Monday, March 31, 2008

A New Deal in Pakistan

A New Deal in Pakistan By William Dalrymple
The New York Review of Books; Volume 55, Number 5 · April 3, 2008

The province of Sindh in southern Pakistan is a rural region of dusty mudbrick villages, of white-domed blue-tiled Sufi shrines, and of salty desert scrublands broken, quite suddenly, by floodplains of wonderful fecundity. These thin, fertile belts of green—cotton fields, rice paddies, cane breaks, and miles of checkerboard mango orchards—snake along the banks of the Indus River as it meanders its sluggish, silted, café-au-lait way through the plains of Pakistan down to the shores of the Arabian Sea.

In many ways the landscape here with its harsh juxtaposition of dry horizons of sand and narrow strips of intensely fertile cultivation more closely resembles upper Egypt than the well-irrigated Punjab to its north. But it is poorer than either—in fact, it is one of the most backward areas in all of Asia. Whatever index of development you choose to dwell on—literacy, health care provision, daily income, or numbers living below the poverty line—rural Sindh comes bumping along close to the bottom. Here landlords still rule with guns and private armies over vast tracts of country; bonded labor—a form of debt slavery—leaves tens of thousands shackled to their places of work. It is also, in parts, lawless and dangerous to move around in, especially at night.

I first learned about the dacoits—or highwaymen—when I attempted to leave the provincial market town of Sukkur after dark a week before the recent elections.[1] It was a tense time everywhere, and violence was widely expected. But in Sindh the tension had resolved itself into an outbreak of rural brigandage. We left Sukkur asking for directions to Larkana, the home village of the Bhutto family, only to be warned by people huddled in tea stalls shrouded under thick shawls that we should not try to continue until first light the following morning. They said there had been ten or fifteen robberies on the road in the last fortnight alone.

For complete essay, click here

Pakistan conference stresses need for long-term Pak-US ties

‘Pakistan conference stresses need for long-term Pak-US ties’* Analysts urge relationship that will serve mutual interests
* Say current ‘confidence deficit’ characterising Pak-US relationship must be overcome
* Hasan Askari Rizvi says time of one-party rule in Pakistan has come to an end
* Akbar Zaidi says economy will be new govt’s main problem

By Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON: A day-long conference on Pakistan at the John Hopkins University on Sunday emphasised the need for Pakistan and the United States to forge a close and long-term strategic relationship that will serve both their mutual interests and that of the region.

The conference, which brought area specialists and well-known figures from Pakistan and the US academic community together, was sponsored by the American Institute of Pakistan Studies and the School of Advanced International Studies of the John Hopkins University. It was addressed by, among others, Professor Hasan Askari Rizvi, Professor Akbar Zaidi, Joshua White, Farhana Ali, Zia Mian, Matthew J Nelson, Dr Rifaat Hussain, and Mrs Bushra Aitzaz.

Dr Rifaat Hussain, who had travelled from Colombo, told the conference, “The US must evolve a broad-based strategic framework for its interactions with Pakistan. Human rights organisations, civil society and the media must be recognised as important stakeholders in an effort to transform Pakistan - and the US should not block it from being a sovereign democracy.”

Confidence deficit: He said Pakistan has been a garrison state because of its national security dilemma but it is time for it to move on. He said the “confidence deficit” that characterises the current US-Pakistan relationship should be overcome. He urged Washington “not to hold Pakistan in too tight an embrace”. He also called for US help in making state-run schools in Pakistan more competitive, especially in rural and underdeveloped areas. Washington should also dispel the impression that its generosity is reserved for military regimes only. He said the Pakistan military is keen to reduce its visibility, but the defence budget must be scrutinised by parliament. He also called for the killings in FATA to be stopped before any social or educational uplift of the area can be undertaken.

Bushra Aitzaz provided the conference with a detailed account of the beginnings and development of the judicial crisis, emphasising that one emphatic “no” by the chief justice to an authoritarian president, who wanted him to resign, had changed the history of Pakistan. For the first time, the higher judiciary had demonstrated that it would not provide legitimacy to illegitimate rule. It had tried to regain its right to do justice, which had eroded over time. Obviously, that did not sit well with the powers-that-be. She denied that the February 18 elections were free or fair. Rigging, she pointed out, had begun as long as three years ago. She said the people had been given just one day to exercise their right of vote. Pakistan had changed, she said, thanks to the lawyers’ movement, as the people had come to realise that they could change things on their own and with their own power. She said it must be remembered that every order that the president had passed after declaring a state of emergency on November 3 last year had been rescinded by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s court. Democracy in Pakistan, she declared, is “back with a vengeance” and nothing can roll it back. She reminded the president of his promise that the day he realises the people don’t want him, he will go. “The people don’t want him,” she said, “and he should keep his word and go.” Silence, she stated, is no longer an option in Pakistan. She extolled the sacrifices made by the lawyers’ community. For one whole year, she reminded the audience, they have denied themselves an income because they believe in their cause, which is the establishment of the rule of law and the return of constitutional government in Pakistan that the people have elected.

One-party rule: Hasan Askari Rizvi said the time of one-party rule has ended in Pakistan, as it did in India, and a government of political diversity with a common minimum programme has come into office. Pakistan’s two main parties will have to learn the politics of co-operation and turn their back on the past politics of confrontation. Enduring changes that need to be made can only be made, he stressed, on the basis of consensus, through an inclusionary and not an exclusionary process. A political system that responds to the needs of the people needs to be brought into being and it must be one that is decentralised. The ‘Musharrffian’ concept of “unity of command” does not work because when it runs into difficulties, it collapses, having no give or flexibility. Such a system cannot absorb political shocks. He said the lawyers’ movement has restored the confidence of the people in the power of civil society. People today feel that they can bring about change. He felt that the disengagement of the army from civilian affairs would not be easy and may take some time. He noted with satisfaction the Army chief’s emphasis on people’s support being necessary for an effective army.

Main issue: Professor Akbar Zaidi told the conference that the economy is going to be the main issue for the new government. He said many changes have taken place in Pakistan, some of which are not recognised yet. For instance, Pakistan is no longer an agricultural country as the sector represents only 26 percent; nor is the majority of its population rural, since 55 percent of the people live in urban areas. The middle class has risen but when asked for its size, he replied that it was something that was hard to quantify. He spoke admiringly of the big strides made by women. He noted that 85 percent of the students at Karachi University were women. He also pointed out that the 4 percent share of the vote that the Islamic parties picked up in the last election came from Pakistan’s least developed areas. With the spread of education, he predicted, this percentage would be further reduced.

Zia Mian, a Princeton physicist, called for much greater civilian control over Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The nuclear secrets were locked up in a military black box, he added. He said the military’s argument that it should be trusted with the stewardship of nuclear weapons had lost credibility after the AQ Khan affair. He called for a number of steps to bolster civilian control over nuclear weapons including: repeal of the present nuclear command and control authority law that places nuclear weapons entirely under the control of the army and the president; oversight provision of these assets by government departments and parliament; institution of freedom of information laws governing nuclear issues; institution of environmental protection laws; protection to whistle-blowers; a more critical and not fawning media in relation to nuclear weapons; and the encouragement of anti-nuclear public interest groups.

Matthew J Nelson, an American scholar studying in Britain, who spoke on religious education in Pakistan, said, “The terms of religion can and should be used to reinforce ideas about modern citizenship, they will be used to reinforce ideas of modern citizenship in Pakistan and we have to appreciate that. The challenge does not lie in choosing or not choosing religious education. The challenge lies in engaging religious education and the different ideas about it and how to understand it in relationship to pluralism, diversity, debate, discussion and change.”

Revamping the Pakistan Police by I M Mohsin

Revamping the police by I M Mohsin
The News, March 31, 2008

The Feb 18 elections ushered in a rare chance for the return of democracy. As the hangers-on of the status quo got wiped out, the country and the biggest party suffered the terrible loss by way of the assassination of its leader. Security lapses of all kinds appear an important cause for this gruesome tragedy. One hopes that justice shall prevail finally against those guilty of such a massive blow to our national interest.

As Nawaz Sharif was hustled out of power by his COAS, the new regime got off to a comfortable start at home. 9/11 proved a stitch-in-time for the new adventurer and suddenly the US started patronising him. Power supplemented by pelf made him plan for a long haul which was facilitated by the rise of too many carpetbaggers. Finding the dice heavily loaded in his favour, he unfurled his civilian-facade agenda in 2002. Once he had put up a civil-military Trojan horse projecting a sham-democracy, he started ruling like a benign-dictator as there was no tangible threat to his powerbase.

Hoping to reform the police, Musharraf issued the Police Order 2002. The ordinance proposed to achieve two objectives. First, it aimed at allowing functional autonomy to the police. The second was to ensure its de-politicization. It was hoped that such changes would make justice easily available to the people. Likewise it was visualised that the streamlining of the administration of justice would lead to an ambitious socio-economic turnaround. The police order proposed the following framework; 1) separation of law and order from investigation; 2) setting up public safety commissions to safeguard police neutrality and autonomy; 3) creating a system of complaints against police high-handedness and/or misuse of powers and 4) developing an independent prosecution cadre. While a lack of resources frustrated objectives one and three, a singular lack of political will caused the failure of aims two and four.

