Friday, September 30, 2005

To be or not to be....

Daily Times, October 1, 2005
VIEW: ‘Muslim moderates’ are not for hire —Farish A Noor

If the moderate majority remains a silent one, it is because they have been reduced to such a mute state by the oppressive laws of the ruling government. And that is one thing we cannot blame on the so-called ‘radicals’

We live in an age of mantras and slogans and among the more popular ones these days is the oft-repeated mantra that ‘Muslim moderates must speak up and re-claim Islam from the clutches of the radicals’. This has been the latest hit single for the past few months and at many a conference attended by the great and the good held all over the world in the spankiest five-star hotels the same record has been played time and again, to an appreciative crowd.

The latest glitzy do was held in Southeast Asia where the future prospects of the region were discussed at length. Predictably the same clichéd references were uttered before a jaded audience too bored or deaf to note the difference: ‘September11’, ‘Bali bombings’, ‘international terrorist network’, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘war on terror’, etc. To cap it off the hit mantra was chanted once again, this time by the deputy prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, who called on the ‘moderate majority’ of Muslims to rescue the faith from the clammy clutches of the nefarious ‘minority’ of radicals and fundamentalists whose grip on the faith was said to be great because no one has spoken up against them.

Chipping in as part of the chorus was the spokesman for Indonesian President Bambang Yudhoyono, Dino Patti Djalal, who likewise bemoaned the present unhealthy state of affairs where a minority of trouble-makers and ne’er-do-wells could do so much damage to the image and understanding of Islam. Presumably the audience then walked nervously to the buffet, fearful that a case of plastic explosives might be planted between the curried chicken and prawn cocktail...

The call for Muslims of the moderate ilk to stand up and defend their faith is not new, or even original for that matter. Those with even a modicum knowledge of history would know that the game of dividing ‘good’ Muslims from the ‘bad’ ones is as old as the colonial enterprise of the past, and can be compared to that other favourite pastime of tyrants and elites: dividing the ‘natives’ into ‘good niggers’ and ‘bad niggers’.

A cursory overview of the corpus of colonial discourse of the 19th century would reward us with an abundance of instances of ‘good Muslims’ stepping forth to offer their services for the sake of Empire. These were the ‘good Muslims’ who helped the British, French and Russians colonise most of Africa, the Arab states (including Egypt), Turkey, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.

So who are the ‘good Muslims’ of today and how do we recognise them? And what, more importantly, are their own ends and objectives in this latest imperial venture?

Well for a start there are the ‘moderate’ Muslim regimes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Malaysia and Indonesia, all falling over each other to look like President Bush’s own good men and pet Muslim tyrants in the making. The cast of ‘moderate Muslim’ governments that grace the map of the world today is as unbelievable as can be imagined: Pakistan’s president was brought into office via a coup, the Malaysian government is led by a party that has been in power for almost half century and whose ideology is based on a divisive logic of communitarianism and ethno-nationalism; while Indonesia’s elite has been propped up by the army all along.

Let us not forget the other ‘moderate hopefuls’ waiting in the corridors: Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak whose secret police and security apparatus remain the mainstays of Egyptian politics, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai whose personal safety is catered to by American-trained security personnel, and so on.

It is confounding that the deputy prime minister of Malaysia can suggest that the country’s moderate Muslims should speak up to defend Islam and its good name. Malaysia under the present leadership of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has embarked on a series of economic and institutional reforms, but local critics maintain that much of what has happened is only cosmetic and for media consumption. The fact remains that Malaysia’s draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) that allows for detention without trial remains firmly in place.

Worse still the ‘liberal, moderate Muslim’ tribe have said and done little about the continuing existence of this law, a colonial relic from the imperial era of the past. The same can be said for the other allegedly ‘moderate’ Muslim regimes where real political freedom remains a pipe dream at best.

What has happened, however, is this: in the wake of September 11 and the Bali bombings, the governments of the Muslim world have introduced more laws that impinge upon and diminish the personal freedoms of many. Opposition Islamic parties, NGOs and intellectuals have been hounded, persecuted, arrested and even liquidated in earnest. The search for alleged clandestine Islamist movements have given these governments reason and excuses to obstruct the development of democracy as never before.

What then is the true ‘moderate’ Muslim to do? Should members of this dwindling tribe still exist, they need to remember that the true moderate is one who condemns tyranny and injustice that occurs before his very eyes without fear or favour. While it is imperative that moderate Muslims should condemn the barbarity of radical groups without feeling that this somehow compromises his or her faith and identity; it is equally vital for him or her to speak the truth to power and to condemn the blatant injustices and oppression meted out by his government.

Here then lies the crunch: for while the ever-so ‘moderate’ Muslim leaders and governments are united in their support for President Bush’s war on terror, the last thing they want to see is the emergence of independent minded moderate Muslims capable of thinking for themselves and who may be equally critical of their leaders. Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Najib may bemoan the quietude of the lumpen moderate Muslim masses, but he has failed to see the obvious truth: If the moderate majority remains a silent one, it is because they have been reduced to such a mute state by the oppressive laws of the ruling government. And that is one thing we cannot blame on the so-called ‘radicals’.

Dr Farish A Noor is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist, based at the Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO), Berlin

Back to India-centered propaganda

The news item below is a classic example of state sponsored propaganda. Rather than accepting that something is seriously wrong in Baluchistan that is inspiring Baluchis to opt for violence, the intelligence agencies have yet again started blaming India for such attacks. It also indicates that the official India-Pakistan peace process might be derailed soon.


The News, October 1, 2005
Police find clue to Lahore blasts

Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: Police investigators say they have tracked down two terrorists, who bombed Lahore at a couple of places on September 2, killing seven people and injuring dozens others. But they are unable to arrest the culprits despite knowing their hideout, and have sought the assistance of a premier intelligence agency to lay hand on them.

"We are close to catching the terrorists and will, Inshallah, give a good news to the nation," Lahore's Senior Superintendent of Police Aamir Zulfikar told this correspondent in Lahore on Friday.

Another investigator, who didn't want to be named, was sure that Indian hand was behind the September 22 Lahore bombing. Indian Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), which is well entrenched in Afghanistan, hired the two persons from Balochistan to sponsor the terrorist attacks that took place a day after President General Pervez Musharraf flew back from his successful visit to New York, he said.

The investigator believed that India is disturbed over the president's address to the American Jewish Council and Pakistan Foreign Minister's meeting with his Israeli counterpart in Turkey on September 1. What happened in Lahore was a reaction to these developments, he felt.

Punjab police are unlikely to send its team to Dera Bugti to arrest the two Bugtis, who planted the bombs in Lahore. Police took a clue from the chassis number of the bicycle that led them to the accused. They have detected from where the bicycle was bought, from which area of Rahimyar Khan it was loaded on which bus coming to Lahore and who owned it.

Two bomb blasts had taken place in Lahore with an interval of one and a half hour. One was planted beneath the seat of a bicycle near a makeshift food stall outside the boundary wall of the Minar-i-Pakistan park while the second had been placed under a wooden platform of a jewellery shop in Ichhra.

Lahore police believed that the same persons were responsible for both the explosions. The city was hit by a terrorist attack for the first time during the current year. The investigator said that they were looking at the bombing from all angles. He said they would be able to unearth the gang of terrorists after the arrest of the two suspects.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Pakistani links with terror: A brave analysis from a former Pakistani army officer

Despardes.com
Why only Pakistanis?
By Kamran Shafi


It may well be that the London bombings happened only because of Britain's pillion-rider" (according to the think-tank Chatham House) status in the US assault on Iraq. It may well be that Muslims are enraged at what is happening to their own across the world. But why is it that most of the terrorists who go about the world trying to bomb themselves and others to oblivion have the deepest linkages to Pakistan? From Reid the shoe-bomber to three of the four London bombers, all of them had their teachers and guides in Pakistani madrassas? Why?

I ask because it is not as if we stand out in any way amongst the Ummah: it is not as if we are the most aware among our co-religionists; it is not that we are the best 'Muslims' that we should so 'stand up' for the down-trodden Iraqis and Afghans; neither is it that we as a people are the most politically sensitized. So why are we in the forefront of terrorism across the world? For those who would make the point that the three London bombers were born, brought up and educated in Britain and so their being of Pakistani descent is neither here nor there, I would ask why there aren't any Lebanese or Syrians or Libyans or Moroccans or Tunisians born, brought up and educated in England among the suicide bombers? Indeed, why aren't there any Iraqis and Afghans among them? Why?

Simple: Pakistan is the hub of terrorism it is due to the thousands of un-regulated madrassas teaching the poison that we saw spewed in London. All due to the fact that clerics can do in Pakistan what they want, in blatant disregard of the law no matter how loud the talk and how visible the posturing. Just listen carefully to what the mullahs say in their Friday sermons in the mosques and you will know what I mean. Every single khutba is laden with hate and rancor.

As I suggested last week, the mullahs are cosseted by the Establishment which goes back a long way with them. Do we not remember well the fact that the Establishment quite shamelessly used these pet obscurant mullahs and clerics against its enemies whenever it felt at risk: even internally against democratically elected civilian governments?

Indeed, so deep is our Establishment's involvement with terror that all manner of desperado and yahoo has been allowed to breeze into and out of our country, on his journey towards some dastardly act or the other: witness the beauty of Something or other Reid, who tried to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic, and who visited the Land of the Pure three or four times within the space of a year or so. How come? Let me ask for the umpteenth time: how did this man get a visa to travel to Pakistan considering the fact that he was a no-good petty criminal, a dirty, filthy, bum who lived on the mean streets of London? I mean it takes sifarish to get my Brit friends Pakistani visas longer than one month's duration, so how come Reid walked into and out of the country at will?

If the Big General REALLY wants to sort out the supporters of terror within the corridors of power in Islamabad the Beautiful, he should order an immediate inquiry into the granting of visas to Reid. I'll bet he'll find the godfathers of most of the bad boys who go about giving our country a bad name.

