Pakistan Seen Losing Fight Against Taliban And Al-Qaeda
By Griff Witte; Washington Post, October 3, 2007; A01
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Pakistan's government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda and the Taliban more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.
The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.
Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe as well.
"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."
Pakistan's military, on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.
"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."
Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.
"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.
In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deals with insurgents to keep them from launching offensives. But two such agreements -- in North and South Waziristan -- fell apart this summer when insurgent leaders abruptly announced they were backing out.
The main criticism of the deals, both in Pakistan and in the West, had been that they gave al-Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in which to train, plot and launch attacks.
Now, security experts say Pakistan is paying the price for not confronting the problem head-on, with insurgent groups capitalizing on their newfound strength.
Last month, a suicide bomber attacked a bus carrying workers with the nation's hugely influential spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, killing 22 people. Just a week later, a bomber reportedly wearing a military uniform breached one of the most secure army installations in the country, where elite commandos train. The assailant detonated his explosives in the officers' mess during dinnertime, leaving 17 soldiers dead.
The latest blows came Monday, when a suicide bomber killed 15 people, including four policemen, in the northwestern town of Bannu. Late Monday night, more than 20 Frontier Corps troops went missing after their post near Bannu came under attack.
The insurgent strikes represent a humiliating breakdown in security for the world's sixth-largest army. But most embarrassing is the fact that about 250 soldiers remain in Taliban hands more than a month after they were taken hostage.
The soldiers were traveling in a supply convoy through the hostile terrain of South Waziristan on Aug. 30 when their route was blocked by a group of local fighters. Although they were vastly outnumbered, the fighters managed to persuade the soldiers to surrender without firing a shot. Since then, the government has been unable to win the soldiers' freedom because the Taliban is seeking major concessions.
"This kidnapping is a lesson to the government to honor its peace deal with us," said Zulfiqar Mehsud, a spokesman for the Taliban, which blames the government for violating the agreement. Mehsud's group wants to transform Pakistan into a radical Islamic state modeled after Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
The troops' surrender has called into question the army's commitment to fighting an unpopular war that requires Pakistanis to kill their countrymen. It has also exposed the army to ridicule.
"In Waziristan, people are laughing at the army," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and lawyer. "I really feel pity for these soldiers."
One of those soldiers, Najmul Hasan, 29, recently spent 50 days in Taliban captivity in Waziristan. "The ringleaders would threaten on a daily basis to behead us if the government didn't release their members," Hasan said. He and two others eventually escaped, but other soldiers were, in fact, beheaded. The Taliban videotaped one such incident in which an execution was carried out by a teenage boy.
While Waziristan is believed to be the operational headquarters for the insurgency, militant groups have expanded their reach significantly over the past year. They now have a firm grip not only on the tribal areas that line the Afghan border but on other sections of northwest Pakistan as well.
Residents of this frontier city are beginning to feel besieged, with the surrounding countryside falling under insurgents' sway and assailants occasionally carrying out attacks in Peshawar.
Even hard-line religious leaders are not safe. Last month, one of Peshawar's most prominent clerics, Maulana Hassan Jan, was assassinated as he rode in his car to evening prayers. Although he had been outspoken in his criticism of the United States and was revered among many who want to bring Islamic law to Pakistan, he was not radical enough to satisfy insurgent groups, who are blamed for his killing. He had, for instance, shunned the pro-Taliban clerics at Islamabad's Red Mosque, or Lal Masjid, when they instigated an armed standoff with the government in July.
"Traditional religious and political leaders are losing ground because people consider them very soft against Pervez Musharraf and America," said Qibla Ayaz, dean of the Islamic studies program at Peshawar University. "Among the youth, their influence is weakening."
The United States has pumped about $10 billion into Pakistan since 2001, the vast majority of it for the military. But the aid does not seem to have won the United States many friends here. Nor has it successfully prepared the Pakistani army to battle insurgents.
"The sad thing about it is that a lot of these militants are better off than the Frontier Corps," said the Western official, referring to the Pakistani force that is supposed to be on the front lines fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The militants "have rockets. They have advanced weapons. And the Frontier Corps has sandals and a bolt-action rifle."
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has sought to exploit the Pakistani military's deficiencies and its unpopular ties to the United States. Last month, he released an unusual audio recording in which he focused almost all of his wrath on Musharraf and called on Pakistanis to overthrow their government.
Shah, the retired general, said that knowing how strong al-Qaeda has become, Pakistani officials are deluding themselves if they think insurgents will back down anytime soon.
"Pakistan should have no doubt about what these people have done, and what they can do," he said. "They have declared war on Pakistan. Now the army must make a war plan."
Special correspondents Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar and Kamran Khan in Karachi, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
Also See: Pakistan's grip on tribal areas is slipping - Hassan Abbas: Asia Times
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Pakistan at Sixty: Tariq Ali
Pakistan at Sixty By Tariq Ali
gess.wordpress.com; September 28th 2007
Pakistan is best avoided in August, when the rains come and transform the plains into a huge steam bath. When I lived there we fled to the mountains, but this year I stayed put. The real killer is the humidity. Relief arrives in short bursts: a sudden stillness followed by the darkening of the sky, thunderclaps like distant bombs and then the hard rain. Rivers and tributaries quickly overflow; flash floods make cities impassable. Sewage runs through slums and posh neighbourhoods alike. Even if you go straight from air-conditioned room to air-conditioned car you can’t completely escape the smell. In August sixty years ago, Pakistan was separated from the subcontinent. This summer, as power appeared to be draining away from Pervez Musharraf, the country’s fourth military dictator, it was instructive to observe the process at first hand.