The concept of public safety commissions was borrowed from Japan which has very high standards of education/ political consciousness. In their system, the members of such commissions are nominated by the governmts on the basis of their credentials etc and nobody applies for the same. True to our ethos, we invited applications from retired police officers/ civil servants. As police get, generally, misused by those in power, members of the regime saw their stake in having a nominee who would listen to them. Though some officers were personally honest yet their sponsorship sealed the fate of the institution. It remains a white elephant maintained by the public exchequer like many other entities. No wonder, it failed utterly to mitigate political influence and highhandedness while it did precious little to promote functional autonomy/ efficiency.

Now that the die is cast, the political parties, generally, but more so those forming the coalitions, will have to take the bull by the horns. The Police Order 2002 was an improvement theoretically. It got sabotaged, generally, by the conflicting interests of puerile people purveying political power. The funny control of elected nazims reflected the greed for power on all sides. In free countries such elected local officials can’t be removed by any authority other than their electors or the concerned council consisting of local representatives. Can any German president/chancellor remove the mayor of Berlin or can any prime minister of the UK remove the mayor of London? That is impossible. Our ‘Islamic Republic’ has, so far, remained vulnerable to the whims, generally, of the COAS who can order three trucks of 10 Corp to occupy gevrental structures in Islamabad. Tragically, the feudal/ nouveau riche elements and even religious parties, generally, make a bee-line for supporting such coups supported by their biradaris, tribes etc. Now things appear to be changing, thanks to the youth.

Democracy breeds social change which would strengthen the civil society to meticulously monitor those vested with power and hold them accountable. The police can improve, to some extent, if their service conditions perk up. However, real change will come if judiciary, with integrity, can play its defined role.

A vision for our police, though rather farfetched, can be a ruling dating back to 1968 given in Britain which, in deciding in Regina vs commissioner of police of Blackburn, said that “every constable in the land should be and is independent of the executive” and that “no minister can tell him he must or must not keep observation on this place or that, or that he must or must not, prosecute this person or that , nor can any police authority tell him to do so”.

The writer is a former secretary interior/ IGP. Email: imnor@brain.net.pk

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Pakistan Border Poses Danger: CIA

Hayden: Pakistan Border Poses DangerBy HOPE YEN, The Washington Post, March 30, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The situation in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan where al-Qaida has established a safe haven presents a "clear and present danger" to the West, the CIA director said Sunday.

Michael Hayden cited the belief by intelligence agencies that Osama bin Laden is hiding there in arguing that the U.S. has an interest in targeting the border region. If there were another terrorist attack against Americans, Hayden said, it would most certainly originate from that region.

"It's very clear to us that al-Qaida has been able for the past 18 months or so to establish a safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border area that they have not enjoyed before, and that they're bringing in operatives into the region for training," he said.

Hayden added that that those operatives "wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles (airport, outside Washington) with you when you're coming back from overseas _ who look Western."

Washington has sought reassurance that Pakistan's new coalition government will keep the pressure on extremist groups using the country's lawless northwest frontier as a springboard for attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.

Over the weekend, Pakistan's new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, pledged to make the fight against terrorism his top priority. But he said peace talks and aid programs could be more effective than weapons in fighting militancy in tribal areas along the Afghan border. It was the new government's latest rebuke of President Pervez Musharraf's military tactics, which many Pakistanis believe have led to a spike in domestic attacks.

On Sunday, Hayden declined to comment on reports that the U.S. might be escalating unilateral strikes against al-Qaida members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas out of concern that the pro-Western Musharraf's influence might be waning. Hayden only would say that Pakistan's cooperation in the past has been crucial to U.S. efforts to stem terrorism there.

"The situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border presents clear and present danger to Afghanistan, Pakistan, the West in general and United States in particular," he said. "Operationally, we are turning every effort to capture or kill that leadership from the top to the bottom."

On Iraq, Hayden said it could be "years" before the central government might be able to function on its own without the aid of U.S. combat forces. Hayden said he would defer to the specific assessments of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, who return to Washington next month to report to Congress.

Hayden spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."

------

Internal security threats
By Anwar Syed, Dawn, March 31, 2008

ON March 20 I went to a conference on ‘internal threats to Pakistan’s security’ organised by the Punjab University political science department, guided by its eminent chairperson Dr Ambreen Javed with the help of her learned and very energetic colleagues (seven of whom happen to be women).

The conference went well. A good number of professors from all over the country discussed domestic trouble spots. But their presentations, laced with the technical language of modern political science and sounding erudite, did not in each case bring out the connection between the problem under discussion and national security.

I propose to present below my own reading of some of the troublesome situations we encounter in this country and their bearing on national security. Discussions of security may relate to individuals or collectivities such as the state. In the former case it means protection of the individual’s life, liberty and property, and in the latter the state’s survival in good order. In both cases, weakening can be a prelude to destruction.

A breakdown of law and order, making the individual vulnerable to killers and robbers, will bring about his loss of security. The resulting chaos will testify to the state’s weakening and the consequent ineffectiveness of its writ. A more direct threat to its survival may arise from rebellions mounted by dissident groups (to which we shall return shortly).

Want of legitimacy of the ruler or ruling group weakens the state and thus poses a threat to its security. Illegitimacy means that the ruler has taken power from a source, and in a manner, other than the relevant law or tradition having the force of law. In other words, the ruler is unlawful and his continuance in office constitutes an ongoing lawlessness. If it is all right for the man at the helm to be a lawbreaker, and still remain at the helm, the lower orders may conclude that it is likewise all right for them to ignore the law. This attitude of mind may then spread and lawlessness become part of the prevailing culture. The state in that event has become dysfunctional.

There is no need to dwell on the self-evident truth that extremism and terrorism can pose a serious threat to the security of the state concerned. But I do want to say a word about their meaning and import. Extremism is a state of mind in which its holder is certain that his understanding of truth is, to the exclusion of all others, correct. His version is not open to discussion, negotiation or compromise.

In the earlier stages of his career, Maulana Maududi maintained that the vast majority of Muslims (99 per cent or even more) should stop calling themselves Muslim because they practised Islam only partially and selectively. This, to my mind, was an extremist position. He stated it in his books and pamphlets and it was open to people to ignore it. That being the case, it didn’t hurt anyone.

Now consider Gen Ziaul Haq’s assertion, made in an address to the nation after he had seized the government, that secularists in Pakistan were “snakes in the grass” who must be crushed. This was extremism of another brand. He believed that those who did not think as he did deserved to be killed. Ziaul Haq was an extremist who came to the verge of being a terrorist.

Hijacking, kidnapping, indiscriminate killings (among other things) may be seen as acts of terrorism. Contrary to what the anti-terrorism law and courts in Pakistan may say, not every act of violence is a terrorist act. There are individuals and organised groups who despise Gen Musharraf’s regime. They have been bombing military installations, hijacking vehicles, kidnapping and killing military and paramilitary personnel. These actions need not be reckoned as terrorism; they are acts of war that opponents have been waging against Gen Musharraf’s government.

This is not to say that one of these two types of violence is more or less defensible than the other. I set them apart for the sake of clarity. Language has different words to denote different situations and there is no need to mix them up. War may include acts of terrorism as, for instance, when one side resorts to indiscriminate bombing of the other’s civilian residential districts. But not every act of war is an act of terrorism. It is terrorism, plain and simple, when a suicide bomber or one who engineers a blast chooses to target and kill uninvolved non-combatants.

There are two faces of extremism and terrorism in Pakistan which too should be distinguished. One of them has the objective mainly of forcing American withdrawal from Afghanistan and other places in the Muslim world. Then there is this other extremist-cum-terrorist, the ideological hardliner, who will continue his operation even if America and the other western powers go away and leave Muslims alone.

He has only one passion, which is to enforce his version of Islam on individuals and public authorities in everything they do plus their form, mission and modus operandi. He has no interest in the survival of Pakistan as such. In his thinking Pakistan is worth preserving only if it moves to Islamise its people and institutions truly and fully. If it doesn’t, the extremist will wage war against both its government and people. He feels that if the state of Pakistan perishes as a result of his campaign, so be it.

Since soon after its inception, the state of Pakistan has been creating or intensifying threats to its own security. It was to be a federation but those who manage it have consistently ignored this constitutional requirement and acted as if it were a highly centralised unitary state. Folks in its smaller provinces have been demanding provincial autonomy to assert the state’s federal character. They regard it as a contract that formed the basis of the state’s establishment. This contract has never been implemented. Dissidents in Balochistan have periodically risen in revolt to protest its ongoing violation. The most recent of these revolts has been going on for several years.

Not a day passes without a clash between Baloch nationalist groups and the central government’s agencies and forces. This state of war is moving the local elites to thoughts of separatism and secession. That will mean the state’s disintegration and eventual extinction. Yet its managers at the centre show no signs of readiness to alleviate the Baloch grievances. Their indifference should be treated as the gravest threat to the country’s security.

There are other internal threats such as neglect of nation building and national integration, military rule and denial of democracy, oppression of political opponents, economic policies that widen the gap between the rich and the poor and generate the latter’s alienation from the state. All of them deserve to be considered. Having run out of space, I will have to defer that task to another time.

