Slaughterhouse in mad house - Taliban in Pakistan

Pagal khanay mein zabah khana - by Mohammed Hanif

پاگل خانےمیں ذبح خانہ

محمد حنیف

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، کراچی

’تو پھر کیا تمام پنجابی طالبان، وزیرستان ہجرت کر جائیں گے یا ایک چھوٹی سے خلافت ملتان اور رحیم یار خان کے بیچ میں بھی قائم ہو گی‘

گذشتہ ہفتے ایک غیر صحافی دوست نے سوال پوچھا کہ آخر پاکستانی طالبان کے سیاسی مقاصد کیا ہیں۔ میں نے اسکو سنی سنائی باتیں بتائیں لیکن اسے کیا یقین آنا تھا مجھے خود اپنے جواب پر یقین نہیں آیا۔ تب سے میں ہر صحافی، دانش ور سے پوچھتا ہوں، ادارتی صفحے کھنگالتا ہوں اور جو جواب ملتے ہیں اس سے میرے ذہن میں مزید سوال اٹھتے ہیں۔ اب تک ملنے والے جوابات اور میرے سوال در سوال کچھ یوں ہیں۔ جواب پہلے ہے سوال بعد میں۔

ج: پاکستانی طالبان، افغانستان کے طالبان کے ساتھ مل کر امریکی فوجوں کی واپسی چاہتے ہیں اور یہ چاہتے ہیں کہ پاکستان قبائلی علاقوں میں مداخلت نہ کرے تاکہ وہ اپنے قبائلی رسم و رواج اور شریعت کے مطابق زندگی گزار سکیں۔

س: تو پھر کیا تمام پنجابی طالبان وزیرستان ہجرت کر جائیں گے یا ایک چھوٹی سے خلافت ملتان اور رحیم یار خان کے بیچ میں بھی قائم ہوگی؟

ج: پاکستانی طالبان کا کوئی وجود نہیں یہ صرف قبائلی انتظام ہے۔ خون کا بدلہ خون۔ پاکستانی فوج نے ان پر چڑھائی کی۔ وہ صرف بدلہ لے رہے ہیں۔

س: اگر یہ صرف قبائلی انتقام ہے تو گزشتہ دہائی میں شیعوں سے اور اس سے پہلے قادیانیوں سے کون سا انتقام لیا جا رہا تھا؟

ج: یہ تحریک اس عالمی اسلامی نشاۃ الثانیہ کا حصہ ہے جو نو گیارہ کے بعد شروع ہوئی۔ یہ تحریک اس وقت تک جاری رہے گی جب تک مسلمانوں کا ازلی دشمن امریکہ گھٹنے نہیں ٹیک دیتا۔

س: اس عالمی تحریک کے پوسٹر بوائے اسامہ بن لادن ہیں اور گیارہ نو سے پہلے ان کا سیاسی مشن تھا سعودی عرب میں اسلامی نظام کا نفاذ۔ سعودی عرب میں اسلامی نظام کا نفاذ؟ ہمیں تو بچپن سے پڑھایا گیا تھا کہ سعودی عرب وہ واحد جگہ ہے جہاں اسلامی نظام موجود ہے۔ تو اب کیا مقصد ہے؟ کیلیفورنیا میں اسلامی نظام کا قیام؟ اور کیا یہ عظیم مقصد پشاور کے معصوم بچوں کو زندہ جلائے بغیر حاصل کیا جاسکتا ہے؟

ج: آپ واقعی توقع رکھتے ہیں کہ قبائلی پٹھان کسی سیاسی منشور پر عمل کر رہے ہیں؟ یہ سوال ہی لغو ہے۔

’میڈیا میں اور مسجدوں میں انکا دفاع کرنے والے کس کے ایجنٹ ہیں‘

س: الیاس کشمیری، ڈاکٹر عقیل، حاجی اسحٰق، اکرم لاہوری، مولانا مسعود اظہر نہ تو قبائلی ہیں نہ پٹھان۔ یہ سب پاکستان میں کبھی کسی ایجنسی، کبھی کسی مذہبی جماعت کے ہیرو بھی رہے ہیں۔ تو کیا یہ سب لوگ بھی طالبان کے ساتھ تعلق بنانے کے بعد پٹھان ہو گئے ہیں؟ کیا ان سادہ دلوں کا بھی کوئی سیاسی منشور نہیں ہے۔ اور کیا اس نامنشور پر عمل کے لیے ضروری ہے کہ غریبوں کے بچے بارود اور کیلوں سے بھری جیکٹیں پہنا کر اڑادیے جائے؟

ج: یہ سب امریکہ، اسرائیل اور بھارت کے ایجنٹ ہیں۔

س: سب کے سب؟ اور میڈیا میں اور مسجدوں میں انکا دفاع کرنے والے کس کے ایجنٹ ہیں؟

ج: یہ ملک ایک پاگل خانہ ہے۔مصری عالم سید قطب کے پیروکاروں کے ذہن میں آیا کہ اس پاگل خانے کے بیچ ایک ذبح خانہ قائم کر دیا جائے تو سارے پاگل اپنے کام چھوڑ کر یا تو تالیاں بجائیں گے، یا روئیں گے، یا خون میں ہاتھ دھو کر اپنے چہروں پر ملیں گے۔گوشت کے لوتھڑے بھنبھوڑیں گے، ڈر کے سجدوں میں گر جائیں گے، ذبح خانے میں سجدوں میں جھکی گردنیں کاٹی جائیں گی، پرانی قبروں سے ڈھانچے نکال کر انہیں چوراہوں پر پھانسی دی جائے گی۔ چھوٹے بچوں کو چھوٹی قبروں میں دفنا کر اللہ کی رضا قرار دیا جائے گا۔ ذبح خانہ تکبیر کے نعروں سے گونجے گا۔ اور یوں سارے پاگل سید قطب کے خواب کی تعبیر پائیں گے اور بخشے جائیں یا نہ جائیں پاگل خانے کی پاگل زندگی سے نجات ضرور پائیں گے۔