Disillusionment and resentment are widespread. Cultivating anti-Indian/anti-Hindu feeling, in an attempt to encourage national cohesion, no longer works. The celebrations marking the anniversary of independence on 14 August are more artificial and irritating than ever. A cacophony of meaningless slogans that impress nobody, countless clichés in newspaper supplements competing for space with stale photographs of the Founder (Muhammad Ali Jinnah) and the Poet (Iqbal). Banal panel discussions remind us of what Jinnah said or didn’t say. The perfidious Lord Mountbatten and his ‘promiscuous’ wife, Edwina, are denounced for favouring India when it came to the division of the spoils. It’s true, but we can’t blame them for the wreck Pakistan has become. In private, of course, there is much soul-searching, and a surprising collection of people now feel the state should never have been founded.
For Complete Text Click here
gess.wordpress.com; September 28th 2007
Pakistan is best avoided in August, when the rains come and transform the plains into a huge steam bath. When I lived there we fled to the mountains, but this year I stayed put. The real killer is the humidity. Relief arrives in short bursts: a sudden stillness followed by the darkening of the sky, thunderclaps like distant bombs and then the hard rain. Rivers and tributaries quickly overflow; flash floods make cities impassable. Sewage runs through slums and posh neighbourhoods alike. Even if you go straight from air-conditioned room to air-conditioned car you can’t completely escape the smell. In August sixty years ago, Pakistan was separated from the subcontinent. This summer, as power appeared to be draining away from Pervez Musharraf, the country’s fourth military dictator, it was instructive to observe the process at first hand.
Disillusionment and resentment are widespread. Cultivating anti-Indian/anti-Hindu feeling, in an attempt to encourage national cohesion, no longer works. The celebrations marking the anniversary of independence on 14 August are more artificial and irritating than ever. A cacophony of meaningless slogans that impress nobody, countless clichés in newspaper supplements competing for space with stale photographs of the Founder (Muhammad Ali Jinnah) and the Poet (Iqbal). Banal panel discussions remind us of what Jinnah said or didn’t say. The perfidious Lord Mountbatten and his ‘promiscuous’ wife, Edwina, are denounced for favouring India when it came to the division of the spoils. It’s true, but we can’t blame them for the wreck Pakistan has become. In private, of course, there is much soul-searching, and a surprising collection of people now feel the state should never have been founded.
For Complete Text Click here
Truck to Pakistan
TODAY'S EDITORIAL: Truck to Pakistan
3 Oct 2007, Times of India
The Attari-Wagah border crossing was a place where India and Pakistan ritually enacted their hostility through a spectacle of goose-stepping soldiers on either side. But on Monday it witnessed something new when, for the first time since August 1947, trucks crossed the border carrying goods to be traded by the two sides. It’s astounding that between two contiguous neighbours, one with a $130 billion economy and the other close to a trillion dollars, trade should amount to only $2 billion, most of which is routed indirectly through Dubai.
Such circuitous trading through informal routes makes Indian and Pakistani goods uncompetitive in each other’s markets and raises costs for both economies, besides cutting off customs departments of both countries from a lucrative source of revenue. A study by a noted economic research agency estimates that bilateral trade could be stepped up immediately to $6.6 billion if the South Asia Free Trade Agreement were to be implemented and direct trade links established between the two countries. The trucks crossing over at Attari illustrate both the promise of direct trade and the obstacles facing it. The convoy was attacked by porters on the Indian side, who were afraid that their jobs would be taken away. The porters were used to lugging the goods across the border on foot, which was the only form of trade allowed till now. It’s an apt symbol of lack of pragmatic relations between the two nations that human muscle power should propel the trade between them at the beginning of the 21st century. That’s a sure way of drastically limiting the amount of goods that can be traded, even if it provides petty employment to a few thousand porters.
If trade across the border could be stepped up and more roads and warehouses built, more jobs would be generated and the same porters could be gainfully employed. While Punjab CM Parkash Singh Badal, accompanied by ministers and MPs, flagged off the first truck with great fanfare from the Indian side it was received coldly in Pakistan, with a lone officer of Pakistan Rangers present. The Pakistani business community may be gung-ho about trade with India but the authorities have reservations about it, as they fear being swamped. That is comparable to Indian leftists’ fear of being swamped if India traded with the West.
But India is successfully integrating with the global economy, neither is Pakistan being swamped because it has a free trade agreement with hyper-competitive China. Trade is the one thing that can anchor and lend long-term stability to the India-Pakistan relationship, besides catalysing prosperity in both countries. The opening of the Attari-Wagah route to cargo trucks should be seen as an incremental but vital step in this regard.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
9/11 is Over By Thomas Friedman
9/11 Is Over By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
New York Times, September 30, 2007
Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:
“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.
Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”
You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.
Roger Dow, president of the Travel Industry Association, told me that the United States has lost millions of overseas visitors since 9/11 — even though the dollar is weak and America is on sale. “Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world,” Mr. Dow said.
Total business arrivals to the United States fell by 10 percent over the 2004-5 period alone, while the number of business visitors to Europe grew by 8 percent in that time. The travel industry’s recent Discover America Partnership study concluded that “the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.” Those who don’t visit us, don’t know us.
