The Mumbai Massacre and Pakistan’s New Nightmares: An Interview of Pervez Hoodbhoy
by Christina Otten for FOCUS Online (Germany)
by sacw.net, 13 December 2008
Christina Otten - FOCUS: Tensions between Pakistan and India have been growing after the Mumbai attacks. Are we close to a military escalation?
Pervez Hoodbhoy: In spite of vociferous demands by the Indian public, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government has withstood the pressure to conduct cross-border strikes into Pakistan. Correspondingly, in spite of the bitter criticism by Islamic parties, Pakistan’s government has moved against the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), the jihadist organization that is almost certainly behind the attacks. For now, the tension has eased somewhat but another attack could push India over the fence.
Christina Otten - FOCUS: What makes the LeT so different from other militant groups? Is Pakistan really moving against it?
Pervez Hoodbhoy: LeT, one of the largest militant groups in Pakistan, was established over 15 years ago. It had the full support of the Pakistani military and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) for over a decade because it focussed upon fighting Indian rule in Muslim Kashmir. Today it is one of the very few extremist groups left that does not attack the Pakistani army and state; in contrast almost all others have turned into fierce enemies. We now hear that a few members of LeT, who were named by India, have been arrested. Time will tell whether this was a serious move, or if this was a ruse to ease the enormous pressure against Pakistan. If serious, then the Army and ISI will have earned the bitter enmity of yet another former ally. They are afraid of a repeat of their experience with Jaish-e-Muhammad, a formerly supported Islamic militant group that now is responsible for extreme brutalities against of Pakistani soldiers captured in FATA, including torture and decapitations. It’s a nightmarish situation for the Pakistan Army.
Christina Otten - FOCUS: How have Pakistanis reacted to the Mumbai massacre?
Pervez Hoodbhoy: The initial reaction was of sympathy. I did not see any celebrations, contrary to those that I saw after 911. But then, as the Indian TV channels started accusing Pakistan and demanding that it be bombed in retaliation, the reaction turned to that of anger and flat denial - Pakistanis did not want to accept that this attack was done by Pakistanis or had been launched from Pakistani soil. Subsequently one saw amazing mental gymnastics. Popular TV anchors, and their guests, invoked far-out conspiracy theories. Years ago, some of the same anchors had confidently claimed that Kathmandu-Delhi Indian Airlines Flight 814 (IC814) had been hijacked by RAW to malign Pakistan. They had also ridiculed the notion that Pakistan was involved in the Kargil invasion. Now, pointing to the RSS hand in the Samjhota Express bombing, they are alternately ascribing the Mumbai attacks to radical Hindus, or to Jews and Americans. It is sad to see intelligent persons losing their marbles.
Christina Otten - FOCUS: Pakistan has always stressed that it will deliver the first nuclear strike if it feels threatened by India? Do you see any signs on the Pakistani sign to carry out its threat?
Pervez Hoodbhoy: About a week before the Mumbai massacre, President Asif Ali Zardari had given the assurance that Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons first. India had announced a no first use policy almost ten years ago. But Zardari is not taken seriously by the Pakistani generals who actually control the Bomb, and the Indian NFU declaration is frankly of no consequence. Cross-border raids by India could well ignite a conventional war. If that happens, all bets are off and it could escalate without warning into a nuclear conflict. For many years US defence strategists, belonging to various think tanks and war colleges, have been simulating conflicts between Pakistan and India. They say that a conventional war will almost certainly lead to a nuclear conclusion. Fear of nuclear weapons has made deterrence work. More accurately, deterrence has worked only thus far. No guarantees can be given for the future.
Christina Otten - FOCUS: Why did the assassins choose India instead of committing attacks against Western allies in Afghanistan?
PH: LeT is based around Lahore, which is on the Pakistan-India border, in a town called Muridke. This has a huge militant training and charity complex. LeT’s membership is mostly Punjabi, which makes it linguistically and culturally quite unsuited for fighting in Afghanistan. You could say that LeT is an India-specific, Kashmir-specific group. Indeed, over the years it has had many military successes in Kashmir against Indian forces. But LeT, like other militant groups in Pakistan, sees a nexus between Indians, Americans, and Israelis. Hence they are all seen as enemies and fair game.
Christina Otten - FOCUS: What did the Mumbai terrorists want?
Pervez Hoodbhoy: No demands were made and all hostages were killed. So the purpose of the attack was never formally declared. On the other hand, the stated goals of LeT and similar organizations based in Pakistan leave little doubt. The attack clearly sought to hurt India’s economy and its newly acquired reputation as an economic powerhouse, and to create a climate of war between India and Pakistan. If Pakistan moves its troops towards the eastern border the pressure on the Pakistani Taliban in FATA, which is close to the western border, would be lessened. Still another reason would be to encourage pogroms against Muslims in India. This would swell the ranks of the extremists, and also have the added benefit of destabilizing both the Pakistani and Indian states. Finally, the attack was a means of releasing hatred against non-Muslims.
Christina Otten - FOCUS: What differences and parallels do you see between the Mumbai attacks and the attack in the in Marriott Hotel in Islamabad?
Pervez Hoodbhoy: They were quite dissimilar in how they were executed. The Mumbai attacks were extremely intricate, used GPS and voice-over-internet protocols for communication purposes, involved extensive military training, and probably required planning over a period of a year. The goal was to kill foreigners, particularly Jews and Americans, although Muslims were also collateral casualties. On the other hand, the Marriot bombing in Islamabad was a relatively simple affair involving a single dump-truck with a suicide bomber, and its victims were principally Muslims. The basic purpose, however, was similar - to destabilize the Pakistani state, take revenge on the US (2 of the 58 killed were US marines), and raise the cost of war in Afghanistan and FATA.
For complete article, click here
Monday, December 15, 2008
Beyond conspiracy theories...
Beyond conspiracy theories
By Kaiser Bengali, Dawn, December 15, 2008
THE Mumbai massacre has been a shocking event for all civilised souls across the world, including those in Pakistan.
As is always the case, the search for responsibility began and, almost immediately, fingers were pointed at Pakistan. Equally promptly, denial followed from this end.