س: آمین ثم آمین

War and politics

Reality check

Friday, October 30, 2009
Shafqat Mahmood

Their claim of fighting for Islam was always a sham. That they are barbarous animals has been exposed by the bombing of innocent people in Peshawar. This is not the first time and it will not be the last. They will stop at nothing to get what they really want; power to lord it over you, and tell you how to live your life.

Is this slaughter of poor men, women and children happening because they hate the United States? Were they cutting throats and whipping women in Swat because of the drone attacks? Are these the kind of people who can be talked to, as Imran Khan, Rustam Shah Mohmand and others would have us believe?

They tell us that we the people of Pakistan are being targeted because our governments, past and present, collaborated with the US in fighting the Al Qaeda and Taliban. Let us for a moment accept their logic. How will they explain that these groups had already created cadres, prepared suicide squads, armed themselves and were ready to take on the Pakistani state?

Did this occur because of US-Pakistan partnership after 9/11 or was this happening anyway? The Sufi Mohammads of this world were on the warpath much before September 2001 as were the Punjab-based radical sectarian outfits. Their power and organisation was growing and they were all prepared to assert themselves whether or not the US-Pakistan collaboration took place.

The American presence in Afghanistan has of course added to the problem. After it was occupied, Al Qaeda and other radical groups shifted to Pakistani border regions, adding their money, leadership and skills to the growing strength of local groups. Drone attacks and the overbearing American attitude did not help either. But to say that the terrorism we face today is only because of Pakistan-US collaboration is delusional.

The US could indeed help us to fight this home-grown insurgency better by making its attitude towards Pakistan clearer. It is not just a question of giving us money and arms, although given the state of our economy and the militancy challenge it is not something to sneer at. It could go further by giving greater respect to our sovereignty and not appear to assist our adversaries.

Unwelcome drone attacks are just one aspect of it. The growing footprint of US advisors and security personnel on the ground in Islamabad and other parts of the country is disturbing for the Pakistani people. Some of them have even been caught roaming the capital with arms and others allegedly stopped close to our nuclear installation in Kahuta. Such stories fuel the already high levels of anti-Americanism in the country.

The US attitude in Afghanistan is also giving rise to misgivings. It is allowing Indian presence there to enlarge rapidly. The opening of new consulates is just one part of it. Indian civil institutions and private contractors in every field are also a growing presence. If the US wants to win hearts and minds in Pakistan, it has to show greater sensitivity to our concerns.

The Americans also need to clarify their attitude towards known anti-Pakistan figures, such as Brahmdagh Bugti and others, who are being given refuge in Afghanistan. There is sufficient evidence, according to Pakistan government, of Indian meddling in Balochistan. By giving refuge to the so-called Baloch nationalists, the Americans appear to be colluding with them.

It is in this context that the conditions attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill raised so many doubts in Pakistan. If there had been no worries regarding American intentions, some of the intemperate language may have been tolerated given the larger framework of support contained in it. But the feeling that Americans are not playing straight, led to the strong response in the country. (The News)

(Ayaz Khan)

Read more...

General Aslam Beg is the real bitch!

Read more...

Shafqat Mahmood: Imran Khan's strange politics

It is in tough times that a nation's mettle is tested and we have not faced such challenges since 1971. Besides the rigours of war that our brave soldiers are fighting with grit and determination, we face a huge humanitarian crisis.

The government may be lagging behind in its relief effort but the ordinary people are coming through. From impromptu relief camps to truckloads of supplies from citizen groups, and an overwhelming urge to give cash, there is a visible anguish for the displaced people of Malakand.

Unfortunately, the state machinery is not moving as quickly. An announcement on behalf of the prime minister that all banks would receive donations has not been followed through. Until Thursday morning, even some of the more prominent Pakistani banks had not received instructions to open PM's relief account.

Incidentally, is it too much to ask that there be some coordination of the appeals for donations made by various government entities? If advertisements in the papers are any guide, at least four separate calls have been made and there may be as many as six.

There is the Prime Minister's fund and of the NWFP government. In Punjab, the governor and the chief minister have made separate appeals. (Why?). I am not aware of it but Sindh and Baluchistan governments may have also done something similar.

Is it impossible to have just one fund? If there were, it would be easier for people to give and for the banks to manage. But, then this would be asking our leadership to display some hidden executive talent. Let us face it; these people are good politicians but management is not one of their virtues.

On the battle field, our armed forces seem to be doing well. I am no military expert but they appear to be going about their task unhurriedly and with great care. Fighting insurgencies is not easy as it is not the conventional warfare armies are trained for. But, whatever evidence we have, of this and the earlier Bajaur operation, our armed forces are adapting and beginning to win.