As an aside shouldn't we be grateful to the British for granting at least some Pakistanis five-year multiple-entry visas when we allow their citizens, very respectable ones too, just one month single-entry visas? Somebody in the FO/Interior Ministry wake up please: our visa officers in London should turn cart-wheels at every application to visit the Islamic Republic, considering the 'soft-image' getting softer and all.

More posturing: The Big General is quoted thus in our press, saying to General Abizaid the C-in-C Central Command and lord of all he surveys from Iraq to Afghanistan: "Now, we want our borders to be respected in the war of terrorism and will not put up with future border breaches." Obviously as a reaction to the Americans crossing the border in pursuit of the Taliban and killing 20-something of them two weeks ago. Of course, this was an action against Taliban whom we said were not there in the first place, when our various spokesmen locked horns with Zalmay Khalilzad, the ill-selected US ambassador to Afghanistan now dispatched to Iraq.

How the General will enforce his warning to General Abizaid, a slightly BIGGER General than any of ours, commanding an Army a little more powerful than ours, we don't know. Could it be that our 'bum' gives him heart? Or the fact that he is a tight buddy of Dubya's? Neither will help I am afraid, which prompts me to say that this is yet another example of loud talk which can never be matched with action should the Americans decide to, say, cross the border another time or, say, bomb Parachinar tomorrow. Far better, is it not, that we try and keep our noses as clean as possible? And hope for the best?


(Kamran Shafi is a retired Pakistan army officer and freelance columnist. He writes regularly for The Daily Times and The News International, Pakistan)

Pak-Israel contacts: Interesting history

Despardes.com
Engaging Israel discussed
Islamabad, Sept 25: Improvement in relations with Israel could help expedite the Middle East peace process, said Pakistan's Former foreign secretary Niaz A.Naik while a addressing a seminar 0n "Engaging Israel for Peace", arranged by the South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) here on Friday.
Mr Naik said Israel kept on supporting Pakistan time to time, and mentioned that it supported Pakistan on the forum of United Nations on a resolution against Soviet Union's aggression against Afghanistan.

Another former foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar revealed that as ambassador of Pakistan to the United States, he met the Israeli ambassador in Washington when there were rumors of a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Pakistan's nuclear installations but Israel made it clear that it had no such plan. He said the then Israeli foreign minister was in China where a similar assurance was held out by him.
Mr Khokar said as a foreign secretary, he remained in contact with Israel, and substantive discussions on various issues took place.

He said Israel was keen to establish relations with Pakistan and messages were sent to Islamabad by Tel Aviv, pointing out that there was no bilateral dispute between the two countries and that they did not pose a security threat to each other.

Mr Naik said there were other ways of establishing contact with Israel, short of according a formal diplomatic recognition to the country.

He disclosed that the first contact between Pakistan and Israel was
established way back in 1984 when the then vice chief of general staff, K.M. Arif, met his counterpart in Geneva.

General security and other related issues between the two countries came under discussion during the meeting, said Mr Naik.

He said he himself met the Israeli consul general when he was Pakistan
ambassador to the United Nations.

Naik said he also met Israeli military personnel when he went to South
Africa as Commonwealth observer to monitor historic elections in the
country.

"If we were to cooperate 10 years ago, things would have been different," he observed. He said Pakistan could have had sophisticated weapons from Israel in such a case, but lamented that the opportunity was missed.

Riaz Khokar said there was enormous international interest in the first ever open contact between Pakistan and Israel. He said there had been a history of contacts spread over a decade.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Debating the Israel Link

The News, September 27, 2005
Debating the Israel link
Imtiaz Alam

The writer is Editor, Current Affairs, The News, and Editor South Asian Journal

Revelations made by Pakistan's three former foreign secretaries were quite consummating about Islamabad's secret contacts with Israel since 1984 at SAFMA's seminar on the subject. The debate over initiating open contacts with Israel, however, remained confined to whether it was rightly packaged or timed and for the right reasons. Most participants from the audience suspected that President Pervez Musharraf might have done it for self-promotion while taking an exception to bypassing both the Cabinet and the Parliament on such an important policy shift. Concern for democracy was so overriding among an otherwise liberal audience that they refrained from giving any credence to the new foreign policy initiative. The real question, however, is that whether opening with Israel is in Pakistan's interest?

For too long Pakistan's national and foreign policies have been driven for ideological considerations. Pakistani nationalism woven around anti-India sentiment always suspected a "Jewish-Hindu" (Hanood-o-Yahood) conspiracy that was always supposedly at work against a self-appointed "leader of the Muslim world or umma". Soon after the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, we sought our historical roots and solidarity with the Middle East and the Muslim world, even negating our cultural and historical roots in this land of the pure. With the exception of relations with China, driven by regional geopolitics, we sought a kind of a spiritual relief in supporting the "Muslim causes" and were rightly dubbed as bigger Arab than the Arabs. As we started to rethink in terms of "Pakistan first", reversed our flawed pro-Taliban and pro-jihad policies and entered a new phase of reconciliation with India, many other knots also started to unravel -- opening up the options that have long been foreclosed.

Thanks to our strategic partnership with the US and the western military blocks during the Cold War period, Pakistan was never close to the nationalist regimes, such as Gemal Abdul Naser's in Egypt. The Islamic movements, except for nationalist Deobandis, also sympathised with the Islamic movements in the Middle East, such as Ikhwanul Muslimoon. The democratic government of Prime Minister Suhrawardy even supported that blockade of Suez Canal against which there was a massive backlash in the Third World -- over which the Awami League got divided. The relations with the Muslim world in fact tremendously increased during Mr. Bhutto's time, after the defeat and dismemberment of the country at the hands of India. They took greater ideological dimension under General Zia during the Afghan war and Pakistan became a hub of militant Islam with overwhelming Arab (not Palestinian) connections.

On Palestine, although Pakistan has been a supporter of the Palestinian cause, it was General Zia who crushed the Palestinians' uprising in Jordan. Even during the Afghan war, there used to be close collaboration between the Israelis and other operatives in the Afghan jihad. The first secret contacts that Pakistan made were during General Zia's government when Islam as an ideology of state was much in fashion. It is also true that Pakistan had close relationship with the Palestinian leadership or the PLO during the liberal PPP's governments, and they were quite cold during General Zia's rule. It is also a fact that during the Cold War period, no Islamist party ever felt so strongly about the Palestinians, except for ritually expressing their concern for the liberation of Al-Aqsa mosque or Baitul Maqdas. It is only recently, after the emergence of Hamas, that they have started to feel the pain of the forgotten Palestinians. No militant outfit, be it of Pakistan or Afghan origin, ever had any relationship with the Palestinians. Not surprisingly, Al-Qaeda and its leaders had never espoused the Palestinian cause. These were only the left groups that had always championed the Palestinian cause. The fact of the matter is that, be it Syria or Egypt (except under Naser) or Jordan, many Arab countries stabbed the Palestinians in the back and the late Chairman Arafat had problems in having a permanent headquarter in the Arab world and had to move from one place to the other. Jordan had a claim on West Bank and Egypt had a claim on Gaza and Syrians have even louder claims on Palestinian territories and smashed Palestinians' bases in Lebanon. In the post Camp David period, the Arabs started to normalise relations with Israel -- some by formally recognising it and others by having liaison offices and trade relations.

During the course of its jihadi adventurism and isolationist policy, Pakistan had opened too many fronts. As we have started to close all these unnecessary fronts and mend our relations with all countries, it was imperative that we also mended our adversarial relationship with Israel. Be it Arab League or OIC and the Palestinians, they now all recognise Israel as a reality and its right to exist, even if it is a "colonial settler" state. Except for Hamas and some other militant groups, who vow to destroy Israel, most Palestinians and Arabs accept Israel as a reality, even though grudgingly. This is only an irony of history that the victims of holocaust turned into the perpetrators of oppression against the Palestinians who share a lot with the Jews and Christians in the ancient lands of the three mono-theist religions of the world. While Muslims and the Jews have greater similarities to share and had a longer history of coexistence, both had to suffer at the hands of Inquisition. Muslims never confused Judaism with Zionism nor nursed anti-Semitism. Enmity between the Muslims and Jews is only six decades old.

The only stumbling block between Israel and the Muslim world is the question of Palestine and creation of a Palestinian state. Pakistan has had no bilateral conflict with Israel. After becoming a nuclear-weapon state, it was imperative that Pakistan removed the Israeli apprehensions about the so-called "Islamic bomb" which was not in any way directed against Israel. Although Pakistan has again developed a close relationship with the US, but it knows it is not as solid as it would want it to be as compared to India who has entered into a far more preferential relationship with the US in July that also allows Washington's assistance in civilian nuclear reactors, despite the fact that India has not signed the NPT. It may also not be forgotten that Israel-India trade stands at 4.5 billion dollars and it is buying worth $2 billion of high tech arms from Israel, including three early-warning Phalcon aircrafts. Faced with increasing asymmetry in conventional weapons and eager to win the Jewish lobby in the US, Pakistan needed a much desired "diplomatic space" by opening up to Israel without making an about-turn on its Palestinian policy. And this is what President Musharraf has done. By making a fascinating address to the American Jewish Congress, President Musharraf has done a great service to the followers of both faiths and above all has neutralised the most powerful Jewish lobby in the US and has also somewhat assuaged Israeli apprehensions. The time is to make maximum benefit out of it by allowing liaison offices for trade and regular informal interactions to also encourage Israel to allow the emergence of a Palestinian state for permanent peace in the Middle East and revival of normal Jewish-Muslim relations.