However, the world community appears to be accepting the Indian view and Pakistan is under enormous pressure from all quarters. The government has been aware of the gravity of the situation and the complete diplomatic isolation of the country. It has acted responsibly and has taken a series of measures on the domestic and diplomatic fronts to limit the damage.
Questions arise as to who could be responsible for this barbaric act and what could have been the motive. Three classes of conspiracy theories can be discerned. One, there is the Indian view that the perpetrators were Pakistanis and the attack originated in Pakistan. It is stated that Pakistan has been using non-state actors since the 1980s to forward its regional agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In Afghanistan, their motive was to bring down the pro-Soviet, pro-India regime and to install a pro-Pakistan dispensation.
Post-2001 it is stated that these non-state actors have been operating with the support of rogue elements within the country’s intelligence agencies, meaning without official sanction. Their theatre of operation is now limited to Kashmir and to the occupying power, India, with the objective of bleeding India to the point of conceding Kashmir.
The second view is that the Mumbai attacks were executed by the Indian intelligence. India, it is said, has been unnerved by the sustained peaceful agitation for independence in Kashmir, aggravated by the sharp communal split in the held state. India’s claim that the Mumbai attackers had trained in camps in Azad Kashmir as well as implied threats that India could launch attacks on such camps are noteworthy in this respect. It is suggested that a successful Indian military operation in Kashmir would effectively exclude Pakistan as a party to the dispute and weaken the independence movement therein to enable India to force a political settlement on its own terms.
The third view is that the Mumbai operation was part of an Indo-Israeli-US conspiracy with the larger objective of denuclearising Pakistan. The immediate objective could be to prove to the world that the Pakistani security establishment is incapable of controlling the militant establishment which can hijack the country’s nuclear arsenal. If this is indeed the case, one can expect more such sponsored attacks.
The latter explanations may sound preposterous, given that half a dozen US and Israeli citizens and more than 100 Indians have been killed. This kind of modus operandi is, however, not unknown in the world of covert intelligence operations. Of course, it was necessary for the nature and scale of the attack to be audacious, the targets high profile and symbolic, and the death toll high if the desired ends were to be attained. The actual involvement of Pakistani nationals is irrelevant. Anybody in the world could have covertly hired any number of Pakistanis to carry out the operation for them.
Herein lies the catch for Pakistan. Of the above three scenarios, all of them may be true, none of them may be true, or some of them may be partly true. That, however, is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that Pakistanis could have been hired by foreign elements. This implies that there are enough Pakistanis with the necessary ideological mentoring to be available for jihadist operations. And these jihadis do not emerge as individual products.
Clearly, there is an infrastructure with organisational, financial and operational resources to recruit, indoctrinate and train the jihadis. Clearly, such an infrastructure cannot exist and operate without an element of tolerance or support from powerful elements aligned to state agencies. Otherwise, how is it possible that sophisticated arms can be stockpiled in the centre of the capital city, Islamabad, enabling the ‘students’ of Lal Masjid/Jamia Hafsa to fight the Pakistan Army for days?
How is it possible that A.Q. Khan can engage in worldwide nuclear smuggling without the intelligence agencies deputed to protect him failing to discover his operations? How is it possible that hundreds of firearms are brought out and liberally used in clashes in Karachi and the intelligence agencies cannot identify the source and supply channels of such arms?
Apart from the bloody mayhem these outfits may or may not be causing in neighbouring countries, they have certainly torn Pakistani society apart.
Either the nation’s intelligence agencies are completely incompetent or totally complicit. If it is the former, then the country is in mortal danger. If a mere imam of a mosque can stockpile arms or if a high-security state official can smuggle sensitive material out of the country then it must be equally possible for an enemy country to smuggle in its agents and arms for internal sabotage in the event of a war. If it is the latter, then the criminal adventurism of the self-styled protectors of national interest is bestowing on the country international disdain and endangering its stability and security.
In the 1980s, the ‘non-state actors’ paradigm was used within the ambit of the US and western global strategy. Understandably, no aspersions were cast internationally with respect to the legitimacy of the means being employed. Of course, the paradigm was irresponsible and criminal then and is equally so now. The difference is that, in the current global scenario, US patronage is no longer available and this paradigm is simply unacceptable. The cost that Pakistan will have to pay for continuing such a course of action will be exorbitant.
It is likely that the stage can be set for US-led international forces to carry out an operation aimed at eliminating the presumed capacity to mount terrorist operations abroad — and to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Given, however, that India will be a partner in any such operation, an attempt will be made to disable our intelligence capability altogether. The implications for national security will be grave.
It would, therefore, be prudent for the country’s security leadership to undertake to renounce the highly counterproductive use of non-state actors as a policy tool and launch a full-fledged clean-up operation on their own initiative. An operation of some sort is currently underway. That is not sufficient. The leadership of jihadi organisations may appear fierce with their bushy beards and fiery rhetoric. However, a more potent danger is posed by their handlers. Pakistan’s security demands that these handlers be neutralised.
Also See:
Zardari calls Hamid Gul political ideologue of terror - The Nation
By Kaiser Bengali, Dawn, December 15, 2008
THE Mumbai massacre has been a shocking event for all civilised souls across the world, including those in Pakistan.
As is always the case, the search for responsibility began and, almost immediately, fingers were pointed at Pakistan. Equally promptly, denial followed from this end.
However, the world community appears to be accepting the Indian view and Pakistan is under enormous pressure from all quarters. The government has been aware of the gravity of the situation and the complete diplomatic isolation of the country. It has acted responsibly and has taken a series of measures on the domestic and diplomatic fronts to limit the damage.
Questions arise as to who could be responsible for this barbaric act and what could have been the motive. Three classes of conspiracy theories can be discerned. One, there is the Indian view that the perpetrators were Pakistanis and the attack originated in Pakistan. It is stated that Pakistan has been using non-state actors since the 1980s to forward its regional agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In Afghanistan, their motive was to bring down the pro-Soviet, pro-India regime and to install a pro-Pakistan dispensation.