I’d love to see us salvage something decent in Iraq that might help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive pathway. That was and is necessary to improve our security. But sometimes the necessary is impossible — and we just can’t keep chasing that rainbow this way.
Look at our infrastructure. It’s not just the bridge that fell in my hometown, Minneapolis. Fly from Zurich’s ultramodern airport to La Guardia’s dump. It is like flying from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C. But I recently bought a pocket cellphone at the Beijing airport and immediately called my wife in Bethesda — crystal clear.
I just attended the China clean car conference, where Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4” — European Union — emissions standards. We used to be the gold standard. We aren’t anymore. Last July, Microsoft, fed up with American restrictions on importing brain talent, opened its newest software development center in Vancouver. That’s in Canada, folks. If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?
We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.
New York Times, September 30, 2007
Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:
“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.
Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”
You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.
Roger Dow, president of the Travel Industry Association, told me that the United States has lost millions of overseas visitors since 9/11 — even though the dollar is weak and America is on sale. “Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world,” Mr. Dow said.
Total business arrivals to the United States fell by 10 percent over the 2004-5 period alone, while the number of business visitors to Europe grew by 8 percent in that time. The travel industry’s recent Discover America Partnership study concluded that “the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.” Those who don’t visit us, don’t know us.
I’d love to see us salvage something decent in Iraq that might help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive pathway. That was and is necessary to improve our security. But sometimes the necessary is impossible — and we just can’t keep chasing that rainbow this way.
Look at our infrastructure. It’s not just the bridge that fell in my hometown, Minneapolis. Fly from Zurich’s ultramodern airport to La Guardia’s dump. It is like flying from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C. But I recently bought a pocket cellphone at the Beijing airport and immediately called my wife in Bethesda — crystal clear.
I just attended the China clean car conference, where Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4” — European Union — emissions standards. We used to be the gold standard. We aren’t anymore. Last July, Microsoft, fed up with American restrictions on importing brain talent, opened its newest software development center in Vancouver. That’s in Canada, folks. If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?
We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.
Supreme Court Compromised?
SC decision on dual offices delivered under pressure: Wajeeh
Staff Report: Daily Times, October 3, 2007
QUETTA: The presidential candidate of the lawyers’ community, Justice (r) Wajeehuddin Ahmed said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court (SC) verdict of September 28, which allowed President General Pervez Musharraf to contest the presidential polls in uniform, was delivered under pressure.
Speaking at the Balochistan High Court Bar Association as part of his presidential campaign, Justice Wajeeh said the establishment had used various tactics, including applying pressure, on the judges of the SC, to get a judgment in favour of General Musharraf. As long as the judges succumb to such pressure and the judiciary remains under the influence of the executive, Pakistan will witness many crises in the future, he said The present crisis in the country is the outcome of a weak judiciary, he said. If the judges can not dispense justice and ensure the sanctity of the Constitution, then it’s best for them to quit their jobs, he added.
“We are a people who live under illusion. At times, we believe a single SC judgment can change the whole history of the country,” he said, adding that it was wrong on the part of the people of Pakistan in general and lawyers in particular to presume that the judiciary in Pakistan had achieved complete freedom after the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.
He said the judiciary had still not been able to come out of the clutches of the infamous ‘doctrine of necessity’.
Commenting on the upcoming presidential elections, Wajeeh said it was illegal and extra-constitutional for a parliament whose tenure is only five years, to elect a president for ten years.
“General Musharraf’s case needs further consideration given the fact that he is not an elected president. He is a self-appointed president who got himself forcefully elected in a sham referendum,” he said.
The presidential candidate criticised the government on its Balochistan policy, and said that if he was elected president, he would conduct an open trial of those who killed former chief minister and governor of Balochistan Nawab Akbar Bugti.
“Despite being a resource-rich province, Balochistan has been subjected to immense poverty and a sense of deprivation. On my success, I will devise a proper plan to redress the Baloch sense of alienation,” he said. Balochistan High Court Association President Hadi Shakil and Balochistan Bar Association President Baz Mohammad Kakar also spoke on the occasion. They said the lawyers’ protest had opened a new epoch of resistance against dictatorship in the country.
Staff Report: Daily Times, October 3, 2007
QUETTA: The presidential candidate of the lawyers’ community, Justice (r) Wajeehuddin Ahmed said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court (SC) verdict of September 28, which allowed President General Pervez Musharraf to contest the presidential polls in uniform, was delivered under pressure.
Speaking at the Balochistan High Court Bar Association as part of his presidential campaign, Justice Wajeeh said the establishment had used various tactics, including applying pressure, on the judges of the SC, to get a judgment in favour of General Musharraf. As long as the judges succumb to such pressure and the judiciary remains under the influence of the executive, Pakistan will witness many crises in the future, he said The present crisis in the country is the outcome of a weak judiciary, he said. If the judges can not dispense justice and ensure the sanctity of the Constitution, then it’s best for them to quit their jobs, he added.
“We are a people who live under illusion. At times, we believe a single SC judgment can change the whole history of the country,” he said, adding that it was wrong on the part of the people of Pakistan in general and lawyers in particular to presume that the judiciary in Pakistan had achieved complete freedom after the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.
He said the judiciary had still not been able to come out of the clutches of the infamous ‘doctrine of necessity’.
Commenting on the upcoming presidential elections, Wajeeh said it was illegal and extra-constitutional for a parliament whose tenure is only five years, to elect a president for ten years.