The writer is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Secular Jihad in Turkey

Secular Jihad By MUSTAFA AKYOL
Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2008

ISTANBUL:Who would you expect to be zealous enemies of "moderate Islam"? Islamic fundamentalists? You bet. From Osama bin Laden & Co. to less violent but equally fanatic groups, Islamist militants abhor their co-religionists who reject tyranny and violence in the name of God. But they are not alone. In this part of the world, there is another group that holds a totally opposite worldview but shares a similar hatred of moderate Islam: Turkey's secular fundamentalists.

This secular hatred comes, most recently, in the form of a stunning attempt by judicial means to shut down the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and ban its top 71 members, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, from politics for five years. Even President Abdullah Gül, a former AKP minister, is on the to-ban list of the country's chief prosecutor, Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, who submitted his indictment to the Constitutional Court in Ankara on March 14. The court is expected to decide this week whether to take up the case.


It is, needless to say, the first time that a ruling party, which won 47% of the vote less than a year ago, is threatened with judicial extermination. In the past, pro-Kurdish parties have been closed down due to their links with the outlawed PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). Yet the AKP is under threat simply because of its political views. It's a judicial version of the military coup d'etats that Turkey has experienced four times in the past half century.

Yet what are those political views of the AKP which, according to the chief prosecutor, require its banning? The 53,000-word indictment gives a clear answer: The AKP folks are too religious, they speak about God and religion in the public square, and they want more religious freedom.

The major "crime" of the AKP that is emphasized in the indictment, and which provoked the whole process, is the recent constitutional amendment that opened the way for female students to wear Islamic head scarves in Turkish universities. This ban was enacted in 1989 by a Constitutional Court decision. Since then thousands of young girls have been forced to choose between their beliefs and a university education. Some have gone to European or American colleges. Others have tried to wear wigs on top of their scarves in order to enter Turkish campuses.

The indictment also presents lengthy quotes from Prime Minister Erdogan that demonstrate his "antisecular views and activities." These include his remarks in June 2005 to CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "My daughters can go to American universities with their head scarf. There is religious freedom in your country, and we want to bring the same thing to Turkey." In another "criminal" statement, made in London in September 2005, Mr. Erdogan said, "my dream is a Turkey in which veiled and unveiled girls will go to the campus hand in hand." During a February 2005 interview with Germany's Welt am Sonntag, his "crime" was to note, "We Turks prefer the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of secularism to the French one" -- for the former grants more religious freedom to its citizens. For the chief prosecutor, these all prove that Mr. Erdogan and his party aim to dilute and then overthrow secularism.

Actually there is some truth to this claim, because Turkey's official secularism is fiercely illiberal and shows limited respect for religious freedom. Any religious expression or symbol in the public square is considered an infringement of secular principles. For Ankara's old guard, the public square should be dominated by what former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer proudly defined as "the state ideology."

According to Princeton historian Sükrü Hanioglu, this ideology is rooted in the "vulgar materialism" of late 19th-century Germany, which heralded a postreligious age of "science and reason." This philosophy, which was emulated by some of the Young Turks and inherited by most of their Kemalist successors, has been openly endorsed by the Constitutional Court. "The secularism principle," Turkey's top judicial body argued in a 1989 decision, "requires that the society should be kept away from thoughts and judgments that are not based on science and reason."

A similar secular fundamentalism is propagated in the West by popular thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens -- but there it is one of many competing ideas. In Turkey secular fundamentalism is the official ideology, and it is eager to crush any alternative.

Besides their ideology, Turkish secularists also use a seemingly realist argument. If religion is given even a little bit of space in public, they argue, it will soon dominate the whole system. This doctrine of pre-emptive intolerance guides, and misleads, Ankara's establishment on virtually every issue. If we allow the Kurds to speak in their mother tongue, the establishment has argued for seven decades, we will have a Kurdish problem. But today they have a much bigger problem precisely because they have suppressed the Kurdish language and culture. Despite their presumptions, it is repression, not freedom, that feeds political radicalism.

Turkish secularists also portray the AKP as part of the radical Islamist movement. For them, there is no difference between the Gucci-wearing, head-scarved woman in Istanbul who wants to study business and the chador-wearing woman in Tehran who cries, "Death to capitalism!"

But the Muslim-democrat AKP is quite different from the Islamists of the Middle East. That's simply because Turkish Islam is a unique interpretation of the global faith. Since the Ottoman reforms of the 19th century, Turkey's observant Muslims have been widely favorable toward democracy. And since the 1980s, thanks to their engagement in globalization and capitalism, they have become much more Western-oriented than much of the secular elite. That's why the secularists constantly accuse the AKP and the supporting "Muslim bourgeoisie" of serving "American imperialism" and "Zionism." The same paranoia is reflected in the chief prosecutor's indictment. In it he notes, apparently in all seriousness, that Colin Powell and other U.S. officials have praised "moderate Islam," and he connects Prime Minister Erdogan to "the American Broader Middle East Project which aims at ruling countries via moderate Islamic regimes."

The U.S. should indeed encourage Turkey not to enact a "moderate Islamic regime" -- a project that exists only in the fantasies of Turkish secularists -- but to achieve a real democracy in which the sovereignty of the people overrides the ideology of its bureaucrats and army officers. What the latter threatens these days is not only the most popular and successful political party of Turkey, but also this country's democracy.

Mr. Akyol is deputy editor of Turkish Daily News.

The Menace of Suicide Bombings in Pakistan

Capital suggestion: Muslims killing Muslims by Dr Farrukh Saleem
The News, March 30, 2008

In 2005, Pakistanis witnessed a total of four suicide attacks. In 2006, there were seven and in 2007 there were 56; more than one a week. In the first 11 weeks of 2008, there have been 17 suicide attacks; an annualized rate of 80. In 2005, Muslim casualties of terrorist violence in Pakistan numbered 648. In 2006 and 2007, casualties jumped to 1,471 and 3,599, respectively. In the first 10 weeks of 2008 casualties already stand at 1,064 with a daily average of 14 and an annualized rate of over 5,000.

Why are Muslims killing Muslims? Is there a connection between suicide attacks and lack of education? Is there a correlation between suicide attacks and poverty? Is there a connection between suicide attacks and the followers of Islam?

Between 1980 and 2003, there have been 315 suicide terror attacks worldwide. Of the 315, at least 75 per cent of the "attacks involved Islamist groups or terrorist acts in Muslim-majority lands (University of Chicago's 'Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism')." Subsequent to 2003, almost all suicide attacks involved Muslims killing Muslims.

Professor Robert Pape of University of Chicago has compiled detailed data on age, place of origin, residence, educational background, socioeconomic status and even dietary preferences of 462 individual suicide terrorists (who undertook suicide terrorism campaigns between 1980 and 2003). Here are some surprises. Question: Is there a correlation between poverty and suicide terrorism. Answer: No. Professor Pape has demonstrated that the poverty level of individual suicide terrorists was more or less the same as the rest of the population. Question: Is there a correlation between education and suicide terrorism. Answer: No. Professor Pape has, once again, demonstrated that the level of education of individual suicide terrorists was more or less the same as the rest of the population.

In conclusion--and contrary to the common held perception--suicide terrorism has little or nothing to do with the level of education. Additionally, suicide terrorism is certainly not rooted in poverty (as is often believed). According to Professor Alberto Abadie, of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, "There is no significant relationship between a country's wealth and level of terrorism….." Furthermore, individual psychology has almost nothing to do with suicide terrorism. Suicide terrorism is all about group dynamics.

Dr Yusef Yadgari, an Afghan pathologist, has studied 110 suicide bombers in Afghanistan. Dr Yadgari has found that "80 percent of the attackers had some kind of physical or mental disability."

What then is the way out of suicide attacks? As is always the case, a proper diagnosis of the ailment is the first step towards cure. We must, therefore, make a distinction between forces driven by the tribal code of honour, referred to as the 'Pushtunwali', on the one hand and elements driven by ideology on the other hand. Tribals driven by their code of honour have no extra-territorial ambitions while ideologically driven forces have extra-territorial objectives. Pushtunwali has no room for suicide terrorism while ideology drives all suicide attacks. Peace with the followers of Pushtunwali is something that can be negotiated while forces driven by ideology are beyond negotiations.

What then is the way forward? To begin with, segregation of the two forces followed by political isolation of all ideologically-driven elements. The one political force best suited to do the task is the Awami National Party (ANP). And, the best model to be followed is the 'Awakening Groups' in Iraq. Over the past five years, some 1,000 Muslim suicide bombers have killed more than 13,000 Muslim men, women and children in Iraq. Last year, tribal Sheikhs began forming ad-hoc armed forces that guard neighbourhoods, infrastructure and man checkpoints. These 'Awakening Groups' across Iraq have managed to identify and then isolate Al Qaeda elements. As a consequence, Al-Qaeda is fast loosing sanctuaries and is being unable to continue its deadly campaign of terror. Awakening Groups have risen; risen up against suicide bombers. And, the number of suicide attacks is sharply down.

In Pakistan, suicide attacks are not a reaction to something that the army may have done. The suicide campaign is entirely proactive seeking to establish safe heavens on Pakistani territory. In the meanwhile, Pakistani society continues to tolerate extremist preachers and Muslim suicide bombers are killing no one but their Muslim brothers and sisters.

