakistan government decision to establish diplomatic contacts with Israel but the ruling PLA didn’t made a weak protest only due to its tacit support for improved ties between Islamic countries and Israeli government. "Yasser Arafat used to proudly say that he helped establish Israel’s diplomatic ties with India," he recalled. However, he said the Palestinians knew that most Pakistanis opposed friendship and diplomatic ties with Israel. "Besides, we believe in crushing the snake’s head rather than its tail," he remarked with obvious reference of fighting Israel directly instead of its new and old friends.

Friday, March 24, 2006

MQM Settling Old Scores with Police Officials in Karachi



Herald, March 2006
Mean Streets
By Syed Shoaib Hasan

Over 100 police officers linked to the Karachi operation have been killed in the last six years
The past is not another country. At least not for those who have lived through Karachi in the 1990s and been affected by the bloody legacy of those years. Long after the 1990s police operation against the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) came to an end, officers who participated in the campaign continue to suffer. Since 2000, as many as 111 police officers linked with the operation have met an untimely end.

Will the Real Pakistani Woman Please Standup?

Newsline, March 2006 - Cover Story
Will the Real Pakistani Woman Please Standup?
By Shimaila Matri Dawood

Who is the Pakistani woman?
Does she have an identity?

From teacher-preacher, fundamentalist icon Farhat Hashmi, covered head-to-toe in billows of black, to sassy supermodel, Iraj, clad in just a thong bikini, two images, equally compelling, vie for supremacy in urban Pakistan today. Both tell completely different sides of the Pakistani woman's story. But it is, in fact, these two extremes that capture the very essence of the conflicting realities that govern the life and frame the identity of the Pakistani woman today.

For the daughter of privilege, a select 'liberal' elite, life is one long soiree. Essentially nocturnal by habit, she's seen at all the haunts the 'beautiful people' congregate at - intimate gts, extravaganzas for charity, midnight balls at the beach. Daytime pursuits include 'doing lunch,' at any one of a clutch of trendy city eateries, a few select fashion shows, and if a trip abroad hasn't been on the itinerary, working her way to an actual tan by the pool at home or in a zealously private club. And 'intellectual' forays could mean taking in the Vagina Monologues, giving her and the girlfriends something to talk about for months, a good French subtitled flick on television, or an afternoon with Ms Nair or Arundhati Roy at a local hotel.

Not everyone's life is, of course, utterly devoid of meaning. Many of the young women of this group are working, or aspiring to work, having dutifully earned themselves that ubiquitous 'bachelors' degree at one or another college overseas. Armed with a savvy born of travel and independent living and the security of being someone's daughter, these young women are ready to take on the world.

And following close on their heels are the young women who may not have had all the trappings, but make up for it by nursing even more ambitions to see, do and have it all. This is the child of the upper middle class who has the education, push and drive to get up and go go. And so she does. She works - on television, on stage, in a bank or multinational - and climbs her way up the corporate ladder or earns her wings to fly. This is a new Pakistani woman, but the only identity she has is the fact that she doesn't really have one. Largely unfamiliar - and equally uninterested in her culture, her language, her roots - she could be anyone, anywhere. Says journalist Mahreen Khan, "At a dinner party at somebody's house, I was the only one who wasn't drinking or smoking. And I was the one who had moved to Pakistan from England and been raised abroad."

The fact is, this class of Pakistani woman is out there, and in your face. And because she is on billboards, society magazines, even on television, you could be forgiven for thinking this is the new Pakistani woman.

The fact, however, is that she comprises just under two per cent of the female population.

What about the other 98 per cent?

Many continue to be abused, beaten, raped, and killed - with the tacit consent of governments unwilling to take on their cause. For the large swathes of Pakistani womanhood who toil in fields, and know of little outside their villages, life carries on as it has centuries before. According to a UNDP report in 1999, Pakistan was second from the bottom of 102 countries with respect to Gender Empowerment. The development agency described "a strong 'inside/outside' dichotomy in Pakistan, where women are restricted to the 'inside' space of home and household, embodied in the tradition of veiling. This restricts women's access to education, employment, training opportunities and social services," it said.