No doubt a military ruler has taken this decision. Should it be opposed simply because of our legitimate concern for democracy? Should we have opposed the reversal of pro-Taliban and jihadi policies because they were being undertaken by a dictator? By the way, except for Mr. Bhutto who consulted everybody before signing the Simla Accord or Mr. Juenjo before the Geneva Accord, which government in Pakistan has ever taken the people or their representative institution into confidence before taking such a major policy decision? Did Liaquat Ali Khan on cancelling his visit to Moscow? Did Suhrawardy on Suez Canal? Did Nawaz on back channel with India? Were the last five parliaments sovereign in formulating foreign and security policies? But, of course, this does not mean that there should not be a democratic sanction behind every major decision of a government. The President must have taken the nation into confidence. Lastly, even if the decision to open up to Israel has been taken for expeditious political reasons as some critics allege, so what? If it is a good decision, that it is, we should have the courage to support it, regardless of the intentions of the decision maker. And to make a crucial policy decision credible, the cabinet and the Parliament should have been taken into confidence. But which parliament and cabinet are we talking about?

Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Decline and Fall of Arabs: Lessons for Pakistan

The News, September 26, 2005
Decline and fall
Chris Cork

Civilisations come and go, empires rise and fall, and currently we may be seeing the decline and fall not of Islam -- which as a religion appears to be in good health the world over -- but of the Arabs, most of who just happen to be Muslims.

There is an unspoken but underlying assumption in many western minds that the "Clash of Civilisations" predicted by Huntington in his book of the same name published in 1996 is now under way, and that battle has been joined between the opposing forces of Christendom and Islam. Well, Dear Reader, it isn't, and here's why.

Islam, and specifically the twenty--two Arab nations present no significant military threat to the West. Even assuming the Arabs could put aside their differences and assembled a unified fighting force it would never punch much above lightweight. They have a collective GDP a little less than that of Spain and the combined -- and purely conventional, let's not forget -- military power of the Arabs isn't going to give the war-planners of the Pentagon sleepless nights. Outside the Arab world, other Muslim states present no threat either. The real threat that exists for all of us is the potential collapse of the Arab world, a world kept afloat by a sea of oil. Consider the following...

The website of the Arab League has a paper detailing the contributions made by the Arabs to civilisation generally -- with the year 1406 being the most recent date at which a significant contribution was made. Thereafter -- stagnation and decline from the end of the Ottoman Empire with only oil money holding back collapse.

Statistics from the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Report give us more telling insights. There are 18 computers per thousand Arab citizens compared to a global average of 78.3. Only 1.6% of the population has Internet access. Average Research and Development expenditures are less than one-sixth of Cubas's and one fifteenth of Japan's. There are 60 million illiterate adults, mostly women, and a declining educational system, its quality being eroded by the inroads made by religion at all levels. Take out the income from the export of oil and the entire region exports less than Finland. Rapid population growth is reducing living standards across the region, as evidenced by the fact that per-capita GDP is currently $1,500, down from $2,300 in the late 1970's.

Arab populations are expected to grow from 280 million to almost 460 million by 2020. And over 600 million a generation later. Many Arab governments are already failing to meet basic human needs, and it is difficult to see how they are going to cope with such a population increase.

There is a potential for collapse in the Arab world that would be bad news for all of us. Think oil. Think regional instability and war. Islam is not the root of the collapse but instead a fundamental failure of Arab culture that is causing them to look backwards to the Golden Age of their civilisation.

And now, Dear Reader, think of all of the above and lay the template across Pakistan. True, many of the indicators are absent or much reduced here, but some are uncomfortably close -- the "youth bulge" and the rise of religious extremism, for instance. Internal decay may destroy the Arabs, but a "Clash of Civilisations" probably won't. Look and learn, Pakistan, look and learn.

The writer is a British social worker working in Pakistan
Email: manticore73@hotmail.com

Understanding Musharraf

Dawn, September 23, 2005
No thanks, General Sahib
Ayaz Amir

IF a picture is worth a thousand words, a single cannon shot as fired by Pakistan’s soldier-president on the subject of rape and Canadian visas is worth a thousand images.

The next time he waxes eloquent about enlightenment and moderation his own words as spoken to the Washington Post will come back to mock him: “You must understand the environment in Pakistan. This has become a money-making concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”

This was during his New York visit hailed by official trumpeters — no shortage of the kind in Pakistan — as a huge success. (How does this breed define success?) Worse was to follow. Realizing his blunder, Gen. Musharraf went on the defensive, saying he had said no such thing. Indeed that he would have been stupid to say it. (“True,” as Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times commented.)

The Washington Post, careful in such matters, checked its tapes and confirmed Gen Musharraf made the remarks and was accurately quoted.

It also quoted his remarks about Dr Shazia Khalid (the lady raped in Sui allegedly by an army officer): “It is the easiest way of doing it. Every second person now wants to come up and get all the [pause] because there is so much of finances. Dr. Shazia, I don’t know. But maybe she’s a case of money (too), that she wants to make money. She is again talking all against Pakistan, against whatever we’ve done. But I know what the realities are.” Phew. You’ve got to be really tacky to talk like this.

Gen Musharraf wants to project a ‘soft’ image of Pakistan. But he’s almost suggesting that Pakistan is the quintessential land of the purpose-built rape (Canada should be flattered). And when questioned, he gets angry, very angry, losing his cool before a gathering of Pakistanis in New York.

According to a Dawn report: “Provoked by a single question, the president allowed an event held to promote his government’s pro-woman policies to degenerate into a bout between himself and part of the invited audience... ‘I am a fighter, I will fight you. I do not give up and if you can shout, I can shout louder’...Responding to (a) woman’s charge that he had retracted his interview to The Washington Post, (he) said: ‘Lady, you are used to people who tell lies. I am not one of them.’ When a woman raised her voice to ask a question, the president said: ‘Are you a Benazir supporter?’” How does Benazir come into this?

“When the altercation began to get uglier,” Dawn added, “Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Jehangir Karamat, who was Gen Musharraf’s senior in the army, approached the podium and moved the president away by gently patting his shoulders.”

Not to worry, however. Condi Rice has just issued another certificate of excellence to the general, saying that while Pakistan is not a complete democracy, Musharraf is an extraordinary man. Indeed he is.

Tempting though it may be to say so, Gen Musharraf’s remarks are not typical of any standard Pakistani male mindset. Pakistani men, even those lacking a staff college education, don’t go around suggesting that Pakistani women invite rape for financial or travel benefits. The general’s remarks are his own and they reflect the mind of a person who (1) is answerable to no one for his thoughts and actions; and (2) speaks too much and too often.

When you are overly fond of giving interviews, when the notion of brevity being the soul of wit is almost alien to you and when you regularly display a penchant for unscripted dialogue, don’t be surprised if you sometimes get it wrong.

In fact, the unscripted or unrehearsed remark has been the bane of Pakistan under Gen Musharraf. At Agra for his famous breakfast meeting with Indian newspaper editors Musharraf went in unprepared and since the one subject all Pakistanis can talk about eloquently even without any preparation is Kashmir, it was about Kashmir that he spoke. There were many reasons why the Agra summit collapsed but one reason lay in that early morning eloquence.

If only that tough stance had lasted. It didn’t. During the course of a Reuters’ interview, Musharraf made the startling proposal that for the sake of flexibility Pakistan could go beyond the UN resolutions on Kashmir. The wages of one-man rule: the entire basis of Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir ditched or diluted through this single off-the-cuff remark.

One man says ‘yes’ to Colin Powell on the telephone post-Sep 11 without any institutional discussion of what Pakistan’s negotiating position should be. When the Americans are preparing to invade Iraq they ask for Turkish cooperation, but the Turks, even though staunch American allies, put a stiff price on cooperation (eventually too steep for the Americans to accept).

Not so Pakistan which thanks to military rule can afford to leap first and look afterwards. Gen Musharraf’s uniform is his body-armour. But it’s also a great convenience for the Americans. As long as Afghanistan is on the boil and they want Pakistan to deliver more, they wouldn’t be too concerned about the finer points of democracy.

Remember the time when a Pakistan aviation team was in Delhi negotiating the resumption of air links between the two countries. The Pakistani side was looking for some assurance that India would not summarily sever air links as it had done in 1970 and again in 2001 after the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. While discussions were yet to be concluded, Musharraf, addressing a gathering of Indian businessmen in Islamabad, announced Pakistan’s readiness to resume air flights. Our aviation team wouldn’t have been amused.

This adhocism is evident elsewhere too in dealings with India. India shows no flexibility on concrete issues — Siachen, Baglihar, Sir Creek, etc. The Musharraf-Manmohan Singh meeting in New York is, for the most part, an exercise in futility. Yet, as a measure of the tight fix Pakistan has got itself into, it is Musharraf, rather than anyone from India, who is at pains to suggest that India is showing flexibility. What a curious reversal of roles.

And what evidence does Gen Musharraf cite in support of his contention that India is being flexible? That the Indian prime minister has accepted his invitation to visit Pakistan. Should one laugh or cry at this revelation? This was the fourth time in the past one year that the Indian prime minister was being ‘requested’ to visit Pakistan. Each time the invitation is graciously accepted but no dates are set. Pakistan has never lowered itself so much to please India, a string of unilateral concessions — from the Jan 4, 2004, joint statement to the misguided offer of bypassing the UN resolutions — for little in return.

But there’s a reason for all this. Irfan Siddiqui in Nawa-i Waqt puts it well: “From Agra to New York, a single story is being repeated. Five years ago Vajpayee got upset because we spoke of Kashmir as the ‘core issue’. Today Manmohan Singh is upset because Gen Musharraf mentioned Kashmir in his address to the UN General Assembly. The basic fact is that whether it is Vajpayee or Manmohan Singh, no Indian prime minister dare show any flexibility on Kashmir. In India democracy is supreme and about democracies the worst thing is that no matter however powerful an individual, whatever high office he holds, he cannot ignore state institutions or stray even a hair’s breadth from established national positions. This is only possible where, instead of institutions, there is one-man rule, where the opinions of an individual become national policy and where every kind of u-turn and somersault becomes a part of everyday existence.”

Gen Musharraf’s thoughts on rape, therefore, are not an aberration. Nor can they be attributed solely to the male chauvinism prevalent in our society. They reveal a problem of psychology: the helmsman in a dictatorship, [especially of the tin pot variety] beginning to lose balance. This should come as no surprise, six years of unchecked power being enough to turn anyone’s head.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Who lobbies for India and Pakistan in D.C.?