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

A new approach to counter-terrorism

ANALYSIS: A new approach to counter-terrorism — Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Daily Times, March 30, 2008

The government will have to articulate a new perspective on counter-terrorism as an alternative to the Islamist discourse. It needs to highlight Pakistan’s responsibility to cope with extremism and terrorism as a nation-state and a member of the international community

The visit of two senior American officials to Islamabad before the new government is fully installed in Pakistan shows the US government’s nervousness and concern about the future of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism policy. They do not expect Pakistan to drop out of the on-going global counter-terrorism efforts but are concerned about possible changes in the formulation and implementation of specific strategies to address the problem.

Of late, the US intelligence community got convinced that Al Qaeda and related elements are entrenched in Pakistan’s tribal areas and they want either Pakistan to adopt effective measures to extricate the militants from there or allow the US to directly deal with the matter.

In the past, US military authorities have periodically used unmanned aircraft (Predators) to target militant strongholds. On a couple of occasions, ground operations were also launched. However, their latest demand to use Predators more freely or resort to military/intelligence operations to target militant concentrations is not likely to be accommodated by the new Pakistani government.

The new government will take time to articulate new operational strategies for pursuing counter-terrorism. Its first priority is going to be to restore the judges and clip President Pervez Musharraf’s power, if not remove him altogether. Once the government has stabilised itself, the new contours of counter-terrorism policy will be clear.

The US needs to re-orient its approach towards Pakistan. In the past, power was concentrated in Musharraf and his close affiliates in the military, bureaucracy and intelligence agencies. The prime minister and the parliament played a peripheral role and the Foreign Office was assigned the task of policy implementation, or the FO made recommendations to the presidency, which took the final decision. Such centralised decision-making made the task of US policymakers somewhat easy and they devoted more attention and resources to the presidency and the army.

Now, Pakistan is going to have an amorphous decision-making structure. This involves three new players: a prime minister who will function as the first among equals rather than an overpowering leader; top leaders of the coalition parties, especially the PPP and the PMLN; and Parliament. Traditional players like the army, intelligence agencies and the Foreign Office will also make their inputs.

As these institutions and entities do not have much experience of pluralist decision-making and management, they can face problems. This process is expected to be noisy as Parliament seeks a greater role. US diplomats and policymakers will now have to focus on several points in Pakistan’s state system, which makes the task more complex.

American guests got an inkling of what they will be facing in their meeting with Nawaz Sharif, who is known for weak diplomatic skills and is surrounded with advisors with Islamist orientations. He took exception to American disregard of Pakistani sensitivities about counter-terrorism. Later, American officials met with PPP and ANP leaders and found that the US would need strong lobbying with the political class for its worldview on terrorism.

The prime minister, while reiterating his government’s support for counter-terrorism, declared that all important policy matters would be decided by Parliament. This must be a new message for the US. The major hazard of parliamentary debate on counter-terrorism and the problems in the tribal areas is that American policies are going to be subjected to sharp criticism.

In the past, the US identified with Musharraf very closely for understandable reasons. He was the pivot of power in Pakistan but this policy alienated the opposition and independent political forces. What appalled the opposition was that even after Musharraf loyalists lost the elections and the opposition demanded the president’s resignation, the US, especially the White House, continued to support Musharraf and lobbied for retaining him in the new political arrangement.

Musharraf is holding on to the presidency because he expects the political forces to divide in a couple of months and the US to continue supporting him as part of its counter-terrorism policy. The latest visit must have made it clear to them that Musharraf is increasingly becoming irrelevant to policy making and implementation in Pakistan. Short of a dismissal of the political government, Musharraf is not expected to retrieve the initiative which will not be possible without the support of the Army Chief, General Ashfaq Kayani.

Musharraf managed counter-terrorism as an administrative and military affair without bothering to cultivate popular support. Consequently, there was a major disconnect between what the government was doing pertaining to counter-terrorism, including its close interaction with the US, and how people perceived the whole affair. His government could not convince the people that the ongoing war on terrorism served Pakistan’s national interests.

Liberal and moderate political parties and societal groups that viewed terrorism as a threat to civic order and stability were kept at bay by the government because they questioned Musharraf’s legitimacy as the military ruler. They were discouraged from engaging in popular mobilisation.

Instead, Musharraf developed partnership, albeit reluctant and uneasy, with the Islamists who opposed Pakistan’s role in US sponsored war on terrorism. These Islamists got a free hand to build public opinion against the US and the war on terror. Their views became the most popular discourse on terrorism in Pakistan. This perspective was supported by many inside official circles who were not convinced of the genuineness of Pakistan’s counter-terrorist policy.

The Islamists and the Musharraf government developed an understanding on counter- terrorism: the Islamist projected their perspective on terrorism without actually challenging government measures on the ground. On the other hand, the government pursued its counter-terrorism policy in a manner that left some space to militants to survive. This also satisfied those in official circles who viewed some (not all) militants as a possible asset in the future.

Musharraf’s reluctant partnership with the Islamists broke down with the Red Mosque incident as Islamist hard liners viewed it as a shift in government policy. They decided to take on the government to deter it from applying the Red Mosque strategy elsewhere.

Another factor that built resentment against counter terrorism was the large-scale use of force in the tribal areas without taking into account its injurious implications for ordinary Pashtuns who were not directly involved in terrorism. Instead of protecting them from the terrorists, security forces often used force indiscriminately. Over 50,000 people migrated from the tribal areas to the rest of Pakistan to save themselves both from the militants and from the military.

These issues will be fully reflected in parliamentary debates that will then influence new government’s policy options. These developments have also built strong pressure on the government to open negotiations with some militant groups through newly elected representatives from the tribal areas and the new NWFP provincial government. Further, immediate steps need to be taken to increase economic opportunities for people in the tribal areas and elsewhere in Pakistan.

The government will have to articulate a new perspective on counter-terrorism as an alternative to the Islamist discourse. It needs to highlight Pakistan’s responsibility to cope with extremism and terrorism as a nation-state and a member of the international community.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Sectarian Riots in Kohat (NWFP)

SECOND EDITORIAL: Sectarian war in Kohat
Daily Times, March 30, 2008
The news from the Kohat district of the NWFP is not good at all. At least 22 people have died in the ongoing Sunni-Shia riots, although unofficial sources are putting the figure at over 50. The story of misfortune that begins in Kurram Agency in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan extends to Kohat and envelopes the city of Hangu on the way. Kurram Agency is still on fire after an ambulance was attacked killing all its inmates including women and children. In Hangu, on the occasion of Eid Miladun Nabi and the cultural festival of Nauruz, a number of people were killed as in the past when one side resented the celebration of Nauruz.

Kohat is a mixed Sunni-Shia population with traditional dominance of aggressive Sunni clergy. The city boasts an Al Qaeda monument in its centre celebrating the martyrdom of a bus-load of foreign jihadis who had clashed with Pakistani troops in 2001. They had entered Pakistan through Kurram Agency after leaving Tora Bora in Afghanistan, heroes to the Sunnis and non-heroes to the Shias. The curse of sectarianism goes north to Gilgit and south to Karachi, and the absence of the writ of the state makes the job of controlling it extremely difficult.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Changing Realities of Pakistan





Picture and Cartoon from: Daily Times, March 29, 2008

US -- Pakistan Relations

US to respect parliament’s decision: Boucher
Meets Zardari, Asfandyar, Shujaat, Sattar, Fazl
By our correspondent, The News, March 29, 2008

ISLAMABAD: All political leaders who met US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Richard Boucher here on Friday clearly said that Pakistan is not going to blindly follow the US-led "war on terror" as new parliament will decide about the cooperation Islamabad can extend to Washington.

However, Richard Boucher acknowledged Pakistan’s contribution against militancy and said the US would respect Pakistan parliament's stance over war against terrorism if the issue is discussed in the National Assembly.

Richard Boucher met PPP Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari who was accompanied by Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Sherry Rehman and newly appointed ambassador-at-large Hussain Haqqani at the Zardari House. The meeting lasted for more than one hour.

After the meeting Zardari and Boucher held a joint press conference at which the US official said that Washington would continue its support for democracy in Pakistan and looks forward to cooperate with the new government on long-term basis.

"The United States would respect Pakistan parliament's stance on the war against terror if the issue is discussed in parliament," he said. "It is a wrong perception that we are fighting war for any other country. The PPP understands that it is a war to protect our own people and the country from terrorists," said Asif Zardari.

Zardari said he told the American official that the people of Pakistan were hospitable and willing to engage the United States through dialogue. "We are looking for a long-term and constructive relationship with the United States".

He said the PPP feels that terrorism has become more dangerous for Pakistan than for any other country, as it has reached the streets and the cities. "We want to confront terrorism with the cooperation of the world community but parliament will decide about the procedure," he added.

Replying to a question, he said the war on terror is our own war as our own people and children are becoming victim of terrorism. Replying to another question, he said the PPP stance on terrorism is the same what the people of Pakistan think it should be. "We will protect sovereignty of Pakistan at all costs," he added.

He said when the issues would be raised in parliament then it will come out with the solution. Richard Boucher said the US wanted to see Pakistan a strong democratic country and would continue to cooperate for strengthening democracy. "We hope that the new government would not only strengthen the democratic institutions but also continue to work to eradicate the terrorism from the country," he added.