Post-2001 it is stated that these non-state actors have been operating with the support of rogue elements within the country’s intelligence agencies, meaning without official sanction. Their theatre of operation is now limited to Kashmir and to the occupying power, India, with the objective of bleeding India to the point of conceding Kashmir.
The second view is that the Mumbai attacks were executed by the Indian intelligence. India, it is said, has been unnerved by the sustained peaceful agitation for independence in Kashmir, aggravated by the sharp communal split in the held state. India’s claim that the Mumbai attackers had trained in camps in Azad Kashmir as well as implied threats that India could launch attacks on such camps are noteworthy in this respect. It is suggested that a successful Indian military operation in Kashmir would effectively exclude Pakistan as a party to the dispute and weaken the independence movement therein to enable India to force a political settlement on its own terms.
The third view is that the Mumbai operation was part of an Indo-Israeli-US conspiracy with the larger objective of denuclearising Pakistan. The immediate objective could be to prove to the world that the Pakistani security establishment is incapable of controlling the militant establishment which can hijack the country’s nuclear arsenal. If this is indeed the case, one can expect more such sponsored attacks.
The latter explanations may sound preposterous, given that half a dozen US and Israeli citizens and more than 100 Indians have been killed. This kind of modus operandi is, however, not unknown in the world of covert intelligence operations. Of course, it was necessary for the nature and scale of the attack to be audacious, the targets high profile and symbolic, and the death toll high if the desired ends were to be attained. The actual involvement of Pakistani nationals is irrelevant. Anybody in the world could have covertly hired any number of Pakistanis to carry out the operation for them.
Herein lies the catch for Pakistan. Of the above three scenarios, all of them may be true, none of them may be true, or some of them may be partly true. That, however, is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that Pakistanis could have been hired by foreign elements. This implies that there are enough Pakistanis with the necessary ideological mentoring to be available for jihadist operations. And these jihadis do not emerge as individual products.
Clearly, there is an infrastructure with organisational, financial and operational resources to recruit, indoctrinate and train the jihadis. Clearly, such an infrastructure cannot exist and operate without an element of tolerance or support from powerful elements aligned to state agencies. Otherwise, how is it possible that sophisticated arms can be stockpiled in the centre of the capital city, Islamabad, enabling the ‘students’ of Lal Masjid/Jamia Hafsa to fight the Pakistan Army for days?
How is it possible that A.Q. Khan can engage in worldwide nuclear smuggling without the intelligence agencies deputed to protect him failing to discover his operations? How is it possible that hundreds of firearms are brought out and liberally used in clashes in Karachi and the intelligence agencies cannot identify the source and supply channels of such arms?
Apart from the bloody mayhem these outfits may or may not be causing in neighbouring countries, they have certainly torn Pakistani society apart.
Either the nation’s intelligence agencies are completely incompetent or totally complicit. If it is the former, then the country is in mortal danger. If a mere imam of a mosque can stockpile arms or if a high-security state official can smuggle sensitive material out of the country then it must be equally possible for an enemy country to smuggle in its agents and arms for internal sabotage in the event of a war. If it is the latter, then the criminal adventurism of the self-styled protectors of national interest is bestowing on the country international disdain and endangering its stability and security.
In the 1980s, the ‘non-state actors’ paradigm was used within the ambit of the US and western global strategy. Understandably, no aspersions were cast internationally with respect to the legitimacy of the means being employed. Of course, the paradigm was irresponsible and criminal then and is equally so now. The difference is that, in the current global scenario, US patronage is no longer available and this paradigm is simply unacceptable. The cost that Pakistan will have to pay for continuing such a course of action will be exorbitant.
It is likely that the stage can be set for US-led international forces to carry out an operation aimed at eliminating the presumed capacity to mount terrorist operations abroad — and to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Given, however, that India will be a partner in any such operation, an attempt will be made to disable our intelligence capability altogether. The implications for national security will be grave.
It would, therefore, be prudent for the country’s security leadership to undertake to renounce the highly counterproductive use of non-state actors as a policy tool and launch a full-fledged clean-up operation on their own initiative. An operation of some sort is currently underway. That is not sufficient. The leadership of jihadi organisations may appear fierce with their bushy beards and fiery rhetoric. However, a more potent danger is posed by their handlers. Pakistan’s security demands that these handlers be neutralised.
Also See:
Zardari calls Hamid Gul political ideologue of terror - The Nation
Sunday, December 14, 2008
‘Terror’ Is the Enemy - By Philip Bobbit
‘Terror’ Is the Enemy
By PHILIP BOBBITT, New York Times, December 14, 2008
GENERALS are not the only ones who prepare to fight the previous war. Our experience with 20th-century nation-based terrorists — the I.R.A. in Ireland, the P.K.K. in the Kurdish areas of Turkey, ETA in Spain’s Basque country, the F.L.N. in Algeria and others — still dominates much of our thinking about how to deal with 21st-century global terrorists. Indeed, the lack of new concepts may well be as deadly to our national security as any lack of vaccines.
New approaches to dealing with global terrorism must first be integrated into our foreign security policies generally. Allies in Europe must be reassured that the United States will not violate the human rights accords to which we are a party. We must also devise a policy that aligns the interests of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan while isolating the terrorists that threaten them all. We must seek common ground with many states around the world against our universal threats — global terrorists and pirates, the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons and civilian catastrophes — even if, in other contexts, these nations are our adversaries.
The “war on terror” is not a nonsensical public relations slogan, however unwelcome this conclusion may be to Pentagon planners or civil-liberties advocates. The notion of such a war puzzles us — after all, who would sign the peace treaty? — because we are so trapped in 20th-century expectations about warfare. But success in war does not always mean the capitulation of an enemy government (as we have seen in Iraq); rather, it varies with the war aim.
In a war against terror, the aim is not the conquest of territory or the advancement of ideology, but the protection of civilians. We are fighting a war on terror, not just terrorists. That is evident from the list of targets in the attacks in Mumbai, India, in which national liberation terrorists from Kashmir were apparently the outsourced operational arm of a global network with far more ambitious, and more anti-Western, objectives. The Mumbai terrorists did not even bother to issue demands; what they sought was terror itself.