On the political front, it is sad that even when we are in a virtual state of war, there are discordant voices. Some PML-N members continue to make speeches against the operation and against the army in the National Assembly. This is unhelpful considering that the both Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif have taken an unequivocal stand against the terrorists. Maybe these members should check with their leadership before holding forth.

However, no one has been more disappointing in this regard than Imran Khan. I have great respect for what he has achieved on the cricket field. He was an inspirational captain, a great player and his integrity was beyond doubt. His disdain for money in particular was something to admire in an era of match fixing and other shenanigans.

In social work, what he has accomplished in the shape of Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital is truly stupendous. Not only is it the best-run hospital in Pakistan, it provides free medical treatment to thousands of poor patients. What is more, the lack of any VIP culture in hospital management is a personal tribute to the vision and leadership of Imran Khan.

When it comes to politics and policy though, the same Imran is unfortunately a signal failure. It can be truly said of him that he never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He could have teamed up with Nawaz Sharif in 1997 and got his party a presence in parliament. He did not.

He flip-flopped with Musharraf -- supporting him in the rigged referendum, opposing him in the ensuing general election -- and got the worst of both worlds. And, he boycotted the 2007 election when being in parliament (provided he won) would have made a great deal more sense.

These examples are of power politics and it may be argued that parliamentary success or power are no measure of a person's success as a politician. Fine, let us look at his policy prescriptions.

From the start of his political career, he railed against something called western culture, which was a straight forward rejection of modernisation. In a country that was being pulled back by obscurantist mullahs, this was a strange choosing of sides. I will not even go into the personal choices he made while doing this.

His second fixation was the idealisation of a Pakhtun tribal culture. Again, I will avoid psychoanalysing a Punjabi's identity crisis, but how a semi-literate and simple rural people could become a role model for a rapidly urbanising and complex Pakistani society was not easy to understand.

Granted that their inter-tribal dealings were egalitarian and perhaps the tribal councils or jirgas worked well, but how this model could be transplanted in other parts of the country, was neither explained by Imran nor obvious.

In between, he took some correct positions on the judiciary question and against Musharraf but badly fumbled while trying to prosecute Altaf Hussain in England. A politician should know which battles can be won and which are a lost cause. Imran vowed to go after Altaf Hussain in England and declared victory even before he had presented his case before the British government. As was expected, nothing has happened despite his various entreaties to the high and mighty in that country.

But, all these mistakes pale in comparison when measured up against his obsessive, single track refusal to understand that these barbarian hordes targeting FATA and Malakand division are a threat to our country. He has just one mantra that this is America's fault, America's fault, America… etc. America has contributed to it but is that the only problem we confront?

He cannot or does not want to understand that these people are linked up with Al Qaeda and actually do have an agenda of taking over our country. If he does not want to believe a 'westernised liberal' like me, he should read Saleem Saafi in Jang or others that know these people well.

In any case, how can he condone what these people are doing? Cutting people's throats, lashing women, destroying all schools not just girls', indulging in kidnapping and extortion and unleashing a reign of terror to subdue the people, are just some of their crimes. Above all, these people have taken up arms against the state. Why can't he see all this?

He should listen to the stories of the displaced people now that they are out of the Taliban fear zone. They describe the Taliban as bloody thirsty criminals. It is sad that Imran visualises them as some kind of higher beings or fighters of Islam responding to American presence in Afghanistan. Please!

In this difficult time for the country, he is on the wrong side of history. No one doubts that American presence in Afghanistan has seriously contributed to our troubles. There is also a possibility that the Americans may have an evil eye on our nuclear programme.

But, we must also remember that barbarian hordes linked to Al Qaeda also have designs on our country and threaten our way of life. We have no choice but to fight them.

Imran must stand by his people and the armed forces. He should rise above his prejudices and help in the fight for Pakistan. (The News,k 15 May).


Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com

Read more...

Shafqat Mahmood: No more confusion on terrorism

Reality check

Friday, April 03, 2009

Three main challenges we face as a nation came together last Monday. Terror came to haunt us again in Lahore with the attack on the Manawan Police Training School. Despite prior information, the lack of preparedness displayed by the police spotlighted our crisis of governance. And political change played its part through the unfamiliarity of newly shuffled officials' with their jobs and diversion of their focus to survival in office.

The blanket media coverage also demonstrated our hopeless amateurishness in tackling emergencies. The police response seemed uncoordinated and purposeless. Isolated individuals were firing guns in apparently aimless direction and, it often felt, as if for the benefit of TV cameras. It was good that a terrorist was caught but then the law enforcers almost kicked him to death. Again, why he was dragged through a slogan-chanting crowd who could have easily pummelled him to death is beyond me.

It was also embarrassing to watch, considering international media coverage, the way the injured were being taken away. There seemed to be a shortage of stretchers because many profusely bleeding wounded were carted via their hand and feet. It surely would have aggravated their injuries. Ambulances also seemed to be scarce. And this in the provincial capital, Lahore! What the scene would be in smaller places can only be imagined.

All this can be put under the rubric of crisis of governance. The police are neither properly organised nor trained for such emergencies. Taking care of the wounded in such situations and their shifting to a medical facility is quite a science and we are nowhere close to getting it. But the real tragedy was not the gloss put on the event but media commentators.