Washington Post
India, Pakistan Sign With U.S. Lobby Shops
By Judy Sarasohn
Thursday, September 15, 2005; A31

B arbour Griffith & Rogers and officials in the government of India didn't want to talk fees for their new lobbying contract last week. Well, we could wait a bit.

The lobby shop's foreign agent filing finally surfaced at the Justice Department, and it shows that the fees are none too shabby.

Merely $700,000 for a year's work of "developing, refining and expanding relationships between Indian officials and the U.S. foreign policy-making apparatus in the Executive and Legislative Branches."

Too bad the shop can't take advantage of the services of Robert D. Blackwill , former U.S. ambassador to India, who is now president of Barbour Griffith & Rogers International . He is under a one-year ban on representing a foreign government that does not expire until November.

Not to miss out on the benefits of a lobbyist to help navigate one's way in Washington, Pakistan has also retained a top-notch firm, Van Scoyoc Associates , although not at quite as pricey a fee. Pakistan, which has a tense relationship with India, is paying $570,000 for 15 months of work.

According to Van Scoyoc's foreign agent filing, the firm will "engage in discussions with the Legislative and Executive Branches . . . on issues of interest to the Government of Pakistan." That would include helping persuade Congress not to block the Bush administration's plans to sell F-16s to Pakistan as well as to provide about $3 billion over five years in military and economic assistance.

"Pakistan is an important ally," says Mark J. Tavlarides , a Van Scoyoc lobbyist. Tavlarides was director for legislative affairs at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

Also on the team: H. Stewart Van Scoyoc and Lee Rawls , formerly chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and chief of staff to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Musharraf in New York

The News, September 23, 2005
Misspoken words, unintended consequences
Reality Check
Shafqat Mahmood
The writer is a former member parliament and a Lahore-based freelance columnist

By making insensitive remarks on the issue of rape, General Musharraf finds himself under a withering barrage of criticism. If the first faux pas was not bad enough, he has compounded it by accusing the Washington Post of misquoting him. The newspaper in reply has not only produced a verbatim tape of his remarks, but has added choice bits not mentioned in the original story. These make him look even worse.

The General has been in power long enough to know that you don't throw words out carelessly. More than that, he should know by now that papers in the west are very careful in their attributions. A misquote or a wrong reference can cost millions of dollars. They record every interview not only for the convenience of accurate writing. It is also evidence in case the contents of the story or the quotes are challenged. Contradicting these papers on facts is a risky venture, as the General must have realised by now.

Another aspect of this sorry saga -- and one that has surprised me no end- is the altercation he got into at a Pakistani women's meeting. I have serious issues with General Musharraf on many matters but one must concede he can be pleasant and charming. This is particularly true while addressing women groups because he is something of a bon vivant and nothing wrong with that. For him to lose his cool in such a manner and that too with a woman is indeed disturbing. It is ironic that the General should get into such hot waters over women's issues. There is little doubt that his government has been very sympathetic to women. Among other steps, it is during his tenure that they have been given such a high degree of representation in elected bodies. Thirty-three percent membership is affirmative action at its most affirmative and I doubt if there is any country in the world with such a bold quota of representation for women.

The induction of women at the local level in such large numbers is nothing short of revolutionary. Coming from a village myself and knowing exactly the status of women in our rural communities is, I know how daring this step is. It will probably have a greater long term impact on the position of women than any other step taken in the past for women's welfare.

One must give credit where it is due and it is due to General Musharraf on political representation of women. I genuinely believe that military dictatorship masquerading as a parliamentary form of government is not what we need. I also believe that the General has seriously eroded the foundations of a true democracy in our country and long would we rue his actions. But, if we are talking of his attitude towards women, he comes out looking good.

Besides the pro women policies as head of government, the General is a modern man in his personal life. He does not lock his wife behind closed doors, in fact she has a fairly high profile. And, if my information is true, his daughter is not only educated but a professional. This puts him in the category of enlightened and progressive people in a country where attitudes towards women can be still be very primitive. I have always felt that the true test of anyone's liberalism is the way a person deals with his wife and daughters. On this criterion, the General clearly emerges as an enlightened and liberal man.

So why does a man who both in his policies and personal life is progressive and liberal find himself in such hot waters over women's issues. The answer to this lies in our peculiar culture of power of which sycophancy is a hallmark. When trouble hits the airwaves, the first reaction of the rulers and those around them is not to recognise reality for what it is but to find someone to blame for its notoriety. In other words, evil hidden behind walls of obscurity is acceptable. Its becoming prominent is blamed on some deep rooted conspiracy.

Thus, thinking on the issue of known rapes would unfold in this manner. Mukhtaran Mai may or may not have been raped but it becoming an international story is bad for Pakistan and its leader. Someone is doing this deliberately for ulterior motives such as making money or wanting a foreign visa or both.

Dr Shazia was probably not raped as she is blaming an army officer and inquiries conducted by other army officers says it is not true. We have also found out that she is a loose woman. Her motive in making a big brouhaha is money and a Canadian visa. People who hate the army are of course helping her and prominent among these are the NGOs.

Sonia Naz is another loose woman who was deliberately put up to whatever she is doing as part of police infighting in Faisalabad. She is also out to make money and cash in on the trend of rape victims going abroad. The press is not only irresponsible by playing this up but is probably mixed up in the conspiracy and will take a part of the loot that will flow from abroad.

The next step in this line of thinking is to find scapegoats and here the sycophants become even more active. These raped women, they would say, are not the only ones to blame. It is these dastardly NGOs with a motive to gain cheap publicity and easy money that are guiding these unsophisticated women to defame the country. They are all linked to foreign enemies of Pakistan and of the armed forces of Pakistan and of General Musharraf himself.

The line that "people say getting raped is a money making concern" has to come from this inner circle and its sycophantic take on stories of rape. This must have been said so often that it became the accepted framework in the corridors of power. Instead of seeing rapes as a problem and doing something about it, the game shifted to blame the victims and those trying to help them.

It is in this scenario that a person like General Musharraf, who has probably done more for women than any previous Pakistani ruler, finds himself giving offensive explanations for rapes to foreign newspapers. The fault is not in our stars but the atmosphere that we create around us. General Musharraf in this case is not guilty of disrespect to women but of living in a rarefied atmosphere of alternate reality. This makes him say things that he upon reflection would never touch.

I hope that good sense will now prevail and no witch hunt of NGOs will be launched. This would amount to compounding an error and would be massively counterproductive. The NGO movement in our country has been hardened by previous experiences of adversity and will put up a serious fight. Unlike political parties they have very few skeletons in their cupboard and will not be cowed down.

It would be best if the government recognises we have a serious problem of violence against women and takes practical steps to eliminate it. This would also be the best remedy against a negative image of the country. Rape takes place everywhere. It is what is done about it that matters.
Email: smahmood@lhr.comsats.net.pk

Monday, September 19, 2005

India-KGB link

Dawn, September 19, 2005
KGB bribed Indira’s ministers: book

NEW DELHI, Sept 18: India’s main opposition party on Sunday called for an investigation into claims made in a new book that the former Soviet Union bribed senior figures of the Indira Gandhi government during the Cold War. Former KGB senior archivist Vasili Mitrokhin wrote in “The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World” that the spy agency had bought secrets from Indian cabinet ministers and paid them retainers.

“It seemed like the entire country was for sale,” Mitrokhin quotes then KGB general Olef Kalugnin as saying, describing India as a model for infiltration of a third world government.

Excerpts were published on the front pages of major Indian newspapers on Sunday. The claims were likely to embarrass the ruling coalition headed by the Congress party and supported by the Communist Party of India — the two alleged recipients of KGB largesse.—AFP

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Musharraf at his worst

Dawn: September 17, 2005
Opponents are enemies of country: Musharraf
Dawn Report

NEW YORK, Sept 17: Pandemonium broke out at a meeting organized to promote Pakistan’s soft image when after a confrontation with human rights activists an irate President Pervez Musharraf declared that those who opposed his policies were the enemies of Pakistan.

“You are against me and Pakistan,” said the president when a human rights activist referred to his alleged comments in a Washington Post interview which quoted him (Gen Musharraf) as saying that women exploited rape to get visas.

Provoked by a single question, the president allowed an event held to promote his government’s pro-women policies to degenerate into a bout between himself and part of the invited audience.

“I am a fighter, I will fight you. I do not give up and if you can shout, I can shout louder,” said Gen Musharraf.

“I wish you had quoted Muslim scholars as opposed to British scholars,” said the president to the woman who had quoted some American scholars to make her point.

Responding to the woman’s charge that he had retracted his interview to the Washington Post in which he was quoted as saying that some women used rape to get visa, Gen Musharraf said: “Lady, you are used to people who tell lies. I am not one of them.”

As the human rights and women groups protested outside the Roosevelt Hotel against the treatment of rape victims in Pakistan Gen Musharraf said that such protests should be held in and not outside Pakistan.

When a woman raised her voice to ask a question, the president said: “Are you a Benazir supporter? A lady was prime minister of Pakistan twice, ask her what she has done for Pakistan.”

In an indirect reference to opposition politicians in Pakistan, the president said: “We have introduced new leaders who don’t tell lies unlike your leaders who did.”

“You have disappointed me. I am disappointed with people like you. You work with people who looted and plundered the nation. You are against national interest, you have your own agenda.”

He said that people like her had some personal agenda for highlighting cases that hurt Pakistan’s reputation. “I know that there are people with vested interests and financial interests who are against Pakistan.”

The president also referred to the Post interview, saying, “I never said that. I am not so silly or stupid to make such remarks.”

Referring to some NGOs who raised the issues of Pakistani women outside the country, he said that they were also hurting national interests, prompting a woman activist to say to him that he should not pitch the state against the groups who work for human rights.

When the altercation began to get uglier, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Jehangir Karamat, who was Gen Musharraf’s senior in the army, approached the podium and moved the president away by gently patting his shoulders.

The president, however, returned to the podium and said he was not against those women who were working for women’s cause.