Mexico is potentially our Pakistan — a failing state on our border that can provide haven for our adversaries, at least some of whom will be privatized terrorists. Imagine a poorer, less-democratic Mexico; then imagine it harboring extortionists with a small arsenal of deliverable nuclear or biological weapons. This may be a long-term threat, but it requires immediate assistance and cooperation.
But Pakistan is our Pakistan, too, and not just India’s or Afghanistan’s problem. “Homeland security” is a dangerous solecism when we are fighting a global adversary that moves easily across borders. If terror is our adversary, then our own health system, for example, is only as secure as the most vulnerable health system overseas that might spawn an epidemic that could quickly reach our shores.
For complete article, click here
Also See:
PM offers pact to stop Pakistan exporting terror - Guardian
AP IMPACT: Pakistan offensive shows slow success - AP
By PHILIP BOBBITT, New York Times, December 14, 2008
GENERALS are not the only ones who prepare to fight the previous war. Our experience with 20th-century nation-based terrorists — the I.R.A. in Ireland, the P.K.K. in the Kurdish areas of Turkey, ETA in Spain’s Basque country, the F.L.N. in Algeria and others — still dominates much of our thinking about how to deal with 21st-century global terrorists. Indeed, the lack of new concepts may well be as deadly to our national security as any lack of vaccines.
New approaches to dealing with global terrorism must first be integrated into our foreign security policies generally. Allies in Europe must be reassured that the United States will not violate the human rights accords to which we are a party. We must also devise a policy that aligns the interests of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan while isolating the terrorists that threaten them all. We must seek common ground with many states around the world against our universal threats — global terrorists and pirates, the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons and civilian catastrophes — even if, in other contexts, these nations are our adversaries.
The “war on terror” is not a nonsensical public relations slogan, however unwelcome this conclusion may be to Pentagon planners or civil-liberties advocates. The notion of such a war puzzles us — after all, who would sign the peace treaty? — because we are so trapped in 20th-century expectations about warfare. But success in war does not always mean the capitulation of an enemy government (as we have seen in Iraq); rather, it varies with the war aim.
In a war against terror, the aim is not the conquest of territory or the advancement of ideology, but the protection of civilians. We are fighting a war on terror, not just terrorists. That is evident from the list of targets in the attacks in Mumbai, India, in which national liberation terrorists from Kashmir were apparently the outsourced operational arm of a global network with far more ambitious, and more anti-Western, objectives. The Mumbai terrorists did not even bother to issue demands; what they sought was terror itself.
Mexico is potentially our Pakistan — a failing state on our border that can provide haven for our adversaries, at least some of whom will be privatized terrorists. Imagine a poorer, less-democratic Mexico; then imagine it harboring extortionists with a small arsenal of deliverable nuclear or biological weapons. This may be a long-term threat, but it requires immediate assistance and cooperation.
But Pakistan is our Pakistan, too, and not just India’s or Afghanistan’s problem. “Homeland security” is a dangerous solecism when we are fighting a global adversary that moves easily across borders. If terror is our adversary, then our own health system, for example, is only as secure as the most vulnerable health system overseas that might spawn an epidemic that could quickly reach our shores.
For complete article, click here
Also See:
PM offers pact to stop Pakistan exporting terror - Guardian
AP IMPACT: Pakistan offensive shows slow success - AP
Expelled by Mush, late Gen Alavi wanted to expose Taliban friends
Expelled by Mush, late Gen Alavi wanted to expose Taliban friends
The News, December 15, 2008
By Aamir Ghauri
LONDON: As if the Mumbai attacks last month were not headache enough for the Pakistan Government and its military, a British Sunday paper has claimed that Major-General (R) Faisal Alavi, a former head of Pakistan’s special forces knew he would be killed by his own comrades because he “threatened to expose Pakistani generals who made deals with Taliban militants”.
Writing in a damning report for the Sunday Times, Carey Schofield, a British author said that Faisal Alavi was murdered last month after he threatened to “furnish all relevant proof” about the two Pakistan army generals, in a letter to a senior most general of the army. The letter can be seen on the newspaper’s website but the names of the concerned generals have been blackened to conceal the identity. The author claimed that the deceased general had given her a copy of the letter once he was sure that the military leadership was not going to respond positively to it. “Aware that he was risking his life, he gave a copy to me and asked me to publish it if he was killed,” the author wrote. She said that Alavi told her in their last meeting at an Islamabad restaurant that his letter was a waste and he feared for his life. “It hasn’t worked,” he said. “They’ll shoot me.” He was killed within four days of the meeting when he was driving through Islamabad, the report said.
Ms Schofield, whose book on the Pakistan Army is due next year, said that Alavi - the brother-in-law of VS Naipaul, the British novelist and Nobel laureate - believed his sacking from the army for “conduct unbecoming” was a “mischievous and deceitful plot” and his letter was a final attempt to have his honour restored.
“Alavi believed he had been forced out because he was openly critical of deals that senior generals had done with the Taliban. He disparaged them for their failure to fight the war on terror wholeheartedly and for allowing Taliban forces based in Pakistan to operate with impunity against the British and other Nato troops across the border in Afghanistan,” the report said. “The entire purpose of this plot by these general officers was to hide their own involvement in a matter they knew I was privy to,” he wrote in the letter. He wanted an inquiry, at which “I will furnish all relevant proof/information, which is readily available with me”.
The author said she came to know of Alavi’s death when she was in South Waziristan, to see a unit from the Punjab Regiment. “It was early evening when I returned to divisional headquarters and switched on the television. It took me a moment to absorb the horror of the breaking news (of General Alavi’s death) running across the screen.”
She said the Pakistani media reports blamed militants, “although the gunmen used 9mm pistols, a standard army issue, and the killings were far more clinical than a normal militant attack”. She claimed that friends and family members were taken aback to be told by serving and retired officers alike that “this was not the militants; this was the army”. A great many people believed the general had been murdered to shut him up, she wrote.