For these women, little has changed since then. Although they participate actively in the family and farm affairs, their unpaid work is perceived as a social duty rather than an economic contribution. For women, the equality provided for in the Constitution is negated by discriminatory ordinances - the Hudood being the most heinous, with over 210,000 cases under process in our legal system in 2003 - and others such as the qisas and diyat laws. When it comes to resolving disputes, misogynistic panchayats and jirgas continue to dispense a crude justice of their own. Take the case of Samia Sarwar, butchered by her own family for defying tradtional customs of family honour, or more recently that of Shaista Almani, forced into exile for marrying out of her family. Many more don't live to see another day.

Crimes against these women also grab attention at home and abroad, feeding the standard repressed representation of Pakistani women.

Given the apathy of the privileged few, and the impotence of the many, is there any hope for Pakistani womanhood at all?

Are any on the road to empowerment and a responsible, fulfilled life?

While Pakistan's elite has always existed in almost another firmament, and with its lower classes remaining mired in the past, the burden of pursuing a true modernity has fallen on the burgeoning middle class.

Women who one might have previously considered unsuitable for white collar work - perhaps because they spoke only in Urdu and wore the traditional hijab, kameez, shalwar, are now undergoing a metamorphosis. Thrust out of the kitchen and into the workforce - partly out of necessity, partly out of desire - these middle class soldiers are silent revolutionising the face of the Pakistani female. With increasing exposure to western ideas through the internet, television and print media, as well as access to education, middle-class women are pushing Pakistan up the Gender Development Index.

In 1999, Pakistan was ranked 120 out of 146 countries by the UNDP, as it had the lowest female labour force participation rate and the lowest number of women in parliament. Five years down the road, these statistics have improved considerably. Female literacy is at 20 per cent and with 33 per cent of the seats reserved for women in the local bodies, their participation in politics has also risen. Today, women make up 22 per cent of Pakistan's parliament, including two federal ministers, five state ministers and seven provincial ministers. At the grassroots level, there are 40,000 women councillors, some mayors and deputy mayors. Approximately 27,000 have been promoted through a women's political participation project. And although the national average of female employment five years ago was a lowly 5.43 per cent, according to a 2003 economic survey, women's participation in the workforce has increased to 8 per cent. And in the urban areas, it could even be as high as 30 per cent.

Thousands of women from middle and lower income families across Pakistan today engage with the state or civil society in professional capacities. More women from humble backgrounds are starting their own business in competitive fields such as restaurants, textiles and schools. In lower income areas, homes are being turned into workshops and businesses including garment-stitching, flower-making, fruit-packaging and cardboard box-making. Consequently, demand for credit has also skyrocketed. According to Zarine Aziz, President of First Women's Bank Limited, "more then 27,000 women borrowers have been financed by FWBL and approximately 8.1 billion in loans have been dispersed in the micro-loan category."

These trends mark a substantial turnaround from the sheltered position of women in the past. The rising rate of female participation in traditionally male-domimated fields such as the police, armed services, sole-proprietorships, banks, restaurants, television and public offices, is testament to that. Says city planner Arif Hassan, "a sizable number of new generation lower-middle class Pakistani women are working in many white-collar jobs in the city. They are bank managers, college teachers, telephone operators, receptionists, doctors, engineers, IT professionals and technicians - para-professionals of all descriptions."

Like the elite liberal woman, and her more repressed counterpart, these women are now breaking into headline news. Take Captain Tarana Saleem, for instance, Sindh's first woman pilot, or Lakshan bibi, the first Chitrali woman to become a member of the Peshawar Flying Club. Then there are women such as Asma Shirazi, a Geo journalist and rising star of the Pakistani news circuit, who actually breaks the news. Says Asma, "Although my parents were reluctant to let me join the electronic media, they soon gave in and supported my ambition. Today there are many more opportunities in the media for women. And it feels so great to be part of the industry and have such an exciting job." Programmes such as Uljhan Suljhan, or Question Time Pakistan, both presented by a new breed of electronically savvy journalists, and addressing issues relevant to women, have also increased women's visibility in the public domain.

But has the increasing participation of women from conservative households in the organised labour force translated into any significant empowerment on the ground?

