The American-Pakistani disconnect: Shafqat Mahmood

The American-Pakistani disconnect
The News, August 08, 2008
Shafqat Mahmood

After being partners for years in the war against terror, the American and Pakistani security establishments have begun to have serious misgivings about each other. The Americans are accusing the ISI of supporting the Afghan Taliban and of carrying out the Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul. They are also highly critical of the Pakistani army's tactical decision, later endorsed by the new government, to negotiate peace with the militants in the tribal area. This, they feel, allows the militants to regroup and enlarge the space available to Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in the tribal territory.

The Pakistani security establishment has its own list of complaints. According to published comments of sources close to it, while the American military keeps blaming Pakistan for not doing enough against the militants, it has taken no steps to take out Baitullah Mehsud even when provided precise coordinates of his position. The leader of the Pakistani Taliban is also reported to have a sophisticated encrypted communication system only available to Western militaries, and there is evidence that he is informed of Pakistani army positions when they close in on him. The implication clearly is that there is some kind of compact between the Americans and Baitullah Mehsud.

Pakistan's complaints do not end here. It accuses the Americans, who are the power behind the puppet Afghan government, of allowing anti-Pakistan activities to take place on Afghan soil. They have allowed the Indian government to establish consulates in various places near the Pakistani border that have only one purpose; to create trouble in Baluchistan and engage in sabotage and terrorism in other parts of the country. They have also through the puppet Afghan government provided sanctuary to anti Pakistan elements such as Brahamdagh Bugti and others.

There are claims in the press that Americans have provided evidence to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani of ISI hand in the Indian embassy bombing in Kabul. No one in the government has confirmed this, but Pakistani security sources have been quoted in the media as strongly denying any link with it. They have also refuted that the ISI provides any support to the Afghan Taliban. The only interaction, some analysts have pointed out, was with the Sirajuddin Haqqani group to obtain the release of the kidnapped Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan. Anything more than that is baseless.

On the other hand, there has been no refutation by the Americans, at least publicly, of the reported accusations of the Pakistani security establishment. The lack of response to Baitullah Mehsud's coordinates provided by the Pakistani military is intriguing, as is the highly sophisticated communication system in his possession. Does this mean that Pakistan's public enemy number one is being used by the Americans as an asset? There is also little doubt that the Indian consulates have been up to no good in Balochistan. Musharraf would not have used the colourful expression of being one thousand percent sure if he did not have his facts right. We also know for sure that people like Brahamdagh Bugti are in Afghanistan. So what is going on?

There are two ways to analyse American strategic interests in this region. One is to presume that the United States wants to destabilise Pakistan, even break it up, to neutralise an Islamic country's nuclear weapons. If this line of thought is pursued, there is enough to keep the conspiracy theorists happy. If the Baitullah Mehsud information is true, and there is every reason to believe it is, why would the Americans cultivate Taliban assets within Pakistan?

Again, why would they allow the Indian consulates a free run to stoke up insurgency in Balochistan or allegedly engineer terror attacks such as the one in Karachi against an ally? Some observers also find it more than a coincidence that as the American complaints have gone up, the Indians have also started to stir up trouble on the Line of Control. The first incident took place because they tried to establish a post ahead of their normal position. Others have happened since. Indians also have started to accuse Pakistan directly of Kabul bombing and indirectly of recent bombings in Indian cities. All this clearly appears to be coordinated between them and the Americans.

While this is the conspiracy theory, there is the other version. It goes something like this; that actually the United States wants a stable and prosperous Pakistan because it believes that only then would it be a responsible nuclear power. It also wants the country to remain a strong partner in the war against terror. To this end it keeps nudging the Pakistani leadership and sometimes uses different tactics, including economic aid and military pressure, to force it in the right direction. It does keep anti-Pakistan elements in its arsenal, as do the Indians, but only to use them as levers when it needs to put pressure.

Some people also argue that if it had nefarious designs it would not have given Pakistan large amounts of military and non-military aid. Just recently, the Biden-Luger Bill has been introduced in Congress that promises 15 billion dollars over ten years. Both presidential candidates are also on record promising increased aid to Pakistan. This is not the behaviour of a country which is working towards breaking up Pakistan.

What is the truth? One can only guess, but it is clear that nations do not have a single tactical track to pursue their strategic interests. They may have different plans for different contingencies. If things pan out more or less in an orderly fashion between the two countries, the "strengthening of Pakistan" option is more likely to be pursued. If things go wrong, in the sense that a leadership emerges in Pakistan that is anti-American and is determined to thwart its security goals, the option to break up Pakistan, or overwhelm it, may be pursued.

Similarly, Pakistan also cannot put all its options and interests in one basket. It has a deep interest in Afghanistan, and while it is visibly congruent with the US-NATO strategy in that country, it has to keep links with other forces alive. This includes the Taliban but this does not mean that it is actively supporting them against the coalition. It may only be trying to keep its options open. This pursuit of contingencies related to national interest can lead to misunderstandings between allies, and that is what seems to be happening.

The remedy is to increase interactions between American and Pakistani security establishments to ensure that lack of communication does not become a problem. A candid exchange should help to ease tensions. In many ways there is little disconnect between our mutual strategic interests. Once this is recognised, the tensions would dissipate.

Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com

Review of Brookings Institute Event on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Pakistan bombed Indian embassy in Kabul
By Rana Fawad, Samundar Par, August 6, 2008

WASHINGTON: History of South Asia makes it hard to dismiss accusations of the security services of Afghanistan as well as India that Pakistan did attack the Indian embassy in Kabul.

This comment was made by Bruce Riedel of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy (Brookings Institution) during a discussion 'Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan: US Foreign Policy Challenges this Fall and Beyond" organized by the Brookings Institution on Wednesday at its Falk Auditorium.

He was responding to a question by Pakistani journalist Khalid Hasan about his (Bruce's) accusation that Pakistan attacked the Indian embassy in Kabul.

He acknowledged that the information available in the unclassified arena was not conclusive to say that but the accusations of the Afghan and Indian security agencies supported by the US intelligence report mentioned in The New York Times pointed finger at the ISI.

Bruce Riedel is also the author of The Search for al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future, to be released by Brookings Institution Press later this year.

Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution Michael O'Hanlon conducted the proceedings. Other two speakers included Kenneth Pollack (Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East, Brookings Institution) and Jeremy Shapiro (Fellow and Director of Research, Center on the United States and Europe, Brookings Institution).

Earlier he started his talk by declaring Pakistan as the most dangerous country in the world and said if the US was attacked one more time on a scale of 9/11 , the attack would come from Pakistan.

Illustrating his views, Bruce Riedel informed the audience that Pakistan was the sixth largest (population-wise) country in the world and second largest in the Muslim countries.

Bruce added though poppy was being produced in Afghanistan, Pakistan was the main conduit of its supply to the rest of the world through the Karachi port.

He revealed that Pakistan had between 50 to 200 nuclear weapons and was responsible for their proliferation to many countries like North Korea, Libya, Iran, etc.

Bruce also told the gathering that a small area in Pakistan along Afghanistan's border called FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) was a safe haven for the Al Qaeda and Mullah Omar of Taliban.

Referring to Pakistan's domestic problems, he commented that the country was stuck between dictatorships and attempts of democracy.

He said that Pakistan's spy agency ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) reports to the army and also accused that it was responsible for the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Bruce was of the view that the ISI was not in civilian control and probably Pakistan's prime minister was not aware of the Kabul embassy attack.

In his analysis of the situation, he commented that currently the country was focused on the issues of judiciary and the future of Musharraf. He suggested it is time for Musharraf to leave the stage.