The British author wrote that General Alavi — who had dual British and Pakistani nationality — was deeply unhappy about the way some elements of Pakistan Army were behaving in the fight against Taliban. “He told me how one general had done an astonishing deal with Baitullah Mahsud, the 35-year-old Taliban leader, now seen by many analysts as an even greater terrorist threat than Osama bin Laden.”She wrote: “According to Alavi, a senior Pakistani general came to an arrangement with Mahsud whereby - in return for a large sum of money - Mahsud’s 3,000 armed fighters would not attack the army”. The two senior generals named in Alavi’s letter were, according to the deceased general, in effect complicit in giving the militants free rein in return for refraining from attacks on the Pakistan Army, the newspaper report claimed. The report said while Alavi as the SSG head was seeking help from his British SAS counterparts to win the battle against terrorists, “His enemies were weaving a Byzantine plot, using an affair with a divorced Pakistani woman to discredit him.”
“Challenged on the issue, Alavi made a remark considered disrespectful to General Pervez Musharraf, the then president. His enemies played a recording of it to Musharraf and Alavi was instantly sacked. His efforts to clear his name began with a request that he be awarded the Crescent of Excellence [HI (M)], a medal he would have been given had he not been dismissed. Only after this was denied did he write the letter that appears to many to have sealed his fate,” the newspaper wrote.
However, a retired army general told The News that generally when any complaint is received against anyone in the army a process of probe is pursued that usually takes time. He said he knew that the army was probing the issue raised by Gen Alvi.
The retired general said it was part of an international conspiracy to damage the credibility of the army. He said such issues are taken on merit by the army and a set mechanism is followed. He said those casting doubts about the army were playing in the hands of those who wanted to damage the country’s integrity. The report said that if investigations eventually proved that Alavi was murdered at the behest of those he feared within the military, it might “prove a fatal blow to the integrity of the army he loved”.The newspaper report hinted at a possibility of British interest to investigate the killing of General Alavi. “James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence select committee, and Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, were among those who expressed support this weekend for British help to be offered in the murder investigation.”
For original source of the article UK may help find Pakistani general's killers, click here
For details about Gen. Alvi's Death, click here
The News, December 15, 2008
By Aamir Ghauri
LONDON: As if the Mumbai attacks last month were not headache enough for the Pakistan Government and its military, a British Sunday paper has claimed that Major-General (R) Faisal Alavi, a former head of Pakistan’s special forces knew he would be killed by his own comrades because he “threatened to expose Pakistani generals who made deals with Taliban militants”.
Writing in a damning report for the Sunday Times, Carey Schofield, a British author said that Faisal Alavi was murdered last month after he threatened to “furnish all relevant proof” about the two Pakistan army generals, in a letter to a senior most general of the army. The letter can be seen on the newspaper’s website but the names of the concerned generals have been blackened to conceal the identity. The author claimed that the deceased general had given her a copy of the letter once he was sure that the military leadership was not going to respond positively to it. “Aware that he was risking his life, he gave a copy to me and asked me to publish it if he was killed,” the author wrote. She said that Alavi told her in their last meeting at an Islamabad restaurant that his letter was a waste and he feared for his life. “It hasn’t worked,” he said. “They’ll shoot me.” He was killed within four days of the meeting when he was driving through Islamabad, the report said.
Ms Schofield, whose book on the Pakistan Army is due next year, said that Alavi - the brother-in-law of VS Naipaul, the British novelist and Nobel laureate - believed his sacking from the army for “conduct unbecoming” was a “mischievous and deceitful plot” and his letter was a final attempt to have his honour restored.
“Alavi believed he had been forced out because he was openly critical of deals that senior generals had done with the Taliban. He disparaged them for their failure to fight the war on terror wholeheartedly and for allowing Taliban forces based in Pakistan to operate with impunity against the British and other Nato troops across the border in Afghanistan,” the report said. “The entire purpose of this plot by these general officers was to hide their own involvement in a matter they knew I was privy to,” he wrote in the letter. He wanted an inquiry, at which “I will furnish all relevant proof/information, which is readily available with me”.
The author said she came to know of Alavi’s death when she was in South Waziristan, to see a unit from the Punjab Regiment. “It was early evening when I returned to divisional headquarters and switched on the television. It took me a moment to absorb the horror of the breaking news (of General Alavi’s death) running across the screen.”
She said the Pakistani media reports blamed militants, “although the gunmen used 9mm pistols, a standard army issue, and the killings were far more clinical than a normal militant attack”. She claimed that friends and family members were taken aback to be told by serving and retired officers alike that “this was not the militants; this was the army”. A great many people believed the general had been murdered to shut him up, she wrote.
The British author wrote that General Alavi — who had dual British and Pakistani nationality — was deeply unhappy about the way some elements of Pakistan Army were behaving in the fight against Taliban. “He told me how one general had done an astonishing deal with Baitullah Mahsud, the 35-year-old Taliban leader, now seen by many analysts as an even greater terrorist threat than Osama bin Laden.”She wrote: “According to Alavi, a senior Pakistani general came to an arrangement with Mahsud whereby - in return for a large sum of money - Mahsud’s 3,000 armed fighters would not attack the army”. The two senior generals named in Alavi’s letter were, according to the deceased general, in effect complicit in giving the militants free rein in return for refraining from attacks on the Pakistan Army, the newspaper report claimed. The report said while Alavi as the SSG head was seeking help from his British SAS counterparts to win the battle against terrorists, “His enemies were weaving a Byzantine plot, using an affair with a divorced Pakistani woman to discredit him.”
“Challenged on the issue, Alavi made a remark considered disrespectful to General Pervez Musharraf, the then president. His enemies played a recording of it to Musharraf and Alavi was instantly sacked. His efforts to clear his name began with a request that he be awarded the Crescent of Excellence [HI (M)], a medal he would have been given had he not been dismissed. Only after this was denied did he write the letter that appears to many to have sealed his fate,” the newspaper wrote.
However, a retired army general told The News that generally when any complaint is received against anyone in the army a process of probe is pursued that usually takes time. He said he knew that the army was probing the issue raised by Gen Alvi.