Opinions remain mixed. While a study conducted by PILER, in 2003, revealed that bringing home a paycheck did not necessarily translate into increased or equal decision-making at home, more and more women of the middle and lower middle classes say it has enriched their lives (see chart). Twenty-five year old Zenubia Qureishi, who works for a leading call centre in Karachi, is a case in point. Even though the demands of her job include working nights, she is one of the many girls on staff, who comprise 22 per cent of the labour force, willing to take night shifts. "The job not only makes you a good customer support executive, but also a better person. I have become more sharp and punctual," she says. "I also earn more than an MBA grad which is a fantastic reason to show up at night with a smile on your face!"

While the image of a lone woman out of the home in the darker recesses of night may still be unpalatable for many - attitudes toward women in the workplace are changing. Whereas an ILO report published in 2003 stated "the social disapproval of women working outside the home translates into the invisibility of women in the labour force," says Geo's Asma," After men realise that you are capable, hard working, and here to stay, they go out of their way to help you." Encouraged by this hidden generation's economic participation, today's business savvy male - and female - entrepreneurs have realised that they can no longer continue to ignore their demand for education or skilled training - even transport. Take Uzma Gul of Varan Tours, Rawalpindi, for example. Although initially discouraged by family members, and resented by her staff who appeared uneasy with a woman boss, Uzma persevered with her vision: a quality transport service for the working women. She established a transport company with just one bus and today her company owns a fleet of 75 buses, running on various routes of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. "One can only achieve things through hard work, commitment, courage and a little bit of craziness," she says.

Capitalising on the rising demand for skilled jobs among women, a large number of lower middle income settlements and older kachchi abadis now contain computer training centres, which teach women, cognisant of the job potential in the IT technology, how to programme, among other computer literacy skills. The originally conservative Fatima Jinnah University for Women, for example, is now very popular for its market-oriented courses such as computer science. And Karachi University today has more female students enrolled than male.

Although there may still be a long way to go, women's new found economic empowerment has slowly begun to trickle down into a social one as well. Judging by the advertisements in local newspapers, parents are no longer just seeking suitable virgin wives with fair and lovely skin for their sohna sons, or promising to bequeth a life full of submissive servitude and little else. The object of desire must, as one such requisition reads, "be 26 or above, fair, pretty and hold a masters degree."

Overcoming traditional constraints and ideologies, the middle-class woman's induction into a life of independence and freer choice is all the more encouraging. Tomorrow, they might even form the face of 'every woman.' Rather than victims of male crime, or party-animal hedonists, it is these pioneers of feminism in Pakistan who will change the way see ourselves - and how the world perceives us.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Pak-Afghan Relations on the Downhill

The Nation, Gulf News, Indian Express March 15, 2006
Blowback from Afghanistan
By Husain Haqqani

Pakistan ’s relations with Afghanistan are in a downward spiral. First came the war of words between President Hamid Karzai and General Pervez Musharraf over who was to blame for the resurgence of the Taliban along the mountainous Afghan-Pakistan border. Then, the Afghan parliament condemned General Musharraf’s use of undiplomatic language about Mr. Karzai. Now, the head of Afghanistan ’s Senate, Hazrat Sibghatullah Mujaddedi has accused General Musharraf and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of instigating a suicide assassination attempt on Mujaddedi’s life. In between, Afghanistan demanded that Pakistan stop naming its missiles after Afghan heroes and Pakistan claimed that it was planning to build a fence along their complex 1,125 mile (1,810 kilometers) border.

General Musharraf and most Pakistani officials blame India for the deterioration in Islamabad ’s ties with Kabul . But Mr. Karzai, Mr. Mujaddedi and the majority of Afghan parliamentarians now criticizing Pakistani policy do not have a history of close ties with India . They lived as refugees in Pakistan between 1979 and 1988 when the country served, with U.S. help, as the staging ground for the guerrilla war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan . India , on the other hand, maintained cordial relations with the pro-Communist Kabul regime during that period. Pakistan ’s extensive hospitality for millions of Afghan refugees strained Pakistani society. But the Afghan Jihad was justified by Pakistan ’s establishment on grounds that it would create good will among Afghans and buy Pakistan influence across its northwestern border for years to come.