He also said that every US President supported dictatorships in Pakistan and the US had a huge catch up job to do as far as the promotion of democracy in Pakistan was concerned.

In his view, Pakistan's army does not trust the US any more.

Referring to Pakistan's strategic importance for the US, he said 85 percent of the logistic support in this war on terror was coming through Karachi and Pakistan was aware of this leverage. He warned any pressure on Pakistan would slow this war on terrorism in that region.

He also warned against any loose talk about large scale military operation in Pakistan but supported the idea of strikes against high value targets in Pakistan.

Bruce also opposed any attempt to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons saying we don't know the exact number and location of those weapons. He said it would not be a good idea.

He recommended that instead of military aid the US should increase Pakistan's civilian assistance. Moreover, he suggested the regional situation on both sides of Pakistan (India and Afghanistan) needs to be fixed.

Musharraf Will be Impeached: Ruling Pakistan Coalition

For Video Clip of the Press Conference, click here
President will be impeached: ruling coalition
The News, August 07, 2008

ISLAMABAD: President Pervez Musharraf will have to face impeachment under Article 47 of the Constitution if he fails to take vote of confidence from the assemblies immediately.

This was announced by Co-chairman Pakistan People’s Party, Asif Ali Zardari at a joint press conference with Pakistan Muslim League-N Chief, Nawaz Sharif, here at Zardari House on Thursday.

The announcement came after two-days of marathon meetings held by the ruling coalition.

President Musharraf had failed to seek a vote of confidence from the new parliament or to address the national assembly, and that he had "worked to undermine the transition to democracy,” Asif Zardari said.

“The President weakened the Federation and eroded the trust of the nation.”

He said the coalition has resolved that the President sacked the top judiciary through “extra-constitutional means.”

The policies pursued by the President Musharraf led government are responsible for the “economic impasse, worst power shortage in the history,” he said.

“It has now become imperative to impeach President Pervez Musharraf under Article 47,” Asif Zardari said.

The President had said he would step down if his party faces defeat in the general elections, he said. The people gave their mandate to the democratic forces, he added.

Asif Zardari said the judges will be restored to November 3 position following impeachment of the President.

PML-N Chief Nawaz Sharif endorsed the announcements made by the PPP Co-chairman, saying his party agrees with the statement read out by Asif Zardari.

Awami National Party’s Senator, Haji Adeel also gave his consent to the joint declaration.

“The nation will not accept 58-2(b),” Nawaz Sharif said. The democracy is not so weak that it would allow usage of 58-2(b), he added.

Also see:
TIMELINE: Months of turmoil for Pakistan's Musharraf - Reuters
Pakistan Government Seeks to Oust President Musharraf - Bloomberg
Coalition in Pakistan Moves to Impeach Musharraf - New York Times

Pakistan: Final Round Begins - Lets Hope Democractic Forces will Succeed

Pakistan: Impeaching rumours dog Musharraf's Olympic trip
Saeed Shah in Islamabad and Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, August 7 2008

The Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, wavered yesterday over a planned trip to China for the opening of the Olympics after reports that his political opponents were preparing to impeach him.

Musharraf, a close ally of the Bush administration, woke up to banner headlines in the Pakistan press suggesting he would be impeached. In apparent panic, he cancelled his flight but, after being closeted with advisers for several hours, announced he would go to China after all, a day later than planned.

Impeachment proceedings would plunge Pakistan into a fresh crisis, as Musharraf, who until recently was head of the military and is thought to still enjoy its support, has repeatedly said he will not allow himself to be forced out of office. The stockmarket slumped to its lowest level in two years on fears that the country was in for a new bout of political turmoil.

The coalition opposed to him, led by Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-N and Asif Zardari of the Pakistan People's party, were locked in a meeting in Islamabad last night. Elections in February brought to power Musharraf's opponents but he stubbornly clung on to the presidency, which he seized in a 1999 coup.

The coalition has threatened impeachment before, but while this time the threat appears more serious, the government may opt against such a incendiary move and instead try other means to pressure Musharraf to stand down voluntarily.

Musharraf is close to the Bush administration because of help he has provided since 9/11 in the "war on terror". The Bush administration, torn between wanting to see a strongman in place in the fragile country and wanting to promote democracy, has praised him for having given up his post as head of the military and helping with the shift towards civilian rule.

But the main US preoccupation in the region at present is the failure of Pakistan to clamp down on the Taliban and al-Qaida forces in its border areas, which regularly cross into Afghanistan to mount attacks.

The US last month complained that "rotten" elements in the Pakistan intelligence service were aiding the Taliban. While the new civilian government tried to comply with US demands by bringing the intelligence service under its remit, the military, with the support of Musharraf, successfully blocked the move.

Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a political analyst based in Lahore, suggested US support for Musharraf has cooled: "They won't be too perturbed now if he is knocked out by constitutional means. The Americans see that unless this issue is dealt with, government won't be able to function."

Musharraf's advisers let it be known he is prepared to "use his constitutional powers" to stop impeachment. Under powers he gave himself, Musharraf has the ability to dismiss the parliament - which should, in theory, be followed by fresh elections.

Ahsan Iqbal, a senior member of Sharif's party, said Musharraf "might make such a commando attack on parliament. But we will meet it. Let this be the final round, let there be a final victory for democracy."

The coalition may have the numbers required for impeachment but it is tight. Such a move would require a two-thirds majority, in a joint sitting of both houses of parliament. The upper house, the senate, still has Musharraf supporters making up half its strength. In the lower house, the coalition easily prevails.

Musharraf now irrelevant, Gilani told Bush

Musharraf now irrelevant, Gilani told Bush
The News, August 07, 2008
Replies to criticism of his US performance
By Rauf Klasra

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Wednesday he had told the Americans in clear words that President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was quite “irrelevant” to Pakistan and that the Bush administration had shown its strong willingness to work closely with him as the head of the new politically-elected government.

In an exclusive interview with The News in his office, PM Gilani said in the same breath he had also told the Americans that the people of Pakistan did not appreciate them, only because they had been supporting the military dictators in the country.

PM Gilani also defended his decision to visit the US within the first three months of his office and said it was wrong to assume that he had undertaken the visit at a wrong time. Gilani said he had informed the Americans who were asking questions about the “effectiveness” of Musharraf that he was only a “ceremonial” head of state as the real power to run the government was with the prime minister of Pakistan.

For complete report, click here

Impeachment of President Musharraf Nears?

President Musharraf cancels trip to China as impeachment looms
Zahid Hussain in Islamabad, From Times Online August 6, 2008

Pakistan’s embattled president Musharraf has abruptly cancelled his planned visit to China, as opponents in the ruling coalition move to impeach him.

He was to attend opening ceremony of Beijing Olympics and meet Chinese leaders during his two day visit.

Mohammed Sadiq, a Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman confirmed that the visit was called off, but did not give any reason. The announcement came as the president's opponents met in Islamabad to decide on his impeachment.

The twin issues of President Musharraf's removal and the restoration of Supreme Court judges who were dismissed by the president last November during a brief period of emergency rule have over-shadowed the four month old coalition government . Asif Ali Zardari, the head of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif , the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League( N) faction, which are part of the ruling alliance, agreed yesterday to move against the president. A final decision in this regard is expected to be announced after the two leaders meet again on Thursday.

Khawaja Asif, a spokesman for Mr. Sharif said the coalition parties have the two thirds majority required to remove the president.