The retired general said it was part of an international conspiracy to damage the credibility of the army. He said such issues are taken on merit by the army and a set mechanism is followed. He said those casting doubts about the army were playing in the hands of those who wanted to damage the country’s integrity. The report said that if investigations eventually proved that Alavi was murdered at the behest of those he feared within the military, it might “prove a fatal blow to the integrity of the army he loved”.The newspaper report hinted at a possibility of British interest to investigate the killing of General Alavi. “James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence select committee, and Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, were among those who expressed support this weekend for British help to be offered in the murder investigation.”
For original source of the article UK may help find Pakistani general's killers, click here
For details about Gen. Alvi's Death, click here
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Indian Fighter Aircrafts violated Pakistan's Airspace
PAF turns back Indian jets
* Pakistan Air Force spokesman says Indian warplanes flew over Kashmir, Lahore
* India says incursions were ‘inadvertent’
* PM says violations will not be taken as attack
Daily Times, December 14, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Indian aircraft violated Pakistani airspace in Kashmir and Lahore sectors on Saturday but were chased back over the border, the Pakistani government and a Pakistan Air Force spokesman said.
Air Commodore Himayun Viqar said the Indian aircraft crossed into Azad Kashmir and the eastern city of Lahore. The state-run APP news agency said two aircraft were involved, but did not give the exact time.
‘Inadvertent’: Information Minister Sherry Rehman said there was no need for alarm and that the Indian Air Force had told Pakistan the incursion was ‘inadvertent’. “We have confirmed it. We have spoken to the Indian Air Force and they have said it was inadvertent,” she said. “Our air force is on alert and is ready to face any eventuality, but we do not expect this to escalate. There is no need for alarm.”
In New Delhi, an Indian Defence Ministry spokesman said he had no information on the reported incursion.
The Azad Kashmir prime minister confirmed the reports while talking to a private TV channel.
The violations occurred at a time of heightened tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours following a series of terrorist attacks on Mumbai two weeks ago that the Indian government has blamed on elements based in Pakistan.
Another private TV channel in Pakistan said the Indian jets were ‘fully armed with weapons and ammunition’ and flew up to four kilometres inside Pakistani territory.
It quoted unidentified officials as saying that the violations occurred ‘during the day’ but did not elaborate.
President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani were immediately informed, the channel said.
Prime minister: Gilani said the Pakistani government was not taking the Indian violations as an attack on Pakistan because they were not deliberate.
TV reports quoted him as saying it was a ‘minor technical mistake’ that delayed a manoeuvre in air.
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) spokesman told Aaj Kal a top-level PAF meeting followed the violations to discuss a course of action amid increasing tensions between India and Pakistan.
He said it was premature to call the violations an attack, but added that the PAF was “fully prepared to deal with any situation”.
Nawaz Sharif, chief of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, condemned the Indian violation of Pakistani airspace in a statement late on Saturday. “The Pakistani nation is united against any foreign aggression,” he said.
The state-run PTV also reported an explosion was heard in the Arabian Sea, between the Badin and Jati towns, but a Pakistan Navy spokesman denied the report. “There were no reports of any explosion in the Arabian Sea,” the spokesman said. A TV channel quoted military sources as saying that the Pakistani armed forces had been put on high alert. India and Pakistan have fought three wars and went to the brink of a fourth in 2002. A peace process begun in 2004 appears to be in jeopardy after the Mumbai attacks. agencies/daily times monitor/aaj kal report
* Pakistan Air Force spokesman says Indian warplanes flew over Kashmir, Lahore
* India says incursions were ‘inadvertent’
* PM says violations will not be taken as attack
Daily Times, December 14, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Indian aircraft violated Pakistani airspace in Kashmir and Lahore sectors on Saturday but were chased back over the border, the Pakistani government and a Pakistan Air Force spokesman said.
Air Commodore Himayun Viqar said the Indian aircraft crossed into Azad Kashmir and the eastern city of Lahore. The state-run APP news agency said two aircraft were involved, but did not give the exact time.
‘Inadvertent’: Information Minister Sherry Rehman said there was no need for alarm and that the Indian Air Force had told Pakistan the incursion was ‘inadvertent’. “We have confirmed it. We have spoken to the Indian Air Force and they have said it was inadvertent,” she said. “Our air force is on alert and is ready to face any eventuality, but we do not expect this to escalate. There is no need for alarm.”
In New Delhi, an Indian Defence Ministry spokesman said he had no information on the reported incursion.
The Azad Kashmir prime minister confirmed the reports while talking to a private TV channel.
The violations occurred at a time of heightened tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours following a series of terrorist attacks on Mumbai two weeks ago that the Indian government has blamed on elements based in Pakistan.
Another private TV channel in Pakistan said the Indian jets were ‘fully armed with weapons and ammunition’ and flew up to four kilometres inside Pakistani territory.
It quoted unidentified officials as saying that the violations occurred ‘during the day’ but did not elaborate.
President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani were immediately informed, the channel said.
Prime minister: Gilani said the Pakistani government was not taking the Indian violations as an attack on Pakistan because they were not deliberate.
TV reports quoted him as saying it was a ‘minor technical mistake’ that delayed a manoeuvre in air.
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) spokesman told Aaj Kal a top-level PAF meeting followed the violations to discuss a course of action amid increasing tensions between India and Pakistan.
He said it was premature to call the violations an attack, but added that the PAF was “fully prepared to deal with any situation”.
Nawaz Sharif, chief of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, condemned the Indian violation of Pakistani airspace in a statement late on Saturday. “The Pakistani nation is united against any foreign aggression,” he said.
The state-run PTV also reported an explosion was heard in the Arabian Sea, between the Badin and Jati towns, but a Pakistan Navy spokesman denied the report. “There were no reports of any explosion in the Arabian Sea,” the spokesman said. A TV channel quoted military sources as saying that the Pakistani armed forces had been put on high alert. India and Pakistan have fought three wars and went to the brink of a fourth in 2002. A peace process begun in 2004 appears to be in jeopardy after the Mumbai attacks. agencies/daily times monitor/aaj kal report
Friday, December 12, 2008
Mumbai Fallout Could Include Pakistani Government: NPR
Mumbai Fallout Could Include Pakistani Government
NPR Morning Edition, December 11, 2008
Listen Now [4 min 30 sec]
Morning Edition, December 11, 2008 · Pakistan is under pressure from the U.S. and its neighbor India to show that it's willing to go after militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which India blames for the Mumbai attacks. Hassan Abbas is a research fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center Center for Science and International Affairs. He tells Steve Inskeep that a confrontation over the Mumbai attacks would destabilize Pakistan's new democratic government.