He said the US wanted to work with the Pakistan government for the development of Fata, and US Congress was working on it. "We want to partner with Pakistan" as the new government "lays out its plans".

Boucher also said that "very dangerous people" are plotting attacks in the tribal areas. Partners in the new government have suggested negotiating with some pro-Taliban forces in the area.

To a question, he said the aim of the war on terror is to make Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries of the world safer and the United States is working on it.

Richard Boucher, during the day, also held meetings with other political leaders including ANP President Asfandyar Wali, PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, JUI-F Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman and MQM parliamentary leader Dr Farooq Sattar to get their point of view on war against terror.

Online adds: Talking to mediamen after his meeting with Boucher at the Frontier House here, Asfandyar said the United States has been informed that Pakistan cannot give more sacrifices of its people for the US.

He said the US has also been informed that the decisions taken by local tribal jirgas at the provincial level would have more importance, adding that these decisions should also be accepted in the National and Provincial Assemblies of the country.

He underlined that the United States has agreed over settling all the issues including war on terror by the Pakistan's Parliament. All the political parties of the country have agreed that there should be no military operation in the name of war on terror as Pakistan has borne more loss than any other country of the world, he added.

Responding to a question, the ANP chief said peace cannot be restored in Fata until the end of so-called war on terror, adding that hundreds of people were killed, arrested and tortured in the name of this war.

Asfandyar Wali said power is not our goal but our first priority is an end to military operation in the tribal areas. During his meeting with a delegation of Muttahida Qaumi Movement comprising Dr Farooq Sattar, Hiader Abbas Rizvi and Syed Sardar Shah, Boucher congratulated the MQM for victory in the elections. He also lauded the MQM for extending its unconditional support to Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani during the premier's election for broad-based national reconciliation in the country.

Our correspondent adds: Addressing a press conference after holding talks with Boucher, PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said he has told the US official that matters of national importance would be discussed in parliament.

"All the decisions will be made in the Parliament which is the proper forum," he said. Chaudhry Shujaat said they discussed the overall political scenario and democratic process in the country. "It looks like Mr Boucher is here on a study tour to Pakistan and we discussed the democratic process," he said.

When the PML-Q leader was asked whether the US official sought his party's support for President Pervez Musharraf, Shujaat said the meeting "discussed institutions and not individuals".

Brushing aside the impression that the US official came to him with some proposals, Shujaat said the PML-Q does not take "dictation" and it has its own policies. "During my tenure as prime minister, I rejected pressure for sending Pakistani troops to Iraq. Rather, the matter was taken to the Parliament and after weeklong discussion, the Parliament decision was followed and troops were not sent to Iraq," he added.

APP adds: After meeting Richard Boucher, Maulana Fazl told journalists that the US delegation was asked that Washington should review its policies regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. He said the JUI-F told the delegation that the US war on terror had increased the sufferings of the people.

Fazl said the new government in Pakistan cannot afford to see continuation of American policies in the region and desired political solution to all matters instead of a war-like situation. He said the new government would have a strong foreign policy.

A Chill Ushers in a New Diplomatic Order in Pakistan

News Analysis
A Chill Ushers in a New Diplomatic Order in Pakistan
By JANE PERLEZ, New York Times, March 28, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — If it was not yet clear to Washington that a new political order prevailed here, the three-day visit this week by America’s chief diplomat dealing with Pakistan should put any doubt to rest.

The visit by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte turned out to be series of indignities and chilly, almost hostile, receptions as he bore the brunt of the full range of complaints that Pakistanis now feel freer to air with the end of military rule by Washington’s favored ally, President Pervez Musharraf.

Faced with a new democratic lineup that is demanding talks, not force, in the fight against terrorism, Mr. Negroponte publicly swallowed a bitter pill at his final news conference on Thursday, acknowledging that there would now be some real differences in strategy between the United States and Pakistan.

He was upbraided at an American Embassy residence during a reception in his honor by lawyers furious that the Bush administration had refused to support the restoration of the dismissed judiciary by Mr. Musharraf last year.

Mr. Negroponte once told Congress that Mr. Musharraf was an “indispensable” ally, but the diplomat was finally forced to set some distance after months of standing stolidly by his friend. Mr. Musharraf’s future, he said, would be settled by Pakistan’s new democratic government.

Perhaps the most startling encounter for the 68-year-old career diplomat was the deliberately pointed question by Farrukh Saleem, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, at the reception Wednesday evening.

“How is Pakistan different to Honduras?” Mr. Saleem asked, a query clearly intended to tweak Mr. Negroponte about his time as ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, when he was in charge of the American effort to train and arm a guerrilla force aimed at overthrowing the leftist government in Nicaragua. He was later criticized for meddling in the region and overlooking human rights abuses in pursuit of United States foreign policy goals.

The diplomat demurred, according to Mr. Saleem, saying, “You have put me on the spot.”

Mr. Negroponte had no reply to his next question, either, Mr. Saleem said. “I asked him, ‘What do you know about our chief justice that we don’t know?’ ”

That question was meant to reflect, Mr. Saleem recounted afterward, that the Bush administration had refused to recognize the illegality of the firing of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and that many Pakistanis were angered that the United States had signaled it did not favor the reinstatement of Mr. Chaudhry who, it appeared, was too opposed to Mr. Musharraf for Washington’s taste.

Mr. Negroponte and the Bush administration were tone deaf, Mr. Saleem and others said, to the changes in Pakistan, though the message of the tune seemed inescapable.

As they stood on the lawn of a diplomatic residence here in the spring evening, the chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Aitzaz Ahsan, who has led the campaign to restore Mr. Chaudhry, picked up the challenge to Mr. Negroponte.

First, Mr. Ahsan said he told the diplomat, the lawyers were miffed that Mr. Negroponte had not included them on his planned round of meetings. When the lawyers asked for an appointment on Tuesday, they were rebuffed by the American Embassy, Mr. Ahsan said.

Then, Mr. Ahsan, a graduate of Cambridge and one of Pakistan’s most talented orators, gave Mr. Negroponte a 10- to 15-minute discourse on why an independent judiciary was important to fight terrorism.

“I told him that the most effective weapon on the war against terror is a people who have enforceable rights — then they have a stake in the system,” Mr. Ahsan said of his conversation with Mr. Negroponte.

Mr. Ahsan said he argued that an independent judiciary was “a middle ground” between the military and religious fanatics.

When Mr. Negroponte countered that the new Parliament had pledged to deal with the question of the restoration of the judges within 30 days, Mr. Ahsan said he retorted: “I said you can’t build a Parliament on the debris of the judiciary.”

In contrast to Mr. Negroponte, a delegation of legislators, led by Rep. John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, visited Mr. Chaudhry at his home on Thursday. They were the first foreigners to see the judge since police barricades were removed Tuesday after four months of house arrest.

“He believes the Parliament has a vote in the next 30 days and the judges will go back to work,” Mr. Tierney said after talking to Mr. Chaudhry. “That’s his position, and they’re sticking with it.”

Although he had little to do with the lawyers or the judiciary, Mr. Negroponte, accustomed to seeing a limited circuit of figures, starting with Mr. Musharraf, had to widen his contact list this time.

He met with the leaders of the two main parties in the new coalition government, Nawaz Sharif, and Asif Ali Zardari. They were both in exile for much of Mr. Musharraf’s rule. He also met with prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, who was an unknown politician until this week, and the speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Fehmida Mirza.

Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif have said they want to change the military approach of Mr. Musharraf toward the extremists, and work toward talks.

At a news conference in Karachi before leaving, Mr. Negroponte said Washington could work with the new government, but drew the line at negotiations with extremists. “Security measures are obviously necessary when one is dealing with irreconcilable elements who want to destroy our very way of life,” he said. “I don’t see how you can talk with those kinds of people.”

There was some hope, however, he said, of working with “reconcilable elements” who “can be persuaded to participate in the democratic political process.”

In a marked change of tone from the Musharraf era, the new prime minister, Mr. Gilani, said after meeting Mr. Negroponte on Wednesday that Parliament was now the supreme decision-making body. Pakistan supported its long alliance with the United States, but the fight against terrorism would be discussed in the legislature, he said.

Mr. Negroponte’s visit was generally poorly received. Coming in the week that the government was still being formed — a cabinet has yet to be announced — it was widely interpreted as an act of interference, a last effort to prop up a vastly weakened Mr. Musharraf. One television commentator called the visit “crude diplomacy.”

Others said Mr. Negroponte did not understand that Mr. Musharraf was a disappearing figure, isolated and with little power. One of his last loyal aides, Attorney General Malik Mohammad Qayyum, resigned Thursday.

By the end of his trip, Mr. Negroponte indicated that perhaps Mr. Musharraf’s usefulness to Washington had diminished. The future of Mr. Musharraf was up to the Pakistanis. “Any debate or any disposition as regards his status will have to be addressed by the internal Pakistani political process,” he said.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Can Afghanistan be Rescued?

Afghanistan: is it too late?
Chris Sands, Newstatesman, 27 March 2008

The Taliban are very far from being defeated. Worse, western governments are in denial about the dangers of failing

A normal week in Kabul recently went like this: one day unknown attackers dressed in military gear kidnapped a local businessman; 48 hours later a rocket landed in a deserted area; not long after, a businessman's driver was abducted and a ransom demanded; then, in a district near the city, a mine was found planted in a dirt road.