“We have the sufficient numbers" he declared. But the president’s supporters denied the claim. Observers said the impeachment move could further destablise the country which is facing severe economic problem and rising Islamic insurgency.

A former General and a close U.S. ally in the global war on terror, Mr. Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999. He stepped down as army chief in December 2007 after he was elected as president for another five years in a controversial election. He became hugely unpopular after he imposed a temporary emergency rule in the country in November 2007 and sacked the independent minded chief justice.

His allies were defeated in an election in February that resulted in a civilian coalition government led by the party of the late Benazir Bhutto, a two-time prime minister who was assassinated while campaigning last December.

Despite the loss of parliamentary support, Mr. Musharraf has resisted pressure to quit, and has insisted that he was willing to work with the new civilian government.

He has repeatedly said he will not use presidential powers to dismiss the parliament, but Pakistani political circles are rife with speculation that he is manouevring towards this scenario on grounds that the civilian government has proved inept.

Political analysts said the impeachment move could further destablise the country and force the army to act, although the army leadership has so far kept itself out of the fray.

Political uncertainty has badly affected the economy with inflation reaching a record high. Investors have harboured doubts over whether the civilian coalition government has the ability to arrest the decline. Rising Islamic militancy which has gripped northern areas also threaten to tear apart the country.

PPP, PML-N agree to act against Musharraf - FINALLY

PPP, PML-N agree to act against Musharraf
By Amir Wasim, Dawn, August 6, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Aug 5: Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N on Tuesday agreed to formally ask President Pervez Musharraf to step down and to impeach him through parliamentary measures if he did not oblige, sources in both the parties told Dawn after talks between their leaders at the Zardari House here.

PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif led their respective teams in the six-hour talks amid growing concerns over the future of the ruling coalition because of the differences over the issues of reinstatement of judges and the future of an increasingly isolated president.

Although there was no official confirmation, the meeting left no doubt that the focus was on impeachment of the president.

Later, PML-N leader Khwaja Asif confirmed in an interview with a private television network that “all legal and constitutional hitches are being removed to impeach the president”.

The state-run news agency APP said that the issues of deposed judges and the president’s impeachment dominated the talks.

It is expected that Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari will make an announcement at a joint press conference after their second round of talks on Wednesday evening.

According to PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar, Mr Zardari and Mr Sharif held one-to-one talks for more than an hour after which they were joined by their aides. He announced that the talks would continue on Wednesday and other coalition partners would be taken into confidence late in the evening.

Immediately after the meeting, a team of PPP and PML-N negotiators, headed by Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, flew to Karachi to brief Awami National Party’s (ANP) president Asfandyar Wali Khan and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-F leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman about Tuesday’s deliberations.

This was considered by observers here as an indication that the two parties were serious about their decision to act against President Musharraf.

According to a source, Mr Zardari also talked to the ANP president on phone.

Later, Mr Zardari met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at the Prime Minister House and informed him about the developments. Law Minister Farooq Naek also attended the meeting.

It is not clear what position would the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), a staunch ally of President Musharraf, take if a serious move is made to impeach him. At present, the MQM is sitting in the opposition in the National Assembly but is a coalition partner of the PPP in Sindh.

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Ishaq Dar and Khwaja Asif assisted Mr Sharif while Mr Zardari was assisted by Leader of the House in Senate Raza Rabbani, Syed Khurshid Shah, Sherry Rehman, Qamaruz Zaman Kaira and PPP’s secretary-general Jahangir Badar. Law Minister Farooq Naek, who was attending the Senate session, was called to the Zardari House for legal opinion on some important matters.

A large number of local and foreign media personnel kept waiting outside the Zardari House despite heavy rain, hoping that the two leaders might address a press conference. However, at the end of the meeting, PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar issued a joint statement which said: “Discussions held in a cordial atmosphere were very positive, frank and productive. Major progress was made as broad consensus emerged on key issues. It was decided to re-convene the meeting on Wednesday to consult with other partners of the ruling coalition. Contacts with Fata leaders and other allies will also be made during the course of the night to get their input for the (Wednesday’s) meeting.”

According to insiders, PPP leaders had succeeded in persuading the PML-N not to insist on reinstatement of the deposed judges before the removal of President Musharraf and said that his removal would help the government to fulfil its promise about the restoration of the judiciary.

The two sides, they said, agreed that President Musharraf was hindering the judges’ reinstatement and after his removal from the office, the judges would have no objection to take a fresh oath under the Constitution.

Khwaja Asif later told the private TV channel that a charge-sheet against President Musharraf would be prepared by the two parties and under the Constitution the president would be provided an opportunity to defend himself before parliament. He expressed the hope that they would be “able to give a complete timeframe for the impeachment by Wednesday”.

Islamabad Today!

Capital shock
The News, August 06, 2008
Raza Rumi

A week long sojourn in Islamabad just came to an end. It was not the Islamabad that I had lived in or the one that my memory was intimate with. It has changed and perhaps forever.

I have been an accidental resident of Islamabad as I was thrown into the sleepy folds of the capital by imperatives of securing a livelihood. Lahoris can never be content with any other city. But Islamabad's serenity as a stark contrast to the urban mess of Pakistan was most endearing to say the least. Even its cultural wastelands were forgivable for the communion with Nature was a splendid alternative to civilisation. Thus the sprawling greenbelts of Islamabad and its wild foliage became a source of inspiration and muse. I left the city three years ago with fond memories.

But the return of this accidental native was not too charming. Islamabad over the last three years has confronted a development paradigm that reflects much of what is wrong with the elite-led progress in Pakistan. Whilst the political fissures have also erupted in the form of terrorism and activism around the issue of deposed judges, it is the brazen model of urban development that remains most worrisome.

Express-ways and highways have been built all over the place that can facilitate fast paced cars, cavalcades and power caravans. But the pedestrians who by even conservative estimates are 30 per cent of commuters find themselves at the wrong side of history. They have been virtually bypassed or at worst humiliated. Many of the express-ways have no provision of underground walkways or overhead bridges. Small wonder, that the absolute poor of Pakistan are also nearly the same percentage and almost as invisible.

The natural gifts of Islamabad have been mercilessly chopped in the name of widening the roads or even erecting senseless structures. Tracts of green areas that would bloom in the spring and sway in the monsoons have all gone. Barren squares reveal the idiocy of the initial layout of Islamabad that Nature had shielded for so long.

Where else in the world would find a public park space rented out to a global corporation and that too of dubious credentials such as the McDonalds. And, if the purpose was to entertain the hapless Islamabadites then why not patronise a local chain? This is crass commercialism being actively promoted by gurus of modernization and elites who find the global signs as a proof of having arrived. All of this has happened at the expense of the public aesthetic and values. Islamabad of today with its copycat musicals and made-to-order tourist villages is nothing but an attempt in cultural annihilation. Amazing that a city next to Gandhara and capital of the Indus valley terms Broadway remakes as high culture!

The original Islamabad-wallas remember how the CDA installed dustbins sported the chaste Urdu-Persian word Khashaak in bold. No more. It is now all English wonderland and a signpost on a major highway displays the route to "Atwar bazaar". Since when has the mighty state language lost its relevance. If this was to be the future of Urdu, then why was there a need to alienate our fellow Pakistanis in the Eastern Wing now Bangladesh in the name of a uniform national language.

Believe it or not, Ramna, a Bengali name was used for the old sectors. If in the 1960s the Bengalis complained of excessive investments in Islamabad they were termed as traitors. Today, a similar fetish for capital investments in Islamabad remains unchanged. The complaints are muted often sidelined due to the bomb blasts and the glitz of highways and underpasses. In stark contrast, the poor relative town of Rawalpindi is quite neglected where a flood at Nullah Lai ravages segments of population and their livelihoods each year and where the martial and non-marital divides are difficult to overlook.