It is truly sad that there are people among us who still refuse to recognise that we face a home grown challenge of extremism. They put all the blame on the American presence in Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the thirty-year war in that country, and the way Americans have gone about conducting the occupation after 9/11, have contributed to extremism in Pakistan. Some of our domestic terror attacks are related to it. But that is only a part of the problem.

We also a face a problem of extremism within the country and these people will stop at nothing short of taking over the state. Inch by inch they are creating a space for themselves. They have virtually taken control of Swat and, as events of the last few days have demonstrated, are moving strongly into Dir. This is not anger against the Americans. It is fight for power.

In places where they can take on the state apparatus directly, they don't shy of doing so. Besides the places they have already captured, like the tribal area and Swat, they are actively challenging the state in many parts of the Frontier. In provinces like Punjab, where they are not yet in a position to confront the state machinery, they indulge in acts of terror. This is not rocket science. Yet some people still don't get it.

Another level of extremist incursion has been written about by columnist Kamal Siddiqui in this paper. There are enough examples of women being openly harassed in many of our cities, sometimes with guns, for being "immodestly dressed." Other examples also abound. This is insidious extremism that is not so visible but is affecting the life of ordinary people everywhere. It has nothing to do with American presence in Afghanistan.

We have a weak state apparatus and there is not one cause for it, though our frequent experimentations, particularly the last one by Musharraf, have played havoc with it. It will take quite an effort to rebuild it, but this will not happen if we do not have a consensus about the nature of the terrorist challenge we face. The confusion we face on this score is the principal impediment.

Let us face it. There are some opinion-makers amongst us who would rather have a Taliban-type state in our country. They eulogise the rule of Mullah Umar in Afghanistan and want something similar here. They are welcome to their views, but their frequent access to mass media spreads confusion.

The people of this country, in election after election, have chosen moderate parties to rule over them. They do not subscribe to any extremist or medieval interpretation of how a state should be run. Yet, by supplying them with a convenient American scapegoat for their woes, the Taliban sympathisers hinder the emergence of a broad national consensus. And, without it, the state will never have the single-minded determination that is needed to fight the menace of internal terrorism.

This confusion is reflected in the mantra of dialogue and peace deals that even moderate parties succumb to. It is now widely recognised that the peace deals Musharraf negotiated in the tribal areas strengthened people like Baitullah Mehsud. Now Mehsud controls most of FATA, either directly or through proxies.

The peace deal in Swat too is now becoming an obvious failure. Yes, it has given the poor people of that valley some respite from violence, but this has been bought by ceding control of territory. There are newspaper reports that the insurgents have started to take over emerald mines by force. This can happen only because they are in control. Is this what we wanted from this peace?

A serious test is now coming in the shape of President Obama's policy for what is now being called, to our discomfort, Af-Pak. Being linked with a seriously dysfunctional country like Afghanistan is not pleasant. What is more worrying is Obama's fear that the next attack on the US is likely to emanate from the Pakistani tribal areas. And since the new and narrowly defined objective of American presence in Afghanistan is the protection of the American homeland against attacks by non state actors, we can expect much greater American focus on Pakistan.

There is a fair amount of aid in the pipeline, but unlike what happened during the Bush administration, it is going to be measured against benchmarks of success. One view is to look at this as a selling our soul for a few pennies, but another view can, and should, be that we have to move against extremism for our own good. We rightly worry about our sovereignty and its violation through drone attacks. Why do we not feel any anguish that large parts of our tribal territory are infested by foreigners?

Drone attacks are not good, but every time they happen, it is largely foreigners who are killed. Why is it that we worry about the one aspect but not the other? Clearly, the world is deeply concerned about the presence of extremist elements in our country who threaten their security. If we do not take notice of their concern, they will not wait for us to get our act together.

It is this challenge that we have to meet. We will have to demonstrate to the international community that we are a responsible nation that will not allow people on its territory to threaten them. In the process of addressing this concern, we will also redeem ourselves from the scourge of extremism. (The News)


Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
Read more...

'Pakistan had no choice but make a deal in Swat' - Rahimullah Yusufzai

Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi

February 19, 2009

"Zameeni haqeeat alag hain. Swat ke log to aman aane se bahut khush hai! (The ground realties are different. The people of Swat valley are very happy to have peace!)," Rahimullah Yusufzai, the distinguished Pakistani editor based in Peshawar, told rediff.com. He was referring to the Pakistan government's peace deals with hardliners that has created an international uproar.

Yusufzai is a long-time observer of the Taliban movement and a prolific commentator on the tumultuous events in the lawless tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Resident editor of The News daily in Peshawar, he told rediff.com in a telephonic interview that the people of Swat are celebrating the peace deal because they will not be killed, attacked, uprooted or displaced in the ongoing confrontation with various shades of the Taliban and the government.

Yusufzai says the peace deal is primarily about the security of people living in the Swat valley.

Wednesday's brutal murder of Geo TV reporter Musa Khan has been extensively covered in the Indian media. rediff.com contributor and Geo TV newscaster Hamid Mir told a press conference in Swat on Thursday that the tragic killing is aimed at disturbing peace in the Swat valley.

According to Yuufzai, "In the last year, four journalists have been killed in Swat. Nine journalists have been killed in the tribal area. We are on the frontline. One journalist died this year in a suicide attack; one was killed in a crossfire. Things are difficult. We are in the wrong place at the wrong time!"