“General Musharraf’s case needs further consideration given the fact that he is not an elected president. He is a self-appointed president who got himself forcefully elected in a sham referendum,” he said.
The presidential candidate criticised the government on its Balochistan policy, and said that if he was elected president, he would conduct an open trial of those who killed former chief minister and governor of Balochistan Nawab Akbar Bugti.
“Despite being a resource-rich province, Balochistan has been subjected to immense poverty and a sense of deprivation. On my success, I will devise a proper plan to redress the Baloch sense of alienation,” he said. Balochistan High Court Association President Hadi Shakil and Balochistan Bar Association President Baz Mohammad Kakar also spoke on the occasion. They said the lawyers’ protest had opened a new epoch of resistance against dictatorship in the country.
Newsweek Profiles Kiyani: The Rise of General Kiyani?
Picture: From Pakistan Policy Blog
Latest: General Musharraf Appoints Kiyani as Vice Chief of the Army Staff (to take over as COAS after Musharraf Gives Up his uniform) and Gen. Tariq Majeed as Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Committee: For details click here
See Previous Watandost Commentary - published August 5, 2007
Pakistan: Musharraf's Likely Successor
A Westernized, chain-smoking spy could soon become the most powerful man in Pakistan. By Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain Newsweek
Oct. 8, 2007 issue - Pervez Musharraf could hardly be flattered to think why some people are so eager for him to win Pakistan's Oct. 6 presidential vote. It's because he'll have to step down as armed forces chief before he's sworn in—as he promised just before the Supreme Court decided last week to let him run again. The general must know how desperately Pakistan's military needs a full-time commander, especially after he's spent months too busy fighting for his political life to give the job his proper attention. So Musharraf is widely believed to have chosen a successor at last: Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the former director general of the military's powerful spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Although Kiyani has always kept a low public profile, people who have worked closely with him speak highly of his abilities—more highly in some cases than his boss might like. "Kiyani is not only a strong commander," says a Western military official in Islamabad, asking not to be named on such a delicate topic. "He's the most competent candidate by far."
Musharraf's successor as military chief will need all the skill he can muster—and on several fronts at once. The Pentagon wants him to turn much of Pakistan's military into a counterinsurgency force, trained and equipped to combat Al Qaeda and its extremist supporters along the Afghan border. As a civilian head of state, Musharraf will need a strong, capable top officer who can revive the fighting spirit of a badly demoralized Army. In the past two months, suicide bombers have relentlessly attacked Army convoys, camps, mess halls and mosques. The extremists have killed more than 200 Pakistani soldiers, and tribal militants have captured more than 250 others as hostages. "The Army has had its butt kicked in the tribal area," says the Western military official. "But I'm optimistic that if Musharraf's choice is Kiyani, he can start to turn the Army around."
Those who know Kiyani say he's a smart, tough, talented commander—and pro-Western, in the bargain. The son of an Army NCO, he climbed rapidly through military ranks. In 2003, when members of the armed forces were implicated in two assassination attempts against Musharraf, the president put Kiyani in charge of the investigation—and applauded the way he got the country's rival intelligence services working together for a change. "When Kiyani got tough, the problems of coordination disappeared and the agencies started working like a well-oiled machine," Musharraf recalls in his memoir, "In the Line of Fire." Within months Kiyani had unraveled the two plots and arrested most of the participants. He was rewarded in 2004 with a promotion to chief of ISI, and the next year his agency scored big with the arrest of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the senior Qaeda lieutenant who masterminded the attempts on Musharraf's life. A former U.S. intelligence official who dealt personally with Kiyani says the ISI "took a lot of bad guys down" under his leadership. Kiyani has earned his boss's confidence, even serving as Musharraf's personal envoy in recent talks with exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Kiyani is a chain smoker with a tendency to mumble, but he speaks to Musharraf in a way few other senior officers would dare. Western military officials say he told the president he would accept nothing less than the top job in the Army—and Musharraf dreads giving up that post, knowing it is the source of much of his authority. For months the president, who himself seized power in a bloodless military coup nearly eight years ago, has resisted public demands that he step down as Army chief. His refusal has seriously raised public hostility toward the armed forces; if Kiyani succeeds in restoring its reputation, he is likely to get the credit, not Musharraf. "The Army has ruled the country for more than half of our 60 years of independence, so psychologically people are geared to the Army chief as being the political center of gravity," says retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood. "Musharraf's power will be reduced considerably as people gravitate more to the new Army chief than the president."
Right now an improvement in the public's opinion of a Musharraf-less Army is the least of the president's worries. He desperately needs to restore stability to the country's jihadi-dominated areas. More than 100 pro-Islamabad tribal elders have been assassinated in the past year or so, and there are almost daily beheadings of one or two tribals accused of being government spies and collaborators. If you can't protect your friends, you lose. An old military man like Musharraf should know that.
With Mark Hosenball in Washington
Also See: The Rise of Pakistan's Quiet Man; BBC
Kiyani New VCOAS, Majeed CJCSC: The News
Continued Suicide attacks in Pakistan & Afghanistan and Missing Soldiers in FATA...
24 FC personnel ‘go missing’
Dawn, October 2, 2007
BANNU: At least 24 personnel of the Frontier Constabulary went missing after militants attacked a checkpost near the Frontier Region of Bannu on Monday evening.