Islamabad continues to grow and is liked by many including the foreign diplomats thanks to its wondrous surroundings. But we are keen to make it a mess. Where have big roads and speed-ways been a substitute for traffic management and integrated urban planning? Even an undergraduate would know that. And, why is there no public transport system in place if this were the best that we want to showcase in the world.

While the entire country has been administered the magic dose of devolution, Islamabad remains 'undevolved' and its administration is highly centralized reflecting the culture of an overarching and central state. These are not accidental contradictions but symptoms of the larger malaise.

About time the Islamabadis woke up and shunned the flashy development for more substantive progress that includes the poor, creates livelihood beyond consumerism, saves the trees and focuses on long term urban vision rather than short term infrastructure feats.

Raza Rumi writes at http://razarumi.com and edits Pak Tea House and Lahore Nama blogsites.

School Burnings in FATA & NWFP

Taleban 'burn Pakistan schools'
More and more schools are being destroyed in Swat
BBC, August 5, 2008

Suspected pro-Taleban militants have burnt down three more girls' high schools in the Swat valley of north-west Pakistan, officials say.

Ten schools have been destroyed in the district in the last four days.

Nearly 70 state-run schools have been burnt down in the area in recent months, affecting over 17,000 students.

For complete article, click here

OTHER MEDIA COVERAGE: According to GEO TV reporter Asim Ali Rana (August 5, 2008), Swat area has about 3000 schools, out of which 135 (mostly girls' schools) were destroyed/burnt/bombed in the last few months (mostly at night when no one was present in the schools). Resultantly, people are scared to send their kids to school and the school attendance has dropped down to 20% overall and below 5% in case of girl students.

Pakistan's Version about CIA Top Official's Visit to Islamabad

US told not to back terrorism against Pakistan
The News, August 05, 2008
By Kamran Khan

KARACHI: Pakistan has complained to the United States military leadership and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that Washington’s policy towards terrorism in Pakistan was inconsistent with America’s declared commitment to the war against terror.

Impeccable official sources have said that strong evidence and circumstantial evidence of American acquiescence to terrorism inside Pakistan was outlined by President Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj in their separate meetings with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R Kappes on July 12 in Rawalpindi.

The visit by the senior US military official along with the CIA deputy director — carrying what were seen as India-influenced intelligence inputs — hardened the resolve of Pakistanís security establishment to keep supreme Pakistan’s national security interest even if it meant straining ties with the US and Nato.

A senior official with direct knowledge of these meetings said that Pakistan’s military leadership and the president asked the American visitors “not to distinguish between a terrorist for the United States and Afghanistan and a terrorist for Pakistan”.

For reasons best known to Langley, the CIA headquarters, as well as the Pentagon, Pakistani officials say the Americans were not interested in disrupting the Kabul-based fountainhead of terrorism in Balochistan nor do they want to allocate the marvellous predator resource to neutralise the kingpin of suicide bombings against the Pakistani military establishment now hiding near the Pak-Afghan border.

In the strongest evidence-based confrontation with the American security establishment since the two countries established their post-9/11 strategic alliance, Pakistani officials proved Brahamdagh Bugti’s presence in Afghan intelligence safe houses in Kabul, his photographed visits to New Delhi and his orders for terrorism in Balochistan.

The top US military commander and the CIA official were also asked why the CIA-run predator and the US military did not swing into action when they were provided the exact location of Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s enemy number one and the mastermind of almost every suicide operation against the Pakistan Army and the ISI since June 2006.

One such precise piece of information was made available to the CIA on May 24 when Baitullah Mehsud drove to a remote South Waziristan mountain post in his Toyota Land Cruiser to address the press and returned back to his safe abode. The United States military has the capacity to direct a missile to a precise location at very short notice as it has done close to 20 times in the last few years to hit al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

Pakistani official have long been intrigued by the presence of highly encrypted communications gear with Baitullah Mehsud. This communication gear enables him to collect real-time information on Pakistani troop movement from an unidentified foreign source without being intercepted by Pakistani intelligence.

Admiral Mullen and the CIA official were in Pakistan on an unannounced visit on July 12 to show what the US media claimed was evidence of the ISI’s ties to†Taliban commander Maulana Sirajuddin Haqqani and the alleged involvement of Pakistani agents in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Pakistani military leaders rubbished the American information and evidence on the Kabul bombing but provided some rationale for keeping a window open with Haqqani, just as the British government had decided to open talks with some Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan last year.

Before opening new channels of communication with the Taliban in Helmand province in March this year, the British and Nato forces were talking to leading Taliban leaders through†Michael Semple, the acting head of the European Union mission to Afghanistan, and Mervyn Patterson, a senior UN official, before their unprecedented expulsion from Afghanistan by the Karzai government†in January this year.

The American visitors were also told that the government of Pakistan had to seek the help of Taliban commanders such as Sirajuddin Haqqani for the release of its kidnapped ambassador Tariquddin Aziz, after the US-backed Karzai administration failed to secure Aziz’s release from his captors in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen and Kappes were both provided information about the activities of the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad and were asked how the CIA does not know that both Indian consulates are manned by Indian Intelligence who plot against Pakistan round the clock.

“ We wanted to know when our American friends would get interested in tracking down the terrorists responsible for hundreds of suicide bombings in Pakistan and those playing havoc with our natural resources in Balochistan while sitting in Kabul and Delhi,”, an official described the Pakistani mood during the July 12 meetings.

Throughout their meetings, the Americans were told that Pakistan would like to continue as an active partner in the war against terror and at no cost would it allow its land to be used by our people to plot terror against Afghanistan or India . However, Pakistan would naturally want the United States, India and Afghanistan to refrain from supporting Pakistani terrorists.

Pakistani officials have said that the current “trust deficit” between the Pakistani and US security establishment is not serious enough to lead to a collapse , but the element of suspicion is very high, more so because of† the CIA’s decision to publicise the confidential exchange of information with Pakistan and to use its leverage with the new government to try to arm-twist the Army and the ISI.

The Pakistani security establishment, officials said, want a fresh round of strategic dialogue with their counterparts in the US, essentially to prioritise the objectives and terrorist targets in the war against terror, keeping in mind the serious national security interests of the allies.

Also See:
The remains of the day - Anjum Niaz - The News
US double standards - Moeed Pirzada - The

The Right to Change One's Religion: West Vs. East

Religious conversions
The moment of truth
Economist, Jul 24th 2008

In many parts of the world, the right to change one's beliefs is under threat

AS AN intellectually gifted Jewish New Yorker who had reached manhood in the mid-1950s, Marc Schleifer was relentless in his pursuit of new cultural and spiritual experiences. He dallied with Anglo-Catholicism, intrigued by the ritual but not quite able to believe the doctrine, and went through a phase of admiration for Latin American socialism. Experimenting with lifestyles as well as creeds, he tried respectability as an advertising executive, and a more bohemian life in the raffish expatriate scene of North Africa.

Returning from Morocco to his home city, he was shocked by the harsh anonymity of life in the urban West. And one day, riding the New York subway, he opened the Koran at a passage which spoke of the mystery of God: beyond human understanding, but as close as a jugular vein. Suddenly, everything fell into place. It was only a matter of time before he embraced Islam by pronouncing before witnesses that “there is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.”