Earlier in his speech, Gen Musharraf highlighted two issues — violence against women and gender inequality —, saying that the violence was abhorrent and shameful and his government was making laws to end this curse.

He acknowledged that Pakistan’s record on violence against women left much to be desired. “We should be ashamed of it and improve the situation for ourselves and the world to see,” he said.

But he firmly stated that he stood opposed to anyone who sought to single out Pakistan by highlighting individual cases outside Pakistan, given that rape was a worldwide issue.

Musharraf at his worst

Dawn: September 17, 2005
Opponents are enemies of country: Musharraf
Dawn Report

NEW YORK, Sept 17: Pandemonium broke out at a meeting organized to promote Pakistan’s soft image when after a confrontation with human rights activists an irate President Pervez Musharraf declared that those who opposed his policies were the enemies of Pakistan.

“You are against me and Pakistan,” said the president when a human rights activist referred to his alleged comments in a Washington Post interview which quoted him (Gen Musharraf) as saying that women exploited rape to get visas.

Provoked by a single question, the president allowed an event held to promote his government’s pro-women policies to degenerate into a bout between himself and part of the invited audience.

“I am a fighter, I will fight you. I do not give up and if you can shout, I can shout louder,” said Gen Musharraf.

“I wish you had quoted Muslim scholars as opposed to British scholars,” said the president to the woman who had quoted some American scholars to make her point.

Responding to the woman’s charge that he had retracted his interview to the Washington Post in which he was quoted as saying that some women used rape to get visa, Gen Musharraf said: “Lady, you are used to people who tell lies. I am not one of them.”

As the human rights and women groups protested outside the Roosevelt Hotel against the treatment of rape victims in Pakistan Gen Musharraf said that such protests should be held in and not outside Pakistan.

When a woman raised her voice to ask a question, the president said: “Are you a Benazir supporter? A lady was prime minister of Pakistan twice, ask her what she has done for Pakistan.”

In an indirect reference to opposition politicians in Pakistan, the president said: “We have introduced new leaders who don’t tell lies unlike your leaders who did.”

“You have disappointed me. I am disappointed with people like you. You work with people who looted and plundered the nation. You are against national interest, you have your own agenda.”

He said that people like her had some personal agenda for highlighting cases that hurt Pakistan’s reputation. “I know that there are people with vested interests and financial interests who are against Pakistan.”

The president also referred to the Post interview, saying, “I never said that. I am not so silly or stupid to make such remarks.”

Referring to some NGOs who raised the issues of Pakistani women outside the country, he said that they were also hurting national interests, prompting a woman activist to say to him that he should not pitch the state against the groups who work for human rights.

When the altercation began to get uglier, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Jehangir Karamat, who was Gen Musharraf’s senior in the army, approached the podium and moved the president away by gently patting his shoulders.

The president, however, returned to the podium and said he was not against those women who were working for women’s cause.

Earlier in his speech, Gen Musharraf highlighted two issues — violence against women and gender inequality —, saying that the violence was abhorrent and shameful and his government was making laws to end this curse.

He acknowledged that Pakistan’s record on violence against women left much to be desired. “We should be ashamed of it and improve the situation for ourselves and the world to see,” he said.

But he firmly stated that he stood opposed to anyone who sought to single out Pakistan by highlighting individual cases outside Pakistan, given that rape was a worldwide issue.

Musharraf at his worst

Dawn, September 17, 2005

Opponents are enemies of country: Musharraf
Dawn Report

NEW YORK, Sept 17: Pandemonium broke out at a meeting organized to promote Pakistan’s soft image when after a confrontation with human rights activists an irate President Pervez Musharraf declared that those who opposed his policies were the enemies of Pakistan.

“You are against me and Pakistan,” said the president when a human rights activist referred to his alleged comments in a Washington Post interview which quoted him (Gen Musharraf) as saying that women exploited rape to get visas.

Provoked by a single question, the president allowed an event held to promote his government’s pro-women policies to degenerate into a bout between himself and part of the invited audience.

“I am a fighter, I will fight you. I do not give up and if you can shout, I can shout louder,” said Gen Musharraf.

“I wish you had quoted Muslim scholars as opposed to British scholars,” said the president to the woman who had quoted some American scholars to make her point.

Responding to the woman’s charge that he had retracted his interview to the Washington Post in which he was quoted as saying that some women used rape to get visa, Gen Musharraf said: “Lady, you are used to people who tell lies. I am not one of them.”

As the human rights and women groups protested outside the Roosevelt Hotel against the treatment of rape victims in Pakistan Gen Musharraf said that such protests should be held in and not outside Pakistan.

When a woman raised her voice to ask a question, the president said: “Are you a Benazir supporter? A lady was prime minister of Pakistan twice, ask her what she has done for Pakistan.”

In an indirect reference to opposition politicians in Pakistan, the president said: “We have introduced new leaders who don’t tell lies unlike your leaders who did.”

“You have disappointed me. I am disappointed with people like you. You work with people who looted and plundered the nation. You are against national interest, you have your own agenda.”

He said that people like her had some personal agenda for highlighting cases that hurt Pakistan’s reputation. “I know that there are people with vested interests and financial interests who are against Pakistan.”

The president also referred to the Post interview, saying, “I never said that. I am not so silly or stupid to make such remarks.”

Referring to some NGOs who raised the issues of Pakistani women outside the country, he said that they were also hurting national interests, prompting a woman activist to say to him that he should not pitch the state against the groups who work for human rights.

When the altercation began to get uglier, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Jehangir Karamat, who was Gen Musharraf’s senior in the army, approached the podium and moved the president away by gently patting his shoulders.

The president, however, returned to the podium and said he was not against those women who were working for women’s cause.

Earlier in his speech, Gen Musharraf highlighted two issues — violence against women and gender inequality —, saying that the violence was abhorrent and shameful and his government was making laws to end this curse.

He acknowledged that Pakistan’s record on violence against women left much to be desired. “We should be ashamed of it and improve the situation for ourselves and the world to see,” he said.

But he firmly stated that he stood opposed to anyone who sought to single out Pakistan by highlighting individual cases outside Pakistan, given that rape was a worldwide issue.

Musharraf at his worst

September 17, 2005
Opponents are enemies of country: Musharraf
Dawn Report

NEW YORK, Sept 17: Pandemonium broke out at a meeting organized to promote Pakistan’s soft image when after a confrontation with human rights activists an irate President Pervez Musharraf declared that those who opposed his policies were the enemies of Pakistan.

“You are against me and Pakistan,” said the president when a human rights activist referred to his alleged comments in a Washington Post interview which quoted him (Gen Musharraf) as saying that women exploited rape to get visas.

Provoked by a single question, the president allowed an event held to promote his government’s pro-women policies to degenerate into a bout between himself and part of the invited audience.

“I am a fighter, I will fight you. I do not give up and if you can shout, I can shout louder,” said Gen Musharraf.

“I wish you had quoted Muslim scholars as opposed to British scholars,” said the president to the woman who had quoted some American scholars to make her point.

Responding to the woman’s charge that he had retracted his interview to the Washington Post in which he was quoted as saying that some women used rape to get visa, Gen Musharraf said: “Lady, you are used to people who tell lies. I am not one of them.”

As the human rights and women groups protested outside the Roosevelt Hotel against the treatment of rape victims in Pakistan Gen Musharraf said that such protests should be held in and not outside Pakistan.

When a woman raised her voice to ask a question, the president said: “Are you a Benazir supporter? A lady was prime minister of Pakistan twice, ask her what she has done for Pakistan.”

In an indirect reference to opposition politicians in Pakistan, the president said: “We have introduced new leaders who don’t tell lies unlike your leaders who did.”

“You have disappointed me. I am disappointed with people like you. You work with people who looted and plundered the nation. You are against national interest, you have your own agenda.”

He said that people like her had some personal agenda for highlighting cases that hurt Pakistan’s reputation. “I know that there are people with vested interests and financial interests who are against Pakistan.”

The president also referred to the Post interview, saying, “I never said that. I am not so silly or stupid to make such remarks.”

Referring to some NGOs who raised the issues of Pakistani women outside the country, he said that they were also hurting national interests, prompting a woman activist to say to him that he should not pitch the state against the groups who work for human rights.

When the altercation began to get uglier, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Jehangir Karamat, who was Gen Musharraf’s senior in the army, approached the podium and moved the president away by gently patting his shoulders.

The president, however, returned to the podium and said he was not against those women who were working for women’s cause.

Earlier in his speech, Gen Musharraf highlighted two issues — violence against women and gender inequality —, saying that the violence was abhorrent and shameful and his government was making laws to end this curse.

He acknowledged that Pakistan’s record on violence against women left much to be desired. “We should be ashamed of it and improve the situation for ourselves and the world to see,” he said.

But he firmly stated that he stood opposed to anyone who sought to single out Pakistan by highlighting individual cases outside Pakistan, given that rape was a worldwide issue.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

China's pearl in Pakistani waters!

Dawn, September 11, 2005
One in the string of pearls
By Ardeshir Cowasjee

“AND China now has a pearl in Pakistani waters - the warm water port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea coast, in the province of Balochistan.” This was the last sentence of my column last week on the adventures of Admiral of the Chinese Fleet ‘Zheng He.’ It prompted many readers to send in messages regarding the connection of China of the 15th century with Gwadur of today.

“I don’t get it,” wrote in one e-mailer, “Gwadar is China’s pearl in warm waters? Is it going to become a Chinese port, or will they have rights over it.” And another, “You very innocently say that China now has a pearl in Pakistan in the form of the Gwadar port. I will wager that if Pakistan slumbers as it now slumbers, then China will just come and stay there as the British did 200 plus years ago.”

A third message asked, with regard to the comment that Napoleon had suggested that the sleeping giant, China, not be awoken, “Don’t you think that Muslims too are a sleeping giant?” (The Muslims of Pakistan are certainly not sleeping. They are still busy debating and discussing Founder Maker Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s concept of Pakistan.)