How did Pakistan manage to lose the good will generated by its support of Afghan refugees and Mujahideen during their anti-Soviet struggle? The answer to this question can be found in the near-obsession of Pakistan ’s establishment with extending its influence into Afghanistan . Pakistan should have been content with having friends in power in Kabul after the fall of the pro-communist regime in 1992. Instead, Pakistan ’s intelligence community adopted the attitude of British officers of the 19th century when Britain and Russia competed for influence in Central Asia in the “Great Game” of espionage and proxy wars.

Afghanistan ’s frontier with British India was drawn by a British civil servant, Sir Mortimer Durand, in 1893 and agreed upon by representatives of both governments. The border, named the Durand Line, intentionally divided Pashtun tribes living in the area, to prevent them from becoming a nuisance for the Raj. On their side of the frontier, the British created autonomous tribal agencies, controlled by British political officers with the help of tribal chieftains whose loyalty was ensured through regular subsidies. The British used force to put down sporadic uprisings in the tribal areas but generally left the tribes alone in return for stability along the frontier.

Adjacent to the autonomous tribal agencies were the “settled” Pashtuns living in towns and villages under direct British rule. Here, too, the Pashtuns were divided between the Northwest Frontier province and Baluchistan .

After Pakistan ’s independence from Britain in 1947, Pakistani leaders assumed that Pakistan would inherit the functions of India ’s British government in guiding Afghan policy. But soon after Pakistan ’s independence, Afghanistan voted against Pakistan ’s admission to the United Nations, arguing that Afghanistan ’s treaties with British India relating to Afghan borders were no longer valid because a new country was being created where none existed at the time of these treaties. Afghanistan demanded the creation of a Pashtun state, “Pashtunistan,” which would link the Pashtun tribes living in Afghanistan with those in the NWFP and Baluchistan . There were also ambiguous demands for a Baluch state “linking Baluch areas in Pakistan and Iran with a small strip of adjacent Baluch territory in Afghanistan .”

From Pakistan ’s perspective, this amounted to demanding the greater part of Pakistan ’s territory and was clearly unacceptable. The Afghan demand failed to generate international backing, and Afghanistan did not have the military means to force Pakistan ’s hand.

Although India publicly did not support the Afghan claim, Pakistan ’s early leaders could not separate the Afghan questioning of Pakistani borders from their perception of an Indian grand design against Pakistan . They wanted to limit Indian influence in Afghanistan to prevent Pakistan from being “crushed by a sort of pincer movement” involving Afghanistan stirring the ethnic cauldron in Pakistan and India stepping in to undo the partition of the subcontinent. Pakistan ’s response was a forward policy of encouraging Afghan Islamists that would subordinate ethnic nationalism to Islamic religious sentiment.

Pakistan ’s concern about the lack of depth in Pakistan ’s land defenses led to the Pakistani generals’ strategic belief about the fusion of the defense of Afghanistan and Pakistan . Pakistan ’s complicated role in Afghanistan beginning well before the Soviet invasion of 1979 and through the rise and fall of the Taliban can best be understood in light of this desire.

Pakistan ’s position as the principal foreign player in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal changed with the arrival of American and NATO forces in the aftermath of Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Pakistan has recognized that changed situation, deferring a great deal to American concerns. But it has clearly not abandoned its long-term national objective of ensuring that the government in Kabul is subordinate to Pakistan ’s regional agenda.

But Mr. Karzai and other Afghan nationalists remain unwilling to accept Pakistan ’s vision of Afghanistan as a subordinate state. Afghanistan maintains close ties with India and expects to pursue an independent foreign policy. Pakistan has offended Afghans in the past with attempting to dictate their policies and by positioning itself as a major player in a contemporary version of the Great Game. Now, however, it also runs the risk of upsetting the United States , which is militarily present in Afghanistan and has significant stakes in ensuring its stability.

Since the beginning of 2005, casualties in Afghanistan have been rising. Some 84 American soldiers and 1,400 Afghans were killed last year, more than any year since the arrival of U.S. forces in 2001. The Taliban insurgency is weak and not yet as threatening as the challenge in Iraq . But Afghan insurgents are clearly getting arms, money and training. The Taliban are also recruiting new members and undertaking bolder attacks such as the one against Mr. Mujaddedi.