Some 40 years on from that life-changing moment—not untypical of the turning points that many individuals experience—Abdallah Schleifer has won distinction as a Muslim intellectual. Last year he was one of 138 Muslim thinkers who signed an open letter to Christian leaders calling for a deeper theological dialogue. The list of signatories included (along with the muftis from Cairo, Damascus and Jakarta) several other people who had made surprising journeys. One grew up as an English nonconformist; another as a Catholic farm boy from Oregon; another in the more refined Catholic world of bourgeois Italy.

Sometimes conversion is gradual, but quite commonly things come to a head in a single instant, which can be triggered by a text, an image, a ceremony or some private realisation. A religious person would call such a moment a summons from God; a psychologist might speak of an instant when the walls between the conscious and unconscious break down, perhaps because an external stimulus—words, a picture, a rite—connects with something very deep inside. For people of an artistic bent, the catalyst is often a religious image which serves as a window into a new reality. One recurring theme in conversion stories is that cultural forms which are, on the face of it, foreign to the convert somehow feel familiar, like a homecoming. That, the convert feels, “is what I have always believed without being fully aware of it.”

For Complete article, click here

Prospects of US Military Action in Pakistan's Tribal Areas?

US eyes up Pakistan's lawless lands
The prospect of direct US military intervention against al-Qaida in Pakistan is increasing, but they may regret taking action
Simon Tisdall, Guardian, August 04 2008

The turbulent prospect of direct US intervention against al-Qaida and Taliban jihadi bases in Pakistani territory adjoining Afghanistan appears to have moved closer following last week's visit to Washington by Pakistan's new prime minister, Yousef Raza Gilani.

Far from reassuring his hosts that Islamabad is on top of the situation in the so-called tribal areas, Gilani's uncertain performance seems to have convinced US officials of the need to move quickly. A sub-text to this dangerously fast-moving drama is George Bush's desire to catch or kill his 9/11 nemesis, Osama bin Laden, before he leaves office in January.

For Complete Report, click here

Taliban Tenacity?

Ragtag Taliban Show Tenacity in Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL, New York Times, August 4, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan — Six years after being driven from power, the Taliban are demonstrating a resilience and a ferocity that are raising alarm here, in Washington and in other NATO capitals, and engendering a fresh round of soul-searching over how a relatively ragtag insurgency has managed to keep the world’s most powerful armies at bay.

The mounting toll inflicted by the insurgents, including nine American soldiers killed in a single attack last month, has turned Afghanistan into a deadlier battlefield than Iraq and refocused the attention of America’s military commanders and its presidential contenders on the Afghan war.

But the objectives of the war have become increasingly uncertain in a conflict where Taliban leaders say they do not feel the need to control territory, at least for now, or to outfight American and NATO forces to defeat them — only to outlast them in a region that is in any case their home.

For Complete Report, click here

SAARC Summit

For details about the proceedings of the 15th SAARC conference, see the following:

1. Saarc accord to curb terror, fight hunger - Dawn
2. SAARC leaders pledge to strengthen regional cooperation - China View
3. Trade pact with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka likely: Dhaka - The Economic Times
4. India, Pakistan Agree to Give Peace a Chance - AFP

Gilani's Visit to the U.S.

Editorial: Poking fun at the Prime Minister
Daily Times, August 4, 2008

The media is having a good time poking fun at Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for being terribly inarticulate during his US visit. Criticism has been heaped on him for not “answering back” to the Americans and, in particular, not conveying to them the sentiments of the Pakistani people. But we all know what the Pakistani sentiments are these days. If they are expressed anywhere in the world, Pakistan would become the most isolated state in the comity of nations. The political parties are at loggerheads and the TV “anchorocracy”, mostly boasting zero grasp of statecraft, is breathing fire on “behalf” of the people.

For complete Editorial, click here

Faulty U.S. Policy towards Pakistan

What is America’s real agenda?
The News, August 04, 2008
Iqbal Haider

After the Feb 18 election, virtually every official of the US administration, American intelligence agencies and the US media have been extremely critical of the performance of the Pakistani government, and particularly of its intelligence agencies, with regard to militancy and the war on terror. Reports have also appeared recently, even in the Pakistani press, which have not been very complimentary of the prime minister’s performance.

One cannot deny the right of any state to express its concerns over the rise of religious militancy in Pakistan, but it should be in a manner that relations with Islamabad are not harmed. What is surprising is that there is no consistency in the US administration’s expressions of this concern. Had it done so right from the start – when religious militancy was in its formative stages – Pakistan might not have been in such an anarchic state as it is now, at the mercy of innumerable jihadi outfits.

Much to our embarrassment, Pakistan has come to be regarded as a satellite state of America. No policy that goes against the wishes of America can be pursued by our military regimes. It is for this reason that one wishes the US State Department had expressed its serious concerns to its most trusted ally, General Pervez Musharraf, immediately after his unconstitutional takeover in October 1999. He banned all political activities, all the while allowing religious parties, jihadi organisations and militant forces to hold congregations in every nook and corner of Pakistan, collect as much donations, zakat and fitra and recruit young boys, in the name of their brand of Islam.

The Americans should have taken him to task when he openly supported the Taliban in Afghanistan on the false pretext that the country provides Pakistan’s “strategic depth.” What did the US tell him when Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar was given a warm reception at Lahore airport in January 2000 by his Kalashnikov-armed colleagues? The man was allowed to hold as many public rallies as he liked in any part of the country. The Americans should have asked Musharraf why the ban on the use of zakat funds for madressahs was lifted in October 2000 and why his government did nothing to stem the massive foreign funding to madressahs. It should have asked him why nothing was done to carry out a survey of madressahs and to register them. In January 2000 a cosmetic ban was imposed on only three well-known jihadi outfits. Their offices were sealed and some of their leaders and activists were arrested. However, a few weeks later, all of them were released, in return for an affidavit that they would not involve themselves in any militant or terrorist activity.

The US should have also asked General Musharraf why he allowed sectarian parties and organisations as well as the late Azam Tariq, head of the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba, to contest the 2002 election in violation of the government’s own laws. Why was nothing done about the 80 or so illegal FM radio stations run by the jihadis and extremists, which spewed their bigoted views and sectarian hatred without any government check? Why didn’t Washington question Musharraf when in the 2002 election the intelligence agencies under his control wholeheartedly supported religious parties and because of which they managed to acquire an unprecedented number of seats in parliament? This happened at the expense of the liberal and moderate political parties.

Where was Washington when under its so-called “carrots-and-stick” approach Islamabad entered into peace agreements with the Taliban in Waziristan, which only fuelled the militancy and led to loss of more lives, especially of our own soldiers and of innocent local civilians? Where was America when the general and his agencies allowed Lal Masjid and some other mosques in the federal capital to become centres for propagation of hate, bigotry and the most obscurantist values, and their members were allowed to use brute force against the hapless citizens of Islamabad and who openly defied the laws of the land, going about kidnapping not only ordinary citizens but even police officers?

The Lal Masjid operation was carried out only when Chinese citizens were kidnapped – but it was done in such an imprudent, counterproductive and violent manner that it gave rise to sympathy and public support for the extremists. Where was the US when General Musharraf’s government entered into a peace deal with Mullah Fazlullah of Swat, whose supporters had terrorised the local administration and population, killed and kidnapped soldiers and policemen and bombed virtually every school and video shop they could lay their hands on (they didn’t even spare statutes of the Buddha in Swat). Why wasn’t any notice taken of the fact that after imposing his second martial law on Nov 3, 2007, the former government promptly released over two dozen militants associated with Fazalullah, while at the same time more than 5,000 peaceful law-abiding lawyers, professors, labourers, journalists, students, political and human rights activists were arrested.