"If you don't want the Taliban," Yusufzai said, "then defeat it! But if you can't do that what is the government's option? This deal is a difficult deal. One cannot guarantee its success, but it is for peace in the region."

People living in the Swat valley want peace with or without Sharia laws.

The strict implementation of Sharia laws worries critics as does the possibility of the Taliban taking physical control of the region, which is located just 160 km from Islamabad

Yusufzai says the deal is not stopping children from going to school. "Why do critics get upset about Sharia laws? Islamic law has been always there in the North West Frontier Province. People have been following it since (then prime minister) Benazir Bhutto allowed it in 1994. It is not new or brought in with the peace deal. This area was unique and has been following its own unique ways."

India has repeatedly said that it does not distinguish between the good, bad and ugly Taliban.

But the ground reality is that the government of Pakistan has no choice but make the not-so-fine distinction to save its people getting killed as collateral damage when its army fights the Taliban.

The Obama administration in Washington, DC has decided to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Some critics have said it is possible that the peace deal with a milder faction of the Taliban suits the American plan in Afghanistan since the Pashtuns on the Pakistan side will remain pacified to some extent at least.

While the deal with the Taliban has dominated news coverage in India for the last three days, a commentator based in Islamabad told rediff.com that the Indian audience is receiving a mix of facts, lies and propaganda.

Actually, the peace deal is not with the Taliban, it is with a defunct and banned outfit older than the Taliban. The Pakistan government's peace agreement is with Maulana Sufi Mohammad, the amir of the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. Sufi's outfit was defunct, but he has revived it with this peace deal and made it legitimate. The TNSM is older than the Taliban and came into existence in 1992.

Sufi has been an anti-government agitator for many years.

Yusufzai does not deny the inherent dangers of the peace deal with the Taliban because Sufi's son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, who heads the Pakistan faction of the Taliban, is fighting a war against the Pakistan army and its paramilitary forces.

The controversial deal is now on a weak wicket because it is believed that Sufi does not have much influence over his son-in-law. What Sufi can bring to the table will depend on Fazlullah's readiness to "surrender."

"The success of the peace deal depends on many factors," says Yusufzai. "How do you reconcile with the Fazlullah-kind of leaders? But I still have a little bit of hope for the success of the peace deal."

http://in.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/19pakistan-had-no-choice-but-make-a-deal-in-swat.htm

....

Peace deals, Mumbai moves and politics

Reality check Friday, February 20, 2009 by Shafqat Mahmood

There was no great enthusiasm within the PPP for enforcement of Sharia in Swat. But, it was felt that if this was all it took to bring about peace there, then it should be done. The ANP government in the Frontier was already under extreme pressure of the militants with some of its leaders killed and others hiding in safe places. It too needed some relief. Thus, the decision to go ahead and cut a deal with Sufi Mohammad.

This may have bought some breathing space for the federal and provincial governments, but the problem is that such deals in the past have only strengthened the militants. The people of Swat are fed up with bloodshed and the disruption of their normal life. It is natural for them to welcome anything that could lead to peace but there hopes may be misplaced. Just a day after the ceasefire a correspondent for Geo TV and The News, Musa Khankhel, was killed in cold blood. By the time this goes into print other violations may also have occurred. With such early signs, it is difficult to be optimistic.

The reason for this is simple. The militants in Swat may claim to be fighting for the enforcement of Sharia – and a small minority may be motivated by this – but not all. The likes of Fazlullah are fighting to claim territory and create a state within a state. In this, they are backed by a fair number of foreign militants who have penetrated into Swat. A peace deal for them only means no military interdiction and greater freedom of action.

A day after the accord, TV channels were reporting that check posts on approaches to Swat were being manned by the militants. Does the deal then only mean an abdication of responsibility by the state and a virtual takeover by the Taliban? It may have given some political relief to the PPP and the ANP but this clearly is not peace. It is surrender. Real change would be if the militants melted away and the state was able to establish control. Is that likely to happen?

I am not even going into the codification issues of Sharia acceptable to all but there are other issues not strictly judicial. Where do men's beards, girls' schools, women's right to work, choice of curriculums and other such things fall? Will these too be determined by the militants? There is a bizarre story doing the rounds that Sufi Mohammad ordered driving on the right side of the road during an earlier episode of Sharia enforcement. It resulted in many accidents but his self-righteous zeal was not deterred. Will such things too be part of the deal?

It is going to be rough going. The external situation may also be not conducive. The NATO allies in Afghanistan are already expressing scepticism and this is likely to grow, although there are some reports that the US is okay with it. The government, though, may have won some international credit by conducting a thorough inquiry into the Mumbai tragedy. It was also courageous to accept publicly that some local elements might be involved in it. This has established Pakistan's sincerity and the credibility of its investigative process.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=163596

.....