Within a fortnight violence had moved up a level. A suicide bomber targeted a US convoy as it travelled along the main route leading to the airport. Eight Afghan civilians were killed and 35 wounded. Much of this is just routine horror, details that will be swept aside by even the most pessimistic Nato members when they meet in Bucharest for their summit on 2-4 April. But what the west is starting to acknowledge, people here have known for some time: Afghanistan is not a success story.

Najiba Sharif was elected as an MP for Kabul in September 2005, when the war had apparently been won and hope was still in the air. As a female politician in a land until so recently controlled by the Taliban, she represented a new dawn. A little over two years later she described to me how that had changed: "If everything continues like this, I feel very sad about my children's future. I never wanted to flee the country before, but now I get the sense that I should.

"I do not want to stand for parliament again. Whatever aims I had, I could not achieve them. I have no answers for the people who voted for me and I feel ashamed."

A series of sobering reports on Afghanistan has emerged in recent months. In January alone, Oxfam warned of a potential humanitarian disaster, President Hamid Karzai said the picture was one of "doom and gloom" for his country, and US senators accused their government of having no clear strategy to defeat the insurgency.

For men and women trying to survive everyday life, these realisations are too little, too late. Even the most alarming assessments only hint at the paranoid anger that exists in villages, towns and cities. Sharif's despair is legion.

Earlier this year I met the husband of an MP from southern Afghanistan. With him was a team of bodyguards that he had hired recently after his wife received threatening phone calls telling her never to go back to parliament. When I asked him who was responsible, he insisted it was allies of Karzai. People are frightened by all sides in this war, including government and Nato-led forces. For many, the kind of security offered by the Taliban is preferable to what they have now.

Delawar Chamtu became a policeman 28 years ago and survived everything the world threw at him until one morning last autumn, when the bus he was travelling in blew up. At least 13 people died, including a woman and four children. Suicide bombings were rare here until 2006. Now they occur regularly across much of the country and are threatening to take the insurgency to a new level this spring and summer.

Their impact has been hugely damaging, reaching far beyond the number of people killed. Each explosion sows doubts in the minds of Afghans, some of whom wholeheartedly supported Kar-zai when he first came to power. Chamtu was among them.

"He was very optimistic in the beginning," recalled his eldest son, Khyber. "I wanted to leave the country then, but he said I was not allowed to go because it would become stable. He said Afghanistan would become just like all foreign countries. After security went bad he became worried and started asking how it could happen. He would say, 'How can the Taliban create these problems and occupy parts of our country when we have all the world with us?'"

Growing numbers of Afghans are pondering the same question. It is estimated that last year more than 8,000 people died in violence related to insurgency, and there were 160 suicide bombings - a record total. Kabul had, since the invasion, been regarded as relatively safe. Increased militant activity and rampant criminality are changing that perception of the capital city.

People avoid going out between seven and nine in the morning, when suicide attacks often happen. Blast walls put up to protect government and military compounds are raised higher with each passing month. And when an army convoy or a bus full of policemen moves through the city, civilians watch on anxiously.

Mahfouz Khan was killed in the same incident as Chamtu. At first, his brother Isatullah could only find a familiar-looking pair of legs in the morgue. Then he discovered the body they had been torn from and his fears were confirmed.

"I will never blame the suicide bomber. Maybe he was in trouble or had been given bad advice. Someone had put him under pressure and told him this would be Islamic, or perhaps he was just very poor," said Isatullah. "But I blame my government. If we had a proper government that could deploy good police on our borders how could these people cross into our cities? There is no real government and no real police. Everyone in the government is a killer."

It is now hard to find an Afghan who genuinely supports Karzai. From Kabul to Kan dahar, people complain that his administration is incompetent and corrupt. Their loyalty is to tribal elders, religious leaders or militia commanders, not to a regime they believe to be the tool of the Americans.

Uruzgan Province lies in southern Afghan istan, where it is bordered by the Taliban strongholds of Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul and Ghazni. Late last year, with a new governor in place and winter fast approaching, the US ambassador, William Wood, was flown in to showcase the sudden optimism said to exist in this key battleground. Some children stuck their middle fingers up at the Dutch soldiers deployed in town to provide the muscle all officials here need to survive. Most of the men just stood and stared, unflinching, as dust swirled around them.

Having met a handful of carefully chosen Afghans, the ambassador gave me a few minutes of his time. I asked Wood if he agreed that security was deteriorating and the insurgents were getting stronger.

"We all expected that the fighting season of 2007 would be a very difficult one for the government and for its international allies. In fact, it's been a very difficult fighting season for the Taliban," he said. "They seem to have given up on their ability to win the hearts and minds of the population."

A week or so later I joined members of the British army's 1st Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles as they patrolled through a valley in Uruzgan. Signs of militant activity were clearly visible, with well-made bunkers and trenches dotting the landscape. But local people denied there were any insurgents around and the troops did not know what to think. In the end I asked an Afghan interpreter his opinion.

"Of course, everyone in this village is Taliban," he said. "The men, women and children, they are all Taliban."

According to the Senlis Council, an international think tank, the Taliban have a permanent presence in 54 per cent of Afghanistan. In a report entitled Stumbling Into Chaos, published last November, Senlis also warned that insurgents could soon capture Kabul. These findings were dismissed by the Ministry of Defence in the UK and, despite growing concerns among the international community regarding the security situation, a state of denial remains.

Talks about troop numbers and restrictions on deployment will inevitably dominate Nato's Bucharest summit, but the arguments will seem surreal from inside Afghanistan. When I first came to live in Kabul, almost three years ago, I could travel by car to Kandahar with the odds just about stacked in favour of survival. Today, Afghans are scared to take that route, fearing the police, criminals and the Taliban. I cannot safely walk more than 500 metres from my front door.

Violence is also rising in the north, where warlords are tightening their grip on power. All the main land routes into Kabul are expected to be targeted this year, with the same kind of tactics used against Soviet occupation being adopted once again.

Many people hate the Taliban, but that does not mean they like Britain, the US, Nato or the Karzai government. In the words of a former Northern Alliance commander, a one-time ally of the US: "Now when any foreigner is killed every Afghan says, 'Praise be to God.'"

Chris Sands is a British freelance journalist based in Kabul

World Bank says Pakistan must take urgent action to avert economic crisis

World Bank says Pakistan must take urgent action to avert economic crisis
The Associated Press, March 27, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Pakistan's new government must take urgent action to prevent the country's strong economic expansion from tipping into crisis, the World Bank warned on Thursday.

Praful Patel, a vice president at the bank, said the South Asian country needed to make painful adjustments to higher global prices for oil, commodities and foodstuffs or risk a slowdown.

"There is not yet a crisis, but the economic picture for Pakistan is not good," Patel said. "There is a good economic foundation, but the growth can only continue if Pakistan adjusts to the new global reality."

Patel issued a statement after a three-day visit to Pakistan, which included talks with leaders of the new government taking power after eight years of military rule under former President Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, guided Pakistan from the brink of bankruptcy to multiyear economic growth.

A United Nations report released on Thursday said that Pakistan's economy was expected to grow at 6.5 percent this year, despite uncertainty about stability of the country, which faces rising Islamic extremism as well as a bumpy transition back to democracy.

But some economists warn the current expansion is heavily reliant on a boom in consumer spending and money sent home by Pakistanis working abroad and that the country produces too few high-value exports.

In the short-term, there is particular concern about the government's rising budget deficit and a shortfall in the balance of payments. Both are putting downward pressure on the Pakistani currency, the rupee.

Patel noted that foreign investment and remittances have kept pace and that the stock market has posted gains. The Karachi Stock Exchange's benchmark index closed at a record on Thursday.

However, he forecast that the government would miss its targets for the budget and current account deficits as well as for foreign exchange reserves.

The caretaker administration that quit office this week had begun reducing subsidies on fuel prices that have bitten deeply into the government's coffers. The new government must decide where to cut spending and is reportedly eyeing the military budget for possible reductions.

The World Bank said its team discussed changes in oil imports, taxation and "prioritization of expenditures."

"Any adjustment will be painful," said Patel. "But there must be an appropriate safety net for the poor." He said that could include direct cash transfers, a mechanism used to relieve people hit by Pakistan's massive 2005 earthquake.

Pakistan's new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, is expected to announce steps to address problems including high food prices and energy shortages when he makes his first policy speech in parliament on Saturday.

"If action is not taken, the economy will start to falter, but with the right policies and strong support from multilateral and bilateral partners, we believe the high growth and poverty reduction path can be maintained in Pakistan," Patel said.

Lest we forget...

March 25 — a watershed
By Akhtar Payami, Dawn, March 25, 2008

DHAKA: March 25, 1971. The incessant roar of gunfire dominated the midnight hour. Petrified men, women and children huddled together in their homes not knowing what the future held for them. Only the previous day they had witnessed the hoisting of a new national flag. Pakistan’s star and crescent ensign had not been unfurled as before.

That had led to a confrontation between the security forces and the ‘miscreants’ agitating for the independence of Bangladesh. What happened on that fateful night became part of our disjointed history. It was target killing of another kind. If you were a Bengali, or looked like one, you faced certain death.