And a fourth mentioned a letter to the editor which had been printed the same day as my column, under the title ‘Ayub’s gift’: “Sir, I only wish to highlight the contribution of an army general and a dictator. I just wonder why nobody ever mentions the name of Field Marshal Ayub Khan for his farsightedness in buying the land called Gwadar from the Sultanate of Muscat.” My e-mailer rightly stated that the acquisition of Gwadar happened before Ayub took over, and asked me to write and clarify.

On September 9, two clarifications were printed in the letters to the editor columns. They very rightly stated that Gwadar came to Pakistan in September 1968, whilst Iskander Mirza was president (and Ayub Khan defence minister). It was Prime Minister Feroze Khan Noon who negotiated the sale to Pakistan — unique in our history as it is the sole addition to this country’s “geographical boundaries in its six decades of existence.” (Let us never forget that in 1971 we did manage to lose half the country — 55,598 square miles of it.)

It was on September 8, 1968, that Gwadar (2,400 square miles) officially became Pakistani territory. The man responsible was indeed Sir Feroze Khan Noon who was British India’s High Commissioner in London before partition. He had learned and he knew the ways of the British. He opened the Gwadar file in 1956 when he became our foreign minister and when he became prime minister in 1957 the moment was opportune.

We were a member of the British Commonwealth, and Sultan Said Bin Taimur, who then ruled, could be dealt with. The British were asked to help. Astute bridge-builder, the unflappable Harold Macmillan, was prime minister, Selwyn Lloyd headed the foreign office. We paid $8,400,000 and the territory was ceremoniously restored under the supervision of the British.

In the 18th century, Gwadar fell under the sovereignty of the ruler of Kalat. In 1783, when Saiad Said succeeded to the ‘masnad’ of Muscat and Oman (an independent state founded in 1749), he fell out with his brother Saiad Sultan, who fled to safety in Makran and entered into communication with Nasir Khan of Kalat. Saiad was granted the Kalat share of the revenues of Gwadar and lived there until 1797 when he succeeded in usurping the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman. He died in 1804 and during his son’s minority the Buledai chief of Sarbaz gained temporary possession of Gwadar until a force sent from Muscat regained it.

There is some historical dispute as to whether the right of sovereignty on Gwadar was made over by the Khans of Kalat to Muscat and Oman in perpetuity as a free gift to the Sultans, or whether it was only lent by Nasir Khan to Saiad Sultan on Trust to be returned when he managed to take over the Sultanate. (In 1970, when the present Sultan, Qaboos Bin Said, took over the state, it became the Sultanate of Oman.) Whatever, it is now very much a part of Pakistan.

There was much ado about Gwadar on January 18, 1995, when the then government of Benazir Bhutto was accused by the opposition of having gifted some land in Gwadar to Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Member of the national assembly Nusrat Bhutto clarified : “We have sold 300 acres of land to the Omanis and not given it away.” She immediately corrected herself and stated that the land had not been sold, but leased. That same day in Sibi, the then president, Farooq Leghari put in his bit : “If the government of Pakistan has gifted 100 acres of land to the ruler of Oman, it does not mean that part of the country was sold to Oman.” This trivial matter was soon dropped and forgotten.

In 2001 steps were taken by Pakistan to develop a deep-sea port at Gwadar and China agreed to participate in its construction and development. The Chinese were nudged into action and involvement by the arrival, post 9/11, of United States forces in Afghanistan. and in March 2002, Chinese vice-premier Wu Bangguo arrived to lay the foundations of Gwadar deep-sea port.

The first phase of the port (which includes three multi-purpose ship berths) was completed in January this year, ahead of schedule, and the plan was that Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, would inaugurate it on his visit to Pakistan during the first week of April. However, the formal inauguration had to be cancelled at the last minute for to ‘security’ reasons. As is usual, Balochistan was in turmoil, with widespread rocket and bomb attacks on government installations. A further put-off was last year’s killing of three Chinese technicians and the wounding of nine others by Baloch nationalists opposed to the building of the port. An additional reason was the rain and flood damage to the highway linking Gwadur and Karachi. Not at all a felicitous situation.

The port, completed, remains uninaugurated until things settle and fool-proof safety is ensured for either President General Pervez Musharraf or our prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, to travel to wild and woolly Gwadur and perform the inauguration.

Our great friend China’s participation in this port is huge. For the first phase, it has sent some 450 engineers, provided technical expertise, and it has contributed some $ 198 million, to Pakistan’s $ 50 million, making a grand total of $ 248 million. The total cost is estimated at $ 1.16 billion. A further $ 200 million has been invested by China in building a highway connecting the port of Gwadur to Karachi.

China will also finance the second phase — nine more berths, an approach channel and storage terminals.

The reference to China’s pearl in Pakistani waters is taken from a “report sponsored by the director, Net Assessment, who heads Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld’s office on future-oriented strategies” (Washington Times, January 18, 2005), which describes China’s ‘string of pearls’ strategy : “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives...”. The ‘string of pearls’ “strategy of bases and diplomatic ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China that includes a new naval base under construction at the Pakistani port of Gwadar. Beijing has already set up electronic eavesdropping posts at Gwadar [which] is monitoring ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea.”

Apart from Gwadar, other pearls in China’s sea-lane strategy are facilities in Bangladesh, Myanmar (from which it has leased an island in the Andaman Sea), Thailand, Cambodia and the South China Sea. The Pentagon has made public its jitters about China’s ominous looking long-term development.

Views on Agra Summit: Book Excerpts

Dawn: Book Reviews - September 11, 2005

Peace is the way
By Dr Mubashir Hasan

This is a collection of articles by various writers from Pakistan and India on the Agra Summit. While capturing the mood of the event, the articles are a mix of analytical opinion and personal impressions which look at the peace process in the subcontinent in a historical perspective

Dr Mubashir Hasan writes about the closing years of the 20th century when the tide turned in favour of peace in South Asia

The prime minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee, boards a bus at Amritsar and heads towards Wagah on the India-Pakistan border. Thousands and thousands of Indians gather to see him enter Pakistan. The prime minister of Pakistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif, and thousands of Pakistanis give an enthusiastic welcome to the Indian guest and his entourage. Next day, the Indian leader visits the monument erected at the site, where 59 years ago, the All India Muslim League meeting presided over by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had passed the resolution demanding the division of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan. He also pays a visit to the mausoleum of the poet Mohammad Iqbal, considered by many to have conceived the idea of a separate state for the Muslims.

Through these symbolic actions the Indian prime minister effectively buries the lingering belief in the minds of many hard-to-convince Pakistanis that India had not accepted the reality of the state of Pakistan and was bent upon undoing it. The leaders of the two countries meet several times and talk peace. The summit is hailed as a great success and a breakthrough. That is in February 1999, 511/2 years since the countries achieved independence. Within months of the Indian prime minister’s visit, Mr Nawaz Sharif’s government was overthrown.

The armed forces of Pakistan put the army chief of staff, General Pervez Musharraf in power, first as chief executive and later as president. The Pakistani general was the country’s army chief at the time of the bloody Kargil skirmishes with Indian forces. He had been fiercely criticized in India as the person responsible for the Kargil episode and as such was not a figure liked in India. As the events unfolded, two years and four months after the Lahore summit, President Pervez Musharraf paid a state visit to the Indian capital. The general was cordially received in New Delhi and later in Agra. He met the Indian leader and held wide-ranging discussions, covering all aspects of their relations. They promised to meet again.

* * * * *

Given the past of Hindu-Muslim relations, the two meetings between India and Pakistan within a period of two years, with a mini-war in between, was a very propitious augury. The question, however remains: When will they meet again? When will their talks result in ironing out their differences and settling their disputes? The record says that though Pakistan and India have fought wars, they never did cease to talk peace or announce friendly intentions...

For decades after independence the governments of India and Pakistan attempted to conclude no-war pacts, peace treaties, friendship agreements, like the one they proposed on several occasions, and to sort out their problems by peaceful means, yet the two countries have fought three wars. Somehow, the governments were never open about what they wanted to do. The people were never fully taken into confidence. No effort was made by any government to mobilize the people for peace. No government felt itself strong enough to write down “peace” in its election manifesto and neighbour-hating rhetoric remained popular among politicos. At least many politicians on both sides of the border acted on the assumption that rhetoric against the other country would get them more votes.

The negotiations at government level were carried out under a veil of secrecy. Whatever became public about the negotiations and about the improving relations between the two governments, did not receive encouragement from the majority of the elite or the media.

Over the years, the environment has changed. Younger generations have begun to question the assumptions of the older generations. The common people as well as the elite have begun to debate upon the conventional wisdom about the state of relations between the two countries and of the long-held views on which this was based.

A significant event occurred in April 1984, when with the approval of the government of General Ziaul Haq, the English language newspaper The Muslim invited a number of eminent Indian journalists and intellectuals, including a retired vice-chief of army staff, to a two-day conference in Islamabad. On the Pakistan side were journalists, politicians, and retired high civil and military officials. The rights and wrongs in the India-Pakistan relationship were aired by both sides with great frankness and candour. They were one in desiring the normalization of the relations between the two countries. Occasionally, the criticism by some Pakistani participants of martial law rule of the then government was a surprise for many Indian participants...

The contacts established between peace-loving Pakistanis and Indians during this conference were to go a long way in making joint efforts for peace in the following years.

The last decade of the 20th century saw the tide decisively turn in favour of open campaigns for peace and against war.

* * * * *

There can be no South Asian community without peace between India and Pakistan. It is impossible to envisage normal relations between India and Pakistan until there is settlement of the Kashmir question. It is the moral and political obligation of all South Asian intellectuals to protest violations of human rights wherever they occur. No one contested a Pakistani contention that today Kashmiris were in extremes of such violations...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, the environment has changed. Younger generations have begun to question the assumptions of the older generations. The common people as well as the elite have begun to debate the conventional wisdom about the state of relations between the two countries and of the long-held views on which this was based

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new phase in the peace-making efforts between India and Pakistan was ushered in when a group of eminent Indians — Nirmal Mukerji, Rajni Kothari, Dinesh Mohan, Gautam Naulakha, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Teesta Setalvad, Amrita Chachi and Tapan K. Bose arrived in Lahore and met with I.A. Rehman, Karamat Ali, Dr Mubarak Ali, Dr Haroon Ahmad, Nighat Saeed Khan, Hussain Naqi, B.M. Kutti, Anees Haroon, Iftikharul Haq, Madeeha Gohar, Dr Rashid Ahmad, Shahid Kardar, Khaled Ahmad and Professor Mehdi Hasan and myself.