Scarred in Swat

The Pakistan report card Friday, February 20, 2009 by Fasi Zaka A week ago I went to Peshawar to deliver a seminar at a business school. By the parking lot I had an undergraduate student waiting for me. He stopped me and said, "I read your columns, and I am disappointed. You don't write about the slaughter in Swat." We agreed to meet in an hour's time so I could hear him out. He arrived on time, and his mood was subdued. A tall and handsome young man, his face was blemished near the edge of his lips and eyes. I thought they were birthmarks of some kind; he told me it was from a bomb by the Taliban in his city. Shrapnel was lodged in his chest near his heart, and in his legs. His calm demeanor wouldn't lead one to believe he was a survivor of something so tragic and violent. Like some of the Swatis I had spoken to, he was desolate. He felt abandoned, and the most apt way to describe him would be to say he and his people were trapped in a crossfire between the Taliban and the army, both of whom they distrusted. Once a proud Pakistani, now the title felt like an identity badge, a titular title, no pomp, no authority, no recourse or empowerment. This particular boy had an uncle who was killed. He could not go back to Swat because the Taliban had set up check points with long lists of names of people they would abduct, or do worse. He had been marked for death. Whenever he could, he would visit Swat to avoid the roads where the Taliban roamed. He said even in the idyll of the evenings the air was filled with terror. Young children not old enough to be at a funeral had seen dead bodies in the streets. The slightest offenses mandated death. His gripe was the same refrain, he had never seen dead militants, every action whether by the Army or the Taliban seemed to result in the loss of life for civilians. The colour green had bled to red, the green chowk now known as the Khooni Chowk. His old school was gone, the entire middle class with enough money to do so had taken their daughters out of the city. Schools were either occupied by the Taliban or the forces, and those that weren't had been destroyed. Those that remain face an uncertain future. He didn't believe the government was serious at all in doing anything for them. For him, and several others I had spoken to, it seemed like they were watching their memories being washed away in front of their eyes, the warmth of the place they called home now unrecognizable. He asked me to put his name in my article; it was the only way to show his defiance. I told him I wouldn't; he was too young to attract any more attention. But, at the time I was confident that things would change. Rehman Malik, Asif Ali Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gilani had begun to give unequivocal statements to the country at large that they would no longer stand by the abandonment of Swat and the extinction of government writ in the area. They were going to conduct an operation that would end the mayhem once and for all. And now we know. Their "swift and decisive" victory was a compromise of capitulating to the demands of the Taliban to enforce Sharia. By giving in, they have legitimized the Taliban. I read Ansar Abassi and Rahimullah Yousafzai's pieces on the development, citing it as favourable. I have a great deal of respect for both, especially in Ansar's case, because their reporting is literally singlehandedly helping drive the national agenda in terms of highlighting the failures of the government. But I disagree. Yes, the nuances they highlight are true. Swat always had a judicial system similar to the one proposed, yes Maulana Fazlullah and Sufi Mohammed are different in their approach, yes some of the people want a new judicial system that is more effective in solving their issues. But, are the problems of the people of Swat with the judicial system truly different from that of the rest of the country? Everyone in Pakistan wants speedy justice. No one wants to wait ten years for a decision. So doesn't that mean we should apply the solution to Swat's problems to the rest of the country? If not, why not? The government's solution is insincere. If anything we need to make the whole country uniform in the writ of the law, and that includes the tribal areas. This "settlement" is basically a stop gap solution to ensure that the government has some breathing space rather than do what is truly necessary, bring to retributive justice those who indulged in the killing spree in Swat and restore order. Yes, people point out that there have been peaceful marches for the new "judicial system", but if a man like Sufi Mohammed can send thousands of people to fight in Afghanistan, surely he can manage a few rallies in his neighborhood? What of the other Swat, the people still afraid to come out of their homes, and those who have left their homes, is this what they want? This concern for the judicial system in Swat should also extend to the deposed Chief Justice, to the Farah Dogars of this world as well. The insincerity and incompetence with which this issue is now being resolved will not solve anything in the long run. Will Maulana Fazlullah now redeem all his arms and ammunition to the government? Will a Sharia that is of Malauna Fazlullah's liking allow girls to go to school beyond the arbitrary cap of the fourth grade? It's best summarized by what one reader wrote to me. He said, "Please we cannot take this anymore, from the savagery of the Taliban to the indifference of the government. Please use atom bombs on us, it will end our misery." (The News) The writer is a Rhodes scholar and former academic. Email: fasizaka@ yahoo.com

....


Swat peace deal: Another retreat? Article on BBC Urdu dot com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2009/02/090218_swat_nizam_analysis_rh.shtml

The second innings of Sufi Muhammad
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2009/02/090219_sufi_profile_rh.shtml
Read more...

An advice to Asif Zardari: Respect the parliamentary system and the rule of law....Hamid Mir / Shafqat Mahmood

Power brooks no competition
Reality check

Friday, January 16, 2009
by Shafqat Mahmood

An immutable law governing power is that it cannot be shared. When arrangements for sharing it are made, one party may appear to be docile and incapable of creating a problem. But the dynamics of the situation are such that even the gentlest of souls starts to get agitated.

It begins with family and friends complaining about being belittled. They ask this or that official to do something and it is not done. Then the staff of the weaker party starts to show its frustration because it does not like being ignored. Basically, it has a hard time coming to terms with the inferior status of its boss.

Initially, the person exalted to high office is so grateful to his benefactor that he tries to keep the complaints of people around him in check. He is quite happy to enjoy the perks of office and the paraphernalia that comes with it but this does not last. It is amazing how quickly a person can become used to sirens, security, free run on the roads, beautiful and comfortable surroundings, limousines and private aircraft. The desire for real power starts to trump all this glitz and glamour.