In general, Musharraf’s rule was characterised by what can only be called a policy of patronage and appeasement of militant and jihadi forces, where the norm was that the government would succumb to their outrageous demands, threats and pressures.

The list of such deceptive acts and omissions on the part of General Musharaf and his PML-Q is unending. It is strange that neither the US nor any Western country raises the question as to what was the object and purpose of these omissions or of the so-called peace agreements with militants since 2004. The questions that immediately come to mind are: Were the militants disarmed after entering into such deals? Was the commitment given by the militants not to indulge in terrorist activity in future monitored by the government, and if so what was the result? How many foreign terrorist were detained and deported, and what are their names? Also, how many militants and terrorists of Pakistani origin have so far been arrested, and if so, were any prosecuted and convicted? Did the deals result in the release of any militants? If the answer is yes, how many were released and under what rationale?

Despite all this, the irony in the Bush administration continuing to express confidence in General Musharraf as a trusted ally in the war against terrorism is too blatant to ignore. In its zeal to support General Musharaf, the US government seems to have no qualm over undermining civil society in the country, particularly as exemplified of late by the lawyers’ movement.

The fact is that the policies and priorities of Washington and its ally, General Musharaf, have only resulted contributed to a rise in terrorism and have served to strengthen the extremists and militants. The real objective of the latter has nothing to do with Islam or religion but only to take over and control territory, the state apparatus and the institutions of Pakistan through the naked use of terrorism. That this has now become a potent threat to Pakistan’s very integrity should be clear to everyone.

It is in this overall context that one is constrained to ask what is the real agenda of the US administration. If it is sincerely against terrorism than there is no justification to keep on supporting General Musharraf because that, as history tells us, only serves to strengthen the extremists. Or is this the actual policy of the US – i.e., to use Muslims to divide Muslims – since it serves to potentially destroy one of the largest Muslim nations in the world.

The writer is co-chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and a former attorney-general and federal minister for law, justice, parliamentary affairs and human rights. Email: hnhadv@ cyber.net.pk

Book Review: The Story of the Jews of Baghdad

Books and AuthorsREVIEW: The Exile Of Iraq’s Jews
Reviewed by Razeshta Sethna, Dawn, August 3, 2008

Last Days in Babylon By Marina Benjamin

The news that comes out of Iraq these days is of suicide car bombs attacks, with more innocent people dying and insurgents combing the country for yet another fight with a rival group or coalition forces. Footage of men in bloody clothing with their limbs shorn off, some have barely managed to escape, helping women and crying children to hospitals. Women bellowing in voluminous black chadors are often seen in such reports beating their heads, cursing the war that has ravaged their country, killed families, leaving in its wake sectarian violence, lawlessness and poverty for generations.

Much has now been published about Iraq’s past politics, the present scenario built of chaos, poor governance and lack of security post-2003 both by writers with links to the country’s historical and cultural past as well as visiting intellectuals, journalists and developmental experts who have chanced to include Iraq in their literary repertoire. The new Iraq is about bomb damage, street fighting, infiltration of private security guards and US patrols.

The fabled magic of Ali Baba on a sun-baked afternoon or of twisted market streets and walled gardens with tiled fountains is of a past buried under the rubble of dust, and death.

Marina Benjamin, a first generation British writer born in London to Iraqi-Jewish parents, aches to discover this ancient past of colourful histories, but instead is driven through debris after violent fighting in Iraq’s Sunni triangle, where the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi, have become home to young children radicalised by insurgents. Having realised her Middle-Eastern roots, she had sidelined Iraqi ways, whilst living and working in London, until she visited war-ravaged Baghdad in 2004. In Last Days in Babylon she retraces the footsteps of her grandmother Regina, who abandoned her home and her privileged lifestyle, when she predicted the spread of anti-Semitism in Iraq of the 1950s.

Interestingly, Regina’s Iraq was one-third Jewish, at a time, when as a young woman she lived in a multi-ethnic society with medieval churches in the Old City built by Armenian and Nestorian Christians where nearby coffeehouses and noisy souks welcomed all Iraqis, where the restraints on women were homogenous, despite the insularity of each community.

The history of the Jewish community in Iraq can be traced to the Chaldean king, Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Jerusalem in 597 BCE, deporting about 100,000 Jews to the capital of Babylon. That is when it is recorded that the Jewish community even modified their religion from one focused on judgement to one centered on salvation, so as to regain divine favour. In 538 BCE, when Cyrus II of Persia conquered Babylon, the Jews were permitted to return home but not many took up the offer and they chose not to leave Babylon. The Jewish community flourished in what then became Iraq till the 1950s, when the final expulsions, left the country with a handful of Iraqi Jews.

This historical narrative traces the tribulations of one family as it begins in 1905,the year Benjamin’s grandmother was born and the Ottoman Empire was dying. In 1908, the revolution brought with it the abolition of the Jews’ lowly status and when the British arrived in 1917, Regina’s own mother served tea in fine china cups, rather than black glasses, and was proud to possess double glazed windows at home (despite the Mediterranean heat of the summer when people slept on rooftops).

The author has documented her family’s past with a journalistic perspective, emphasising on elegant writing but not without ensuring we understand how communities have suffered (and continue to do so) in the crossfire of misunderstanding, prejudice, and the ambitions of other larger geopolitical parties.

As her grandmother was putting off strange suitors, Iraq was evolving into a nationalistic entity with Faisal, the moustachioed hero of the Arab Revolt who would soon be Iraq’s first king, declaring that all those living in Iraq were simply Iraqis and not Jews, Muslims or Christians. Regina’s fiancé, a man who was to be a stable husband but years older than her with acute asthma that would end his life, sent her a silver platter of sugared almonds so heavy, that two men had to carry it inside her father’s home.

Israel did not receive Iraqi Jews with open arms because as refugees from a Muslim country, they were seen as inferior to Israelis of European origin. What is interesting is that Iraqi Jews were Middle Eastern with a culture akin to their region; they spoke Arabic, dressed like their Muslim neighbours, ate the same foods and their identity was not linked to the West. Their expulsion was also a cultural demise.

The Jewish community might have been ardent Iraqi nationalists and unlike those Jews from Europe who, after the French Revolution gradually attained acceptance, they enjoyed a good life, surviving even the Roman and Hellenic times of turbulence and various Islamic epochs from the Abbasids to the Ottomans.

But it was unrelenting religious, nationalistic and xenophobic conflicts in the 1920s and after that created a downward spiral in their fortunes. Benjamin’s incisive expose of these political vicissitudes which transformed Middle Eastern Jewish communities is one filled with stories of nostalgia, pathos and loss. Benjamin unravels its beginnings, from mass demonstrations against Zionism to the point where street violence against Jews became depressingly commonplace.

In 1934, the fledgling Iraqi government joined in the persecution, instituting a series of discriminatory laws. Between 1936 and 1941, seven coups d’état shook Iraq, but violence against Jews continued through them all. The Second World War stressed the flow of Nazi propaganda and the resolute call of Zionism from within the Middle East created resentment.

But as Benjamin writes, as much as the Jews did consider themselves Middle Eastern and Iraqi, it didn’t matter that they were hugely patriotic. Jealousy directed towards them gained momentum as they were better educated and proficient in languages and also needed as advisors to King Faisal. But then, for two days in June 1941, while British and Transjordan troops approached Baghdad, a farhud (total breakdown of order) killed about 200 Jews and injured several hundred.