A senior official told Dawn in Peshawar that they had lost contact with the force deployed at the Rocha checkpost near the Bakakhel area after the attack by about 500 armed men. “We don’t know exactly what happened to the soldiers, but we have no communication with them.” He said about 40 paramilitary soldiers were in the checkpost adjacent to North Waziristan.
Sources said the militants attacked the checkpost after Iftar. After a heavy exchange of fire, the assailants captured the post and later escaped taking 24 soldiers with them. Local people said the number of the assailants was between 100 and 150. According to them, the militants had also taken away weapons and communication equipment from the post. At the time of the filing of this report, two other checkposts were under attack in the Frontier Region. There were no details about the attack or casualties
Also See:
Burqa Bomber Kills 16 in Bannu: October 2, Daily Times
Suicide attack Hits Kabul Police Bus: October 2, AFP
Suicide Bomb on Afghan Army Bus kills 30 - September 29: Reters
Monday, October 01, 2007
Right to return to one's home...
‘This is my own, my native land…?’
By Aquila Ismail: Dawn, October 2, 2007
I WAS having coffee with my friend Samar Al-Husseini in a café when we heard the recent Supreme Court verdict on the right of every citizen to return to Pakistan and live there. Samar wistfully asked if there was some court in the world that would grant her and her family the right to go back to Jerusalem which she left with her family in 1960, just like many of her relatives and friends had done.
She cannot return even though her family still legally owns their house and her mother keeps the keys to it as a prized possession. Samar was born in that house and 20 generations of her family had lived in it. That accounts for at least 400 years.
We wondered how many generations does one have to live on a land for one to be given the rights of a citizen — one lifetime, two, or a 100 or just a few years or can you just move in and be called a person with inalienable rights to live in that land? Or can this be decided through the political expediency of those in power? Or through international institutions? Or the courts? Can people be driven out of their home because they do not fit into the pattern on which a state is built — religion for Israel, as well as for Pakistan, language for Bangladesh and so on?
Our painful conclusion was that nations and boundaries are tenuous at best and the land belongs to the people who at the point in time that political boundaries are drawn have the clout, or the support of global powers, or, as in the case of Samar’s home, the state is able to acquire state of the art weapons by political manipulation and then use them with impunity. And also justify it!
Samar left Jerusalem at the age of six, but she says, “When I dream of myself with someone it is in Jerusalem, not Kuwait, not Jordan and not even the UAE where I have lived for 16 years…I want to walk through the front door of my beautiful home in that cherished neighbourhood with the blue skies and the almond trees.”
Her parents reinforce her memory. Samar’s right to return to her place of birth is enshrined in international law but who gives a damn? Whereas a ‘law of return’ gives the chosen people the right to ‘return’ to Samar’s home from wherever they may have been born on the globe as this was their land in biblical times. That it was the land of Samar’s people as well is conveniently ignored. If one talks of her right as opposed to the rights of those who live in Europe or America one is sure to be labelled as anti-Semitic although Samar’s people are also Semites.
Under the law of return, most people of Jewish heritage can immigrate to Israel no matter where they may have been born, even if they have citizenship of that country and have lived there for years. They can receive Israeli citizenship and all the privileges and obligations that ensue.
The state of Israel came into being in its present location because the Jews believe that it is the biblical Land of Israel. This links people of Jewish heritage to Palestine. The Jewish ‘right of return’ was embodied in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948: “The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the exiles...”
However, a Palestinian born in Palestine cannot return to his or her homeland even though he or she was ousted by design, force and the use of laws that border on apartheid. Village after village, town after town, became part of refugee camps in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon etc. The subsequent wars swelled these numbers. So even if a Palestinian state is set up in the lands currently under the nominal control of the Palestinian Authority the people in the camps still have the right and the desire to return to the villages they left behind in 1948.
The term ‘right of return’, when applied to Palestinians with respect to the State of Israel differs significantly with the accepted universal definition of the term. It reflects a belief that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to the homes their families had possessed and left prior to or during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
One reason that is given to prevent Samar from returning is that this will alter the nature of the Jewish state. Although in a democratic country you cannot differentiate between people on the basis of race, religion, etc, it is feared that if all the people who were expelled from the areas which now constitute Israel and are now refugees were allowed to go back, the demographics of the Israeli state would change.
If this is not apartheid what is? Can a state be created on land belonging to others and then declare that in fact the owners of the land have become the ‘other’? This is hardly an acceptable situation in international law. So here we ask if laws can really safeguard the rights of people of the world. And indeed, can the law be implemented even if upheld by national and international courts?
When individual assertions reach a critical mass then truth and justice prevail. So dear Samar, dream on and hold on to the keys to your house, but do not keep silent. Tell everyone you can about your desire and right, and question anyone who says it is futile to do so.
The writer is a freelancer based in Abu Dhabi.aquila.ismail@gmail.com
By Aquila Ismail: Dawn, October 2, 2007
I WAS having coffee with my friend Samar Al-Husseini in a café when we heard the recent Supreme Court verdict on the right of every citizen to return to Pakistan and live there. Samar wistfully asked if there was some court in the world that would grant her and her family the right to go back to Jerusalem which she left with her family in 1960, just like many of her relatives and friends had done.
She cannot return even though her family still legally owns their house and her mother keeps the keys to it as a prized possession. Samar was born in that house and 20 generations of her family had lived in it. That accounts for at least 400 years.