The bureaucracy's role in heightening frustration among the weaker party is also critical. It has a finely tuned sensitivity to where the power really lies and if confronted with a choice, starts to ignore orders coming from the weaker but legitimate source of authority. This turns out to be a very difficult pill to swallow for the less powerful office holder. He starts to get self-righteous about how he is the fount of authority and if his orders are being ignored, it virtually amounts to a slap on his face etc. This keeps building up and ultimately reaches a point of recklessness. This is when direct confrontation starts.

The media also plays a critical role. It sees as clearly as the bureaucracy where the real power lies and perhaps unintentionally starts to belittle the weaker party. He is called all kinds of names, from being ineffectual to an outright dummy. No one wants to wake up in the morning to read this day in and day out.

Given these dynamics, it has comes as no surprise that Zardari and Gilani have begun to feud. Gilani had asserted himself a few times earlier but it went unnoticed. The establishment secretary was sacked a few months ago after he had apparently implemented the Presidency orders on a particular posting ignoring the prime minister's wishes. There may have been other minor battles that we are unaware of. If Prime Minister Gilani was waiting for an opportunity to assert his authority more publicly, he could not have found a better target than retired General Durrani. This gentleman has been a controversial figure for some time. Dictator Ziaul Haq's family implicitly held him responsible for his death in the air crash because he was the division commander who had invited him to view a tank demonstration. In recent years, he has widely been seen, largely by his former military colleagues, as America's man. General Beg's tirades against him are something to behold.

I will not call anyone's patriotism into question and there is no reason to believe that Durrani did not have Pakistan's interest at heart in his dealings. But, because of these misgivings about him in military circles, which had also been picked up by a section of the media, he was as good a target as any for Gilani to make an example of. And, since he was exceptionally close to Zardari, there was no better vehicle to upstage the President. Gilani did his homework well.

Where do we go from here? Will this lead to a serious rift in the party? Does Gilani have the gumption to take on Zardari if he tries to move against him? These are important questions and the answer to them will determine how our politics unfolds over the next year.

The differences between the two have been papered over because Zardari has apparently swallowed Durrani's sacking. He has not forgiven him and wont but he will bide his time. He will wait until he has done the necessary ground work and this may take a few months. Besides, the Senate elections are due and he will not upset the power arrangement until he has been able to secure a majority for the PPP and place his choice as chairman of the Senate.

The necessary ground work that President Zardari has to do is within the National Assembly. The Pakistan People's Party does not even have a simple majority and has been able to form the government with the help of allies. Any revolt in the party is a sure recipe for losing power.

Can Prime Minister Gilani create a revolt if push comes to shove? I have my doubts and for two reasons. While Zardari only commands limited personal loyalty in the party, he can manipulate the levers of power. If it becomes apparent that Gilani may be on his way out, other contenders would start lining up to vie for his job. This would give Zardari the opportunity to regain control of the party. He will make promises, dangle cabinet positions etc and undermine any support Gilani may have.

Having said that, there is disgruntlement within the party that Gillani could exploit and he may have at least some who are personally grateful to him for cabinet positions or other favours. The problem is that he has no real power base in the party and with his possible departure in the air, his position would be further undermined. It is this that makes me think that he is not in a position to create any serious revolt in the parliamentary party.

Any move to oust him though will create uncomfortable moments if the allies do not fully back President Zardari. This means he has to get the ANP, JUI-F, MQM and independents fully on board. This may take some doing. It is no surprise then that he has started to make serious moves towards the PML-Q. It is not just for the big prize in the Punjab. He wants to cover his flanks in the National Assembly and the Senate.

The sad thing is that these tensions in the corridors of power come at a difficult time for the country. Not only are the president and the prime minister feuding, our armed forces and intelligence agencies are being specifically targeted by the west. Then, most foreign agencies are pointing fingers at LeT for the Mumbai tragedy.

One does not know which way our investigations are going, but the possibility of finding evidence of LeT's involvement cannot be ruled out. If it does happen, the government will be holding a very hot potato in its hand. If no evidence is found, the world will accuse us of fudging evidence or deliberately covering up. There are no easy choices.

Any political turmoil at this stage will create a problem and undermine any effort to project a united front to the world. However, pious intentions and appeals to patriotism don't change the dynamics of politics and power. Rocky times are ahead. (The News)


Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
Read more...

What is absolutely unforgivable is any state-sponsored proxy war, or non-state actors charged by the righteousness of their cause indulging in mayhem.

Between a rock and a hard place
Friday, December 12, 2008
by Shafqat Mahmood

We have been in trouble for so long that sometimes we do not recognise the intensity of our new difficulties. The Mumbai tragedy may not lead to open hostilities between India and Pakistan but it has certainly created serious problems for us internationally.

Whether the attack was carried out by a Pakistan-based terror group or not, the world certainly seems to think so. There is almost universal acceptance that the banned Pakistani organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba was involved in the attack. It is now rising in stature among terror groups by being compared to Al Qaeda.

A panel of the United Nations Security Council has gone further and declared Jamaat-ud-Dawa, a charity organisation running schools and other institutions in Pakistan, as a front for Lashkar–e-Taiba. This virtually makes it into a terror group and calls into question its open operations in the country.