Arab nationalism began to foment in 1948 with the Allies’ victory and the creation of Israel, as hundreds of Iraqi Jews were jailed without trial, and also dismissed from the civil service. Many hid in their homes and feared conducting business as usual, Benjamin writes of her own family, some of whom travelled in fear to Israel, not even waiting for papers or permission. But Regina, her grandmother, refused to do so.

The Iraqi government offered them the chance to leave legally, so long as they forfeited their Iraqi nationality and most of their property. Benjamin’s grandmother was excluded by a Kafkaesque technicality; she was by now a widow, and only a father had the right to denaturalise his children. The authorities told her she could go but her children could not, so she found another way out, leaving in 1950 for Calcutta and finally, London.

After the mass airlift of Iraqi Jews ended in 1952, only 6,000 Jews remained in Baghdad. The Iraqis called this forced tragic exodus, the taskeet, the denaturalisation, though, as Benjamin writes, ‘today it would be called ethnic cleansing’. At the last count there were just 12 Jews in Iraq, a community that had formed the largest ethnic group in Baghdad in 1932, had disappeared.

It is amazing that any are there at all, given that they have had to survive the tumults suffered, the false peace of the 1950s and then the persecution that began again with the rise of the Baathists in the 1960s. At one point, just after the Six Day War, 3,000 secret police were recruited to spy on the Jews — though there were only 3,500 Jews left in the country. Some Iraqi Jews left for Iran, India and other western countries; most ended up in Israeli absorption camps.

Israel did not receive Iraqi Jews with open arms because as refugees from a Muslim country, they were seen, despite their rich culture, as inferior to Israelis of European origin. What is interesting to note is that Iraqi Jews were Middle Eastern with a culture akin to their region; they spoke Arabic, dressed like their Muslim neighbours, ate the same foods and their identity was not linked to the West. Their expulsion was also a cultural demise, Benjamin observes.

This is a history unknown even to most Jews. Benjamin narrates it fluently and passionately, a story of loss interwoven with history, complete with old family and other archival photographs evoking the fear and confusion of a people whose future of persecution would catch them unawares.

The Mangal Bagh Phenomenon - Why is he so powerful?

Emir Mangal Bagh
The News, August 03, 2008
Dr Farrukh Saleem

Nargis Bibi, a widower, has been fighting for her inheritance for years. The police have been acting dumb, judges deaf and lawyers greedy. Three weeks ago, Nargis Bibi went to Haji Emir Mangal Bagh. Mangal Bagh, the leader of Lashkar-e-Islam (the army of Islam) in Khyber Agency, immediately summoned the offending parties and ordered them to return Nargis Bibi her sharia-compliant inheritance within two weeks. Only at the risk of death does an offender dare not follow Mangal Bagh's decree.

Two weeks ago, Ali, an offspring of a Pashtun diaspora family settled in Britain, while vacationing in Pakistan, got kidnapped. This time around our police acted deaf and intelligence agencies clueless. Mangal Bagh was approached who had Ali recovered within two days, family reunited.

Just outside Hayatabad, the posh Peshawar suburb named after Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao, a dozen kiosks have long been openly selling grade A heroin for Rs180 per gram and grade B for Rs150 per gram. Hayatabad's youth have been getting their daily fix for just Rs90, or $1.25. The police on the take Hayatabad's elders turned to Mangal Bagh. Latest reports have it that Mangal Bagh's men have shut down all kiosks except for two and the two that are left continue pushing their lethal black tar but covertly.

In April, Mangal Bagh served a notice on members of the Kukikhel tribe to end their un-Islamic businesses of selling liquor and drugs. The Kukikhels did not comply. There was a fierce battle between Mangal Bagh and the Kukikhels. The resulting peace agreement between Mangal Bagh and the Kukikhels now stipulates the end of illegal businesses in the area.

Who dispensed justice to Nargis Bibi? Mangal Bagh. Who recovered Ali? Mangal Bagh. Who is saving our youth from heroin? Who rescued the kidnapped Christians of Peshawar?

Last month, in an exclusive interview to CBS Broadcasting Inc., which is one of the largest radio and television networks in the US, Mangal Bagh said: "We have rid Bara of drug-traffickers, gamblers, kidnappers, car-snatchers and other criminals and we want to cleanse Jamrud and all of Peshawar of those selling drugs and liquor and running gambling dens."

Somehow I thought that ridding Pakistan of drug-traffickers, kidnappers, car-snatchers and other criminals was the job of the government of Pakistan. Obviously not. If there's a ghost or a demon in your neighbourhood who you gonna call? Mangal Bagh! When your government fails who you gonna call? Mangal Bagh! When you want quick and affordable justice who you gonna call? When there's anarchy all around you who you gonna call? When your government can protect you no more who you gonna call?

Intriguingly, the lifeline to the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan passes through an area controlled by Mangal Bagh. In March, 42 trucks transporting fuel to NATO forces were blown up. When smoke rose in Washington whom do you think Bush called? Mangal Bagh!

Yes, Mangal Bagh believes that women should be no more than walking black tents. Yes, Mangal Bagh believes that women have no right to education. Yes, men must grow beards. Yes, music is evil, television devilish. Yes, Mangal Bagh is the judge, jury and the executioner -- three in one.

Remember, when your government fails to secure your life and limb who you gonna call? Mangal Bagh. When your government fails to dispense justice who you gonna call? Mangal Bagh. I say restore Mangal Bagh.

To be sure, Mangal Bagh is coming soon to a theatre in your neighbourhood.

PS: on July 29, a mere 3 kilometres from where Prime Minister Syed Makhdoom Yousuf Raza Gilani lives and a mere kilometre from the all-powerful Zardari House, robbers broke all historical records. Tuesday at 11:30 am, the biggest robbery in the capital's history took place; 10 kilograms of gold, Rs20 million worth of jewellery and diamonds were looted from a guarded private residence. I urge the prime minister of Pakistan to contract out Islamabad's security to Mangal Bagh & Company and then flutter around the globe in PIA's 300-passenger Boeing 777-200LR, the world's longest-range commercial jetliner, napping in peace that no such incidence will ever take place, never again, not in the now jittery Islamabad, not a kilometre from Zardari House.

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

A chief justice delayed...

A chief justice delayed
By F.S. Aijazuddin, Dawn, August 2, 2008

THE philosopher-poet who conceived our nation was a lawyer. So were the founder of our nation, our only nominee on the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and the prime minister who gave us our 1973 Constitution. So were both our current functioning and non-functional chief justices. Given such a legal lineage, why do we continue to treat the law with such contempt?

To many, the ongoing movement by the lawyers’ community to restore Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and other judges to their positions ante-Nov 3, 2007 appears as a renaissance of faith in the nation’s judiciary. To others, their agitation is less altruistic in its motive. For them it has one aim, and that is to commit regicide.

Nearly nine months have passed since President Pervez Musharraf removed Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. What was intended to be a swift procedure that should have taken no longer than the time it takes a surgeon to remove an appendix has instead lingered, and then festered, until it has become a suppurating sore on our body politic.

Can it ever be healed? Quite frankly there is no one who has not tried, from constitutional connoisseurs to legal literati to political pundits. It seems that rather than touch it, they prefer to wash their hands of it.

President Musharraf has stopped asking for advice on it. Asif Zardari would prefer not to be given a solution to it. And Mian Nawaz Sharif, when confronted at the conclusion of the lawyers’ long march on June 14, shied away from a definitive resolution. A chief justice delayed meanwhile continues to be a chief justice denied.