We wondered how many generations does one have to live on a land for one to be given the rights of a citizen — one lifetime, two, or a 100 or just a few years or can you just move in and be called a person with inalienable rights to live in that land? Or can this be decided through the political expediency of those in power? Or through international institutions? Or the courts? Can people be driven out of their home because they do not fit into the pattern on which a state is built — religion for Israel, as well as for Pakistan, language for Bangladesh and so on?
Our painful conclusion was that nations and boundaries are tenuous at best and the land belongs to the people who at the point in time that political boundaries are drawn have the clout, or the support of global powers, or, as in the case of Samar’s home, the state is able to acquire state of the art weapons by political manipulation and then use them with impunity. And also justify it!
Samar left Jerusalem at the age of six, but she says, “When I dream of myself with someone it is in Jerusalem, not Kuwait, not Jordan and not even the UAE where I have lived for 16 years…I want to walk through the front door of my beautiful home in that cherished neighbourhood with the blue skies and the almond trees.”
Her parents reinforce her memory. Samar’s right to return to her place of birth is enshrined in international law but who gives a damn? Whereas a ‘law of return’ gives the chosen people the right to ‘return’ to Samar’s home from wherever they may have been born on the globe as this was their land in biblical times. That it was the land of Samar’s people as well is conveniently ignored. If one talks of her right as opposed to the rights of those who live in Europe or America one is sure to be labelled as anti-Semitic although Samar’s people are also Semites.
Under the law of return, most people of Jewish heritage can immigrate to Israel no matter where they may have been born, even if they have citizenship of that country and have lived there for years. They can receive Israeli citizenship and all the privileges and obligations that ensue.
The state of Israel came into being in its present location because the Jews believe that it is the biblical Land of Israel. This links people of Jewish heritage to Palestine. The Jewish ‘right of return’ was embodied in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948: “The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the exiles...”
However, a Palestinian born in Palestine cannot return to his or her homeland even though he or she was ousted by design, force and the use of laws that border on apartheid. Village after village, town after town, became part of refugee camps in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon etc. The subsequent wars swelled these numbers. So even if a Palestinian state is set up in the lands currently under the nominal control of the Palestinian Authority the people in the camps still have the right and the desire to return to the villages they left behind in 1948.
The term ‘right of return’, when applied to Palestinians with respect to the State of Israel differs significantly with the accepted universal definition of the term. It reflects a belief that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to the homes their families had possessed and left prior to or during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
One reason that is given to prevent Samar from returning is that this will alter the nature of the Jewish state. Although in a democratic country you cannot differentiate between people on the basis of race, religion, etc, it is feared that if all the people who were expelled from the areas which now constitute Israel and are now refugees were allowed to go back, the demographics of the Israeli state would change.
If this is not apartheid what is? Can a state be created on land belonging to others and then declare that in fact the owners of the land have become the ‘other’? This is hardly an acceptable situation in international law. So here we ask if laws can really safeguard the rights of people of the world. And indeed, can the law be implemented even if upheld by national and international courts?
When individual assertions reach a critical mass then truth and justice prevail. So dear Samar, dream on and hold on to the keys to your house, but do not keep silent. Tell everyone you can about your desire and right, and question anyone who says it is futile to do so.
The writer is a freelancer based in Abu Dhabi.aquila.ismail@gmail.com
Pakistan topped list of arms purchasers in 2006: Same Investment in Education Sector could change the face of Pakistan
Pakistan topped list of arms purchasers in 2006
* US ranked first in arms transfer agreements followed by Russia
By Khalid Hasan: Daily Times, October 2, 2007
WASHINGTON: Pakistan ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms transfer agreements in 2006, concluding $5.1 billion in such agreements, with India ranking second in agreements at $3.5 billion, according to a report issued by the Congressional Research Service on September 26.
Arms transfer agreements with the top 10 developing world recipients, as a group, in 2006 totaled $22.2 billion or 77.1 percent of all such agreements with the developing world.
India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1999-2006, making arms transfer agreements totaling $22.4 billion during these years (in current dollars).
The total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1999-2006 was $188.9 billion in current dollars. India alone accounted for 11.9 percent of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years.
This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its policy oversight functions.
Developing nations, the report said, continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1999-2006, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 66.4 percent of all such agreements worldwide.
US tops arms transfer agreements: In 2006, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with $10.3 billion or 35.8 percent of these agreements. Russia was second with $8.1 billion or 28.1 percent of such agreements. The United Kingdom was third with $3.1 billion or 10.8 percent.
In 2006, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at nearly $8 billion, or 40.2 percent of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $5.5 billion or 27.7 percent of such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked third at $3.3 billion or 16.6 percent of such deliveries.
Also See: America cashes in on arms sales to developing world; Guardian
Congressional report finds U.S., Russia dominate arms sales to developing countries: International Herald Tribune
* US ranked first in arms transfer agreements followed by Russia
By Khalid Hasan: Daily Times, October 2, 2007
WASHINGTON: Pakistan ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms transfer agreements in 2006, concluding $5.1 billion in such agreements, with India ranking second in agreements at $3.5 billion, according to a report issued by the Congressional Research Service on September 26.
Arms transfer agreements with the top 10 developing world recipients, as a group, in 2006 totaled $22.2 billion or 77.1 percent of all such agreements with the developing world.
India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1999-2006, making arms transfer agreements totaling $22.4 billion during these years (in current dollars).