We didn’t know about that until the next morning. I was then living in an apartment in a multi-ethnic, middle-class locality of Dhaka. For years we had lived in amity with our neighbours sharing each other’s joys and sorrows. But feelings were changing. Friendships were giving way to animosity. Suspicion and distrust soured relationships.

When the curfew was lifted for a few hours in the morning of March 26, I stepped out of my apartment to shop for some food for the family. Suddenly I was stopped by a car that screeched to a halt besides me. The occupants asked me brusquely where I was going. When I told them why I was out on the street at a time when most preferred the safety of their homes, they offered to take me to the market which was not far and insisted that I accompany them. I realised that all was not well and they were looking for easy targets.

I then began talking to them in highly Persianised Urdu to establish my ethnic identity. I was wearing a kurta and pyjama that was and still remains the attire of Muslim Bengalis. By then the urban population had discarded the lungi which previously distinguished the natives from the migrants.

After driving a short distance, my ‘benefactors’ realised that this was a case of mistaken identity. They lost interest in including me in their wild killing spree. Hurriedly, they dropped me by the roadside saying they had an urgent chore and therefore could not take me to the market. I thanked my stars.

We never came to know how many people were killed on that terrible night. Later we learnt that among the unfortunate victims were leading intellectuals, writers, professors, artists, poets and exceptionally bright professionals. Among those innocent people were Prof Guha, Prof Thakur Das and Munier Choudhry. They were patriots working tirelessly for the improvement of their homeland. The list of potential victims had been meticulously prepared with the help of the leaders and activists of some newly formed organisations called Al Shams and Al Badr.

Though such allegations were refuted vociferously by the government, it was generally believed that there was a great deal of truth in the rumours that were circulating. The bodies of the slain were later discovered scattered in the vicinity of Mohammadpur, a housing colony which was founded by Field Marshal Ayub Khan for the rehabilitation of Muslims uprooted from India.

The massacre of March 25 backfired. The public anger at the killing of Bengali intellectuals exposed the minority Urdu-speaking population to the vendetta that was inevitable. They were isolated and thereafter lived in perpetual fear that instilled in them a ghetto mentality they could never shed. For years they had chased illusions and false images while claiming a sham superiority in number and intellect that simply did not exist.

Without attempting to assimilate themselves into the local population, the Urdu speakers trumpeted their links with West Pakistan while repudiating the language and culture of the Bengalis whose political aspirations they contemptuously rejected.

Hence in 1971, when the liberation struggle reached a decisive stage, the Urdu speakers vehemently supported the army action. When the Bengali resistance managed to cut off supply of essential food to the cantonment areas, the Urdu speakers stepped in to provide the security agencies with all necessary facilities. Had they not done so, the Pakistan Army would have faced certain death.

March 25 marks a watershed in our chequered history. The following day, furious Bengalis assembled to announced the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent and sovereign state. The proclamation of independence was written on a scrap of paper torn from an exercise book which was read out in an open place at a meeting of top Awami League leaders. Thenceforth March 26 came to be observed by Bangladesh as its official independence day.

Today when our leaders proudly speak of Pakistan having survived for sixty years, they fail to mention that the Pakistan we have today is not the country that was born in 1947. The politicians who followed the Quaid failed to understand the psyche of the people of the eastern wing. The dynamics of political power, economic resources, and language and culture eluded our leadership. This schism existed even at the local level between the refugees from India and the indigenous population.

India had faced a similar problem vis-à-vis the uprooted people from Sindh and Punjab. But they were quickly assimilated in the areas where they settled and the crisis was overcome thanks to the country’s democratic structures. This process was never initiated in East Pakistan.

It is a legacy of this failure that several hundred thousand men and women continue to languish today in the so-called Geneva camps scattered all over Bangladesh. They suffer on account of the sins of their ancestors.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

US Uneasy with Pakistan's New Direction: NPR




All Things Considered, NPR - March 26, 2008
Jackie Northam talks to Hassan Abbas, Karl Inderfurth, Michael Scheurer

To listen, click here

Also see:
U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan - Washington Post
Pakistan to Fight Terrorism With `Determination,' Gillani Says - Bloomberg.com

Tribal elders tell US only talks can end militancy

Tribal elders tell US only talks can end militancy
By Javed Afridi, The News, March 27, 2008

PESHAWAR: Elders of the Khyber Tribal Agency on Wednesday urged the US administration to stop seeking military solution to militancy in the tribal areas and suggested adopting traditional means of Jirga to end the resistance. A group of 11 tribal elders led by Malik Darya Khan met US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher in Landikotal Cantonment. They told the US officials that the centuries-old Jirga system was still effective in the tribal territory, which provided remedy for every trouble, including the scourge of terrorism.

The meeting was held in a highly guarded environment and mediapersons were denied access to the venue. Later, talking to The News by phone, Malik Darya Khan said the top US officials were apprised of tribesmen apprehensions about, what he termed as, mishandling of the affairs in the tribal region. "There is a difference between terrorism and reaction to what a community considered injustice," he said.

He said that while the former was condemnable in all its forms and manifestations, the latter could only be resolved through dialogue. "The developments taking place for the last many years are by no means acts of terrorism but a reaction to what the tribesmen considered disproportionate to their customs and traditions," he said.

The tribal elder said tribesmen were peace-loving and responsible people and knew their limitation, but at the same time, they had every right to defend their ideologies and traditional norms, especially when they were not hurting anyone.

"We told the US officials that the people of Fata had valiantly defended their borders during the decade-long invasion of Afghanistan by the defunct USSR and the same would be done, come what may, in the future as well," he resolved.

The elder said that the last time, the US deputy secretary of state paid a visit to Landikotal, there was a dictatorial rule in the country and an individual was calling the shots. "Now, we have a representative parliament installed, it is a good omen for this area that the officials visited us," he said.

The tribal leader said now the Parliament with the consultation of the local representative Jirga would decide the future line of action and seek US help for the same. Another tribal elder and former federal minister Malik Waris Khan, who termed the meeting informal and incidental, said the US deputy secretary of state was told that the issue of terrorism in the tribal areas remained unresolved because the same was being handled by people not familiar with the norms and traditions of the local people.

Waris said the issue could best be resolved by involving the local tribal elders in the negotiation process. He, however, said that the same could only succeed if the future Jirga was independent to take and implement its decisions.

He said that all the tribal elders present on the occasion stressed the need for US help in economic uplift of the tribal areas, which they believed would have a direct effect on the law and order situation in the area. The former minister said the US officials pledged to take every possible step in this regard and vowed to work for poverty alleviation in Fata.

Earlier, Negroponte and Boucher also met Commandant Frontier Corps (FC) Col Qaisar Alam and discussed with him matters of mutual interests. Afghan officials were also present in the meeting. According to reports, border security and smooth supply of goods intended for allied forces stationed in Afghanistan was discussed in the meeting.

Also See:
Editorial: American ‘interference’ and our rage - Daily Times
Pakistan's new leaders tell US: We are no longer your killing field - Guardian

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Nawaz advised to soften anti-Musharraf stand By the US

Nawaz advised to soften anti-Musharraf stand
By Mayed Ali, The News,March 25, 2008

LAHORE: US officials have asked PML-N Quaid Mian Nawaz Sharif to soften his stand on President Pervez Musharraf as their government feels comfortable getting along with the man atop the hill, The News has learnt.

In a 55-minute-long meeting with former PM Nawaz Sharif at the Punjab House in Islamabad on Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher explained how important President Musharraf was for the US in its war on terror. They explained Musharraf had been part of the USís war on terror since 2001.

Shahbaz Sharif, Ch Nisar Ali Khan, Kh Asif, Ishaq Dar and Ahsan Iqbal were also present. However, Nawaz countered the US officials’ stance on the ground that the recent mandate of the people had established the president had lost the trust of the masses. Nawaz challenged the policies of President Musharraf, especially his approach to the war on terror.

Elaborating his contention, Nawaz Sharif said President Musharraf had been part of the war on terror problem, and cannot become part of the solution. Nawaz dilated upon the adventurism of the establishment led by President Musharraf during the Taliban days. Nawaz said his government had opposed the establishment of a base in Jalalabad in the Taliban days, but President Musharraf went ahead with the plan. Nawaz tried to explain how crucial was President Musharraf’s role in strengthening the Taliban government and consequently consolidating al-Qaeda’s position in the region.

Nawaz also informed the US officials how President Musharraf manipulated the 2002 elections in the NWFP, giving massive representation to the rightwing parties. He was of the view the bid was aimed at creating an excuse to scare the US of the dire situation in Pakistan. He used the rightwingers for prolonging his rule, making himself indispensable for the US.

Nawaz Sharif also told the officials about the inhumane treatment meted out to him and his family when he was in exile. From hard pre-poll rhetoric to a pragmatic post-poll handling of vital issues, former premier Nawaz Sharif has come a long way as a statesman. Sources said the party leader knew exactly the stated standpoints of both the parties engaged in dialogue. So, he didn't touch the issues already understood. Nawaz remained focused on the agenda taken up by the guests. He told the US officials parliament would not become a rubberstamp of the presidency. He remained focused on the supremacy of the parliament, which, he conveyed, had to be sovereign while taking important policy decisions. Nawaz put his point across to the Americans with regard to the latter's interest in Pakistan. He told the US officials the policy-decisions vis-a-vis the war on terror had to be routed through the elected parliament, and his party wouldn't appreciate the US’s overwhelming dependence on Musharraf.