The same panel has also declared four people allegedly linked to the Mumbai attacks, terrorists and subject to sanctions. This means, at a minimum, assets freeze and travel restrictions. According to the Associated Press, it was only the threat of a Chinese veto that spared General Hamid Gul a similar fate.

The subtext in all the reporting about these organisations and individuals is their alleged link to our premier intelligence agency, the ISI. This casts a shadow on the Pakistani state and puts further pressure on us. It is possible that the arrests in Muzaffarabad were prompted by these concerns.

Some of the former director generals of the ISI, including Hamid Gul, do us no favour by making claims on international TV channels that seem outlandish to a global audience. It is one thing to spout conspiracy theories in drawing rooms here, or even on local TV channels, but to hold forth about Hindu-Jewish plots in front of an international audience projects a creepy mindset.

This is not to say that there is no truth in what they say. I have little doubt that India, Israel and the US do not like our nuclear programme. It is also possible that sometimes they conspire to undermine us. The way to tackle that is to pinpoint these conspiracies with evidence. But calling 9/11 a Jewish plot robs of any credibility everything else that is said.

There are two ways to respond to the international pressure that is mounting on us. We can become defensive and insist there is nothing wrong here. The other option is to take a hard look inside and try to correct what is. In the process, it may also be useful to look at some of the tools that we have used so far to further our national interest. In the globalised world that we live in today, there is little that can be hidden, certainly by states.

And whatever choices are made by a state has consequences. Non-state actors can hide in the shadows or fight surreptitious wars but this is not an option available to a state. If it indulges in proxy wars or sponsors terrorism, it would become common knowledge and could elicit retaliatory actions. The threshold of acceptance for non-state actors has remarkably changed since 9/11.

It is true that the major powers have a monopoly on determining what is legitimate or not. They often call one insurgency freedom struggle and anther terrorism, but this is a product of power. They know that once they label something as terrorism, they have the means to put a stranglehold on the perpetrators, whether it is a nation or a non-state entity.

There is nothing fair about this, although it often is couched in these terms. The smaller nations have a difficult choice because they may believe firmly in the justness of their cause, and being right has a great moral and spiritual force. They can harness it to fight a generational war, as the Vietnamese did against colonialism and modern imperialism.

But the sacrifices that they made were extraordinary. More than a million of their people killed, their cities and countryside destroyed, their streams and ponds and rivers poisoned and their forests denuded. It is this kind of sacrifice, or worse, that is required.

Smaller nations fighting what they consider are just causes have to consider this and make a determination whether they are ready for these terrible sacrifices. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground or shortcuts. There is an international oligarchy. It sometimes takes a moral stand on issues but more often it determines its interest and goes for it. Those on the receiving end either give in or get ready to pay the price.

We rightly consider our stand on Kashmir to be just and supported by international Security Council resolutions. But the methodology of how we go about seeking justice has been determined by the prevailing international norms, or, if you prefer, the international oligarchy.

The determination is that we can raise the matter at international forums like the United Nations. We can even agitate it bilaterally with India but if nothing happens, we have to lump it. There are no other legitimate choices.

What is absolutely unforgivable is any state-sponsored proxy war, or non-state actors charged by the righteousness of their cause going ahead and indulging in mayhem. We don't know if this is what happened in Mumbai, but if it did, it is unacceptable in terms of international norms.

Pakistan not only has to demonstrate that it is not involved but has also to go after any non-state actor based here who may have done it. That is the simple equation. Leave aside who is right or wrong. Also forget, for the moment, whether the LeT is involved or not. If it has been determined that it is, then Pakistan had no choice but to go after it, as we have done.

This also now holds true for Jamaat-ud-Dawa. It has now been declared a front for a terror organisation. If we take no action against it or against individuals that have been declared as international terrorist, we will have to bear the consequences. The choice is ours and it may be an unfair choice. Jamaat-ud-Dawa may actually be a charity organisation but this determination has been taken away from us. We either act against it now or sooner or later face the consequences.

The key point is that, fair or not, there is an international order. It may have been devised by western powers to further their interests. But since there are no real countervailing forces – China is growing, but it may yet take another generation – the choice for smaller nations is simply to comply. If not, they should be ready for sanctions, or worse. Look at what is happening to Zimbabwe.

It is not all black and white and I understand that there may be room for manoeuvre given our strategic situation. But this space will shrink very quickly if a broad consensus emerges that we deliberately allow non-state actors to operate from here. Since we do not, it is this consequence that we must guard against.

Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
Read more...

Why are the Taliban and other jihadi and sectarian organizations destroying barber shops, CD shops, girls schools? Imran Khan, Hamid Gul, Read this...

The Pakistani nations is fighting for its survival against the forces of darkness, the jihadi and sectarian beasts who want to establish their tunnel-visioned khilafat in Pakistan and the world over. Criminals such as Imran Khan, Israr Ahmed, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Roedad Khan, Kashif Abbasi, Ansar Abbasi, Hamid Mir, Mushtaq Minhas, Hamid Gul, Aslam Beg etc are directly and indirectly supporting terrorism in Pakistan. Mulah Omar and Osamah bin Laden have given these criminals the task of confusing the Pakistani nation so that people remain divided and confused in this most important war on terror...Read this op-ed by Shafqat Mahmood





Read more...

This is our war against Zia's legacy of Islamist extremists.... Shafqat Mehmood

Read more...