The total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1999-2006 was $188.9 billion in current dollars. India alone accounted for 11.9 percent of all developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years.
This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its policy oversight functions.
Developing nations, the report said, continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1999-2006, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 66.4 percent of all such agreements worldwide.
US tops arms transfer agreements: In 2006, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with $10.3 billion or 35.8 percent of these agreements. Russia was second with $8.1 billion or 28.1 percent of such agreements. The United Kingdom was third with $3.1 billion or 10.8 percent.
In 2006, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at nearly $8 billion, or 40.2 percent of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $5.5 billion or 27.7 percent of such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked third at $3.3 billion or 16.6 percent of such deliveries.
Also See: America cashes in on arms sales to developing world; Guardian
Congressional report finds U.S., Russia dominate arms sales to developing countries: International Herald Tribune
Let's wish them well By Jaithirth Rao
With thanks to Shaheryar Azhar's Forum: Let's wish them well By Jaithirth Rao
The Indian Express, September 29
I was speaking with some NRI friends who were chuckling away with glee at the discomfiture prevailing currently in Pakistan, discomfiture that doesn't get addressed by Pervez Musharraf being allowed to contest presidential elections. One of my friends, of extremist persuasion, said that it would be a good thing if Pakistan breaks up — "serves them right" he said. While I concede to no one in terms of patriotic zeal when it comes to India, I suggest that such thinking is dangerous, stupid and not at all in our self-interest.
For many years now, I have been quite grateful to the British for having imposed partition on us. Nostalgia-prone northern Indians who are given to the habit of loving maudlin Urdoo ghazals take delight in dreaming of the day when "we will all love each other, undo the dismembering that was done by the perfidious British and become one country again". Their frequent phrases are "we are one people after all"; "borders imposed by colonial lawyers should be undone" and so on. Such sentiments get loudest around every August fifteenth when political correctness and sentimentalism become the motivators for numerous columns on this shop-worn subject. Being from the deep south, I am quite ignorant of parental memories of the Mall Road or Model Town in Lahore and am left cold and unmoved by these sentiments for reunion. Incidentally, there are practically no Pakistanis who I have met who have the remotest desire to unite with us however warm, hospitable or affectionate they might be.
My support for partition and for the continuance of a strong Pakistan stems from what I would call a practical sense of realpolitik. Pakistan is the buffer state that India needs to protect us from the hot-spots of Afghanistan and Persia (aka Iran). Less than three hundred years ago, we were invaded by Persians (led by Nadir Shah) and Afghans (led by Ahmed Shah Abdali). Both of these were in the nature of predatory raids. They did not result in conquests. But they did succeed in finishing off the glorious Moghul Empire and in causing considerable human and economic damage. It has been noted that a substantial portion of Afghan GDP derived from raids on India! Now as then, raids, unrest and related tensions are real dangers to us.
But let us breathe a sigh of relief. If today a Nadir Shah or an Abdali were to try to invade us, he would have to first defeat the legions of General Musharraf. In effect, the Pakistani army will protect us from the assembled forces beyond the Khyber. This is the kind of "outsourcing of our defence" that should really warm our hearts. Herein lies the overriding need for us to support the continuance of a strong Pakistani state and an effective Pakistani army. If Pakistan were to disintegrate (I am sure that nothing so disastrous will happen), not only could their population spill over in large numbers as refugees, but suddenly Persia and Afghanistan will be on our borders. This is a prospect that should give us sleepless nights. Once we stop thinking of Pakistan as an adversarial neighbour but as a useful buffer state, we have no choice but to wish them well and do everything possible to ensure that they survive and prevail.
On practical grounds too, we should feel a sense of relief that India is not one gigantic, unwieldy country spreading across the entire peninsula. The soft Indian state has not been able to deal successfully either with the Naga insurrection in sixty years or with the Naxalite movement in forty years. And one is not even talking about Kashmir. Can you imagine dealing with Baluchi, Waziri and Pashtun revolts and mini-wars? It is best that Islamabad deals with these headaches. Delhi has enough on its plate!
Recent scholarship (eg, Sarila and Dasgupta) leads us to believe that Pakistan was consciously created by our erstwhile Anglo-Saxon rulers in the pursuit of their strategic self-interest in a calm, unemotional manner. Churchill and Wavell, Attlee and Mountbatten need to be congratulated on their far-sighted strategic achievement. The partition of India and the creation of Pakistan have served the Anglo-American alliance very well. In the fifties and sixties Pakistan was a member of SEATO and CENTO and provided bases for U2 planes. In the seventies, Pakistan helped Nixon and Kissinger reach out to China. In September 1970, a brigade of the Pakistani army (led by a young general named Zia ul Huq) helped Jordan (an Anglo-American client state) suppress and expel the PLO. Many may not know that the expression 'Black September' refers to this event. In the eighties, Pakistan supported the US in its proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And post-9/11 Musharaf has tried to be as faithful an ally of the US as he possibly can. It is inconceivable that an undivided India would have been so useful to London and Washington, and for that matter neither is the present Republic of India ever likely to be. Ironically, today we are the beneficiaries of the British decision to partition India and we are in a position to leverage this to our advantage.