They formed the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy and agreed:

• That war and attempts to create war hysteria should be outlawed;

• That a process of denuclearization and reversal of the arms race should be started;

• That Kashmir not merely being a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, a peaceful democratic solution of it involving the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir is the only way out;

• That religious intolerance must be curbed as these tendencies create social strife, undermine democracy and increase the persecution and oppression of disadvantaged sections of society; and to constitute a convening committee for setting up a Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy.

* * * * *

Peace activism in the subcontinent touched unprecedented heights in the 90’s. According to documents consulted at the Ford Foundation offices in New Delhi, the new non-governmental initiatives launched, and institutions created, exclusively to promote peace between India and Pakistan numbered one in 1987, one in 1989, two each from 1991-1993, eight in 1994, one in 1995 and one in 1996, the last entry in the inventory. One can say with a degree of certainty that the activism shown by the people and the elite began to have the desired favourable impact on the governments of India and Pakistan by the mid-90’s. Before that, the governments had remained unmoved. This writer is personally aware that when, in his first term, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was keen to open a dialogue with India, he did not receive a positive response from Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. When Benazir Bhutto took over as prime minister, Mr Narasimha Rao was now keen to open negotiations, but the Pakistani side would not relent.

When the tide turned, Presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari of Pakistan and the prime ministers of India, Narasimha Rao, I.K. Gujral and Deva Gauda, ministers Manmohan Singh, Dinesh Singh, Inderjit Gupta during their tenure in the government and Atal Behari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh in the opposition, exhibited a sincere desire for peace and for the resolution of disputes in private meetings. It was during the prime ministership of Inder Kumar Gujral that the prime ministers of the two countries began to directly exchange views on the telephone. In fact, the two came quite close to each other, yet not close enough. The secretary level negotiations were not fruitful despite many meetings at international gatherings.

Slowly, but decisively, political leaders of both countries shed their apprehensions. Finally, they came to conclude that their overt contact with the leaders of the other country would not have a negative backlash on their voters, that it was no longer possible to attract votes in elections by rhetoric against the other country. Political leaders started talking of establishing a durable peace with neighbouring countries. One after another, Indian prime ministers started publicly declaring that the progress and prosperity of Pakistan was in India’s interest. In his election campaign in 1996, Nawaz Sharif openly declared that if elected, he would try to improve relations with India which he did. He got a positive response from Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who also correctly judged that if he were to make his dramatic bus journey to Pakistan, the people of India would support him. Nawaz Sharif was also proven right when his warm welcome of the Indian prime minister at the Lahore summit received an equally positive response in Pakistan.

The congenial atmosphere for peace created by the Lahore summit was vitiated by the mini-war on the Kargil heights, but only temporarily. The Kargil war did not dampen the desire of the peoples of the two countries to establish a durable peace. The post-Kargil convention held by the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy in Bangalore was a tremendous success and so was the convention convened by Nirmala Deshpande in Kolkata where a number of retired generals of the Pakistan army appeared on the dais, clasping hands with an equal number of retired generals of the Indian army. Indeed, the activism for peace shown by the people in the years 1999 and 2000, was absolutely unprecedented.

Groups of enlightened women from India and Pakistan became aggressively active in the promotion of peace and goodwill between the two countries. Chapters of Women’s Initiative for Peace in South Asia (WIPSA) were established in Delhi and Lahore. In March 2000, about a dozen prominent Indian women expressed the desire to visit Pakistan to confer with Pakistani women to promote peace and friendship. So strong was the desire that within a few days the number rose to 20, then to 30. On March 25, 41 delegates arrived in Lahore to a rousing welcome with garlands, songs, dances, and a band. They had to be rushed to Islamabad, as on the next day, without their knowledge, Pakistan’s Chief Executive, General Pervez Musharraf had agreed to receive them. They were thrilled beyond description and were all praise for him after the meeting. A number of meetings and an Indo-Pakistan Women’s Solidarity Conference ensued. The joint statement issued at the end stated:

The women’s peace bus from India to Pakistan has given an impetus to the process of peace. The warm welcome that the initiative has received in Pakistan bears witness to the fact that most women on both sides are committed to peace and reject the prejudices which have partly been state-sponsored.

Pakistani women responded strongly to the Indian women’s visit. Two bus loads, under the leadership of the redoubtable Asma Jahangir, arrived in Delhi to a tumultuous welcome. So enthusiastic was the delegation’s reception in India that her detractors taunted her of ambitions to contest elections to the Indian Lok Sabha. Reacting to the pressure from their citizens, the two governments liberalized their visa policies a little. As a result, scores of delegations of citizens, students, teachers, media-persons crossed the international border to visit the land and sights they had heard so much about and not seen. They enjoyed the traditional hospitality of the culture of the subcontinent and returned full of praise saying of the people on the other side. “They are just like us.”

Typical was the case of a large delegation of Pakistani visitors to Panipat. They had been invited by the children of the pre-1947 residents of that Indian city. None of the guests had ever met any of the hosts. Yet they were profusely entertained from early morning to late at night. Receptions, banquets, mushairas, public meetings, visits to historical sights, shrines, schools and institutions of their elders, knew no end. Not even one-third of the invitations could be accepted for want of time. As they returned, they were overloaded with gifts.

An entirely new development on the peace-making front was the interest shown by retired soldiers on both sides of the border. Many times this writer was graciously asked to meet and address middle and high-ranking retired military officers. In the years 1999 and 2000, a large number of retired senior military officers and their wives took upon themselves to visit the neighbouring country and meet with their counterparts. Groups known as the Soldiers Initiative were organized in both countries to create better understanding and to promote peace. General Pervez Musharraf generously received Indian generals, admirals and air marshals. Several Indian army chiefs of staff repaid the compliment by publicly hinting that India-Pakistan problems should be resolved on the negotiating table. A war between the two countries was not the solution.

The pressure of public opinion in both the countries was too strong for the governments to resist for much longer. The people and the generals of the two countries, helped by gentle persuasion from the international community, had left virtually no options for the two governments. The Kargil war, notwithstanding, the Agra summit had to happen. Rising like a statesman, Atal Behari Vajpayee issued the invitation to General Pervez Musharraf to visit India.

The discussions on making progress on an agenda of eight points were a success. Informally, there was even an agreement among the two foreign ministers, the prime minister of India and the president of Pakistan on the craft of a communique. But a problem cropped up. A person of disarming charm, not armed with diplomats finesse, the Pakistani president had created a larger than life image for himself. His meeting with the luminaries of the Indian media, a personal success, proved counterproductive for the summit.

There was no way that an asymmetrical hero should emerge out of the summit. The opportunity was seized by the pundits of older mind-sets. They had built their reputations and positions of influence on the policy of nurturing confrontation throughout their careers. The entire last day of the summit, they monopolized the commentaries on television screens on both sides of the border and successfully robbed the summit of its success. It was a strange spectacle: political leaders with a distinctly religious tilt or military background trying to move forward and professional heavy-weights with a modern, liberal education trying to pull them back. The foreign ministers of India and Pakistan retrieved the inconclusive summit in their press conferences the next day. More summit level meetings are in the stars.

There are no other options but that of peace available to the leaders.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Pakistanis 'put religion first': BBC

Pakistanis 'put religion first': BBC - September 16, 2005

Most Pakistanis believe their religion is more important than nationality while Indians trust the police and army more than their politicians.
These were two of the findings of the Gallup International Voice of the People survey 2005, commissioned by the BBC World Service.

The poll surveyed more than 50,000 people in 68 countries, representing the views of 1.3bn citizens.

Its findings explore the global attitudes to power.

Little control

On the question of which people were most trusted, 61% of the surveyed Indians cited the military and police, and 58% said journalists, while only 1% trusted politicians.


Of the surveyed Pakistanis, 55% trusted religious leaders, 42% journalists, 31% politicians and business leaders and 29% the military and police.

Globally, only 13% trusted politicians.

Two-thirds of Indians did not feel their elections were free and fair.

About 77% of surveyed Indians did not believe their country was governed by the will of the people, not far from the global average.

On the question of who had the most influence on decisions taken in personal lives, 92% of surveyed Indians said family and partner, compared to only 45% of Pakistanis. A total of 18% of Pakistanis answered religious leader, while none of the Indians surveyed did.

A total of 68% of Indians and 53% of Pakistanis agreed that there was very little they could do to change their lives. The global average was 34%.

The two countries were almost identical in who they would choose to give more power to - around 55% choosing the military and intellectuals and 50% journalists.

A total of 1,063 Indians and 843 Pakistanis were surveyed in June.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/4246054.stm

Thursday, September 15, 2005

The plight of Pakistani Jews

Daily Times, September 16, 2005
VIEW: Where have Pakistan’s Jews gone? —Adil Najam

There was once a small but vibrant community of Jews in what is now Pakistan. Most of them left Pakistan decades ago in circumstances that were not comfortable for them and a matter of some shame for us

The front page of last Friday’s Jerusalem Post featured a boxed item headlined “Surprise! There are still Jews in Pakistan.”

The story in The Jerusalem Post was triggered by an email sent to the newspaper’s online edition in a Reader’s Response section by one Ishaac Moosa Akhir who introduced himself thus: “I am a doctor at a local hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. My family background is Sephardic Jewish and I know approximately 10 Jewish families who have lived in Karachi for 200 years or so. Just last week was the Bar Mitzvah of my son Dawod Akhir.”