Nawaz discussed in detail the mismanaged facets of the war on terror. He told the US how costly was this war for Pakistan. The former PM attributed the growing violence in Pakistan to poor handling of the issue, saying only elected representatives of the people had the potential and the right to formulate policies with regard to this menace. The PML-N leader said terrorism was unacceptable; however, he had reservations on the operational mismanagement in war on terror. He believed the West would have to win the hearts and minds of the people rather than indiscriminate pounding of suspected terrorists' hubs, which had inherent threat of great collateral damage.

Nawaz suggested the political configuration of the new setups in the centre and the NWFP was conducive to resolving this problem. He told the US officials the PML-N supported the cause of fighting terrorism, but with a different approach. As for the success in this mission, he added the US and the West would have to give precedence to the parliament, the body representing 160 million Pakistanis, rather than banking on President Musharraf alone.

Also See:New Pakistani Leaders Tell Americans There’s ‘a New Sheriff in Town’ - NYT
Pakistan not to play into US hands, says Nawaz - The News

Expanded VVIP Protection in Pakistan Need of the Hour

23 law enforcement officers trained and ready to take over VVIP security
* Newly elected politicians demanding Interior Ministry prepare their
personal security plans with input from these trained officers
By Shahnawaz Khan, Daily Times, March 25, 2008

LAHORE: Twenty-three Pakistani law-enforcement personnel, who in mid-March completed a VIP Protection Course conducted under the United States’ Anti-Terrorist Assistance (ATA) programme, are ready to take charge of the security of VVIPs in the country, Interior Ministry sources told Daily Times on Monday.

The 23 security personnel participated in an intensive three-week course designed to impart the skills required to protect national leaders and key facilities from attack. Familiarisation with cutting-edge technology, methods of sweeping an area before the arrival of VVIPs, and investigating and preserving the crime scene were some of the main features of the training.

Caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz confirmed that the security personnel had completed the training course, and said the majority of these trained officers would further train more law enforcement personnel in all four provinces. He highlighted that, as the wave of terrorism continued to lash the country, a number of important personalities had been threatened by various groups. The caretaker interior minister said the project would continue, with the aim of training the maximum possible number of law enforcement personnel in the latest theories and technologies.

Demands: Interior Ministry sources said several newly elected politicians had sent demands “through various channels” for the preparation of their personal security plans with the input of these specially trained security personnel. Politicians from the incoming opposition, who had received threats from various groups, had also been “using their contacts” to demand the same, the sources added.

The law enforcement personnel completed the training in mid-March and received completion certificates from the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W Patterson. The Punjab Police department jointly organised the ceremony with the US Department of State Diplomatic Security Service Programme. On the occasion, Ambassador Patterson had said: “there is no more important task in Pakistan today than to stop the scourge of terrorism.

“A small group of misguided individuals must not be allowed to deter the moderate, mainstream majority from building the prosperous and democratic future they envision for Pakistan.”Earlier, officials of various law enforcement agencies also completed various short courses delivered by US as well as Pakistani trainers at the Police Training College in Sehala.

The ATA programme has been ongoing in Pakistan since 2003. It provides training, equipment and technology targeted to respond most effectively to the evolving security situation. It builds the capacity of civilian security and law enforcement personnel in dealing with terrorism. In such courses, the trainees learn about the most effective means of bomb detection, crime scene investigation, airport and building security, maritime protection, and VIP protection.

Also see Previous post of Watandost on the Subject:
Security and Intelligence: Need for Pakistan Secret Service - Hassan Abbas

…Aur mein sidq-e-dil ke saath Pakistan ki wafadar rahoon-gi...

From dusk to dawn: a new beginning By Naheed Khan
The News, March 25, 2008

The writer is a former member of parliament who served as Benazir Bhutto’s personal assistant and political secretary

…Aur mein sidq-e-dil ke saath Pakistan ki wafadar rahoon-gi (That I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan…

A beautiful young woman, remarkably composed in green shalwar-kameez and with a white scarf neatly covering her head, takes the oath of office of prime minister on this ending note and signs the register. The pindrop silence is replaced with a massive round of applause. A few eyes glaze over with tears, a few faces are illuminated, while others smirk. This is Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, being sworn in as the first woman prime minister of an Islamic country, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Pakistan was triumphant: at last her sufferings were over; at last her struggle had found a destination. It was a sight her father, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, would have loved if he were still with us. How proud Begum Bhutto must have been seeing her little Pinkie transforming into Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. Little did we know that this was the beginning of a new suffering which would eventually lead to her death some 20 years later.

Bibi had tremendous control over her emotions and we have witnessed it frequently; be it her father’s judicial murder or her two brothers’ killings, she remained composed and her elegance was par excellence, no matter what.

She faced life-long sufferings with remarkable grace and dignity. She bore the pain of her husband’s incarceration, for 11 out of the 20 years of her married life, with great endurance. Her personal life went through trials and tribulations, and when keeping her children away from her had become a compulsion, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was just a mother, longing to take her babies into her arms. But her commitment to her country and her people once again crushed her emotions, leaving three little toddlers waiting in anticipation of the day they would feel their mother’s warmth and fragrance.

Bibi was sworn in as prime minister for a second time, but again the office proved to be a package full of thorns and hardships. People often wonder what she got out of her commitment to her country. She was confined indoors when she should have been enjoying her youth with her friends like any other girl of her age. But she herself said: "I did not choose this life. This life chose me." She was forced to grieve over her father’s judicial murder, confined in her house, when she should have been a carefree young lady, the same house where she had shared some fine, warm moments of her life with her once happy family. She was not allowed to hug her dear father for the last time in his death cell.

They say that graves are full of indispensable people, but Bibi has proved them wrong. She will remain indispensable for as long as the world exists.

Today is indeed a sad day for all of us. The stage where our beloved Bibi would have been standing, taking oath as prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the third time, awaits her not knowing that she has left us forever, and that this place will now never be honoured with her physical presence.

But the bequest that she has left will remain with us forever. Her grand presence and her extraordinary abilities to handle the most challenging situations would make even her contenders praise her in their hearts. How many people in this world do we have as undisputed as she as a martyr, after her death? I call her indispensable because we do not see her substitute, because we cannot imagine someone as grand as her, someone as gifted both in intelligence and vision as her, for years to come, perhaps never in our lives, at least.

Bibi was all in one, a beautiful blend of progressive and modest beliefs. She strongly believed in exchange of ideas, instead of conspiracy theories. She did not believe in political victimisation and was extremely forgiving. She wanted all political and democratic forces to unite and stand against dictatorship. We can only hope that the new government makes serious efforts to follow the path she so much wanted to tread. She was not merely the chairperson of a political party; she was a daughter of this soil, and we must not forget that she never compromised on principles, and her love for her country was unconditional. We all owe this to her blood.

Bibi, where are you on this day which certainly was meant to be yours? We miss your lovely smile, we miss your presence in our lives and we miss your unconditional warmth for us. It was all whisked away, and I could not do anything. I could not bring you back to life.

Bibi, my husband Dr Safdar Abbassi and I would sit for hours and pour our hearts out to each other, stealing some time away from political turbulence. Our trio had a rare and special bond, and during one of these sessions in Dubai I told her that my biggest wish now was to see her take the oath for the third time. She smiled with all her exaltedness and said, "Let’s see if your wish comes true or not." I promised that it would. I assured her that it was inevitable; she would emerge victorious in the upcoming polls. She did, but sadly, from Garhi Khuda Buksh, a final home for assassinated Bhuttos. Tears trickle down my cheeks and blur my eyes; my throat chokes as I type these words.

Bibi’s greatest urge was to make Pakistan a prosperous nation, a place free of suicide bombings and ethnic discrimination. She did not believe in Sindhis, Mohajirs, Pathans, Punjabis or Baloch. All she wanted was Pakistanis as one. This theory made her reconcile with those who had been her bitterest opponents, or who were responsible for her lifelong miseries. Her outstanding intelligence and political abilities persuaded other political forces to rethink and advance towards a peaceful and democratic Pakistan. She has proved that her school of thought was the right course and it is because of this that we are now seeing major political opponents stand together. I can visualise her looking down from the Heavens, beaming and praying that this new era lasts forever and takes her country to where she always wanted to see it. This parliament owes a lot to her, and can repay her only by honouring her wishes. The ray of hope she showed us should turn into bright sunshine, washing away the darkness surrounding us, and we must revert to her for guidance should we feel lost.

When I witness the new prime minister being sworn in, my heart will ache for you, Bibi. I cannot ever express how sorry I am that you are not here in this hour of your triumph. I remember promising you that we would leave no stone unturned in seeing you back as prime minister of our beloved Pakistan. I recall the excitement that we shared at the thought of being able to give Pakistan the opportunity to soar to the international stage as a young, vibrant democracy. I can imagine how delighted you must be today to see the beginning of the era you always dreamt of. This country of immense potential will Insha Allah rise, sadly without you, but we as a nation will witness your dream shaping into reality. I hope you have found eternal peace, and pray that your martyrdom leads us to a strong democracy and a brighter Pakistan. We all miss you, Bibi, more than you will ever know.