Intelligence-led covert operations invariably have unexpected consequences, often described as “blowback.” Pakistan and Afghanistan must defuse current tensions and build an open, diplomatic relationship in place of the Great Game legacy of intrigue and violence. A fence between Afghanistan and Pakistan is unrealistic, as is the complete separation of the two countries’ shared history. An American-brokered accord between Pakistan and Afghanistan to end the latent dispute over the Durand Line, coupled with international guarantees to end Pakistan ’s meddling in Afghanistan , might be the basis for durable peace and friendship between the two Muslim states.

Husain Haqqani is director of Boston University ’s Center for International Relations, and author of Pakistan : Between Mosque and Military (Carnegie Endowment, 2005).

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Political Investments of Osama and Co.

Daily Times, March 21, 2006
Nawaz met Osama, received funds: ex-ISI officer
* Says Osama funded Sharif to help dismiss PPP govt
* Calls Bin Laden a ‘great man’

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: A former official of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has said that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif met Osama Bin Laden and received funds from him.

“Nawaz Sharif met Osama Bin Laden on at least three occasions and was desperately seeking his financial assistance,” Khalid Khawaja told news website Adnkronos International (AKI) in an interview on Sunday.

Khawaja, a retired officer of the Pakistan Air Force who was in the ISI in the late 80s, rejected a recent denial by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz that its leader had sought political cooperation from Bin Laden in the last. “Osama is above all this politicking,” said Khawaja. “He is a great man and will remain great.”

Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal President Qazi Hussain Ahmed had said in a recent interview that Sharif had repeatedly met Bin Laden, who had offered him money to topple the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government in 1990.

Khawaja, who developed a friendship with Bin Laden while fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s, told AKI that the Al Qaeda head wanted the “secular” PPP government overthrown to ensure that Pakistan continued supporting the Afghan “jihad”. Khawaja said that Bin Laden gave him funds which he personally delivered to Sharif, AKI reported. “Sharif insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the ‘sheikh’, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met Osama thrice in Saudi Arabia,” Khawaja said.

He said that the most “historic” meeting between the two men was held at the Green Palace Hotel in Madina. “Osama asked Nawaz to devote himself to ‘jihad in Kashmir’. Nawaz immediately said: ‘I love jihad.’ Osama smiled, and … said. ‘Yes, you may love jihad, but your love for jihad is this much,’ pointing to a small portion of a nearby pillar. ‘Your love for your children is this much,’ he said, pointing to a larger portion of the pillar. ‘And your love for your parents is this much,’ he continued, pointing towards the largest portion.

Khawaja said that such arguments were “beyond the comprehension” of Sharif, who kept asking “Manya key nai manya? (Has he agreed or not?)”.

The former premier was hoping for a grant of Rs 500 million. Although Bin Laden gave a smaller amount, Khawaja said that he arranged for Sharif to meet the Saudi royal family, which pledged political support for him and kept its word until he was dislodged by President Pervez Musharraf in 1999, AKI reported. In fact, it was the royal family that secured Sharif’s pardon and exile to Saudi Arabia.

Monday, March 20, 2006

"Promise in Pakistan": Newsweek



Interview: Shaukat Aziz—Riding 'A Tidal Wave'
Pakistan's P.M. is bullish on his country, and why not? Per capita income has doubled in only two years.
Newsweek International


March 27, 2006 issue - Shaukat Aziz, a suave and savvy 30-year veteran of international banking, has been the architect of Pakistan's remarkable economic recovery ever since he joined President Pervez Musharraf's government in 1999. Last week the 57-year-old prime minister talked to NEWSWEEK's Zahid Hussain and Ron Moreau about the difficulty of restoring the country to economic health. Excerpts:

What prompted you to start an aggressive reform agenda six years ago?
The financial situation of Pakistan was precarious. We had high fiscal deficits and debt levels and our ability to pay was suspect. We didn't have enough money to pay the next month's oil-import bill. So we started ensuring fiscal discipline, containing expenditures and increasing income. We focused on investment and growth. We bit many bullets to restore credibility. The fundamentals of reform were deregulation, liberalization and privatization.

How far will you take the privatization process?
It is not the business of government to be in business. We decided to open everything up. We just sold 26 percent of Pakistan Telecom—which was overstaffed and inefficient—for $2.6 billion. We eventually want nothing in the public sector.