Cartoon source: Daily Times, December 13, 2008
Also See:
The Terrorists Want to Destroy Pakistan, Too
Asif Ali Zardari, New York Times
The Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at Pakistan’s new democratic government and the peace process with India that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan and non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict do not want change in Pakistan to take root.
For complete op-ed, click here
State of the Nation in Pakistan and Whether Mumbai attacks were India's 9/11
ANALYSIS: State of the nation — Najmuddin A Shaikh
Daily Times, December 13, 2008
Even when we talk of being fully prepared to face any external threat, we must acknowledge that the real threat is internal, and it is this internal threat that is generating the external dimension with which we are currently preoccupied
For complete Article, click here
Arundhati Roy: Mumbai was not our 9/11
Guardian, December 12, 2008
We've forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels informed us that we were watching "India's 9/11". Like actors in a Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we're expected to play our parts and say our lines, even though we know it's all been said and done before.
For complete article, click here
Daily Times, December 13, 2008
Even when we talk of being fully prepared to face any external threat, we must acknowledge that the real threat is internal, and it is this internal threat that is generating the external dimension with which we are currently preoccupied
For complete Article, click here
Arundhati Roy: Mumbai was not our 9/11
Guardian, December 12, 2008
We've forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels informed us that we were watching "India's 9/11". Like actors in a Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we're expected to play our parts and say our lines, even though we know it's all been said and done before.
For complete article, click here
Pakistan acting against terror ‘but army support in doubt’
Pakistan acting against terror ‘but army support in doubt’
* Analysts question government’s ability to destroy organisations long protected by military
Daily Times, December 13, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has cracked down on groups suspected of terrorism in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, but analysts question the government’s ability to destroy organisations long protected by the powerful military.
On Thursday the government closed down Jamaatud Dawa – one of Pakistan’s biggest charities – placing its leaders under house arrest and freezing its assets after the United Nations said it was a front for the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, which has been accused of planning the Mumbai siege last month.
Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent security analyst, said the government’s determination to root out militancy was clear, but it was too early to tell how effective it would be in the face of strong historic support in the military.
“The political government is serious. The political government knows that it will get no space to operate if the radical right is in partnership with the military. So it wants to crack down,” she told AFP. “(But) it will be a couple of days, maybe a week, before we see what the nature of this crackdown is.”
She said the government currently held sway because of strong US pressure for action against groups suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
But she said there was “institutional support” in the military for certain organisations, and that the new civilian government had not yet put the mechanisms in place to control the powerful army.
Analysts warned that by acting now the government, which came into power only this year after eight years of military rule, risked appearing weak.
“Our policies and actions should be pro-active instead of reactive,” said Ishtiaq Ahmed, professor of international relations at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University.
“We should have started this operation long ago on our own. Now, when we are doing it under pressure from India, the Indians might say, look, we were right.”
The government has been at pains to stress it is not responding to pressure from India, which it says has provided no evidence implicating Pakistani citizens in the attacks.
It now has a fine line to tread in satisfying international demands that it tackle terrorism without angering the population by appearing to kowtow to its traditional rival. afp
Also See:
Mumbai: A Battle in the War for Pakistan - Council on Foreign Relations
Pakistan's military takes a big hit - Asia Times
* Analysts question government’s ability to destroy organisations long protected by military
Daily Times, December 13, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has cracked down on groups suspected of terrorism in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, but analysts question the government’s ability to destroy organisations long protected by the powerful military.
On Thursday the government closed down Jamaatud Dawa – one of Pakistan’s biggest charities – placing its leaders under house arrest and freezing its assets after the United Nations said it was a front for the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, which has been accused of planning the Mumbai siege last month.
Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent security analyst, said the government’s determination to root out militancy was clear, but it was too early to tell how effective it would be in the face of strong historic support in the military.
“The political government is serious. The political government knows that it will get no space to operate if the radical right is in partnership with the military. So it wants to crack down,” she told AFP. “(But) it will be a couple of days, maybe a week, before we see what the nature of this crackdown is.”
She said the government currently held sway because of strong US pressure for action against groups suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
But she said there was “institutional support” in the military for certain organisations, and that the new civilian government had not yet put the mechanisms in place to control the powerful army.
Analysts warned that by acting now the government, which came into power only this year after eight years of military rule, risked appearing weak.
“Our policies and actions should be pro-active instead of reactive,” said Ishtiaq Ahmed, professor of international relations at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University.
“We should have started this operation long ago on our own. Now, when we are doing it under pressure from India, the Indians might say, look, we were right.”
The government has been at pains to stress it is not responding to pressure from India, which it says has provided no evidence implicating Pakistani citizens in the attacks.
It now has a fine line to tread in satisfying international demands that it tackle terrorism without angering the population by appearing to kowtow to its traditional rival. afp
Also See:
Mumbai: A Battle in the War for Pakistan - Council on Foreign Relations
Pakistan's military takes a big hit - Asia Times
Ex-IAF chief says no chance of Pak nukes falling into wrong hands
Ex-IAF chief says no chance of Pak nukes falling into wrong hands
The News, December 13, 2008
WASHINGTON: Retired Indian Air Chief Marshal Shashindra Pal Tyagi voiced strong confidence about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets and said Pakistan’s armed forces are very, very professional and they have put a lot of safety measures in place.
Speaking at the National Press Club as a panelist for Global Zero, an organisation advocating an end to nuclear weapons in the world, he said: “Pakistan’s armed forces are very, very professional —- we know, we fought them —- and from all accounts, they have put a lot of safety measures in place.”
Speaking on the occasion, Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general, said: “There is no way that any militant can get any fissile material or weapons and use them.” Masood referred to the metaphor used by late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and said “Pakistan has gone to the extent of eating grass to acquire nuclear weapons, so it’s not going to hand them to militants.”