I remember seeing the mail when it originally appeared middle of last week and wondering whether the writer was, in fact, who he claimed to be or an over-zealous Pakistani trying to make a point behind the Internet’s obscurity. The Jerusalem Post and the experts it interviewed seem to have harboured similar doubts, I think largely because of the tenor of the debate on that discussion board. Some Indian readers seemed bent on proving that Pakistanis are intrinsically anti-Semitic and over-enthusiastic Pakistanis trying to cleanse Pakistan’s international image by pontificating about the connections between Islam and Judaism. It was in this context that Mr Akhir wrote, “I must convey to the Israeli people that Pakistani society is in general very generous and my families have never had any problems here. We live in full freedom and enjoy excellent friendships with many people here in Karachi.” He went on, then, to add: “I have been to India as well, though I found Indian society to be less tolerant, highly emotional and more anti-Semitic. Pakistanis respect people of all faiths because it is a doctrine of their Sufi version of Islam, which is very different from Arab Wahhabism.”

Unlike the readers, The Jerusalem Post had Mr Akhir’s email address (they did not print it). It seems that they wrote back to him and he added some thoughts that were not in his original post. The newspaper reports that Akhir wrote about holding prayer services in his home for the Jews of Karachi and that “although he and his fellow Jews there could practice their religion openly if they wished to” they have chosen to live a life of anonymity. Mr Akhir is quoted as saying that “We prefer our own small world and, since we are happy and content, we never felt there was a need to express ourselves. ... We don’t want to let anyone make political use of us. We enjoy living in this simplicity and anonymity.” He goes on to say that he has no desire to leave Pakistan but would like to visit Israel.

Like the Jerusalem Post, I am still not sure whether this is in fact one of the few remaining members of the Pakistani Jewry. However, even if that is not so, it raises the very interesting question of where are the Pakistani Jews?

There isn’t much reliable information on the subject. The official census reports that 0.07 percent of the population is of ‘other’ religions but does not say how many, if any, are Jews. Various Jewish websites suggest that there were about 2,500 Jews living in Karachi at the beginning of the twentieth century and a few hundred lived in Peshawar. There were synagogues in both cities. Reportedly, the one in Peshawar still exists but is closed. The Magain Shalome Synagogue in Karachi was built in 1893 by Shalome Solomon Umerdekar and his son Gershone Solomon (other accounts suggest it was built by Solomon David, a surveyor for the Karachi Municipality, and his wife Sheeoolabai, although these may be different names for the same people). It soon became the centre of a vibrant Jewish community, one of whose leaders, Abraham Reuben, became a city councillor in 1936. There were various Jewish social organisations, including the Young Men’s Jewish Association (founded 1903), the Karachi Bene Israel Relief Fund, and the Karachi Jewish Syndicate formed to provide affordable homes to poor Jews.

Some Jews migrated to India at the time of partition but reportedly some 2,000 remained, most of them Bene Yisrale Jews observing Sephardic rites. The first real exodus from Pakistan came soon after the creation of Israel, which triggered several incidents of violence against Jews in Pakistan including the burning of the Karachi synagogue. From then onwards most Pakistanis viewed all Jews through the lens of Arab-Israel politics. The wars of 1956 and 1967 only made life more difficult for Jews in Pakistan. The Karachi synagogue became the site of anti-Israel demonstrations, and the Paksitani Jews the subject of the wrath of mobs. Ayub Khan’s era saw the near disappearance of the Paksitani Jewry. The majority left the country, many for Israel but some for India or the United Kingdom. Reportedly, a couple of hundred remained in Karachi but out of concern for their safety many went ‘underground’, sometimes passing off as Parsees. According to a website on Jewish history, many of the Karachi Jews now live in Ramale and have built there a synagogue called Magain Shalome. Much of this was corroborated when I recently ran into a ‘Pakistani Jew’ (my term, not hers) now living in Massachusetts, USA. She told me that her father was a community and synagogue leader of the Karachi Jews. She herself had grown up in Karachi and studied at St Jospeph’s Girls School. Her family had moved to Israel during Ayub Khan’s era.

The Magain Shalome synagogue, in Karachi’s Rancore Lines area, became dormant in the 1960s and was demolished by property developers in the 1980s to make way for a commercial building. The last caretaker, a Muslim, reportedly rescued the religious artefacts (bima, ark, etc). It is not clear where he or those artefacts are now. However, thanks to the tenacity of Rachel Joseph the story of the Karachi synagogue is not yet over. In her late ‘80s, of frail health (hopefully still alive) and living in Karachi in a state of destitution, Ms Joseph is the surviving custodian of the Karachi synagogue and the Jewish graveyard in Mewa Shah suburb of Karachi, parts of which have now become a Cutchi Memon graveyard. Ms Joseph claims that the property developers had promised her and her now deceased brother (Ifraheem Joseph) that they would be given an apartment in the new building and space for a small synagogue. She feels that she was swindled and has been trying (unsuccessfully) to move a court to get what she was promised. In 2003, Kunwar Khalid Yunus from Karachi wrote a moving letter to daily Dawn pleading that she be helped.

What does all this tell us about Mr Akhir. Not much. But it does offer some lessons that we might want to heed as a nation. First, it tells us that there was once a small but vibrant community of Jews in what is now Pakistan and that most of this community left Pakistan many decades ago and in circumstances that were not comfortable for them and a matter of some shame for us. Second, it tells us that despite this mass exodus, a small number of Jews — maybe as many as a few hundred — still remain in Pakistan and are forced to lead a life of anonymity, even camouflage. Mr Akhir may well be who he claims to be. Even if he is not there are likely to be others who have been forced into anonymity for too long and who need to be brought back into the national folds. Whether we ever recognise Israel or not, we need to recognise and make peace with our own Jews (and other minorities). After General Musharraf is done dining with the American Jewry, maybe he should also break bread with the Paksitani Jews, including those who are now spread across the world, Paksitani no more.

Dr Adil Najam teaches international negotiation and diplomacy at The Flecther School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, USA

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

How a military ruler views the world!

Musharraf: No Challenge From Bush On Reversal
Pakistani President Still Leading Army

By Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 13, 2005; A19

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 12 -- President Bush, who has been promoting democracy around the world, has never questioned Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, about his controversial decision last year to renege on a pledge to step down as army chief, Musharraf said in a wide-ranging interview Monday.

"Let me assure you that President Bush never talks about when are you taking your uniform off," Musharraf said before offering an energetic defense of his democratic credentials.

Musharraf, interviewed after arriving for this week's opening of the U.N. General Assembly, also said he believed that Iran, like every country, had a right to peaceful use of nuclear power, opposing efforts by the Bush administration to punish Iran for pursuing a nuclear program.

He also expressed surprise that North Korea has denied having a uranium enrichment program, because he said a nuclear smuggling network run out of Pakistan sold North Korea designs and centrifuge parts needed for such a program. Based on what he knew of Pakistani sales, "I think they do have an enrichment program," he said.

Musharraf said the United States and Pakistan have no agreement about what would happen to Osama bin Laden if he were captured in Pakistan, but he said he would readily turn the leader of al Qaeda over to the United States for trial for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said Pakistan has captured 600 to 700 members of al Qaeda, including top aides to bin Laden, and said "they are all here in the United States, we handed them over." The U.S. government has not publicly acknowledged the captivity or whereabouts of its most "high-value" detainees.

Musharraf, who wore a gray suit during the 50-minute interview, took power in a bloodless coup in 1999. In December, shortly before visiting the White House, he refused to honor a promise made in 2003 -- in exchange for broader constitutional powers -- to give up his uniform at the end of 2004. The largely pro-Musharraf parliament has approved a bill allowing him to keep the military post until 2007, but asked whether he would take off the uniform then, Musharraf replied: "We will cross that bridge when we come to it."

Musharraf said it was "very much a concern" to him that he still held the army post. "A president cannot be a president in uniform, should not be," he said. But "the environment of Pakistan dictates that I keep on until 2007 . . . the regional and international environment demands that I keep it on. So why should I be bothered to remove it now?"

Musharraf said he had "totally turned around Pakistan" and had made key advances in fostering democracy, including protecting freedom of the press, empowering local government, improving the position of women in society and giving greater representation to minorities.

"Leave the developing world aside; I think we are better than all of them," Musharraf declared. "Bring the developed world and let us compare Pakistan's record, under me, a uniformed man, with many of the developed countries. I challenge that we will be better off."

Musharraf also became animated when he spoke about the case of Mukhtar Mai, a 33-year-old illiterate woman who spoke publicly about having been gang-raped on the orders of village council in 2002. Mai, bucking taboos, won public sympathy and government support after she demanded that the men be charged and convicted. But earlier this year Musharraf earned the ire of the Bush administration when he blocked her from traveling to the United States to publicize the case.

Musharraf said that Mai was free to travel now -- though she has never left Pakistan -- and that he had no regrets about how he handled the incident. He said Mai had come under the sway of organizations determined to harm Pakistan's image and he did not think Pakistan "should be singled out when the curse is everywhere in the world." He noted he had seen reports or figures about rape in the United States, Canada, France and Britain showing that "it is happening everywhere."

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan," Musharraf added. "This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."

As a general who still runs Pakistan's military, Musharraf was highly critical of the execution of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and said the war had contributed to an unstable Middle East. Musharraf said the United States should have targeted only Saddam Hussein; instead, he said, the invasion had left images that were very disturbing to Muslims.

"If you launch a massive operation where the whole world sees for months bombing and shelling and people dying and towns burning, this alarms the whole Muslim world," he said. "So the whole scenario of a hated man turns into sympathy for the people of Iraq. It went to the worse."

Musharraf cautioned against similar operations and said Pakistan would not support any military action again Iran, a close ally and neighbor.

He voiced support for Iran's nuclear program, saying that "every country has a right to use nuclear knowledge for peaceful purposes," and he came out against U.S. efforts to pressure the government into giving it up. Rather than report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, as the Bush administration wants, the international community should be looking for ways to help Iran, he said, adding that "Iran needs to show flexibility" as well.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company