What's been the reaction of foreign investors?
Foreign-investor interest in Pakistan today is very strong. This year foreign investment will be the highest in Pakistan's history, at close to $3 billion. There are opportunities in agribusiness, IT, telecom, software, hotels, engineering goods and infrastructure. We see Pakistan as a hub for many multinationals.

What's your reaction to the criticism that GDP growth is not trickling down to the poor?
Income is spreading. In the past three years we have seen the emergence of a middle class that is creating demand and driving a lot of the growth. Our per capita income has gone up to $800. Two years ago it was $400. The highest incidence of poverty is in the rural areas where 60 percent of our population lives.


What is Pakistan's biggest economic challenge?
The challenge is to continue the reforms. It's a continuous process. Globalization is like a tidal wave. If you ride it, you will go far. If you try to stop it, you will be blown away. We decided to ride it.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc. © 2006 MSNBC.com:
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11902385/site/newsweek/

Police Security for Government Officials ONLY!

Daily Times, March 20, 2006
Police will escort government officials
By Shahzad Malik

ISLAMABAD: The district administrations in the federal and provincial capitals have been directed to provide police escorts to government officials working at the Presidency, Prime Minister’s House, PM Secretariat, and governors’ and chief ministers’ houses when they go to and from work.

A list of officials working at these places has been provided to the authorities concerned, sources told Daily Times. The step has been taken keeping in view the ongoing military operations in the tribal area and Balochistan.

The intelligence agencies have submitted reports to the Interior Ministry mentioning the possibility of a strong backlash from militants against the ongoing operations.

According to the reports, the militants could target vehicles carrying the officials working at these sensitive places, the sources said. They said militants and members of banned religious groups could also exploit the situation and take officials hostage to press the government to fulfil their demands.

In light of these reports, official monograms have been removed from the vehicles carrying the officials, the sources said.

Meanwhile, security has been tightened after a bomb attack on a police patrol in Dera Ismail Khan in which seven police and Frontier Constabulary officials were killed.

The police chiefs of the four provinces and federal capital have been asked to enhance security around sensitive places and conduct raids to clamp down on ‘miscreants’.

Earlier, the Federal Investigation Unit of the Federal Investigation Agency was asked to assist the team investigating the DI Khan bomb blast, the sources said.

Two injured cops, Nashir Hussain and Izzat Khan, were brought to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences here on Sunday for treatment.

India, Pakistan trade almost doubles

Dawn, March 20, 2006
‘India, Pakistan trade almost doubles’

NEW DELHI, March 19: Trade between rival neighbours India and Pakistan almost doubled to cross the one-billion-dollar mark this year, an industry body said. The 400 million dollar increase in the year to March 2006 was attributed to the launch of a South Asian Free Trade Area Agreement (SAFTA) and the opening of rail and road links last year, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry said in a statement.

“The establishment of relations along with SAFTA has brought changes in customs tariffs and reduced trade-related barriers, leading to restoration of direct trade linkages and reducing the transaction costs,” said the statement quoted by the Press Trust of India news agency.

India and Pakistan launched a peace process in January 2004.

After the start of the peace talks Pakistan scrapped import duties on 13 commodities from India that were scarce in its local markets, including garlic, onions, potatoes, tomatoes and livestock.—AFP

Friday, March 17, 2006

Tribal Areas in Pakistan: whats the inside stuff?



Daily Times, March 17, 2006
VIEW: What is happening in the Tribal Areas?— Shaukat Qadir

Peace can no longer be brokered by bribery. It requires tangible, meaningful promises of reconstruction and rehabilitation on both sides of the border. This should include a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and an immediate end to the humiliation that the Afghans are being subjected to. The numerous successful punitive strikes against militants claimed by the government cannot succeed in themselves; they must be a part of a bigger strategy

I am astounded by the drawing room discussions these days on the developments in the Tribal Areas. In particular I am amazed by the comments of those whom I expected to be better informed about the situation. When they talk about the ‘Talibanisation’ of the tribes near the Afghan border and the rise of ‘Islamic extremism’, I wonder whether they are being deliberately simplistic or deliberately obtuse. Perhaps it is my own understanding that is at fault. Perhaps I am out of sync with reality, but for whatever it is worth, let me attempt to explain the phenomenon as I see it.