The lawyers’ community is understandably disgruntled. Those who subsist from a client’s hand to their mouth have suffered financially by refusing to appear before PCO judges. Schisms have begun to appear amongst politically aligned factions of the various bar associations. Lawyers have descended to the level of their clients, bickering and arguing and ventilating their differences in public.

Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, as president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, squandered a chance for victory when, in an error of judgment that Mahatma Gandhi once described in another context as “a Himalayan miscalculation”, he disbanded the long marchers instead of leading them in a Bastille charge against the official barricades in Islamabad, or in a passive Gandhian sit-in.

His strident demands for the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry continue. But, being a lawyer, he sees a benefit in yet another adjournment — this time until Aug 14, when he hopes to celebrate the independence of our country and the independence of the judiciary simultaneously on the same day.

In all this, the predicament of the non-functional chief-justice-in-the-wings is perhaps the most poignant. He has endured being manhandled by police officers who would have cowered in his court. He has had his hair pulled, his family incarcerated and his liberty denied.

During the dark days of his house arrest, he might have had time to recall the humiliating trials of his American brother-judge Clarence Thomas, prior to his nomination to the US Supreme Court in October 1991. Thomas was the second African-American judge after Thurgood Marshall to be so elevated, but the character assassination during the Senate hearings left him badly battered.

“This is a circus,” was his angry remonstrance. “It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

At one point, Clarence Thomas even thought of asking the White House to withdraw his nomination. No job in the world, he felt, not even a seat on the US Supreme Court, was worth the humiliation he was forced to suffer. Even though Thomas was finally voted in by the Senate with the slim majority of 52-48, it was never enough to assuage the bitterness he harbours to this day.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in his private moments must have experienced similar misgivings. He must smile ruefully that while he still awaits restoration, the attention-seeking lawyer Naeem Bukhari (whose open letter of Feb 16 against him lit the fuse that has led to the present conflagration) has had his membership of the Punjab Bar Council, from which he was then expelled, restored.

Putting aside for a moment the mechanism by which the non-functional chief justice and other judges could be rendered functional again, now or in the near future, the public has a legitimate reason to speculate about what would happen afterwards.

Musharraf would be understandably apprehensive. Asif Zardari would read the fine print of the NRO. Nawaz Sharif would be exultant at restoring the dignity of the same Supreme Court his cohorts had stormed in November 1997. And Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan would have achieved the lawyer’s dream: a Supreme Court bench of his own restoration.

Will Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan or his fellow agitators abstain from appearing before any of these restored judges? Will any of these judges, once restored, excuse themselves from hearing a case argued by their erstwhile benefactors?

To those Pakistanis to whom the law is still something to look up to, no matter how far it has been made to fall, such an act would provide a very necessary affirmation both of the restored independence of the judiciary and its refurbished dignity. Most importantly perhaps, it would send a message to the public that although the law (to quote Charles Dickens) may be an ass, and that some politicians do on occasions behave more stubbornly than mules, what matters most to the public is the supremacy of the law and the dispensation of justice.

At this critical moment, our beleaguered country needs just such a restorative. www.fsaijazuddin.pk

The Spirit of Arkansas and the Pashtun Boy

ENVIRONMENT: Fulbright frontline — Saleem H Ali
Daily Times, August 1, 2008

Arkansas was once America’s poorest state and has often been dismissed as a backwater by the elite of New York and Los Angeles. No doubt it was one of the states that resisted civil rights laws and was not a very welcoming place for many African Americans.

Yet this beautiful Southern state of rolling hills and hot springs has some very venerable claims to fame.

Bill Clinton rose from an impoverished single parent family in this state to become a Rhodes Scholar, governor of the state and then president of the country. The world’s largest corporation, Walmart, was founded in this state by entrepreneur Sam Walton, and continues to be headquartered in the relatively small town of Bentonville, Arkansas. Arkansas is also the state with the only active diamond mine in America accessible to the public.

Perhaps the most significant and least appreciated claim to fame of the state is that it was the place from where a man named J William Fulbright was elected to become a senator and served in the United States Congress for thirty years. During this time, he initiated a programme for cultural and educational exchange that still bears his name and has benefited over 200,000 individuals from 155 countries since its inception in 1949.

In 2007, the programme had a grant budget of $262 million and the largest share of individual Fulbright awards were set aside for Pakistani students. For the coming year as well, there are over 200 different Fulbright awards allocated to Pakistan, more so than any other country. Clearly this asymmetric allocation has much to do with the country’s “frontline” role against extremism. Yet even if the awards are purely for strategic interests, we must not negate their value.

This summer, my university invited a group of eighteen Fulbright student leaders from South Asia for a month-long institute to develop leadership skills and cross-cultural understanding. What was special about this particular institute was that it did not just aim to “sell” America as a bastion of bliss but rather to promote mutual understanding among South Asians themselves and to collectively consider the prospects for global citizenship.

Six students from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were selected after a rigorous screening process that weeded out the typical elite and “sifarishi” elements that might otherwise plan shopping trips to New York or a joy ride to Disney World. Most of the students selected for this programme had never before visited America and came from modest middle-class families. They had earned their way to the programme rather than being carried forth on the shoulders of a retinue of servants and tutors.

The programme was meant to be a learning experience for Americans just as much as it might be for the visitors. Hard questions were asked on all sides and there were plenty of opportunities for constructive catharsis. Perhaps the culmination of the programme was the closing dinner when all the students gave presentations on how this encounter had changed their perspectives. Poems were recited and fond memories exchanged through video montages of the preceding month. Each student had his/her unique set of circumstances and life experiences which intersected with the group in ways that amazed the faculty and staff of the programme.

A Hindu student from India admitted the prejudices he had harboured towards Muslims before coming on the programme and recounted how late-night chats with his Muslim peers from Pakistan had humanised the conversation to the extent that he no longer felt threatened by the descendents of Mahmud Ghaznavid.

Bangladeshi students recounted how college life in Dhaka is often highly polarised between “pro-Indian” and “pro-Pakistani” groups who chide each other by resurrecting selective memories of past injustices from both countries. After this experience, they felt the futility of such camps of acrimony and the need to move beyond such sterile narratives.

Perhaps the most compelling exposition came from a Pathan student, who recounted being questioned by various US government agencies upon entering the country. With a torrent of tears, he also admitted having held strong grievances with America after witnessing the aftermath of a US drone attack in a village where the family of one of his friends had been killed.

However, participating in a programme of this kind had helped tremendously in healing his hurt and convincing him of the perils of collective contempt for an entire country. The audience was clearly moved by this revelation as well and many of the American students in the audience felt a surge of tearful sympathy. What had previously been only a distant news story or an editorial was now a palpable reality before them.

The cognitive transformation of a group of young students and their hosts in Vermont may be considered a minor accomplishment in the larger scheme of world affairs; but the incremental impact of such efforts must never be underestimated. The struggle of cultural connectivity and reconciliation is likely to be generational in nature and we must be patient in this process.

Senator Fulbright’s state of Arkansas was once a place of repulsive racial segregation and incipient prejudice that even the good senator harboured to some degree. If all that can change for the better through the valiant work of civil rights activists within a generation, we should not lose confidence in the transformative power of individual action, so long as we have some democratic process to channel that positive energy.

As for the American public, the words of Senator Fulbright are perhaps most opportune to remember at this point in time: “power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favour.” Let us all not be too sanguine about divine favours in these troubled times.

Dr Saleem H Ali is associate professor of environmental planning at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of Natural Resources and on the adjunct faculty of Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. www.saleemali.org