“It is genuinely very safe and secure. I’m not saying it emotionally, I’m saying it with all sense of responsibility, because I know the types of layers, commands, types of security circles, there is no way any militant can get (them). There is no question of that,” he added.
The News, December 13, 2008
WASHINGTON: Retired Indian Air Chief Marshal Shashindra Pal Tyagi voiced strong confidence about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets and said Pakistan’s armed forces are very, very professional and they have put a lot of safety measures in place.
Speaking at the National Press Club as a panelist for Global Zero, an organisation advocating an end to nuclear weapons in the world, he said: “Pakistan’s armed forces are very, very professional —- we know, we fought them —- and from all accounts, they have put a lot of safety measures in place.”
Speaking on the occasion, Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general, said: “There is no way that any militant can get any fissile material or weapons and use them.” Masood referred to the metaphor used by late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and said “Pakistan has gone to the extent of eating grass to acquire nuclear weapons, so it’s not going to hand them to militants.”
“It is genuinely very safe and secure. I’m not saying it emotionally, I’m saying it with all sense of responsibility, because I know the types of layers, commands, types of security circles, there is no way any militant can get (them). There is no question of that,” he added.
Jamaat ud Dawa and Lashkar-e-Taiba Targetted by Pakistan Government
Agencies given go-ahead to raid Daawa hideouts:More offices sealed; leaders, activists arrested; The News, December 13, 2008
By our correspondent:
ISLAMABAD: Following the UN Security Council’s ban, the government has listed the Jamaatud Daawa (JuD) in the fourth schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and directed intelligence agencies to increase the monitoring of the leadership of the outfit, sources told The News.
The government has restricted the movement of key activists and the local leadership of Daawa, sources added. A detailed list of activists and leaders of Daawa has been handed over to the police and intelligence agencies to watch their activities, they maintained.
A comprehensive crackdown has also been launched in the federal capital and the law enforcement agencies have started raiding houses and offices of the leadership and activists of the organisation.
The Islamabad Police chief has constituted various teams under the supervision of magistrates to conduct raids and hunt down activists of the organisation, sources said. Three teams of the Capital police, headed by sub-divisional police officers and supervised by area magistrates, arrested two activists of Daawa and sealed three offices in the jurisdiction of the city, the Industrial Area and the Shahzad Town Circles.
The Industrial Area police sealed the main office of the organisation in Masjid-e-Qaba in I-8 Markaz. No arrest was made from the office because it was already closed, police said. The Shahzad Town Circle police conducted a raid on the office of Khidmat-e-Khalq Foundation, an auxiliary organisation of Daawa, in Kuri Shahar to arrest district Amir Rana Ashfaq but he was not present in the office. However, the police picked up two activists from the site, Irfan and Fahd, but failed to recover any objectionable material from the office, police sources said.
The Aabpara Police team raided the residence and office of Shaukat Salfi, a key Daawa leader in Street 35, G-6/2 to arrest him but nobody was present there, the police said. However, the police sealed the house and office of Shaukat Salfi.
Our correspondent adds from Peshawar: Police were deployed at the offices of banned Jamaatud Daawa on Friday a day after the government sealed them. A total of 46 offices of the organisation were working in different parts of the province and most of them were operating in earthquake-hit areas. Soon after the government announcement banning the organisation, all the offices were closed down and some 150 workers were arrested. However, no arrest was made in the provincial metropolis.
For complete report, click here
Also See:
Offices of Pakistani Charity Shuttered - Washington Post
Dawa offices in most cities and towns sealed: Hafiz Saeed, others in custody - Dawn
Negroponte in Pakistan as pressure mounts - AFP
Can Pakistan stop Lashkar-e-Taiba? - Los Angeles Times
By our correspondent:
ISLAMABAD: Following the UN Security Council’s ban, the government has listed the Jamaatud Daawa (JuD) in the fourth schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and directed intelligence agencies to increase the monitoring of the leadership of the outfit, sources told The News.
The government has restricted the movement of key activists and the local leadership of Daawa, sources added. A detailed list of activists and leaders of Daawa has been handed over to the police and intelligence agencies to watch their activities, they maintained.
A comprehensive crackdown has also been launched in the federal capital and the law enforcement agencies have started raiding houses and offices of the leadership and activists of the organisation.
The Islamabad Police chief has constituted various teams under the supervision of magistrates to conduct raids and hunt down activists of the organisation, sources said. Three teams of the Capital police, headed by sub-divisional police officers and supervised by area magistrates, arrested two activists of Daawa and sealed three offices in the jurisdiction of the city, the Industrial Area and the Shahzad Town Circles.
The Industrial Area police sealed the main office of the organisation in Masjid-e-Qaba in I-8 Markaz. No arrest was made from the office because it was already closed, police said. The Shahzad Town Circle police conducted a raid on the office of Khidmat-e-Khalq Foundation, an auxiliary organisation of Daawa, in Kuri Shahar to arrest district Amir Rana Ashfaq but he was not present in the office. However, the police picked up two activists from the site, Irfan and Fahd, but failed to recover any objectionable material from the office, police sources said.
The Aabpara Police team raided the residence and office of Shaukat Salfi, a key Daawa leader in Street 35, G-6/2 to arrest him but nobody was present there, the police said. However, the police sealed the house and office of Shaukat Salfi.
Our correspondent adds from Peshawar: Police were deployed at the offices of banned Jamaatud Daawa on Friday a day after the government sealed them. A total of 46 offices of the organisation were working in different parts of the province and most of them were operating in earthquake-hit areas. Soon after the government announcement banning the organisation, all the offices were closed down and some 150 workers were arrested. However, no arrest was made in the provincial metropolis.
For complete report, click here
Also See:
Offices of Pakistani Charity Shuttered - Washington Post
Dawa offices in most cities and towns sealed: Hafiz Saeed, others in custody - Dawn
Negroponte in Pakistan as pressure mounts - AFP
Can Pakistan stop Lashkar-e-Taiba? - Los Angeles Times
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)