We need to have a pragmatic approach towards Pakistan, not one tinged by irrational hate or by callow sentimentalism. A strong, stable Pakistan which has passably cordial relations with us is something we should support, we should root for. We want peace and stability not only inside our own homes, but in the neighbourhoods we live in; the analogy holds for our geopolitical neighbourhood as well. In addition, if we are lucky that one of our neighbours acts as a buffer and protects us from unpredictable residents who are one step removed from us on the map, then we have all the more reason to ensure that our neighbour is strong and performs his or her defensive task well. So here is raising a toast to a strong, stable Pakistan and a cohesive Pakistani army. Irrespective of how the political cards may fall, rational Indians should wish them well.
The writer is a commentator on the economic, political and cultural scene in India.
The Indian Express, September 29
I was speaking with some NRI friends who were chuckling away with glee at the discomfiture prevailing currently in Pakistan, discomfiture that doesn't get addressed by Pervez Musharraf being allowed to contest presidential elections. One of my friends, of extremist persuasion, said that it would be a good thing if Pakistan breaks up — "serves them right" he said. While I concede to no one in terms of patriotic zeal when it comes to India, I suggest that such thinking is dangerous, stupid and not at all in our self-interest.
For many years now, I have been quite grateful to the British for having imposed partition on us. Nostalgia-prone northern Indians who are given to the habit of loving maudlin Urdoo ghazals take delight in dreaming of the day when "we will all love each other, undo the dismembering that was done by the perfidious British and become one country again". Their frequent phrases are "we are one people after all"; "borders imposed by colonial lawyers should be undone" and so on. Such sentiments get loudest around every August fifteenth when political correctness and sentimentalism become the motivators for numerous columns on this shop-worn subject. Being from the deep south, I am quite ignorant of parental memories of the Mall Road or Model Town in Lahore and am left cold and unmoved by these sentiments for reunion. Incidentally, there are practically no Pakistanis who I have met who have the remotest desire to unite with us however warm, hospitable or affectionate they might be.
My support for partition and for the continuance of a strong Pakistan stems from what I would call a practical sense of realpolitik. Pakistan is the buffer state that India needs to protect us from the hot-spots of Afghanistan and Persia (aka Iran). Less than three hundred years ago, we were invaded by Persians (led by Nadir Shah) and Afghans (led by Ahmed Shah Abdali). Both of these were in the nature of predatory raids. They did not result in conquests. But they did succeed in finishing off the glorious Moghul Empire and in causing considerable human and economic damage. It has been noted that a substantial portion of Afghan GDP derived from raids on India! Now as then, raids, unrest and related tensions are real dangers to us.
But let us breathe a sigh of relief. If today a Nadir Shah or an Abdali were to try to invade us, he would have to first defeat the legions of General Musharraf. In effect, the Pakistani army will protect us from the assembled forces beyond the Khyber. This is the kind of "outsourcing of our defence" that should really warm our hearts. Herein lies the overriding need for us to support the continuance of a strong Pakistani state and an effective Pakistani army. If Pakistan were to disintegrate (I am sure that nothing so disastrous will happen), not only could their population spill over in large numbers as refugees, but suddenly Persia and Afghanistan will be on our borders. This is a prospect that should give us sleepless nights. Once we stop thinking of Pakistan as an adversarial neighbour but as a useful buffer state, we have no choice but to wish them well and do everything possible to ensure that they survive and prevail.
On practical grounds too, we should feel a sense of relief that India is not one gigantic, unwieldy country spreading across the entire peninsula. The soft Indian state has not been able to deal successfully either with the Naga insurrection in sixty years or with the Naxalite movement in forty years. And one is not even talking about Kashmir. Can you imagine dealing with Baluchi, Waziri and Pashtun revolts and mini-wars? It is best that Islamabad deals with these headaches. Delhi has enough on its plate!
Recent scholarship (eg, Sarila and Dasgupta) leads us to believe that Pakistan was consciously created by our erstwhile Anglo-Saxon rulers in the pursuit of their strategic self-interest in a calm, unemotional manner. Churchill and Wavell, Attlee and Mountbatten need to be congratulated on their far-sighted strategic achievement. The partition of India and the creation of Pakistan have served the Anglo-American alliance very well. In the fifties and sixties Pakistan was a member of SEATO and CENTO and provided bases for U2 planes. In the seventies, Pakistan helped Nixon and Kissinger reach out to China. In September 1970, a brigade of the Pakistani army (led by a young general named Zia ul Huq) helped Jordan (an Anglo-American client state) suppress and expel the PLO. Many may not know that the expression 'Black September' refers to this event. In the eighties, Pakistan supported the US in its proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And post-9/11 Musharaf has tried to be as faithful an ally of the US as he possibly can. It is inconceivable that an undivided India would have been so useful to London and Washington, and for that matter neither is the present Republic of India ever likely to be. Ironically, today we are the beneficiaries of the British decision to partition India and we are in a position to leverage this to our advantage.
We need to have a pragmatic approach towards Pakistan, not one tinged by irrational hate or by callow sentimentalism. A strong, stable Pakistan which has passably cordial relations with us is something we should support, we should root for. We want peace and stability not only inside our own homes, but in the neighbourhoods we live in; the analogy holds for our geopolitical neighbourhood as well. In addition, if we are lucky that one of our neighbours acts as a buffer and protects us from unpredictable residents who are one step removed from us on the map, then we have all the more reason to ensure that our neighbour is strong and performs his or her defensive task well. So here is raising a toast to a strong, stable Pakistan and a cohesive Pakistani army. Irrespective of how the political cards may fall, rational Indians should wish them well.
The writer is a commentator on the economic, political and cultural scene in India.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)