The Pashtun society was perhaps the most egalitarian in Pakistan. The tribal people took pride in that the government could not exercise its writ in their area without bribing the tribal elders. Within the tribes, each member is treated equally when it comes to rights and resources. Justice was provided through the local ‘Jirga’ — the council of elders. There was, however, a social contradiction within this egalitarian system — the leadership of the tribe.

Each tribe had its own social hierarchy. Only those who were from a certain ‘blue-blooded’ lineage could occupy leadership positions. Not every member of the tribal society could aspire to leading the tribe. When the Afghan war against the Soviet invasion started, the Pashtun tribal elders in Afghanistan nominated a temporary warlord for leading the campaign. In most cases he was a close, but younger relative of the tribal leader. All volunteers, young and old, followed him. In the case of the Tajik and Uzbek tribes in Afghanistan located directly in the path of the invaders, entire tribes took to arms, necessitating the tribal elder to lead the armed effort personally.

The tribes in Pakistan did not appoint ‘warlords’ but encouraged members to participate in this jihad. Some of them operated under the leadership of Afghan ‘warlords’. This jihad threw up individuals with leadership qualities, though they were not necessarily from the lineages that enjoyed a monopoly over leadership. When the Soviets withdrew, these men witnessed the anarchy that followed, welcomed the peace brought by the ‘Taliban’ and returned home to Pakistan.

Most people now tend to forget that at the beginning of their tenure the Taliban provided representative and just rule, ruling through effective ‘tribal and village councils’. It was a local self-government of sorts. Did anybody wonder why all the Pashtun tribal elders and ex-warlords who had left Afghanistan when the Taliban were conquering it, flocked to return when the American invasion appeared imminent? It was because Mullah Muhammed Omer was not a Durrani, the tribal line of the majority of Pushtun rulers of Afghanistan; he was Gilzai. Hence he was unacceptable to the Durranis.

In the meantime the Taliban began to change. The ‘religious police’ took birth; they enjoyed extraordinary powers to punish men, women and children publicly for any act that was deemed to have violated the Taliban’s ‘stringent’ view of Islam. The proud Afghan was humiliated in the presence of his wife, mother, sister, or daughter or had to watch helplessly while the women of his family were humiliated.

Almost all members of the border tribes cursed the Taliban and prayed for their downfall. Most of them were even grateful for the US invasion. However, the post-US invasion has not brought the promised rehabilitation and reconstruction. Instead there has been more humiliation. (While it might take the media months or years to discover and disclose the Guantanamo Bays, the Abu Ghraibs of Afghanistan, the Afghan tribes and Pakistani ones bordering Afghanistan, know of them, even before their construction is completed).

This has rekindled latent animosity towards the US, and even some sympathy for the Taliban. This is why I have referred to the latest resistance as a nationalist movement against American occupation, which is destined to turn into more ‘Taliban’ and Al Qaeda movements. It is against this backdrop that we need to view the current political situation of our Tribal Areas.

The Afghan war had produced an alternate leadership that had no cause to challenge the traditional tribal leadership. However, the new leadership had been the result of war. Its followers were trained, armed, and equipped. It was also the more charismatic leadership — more capable of attracting the youth.

Quite understandably, those in our tribal society who had fought in the jihad in the 1980s are sympathetic towards their brethren across the border and want to help them in their struggle against American occupation. When the Pakistani government tried to put an end to their support for the anti-American movement in Afghanistan, through the traditional tribal leadership, the new leadership revolted. We are witnessing today the destruction of the traditional tribal leadership. Every other day a tribal leader sympathetic to the government is slain; the fabric of tribal society is being rent.

The government cannot succeed unless it understands that now it has to deal with the new leadership to broker a peace. Peace can no longer be brokered by bribery. It requires tangible, meaningful promises of reconstruction and rehabilitation on both sides of the border. This should include a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and an immediate end to the humiliation that the Afghans are being subjected to. The numerous successful punitive strikes against militants claimed by the government cannot succeed in themselves; they must be a part of a bigger strategy.

The author is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)