Can Sufi Islam counter the Taleban?

"Sufi devotees in Lahore"

By Barbara Plett


BBC News, Lahore

Some believe that Pakistan's mystic, non-violent Islam can be used as a defence against extremism (Photos: Kamil Dayan


Khan)

It's one o'clock in the morning and the night is pounding with hypnotic rhythms, the air thick with the smoke of


incense, laced with dope.

I'm squeezed into a corner of the upper courtyard at the shrine of Baba Shah Jamal in Lahore, famous for its Thursday night drumming


sessions.

It's packed with young men, smoking, swaying to the music, and working themselves into a state of ecstasy.

This isn't how most Westerners imagine Pakistan, which has a reputation as a hotspot for Islamist extremism.

Devotional singing

But this popular form of Sufi Islam is far more widespread than the Taleban's version. It's a potent brew of mysticism, folklore


and a dose of hedonism.

Inside the Sufi drumming session at the shrine of Baba Shah Jamal

Now some in the West have begun asking whether Pakistan's Sufism could be mobilised to counter militant Islamist ideology and


influence.

Lahore would be the place to start: it's a city rich in Sufi tradition.

At the shrine of Data Ganj Bakhsh Hajveri, musicians and singers from across the country also gather weekly, to perform qawwali, or


Islamic devotional singing.

Qawwali is seen as a key part of the journey to the divine, what Sufis call the continual remembrance of God.

"When you listen to other music, you will listen for a short time, but the qawwali goes straight inside," says Ali Raza, a


fourth generation Sufi singer.

"Even if you can't understand the wording, you can feel the magic of the qawwali, this is spiritual music which directly


touches your soul and mind as well."

But Sufism is more than music. At a house in an affluent suburb of Lahore a group of women gathers weekly to practise the Sufi


disciplines of chanting and meditation, meant to clear the mind and open the heart to God.

One by one the devotees recount how the sessions have helped them deal with problems and achieve greater peace and happiness. This more


orthodox Sufism isn't as widespread as the popular variety, but both are seen as native to South Asia.

'Love and harmony'

"Islam came to this part of the world through Sufism," says Ayeda Naqvi, a teacher of Islamic mysticism who's taking part


in the chanting.

"It was Sufis who came and spread the religious message of love and harmony and beauty, there were no swords, it was very different


from the sharp edged Islam of the Middle East.

"And you can't separate it from our culture, it's in our music, it's in our folklore, it's in our architecture. We


are a Sufi country, and yet there's a struggle in Pakistan right now for the soul of Islam."

That struggle is between Sufism and hard-line Wahhabism, the strict form of Sunni Islam followed by members of the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

It has gained ground in the tribal north-west, encouraged initially in the 1980s by the US and Saudi Arabia to help recruit Islamist


warriors to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

But it's alien to Pakistan's Sufi heartland in the Punjab and Sindh provinces, says Sardar Aseff Ali, a cabinet minister and a


Sufi.

"Sufi drummer"

Sufism is a mixture of music, chanting and meditation

"Wahhabism is a tribal form of Islam coming from the desert sands of Saudi Arabia," he says. "This may be very attractive


to the tribes in the frontier, but it will never find resonance in the established societies of Pakistan."

So could Pakistan's mystic, non-violent Islam be used as a defence against extremism?

An American think tank, the Rand Corporation, has advocated this, suggesting support for Sufism as an "open, intellectual


interpretation of Islam".

There is ample proof that Sufism remains a living tradition.

In the warren of Lahore's back streets, a shrine is being built to a modern saint, Hafiz Iqbal, and his mentor, a mystic called Baba


Hassan Din. They attract followers from all classes and walks of life.

'Atrocities'

The architect is Kamil Khan Mumtaz. He describes in loving detail his traditional construction techniques and the spiritual principles


they symbolise.

He shakes his head at stories of lovely old mosques and shrines pulled down and replaced by structures of concrete and glass at the


orders of austere mullahs, and he's horrified at atrocities committed in the name of religion by militant Islamists.

But he doubts that Sufism can be marshalled to resist Wahhabi radicalism, a phenomenon that he insists has political, not religious,


roots.

"The American think tanks should think again," he says. "What you see [in Islamic extremism] is a response to what has


happened in the modern world.

"Sufi gathering in Lahore"

Huge crowds are attracted to Sufi gatherings

"There is a frustration, an anger, a rage against invaders, occupiers. Muslims ask themselves, what happened?

"We once ruled the world and now we're enslaved. This is a power struggle, it is the oppressed who want to become the


oppressors, this has nothing to do with Islam, and least of all to do with Sufism."

Ayeda Naqvi, on the other hand, believes Sufism could play a political role to strengthen a tolerant Islamic identity in


Pakistan. But she warns of the dangers of Western support.

"Sufi food distribution"

Sufi people are often actively engaged in social welfare programmes

"I think if it's done it has to be done very quietly because a lot of people here are allergic to the West interfering,"


she says.

"So even if it's something good they're doing, they need to be discreet because you don't want Sufism to be labelled as


a movement which is being pushed by the West to drown out the real puritanical Islam."

Back at the Shah Jamal shrine I couldn't feel further from puritanical Islam. The frenzied passion around me suggests that


Pakistan's Sufi shrines won't be taken over by the Taleban any time soon.

But whether Sufism can be used to actively resist the spread of extremist Islam, or even whether it should be, is another question.

Kashmir strike to protest killing

By Altaf Hussain




BBC News, Srinagar

A total shutdown is being observed in Indian-administered Kashmir to protest against the weekend killings of two Muslim men


allegedly by Indian troops.

"An Indian soldier stands guard on a deserted street in Sopore in Indian-administered Kashmir on Sunday 22 Feb 2009"

A large number of troops have been


deployed to prevent street protests

Shops and banks in all parts of Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley are closed and traffic has been suspended.

The shutdown has been called by hardline separatist leader, Syed Ali Shah Geelani. It is being supported by the Kashmir High Court Bar


Association.

The killings took place in Sopore town. The army has announced an inquiry.

Detained

A large number of police and paramilitary troops have been deployed, particularly in Srinagar and Sopore, to prevent street


demonstrations.

The most prominent moderate separatist leader in the valley, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has been placed under house-arrest since Tuesday


evening.

He was scheduled to address a public meeting at Sopore on Wednesday.

"A relative wails near the body of a man killed in Sopore, Sunday 22 Feb 2009"


Emotions have been running high in Sopore town

Some other leaders have also been detained in their homes.

The troops are alleged to have fired on Saturday at civilians in Bumai village.

Two people died and a third man is in a critical condition at a hospital in the summer capital, Srinagar.

Local residents allege the soldiers fired without any provocation.

The army authorities gave conflicting versions of the incident initially but finally ordered a "high level court of inquiry"


into the incident.

They first said the fire had been opened by two unknown people masquerading as Indian soldiers.

Later, they said the civilians had been caught in cross-fire between the troops and the militants.

Overall violence has fallen significantly across Indian-administered Kashmir since Delhi and Islamabad began peace talks in 2004.

However, the peace process has been abeyance since November's attack in Mumbai (Bombay) which killed at least 179 people and which


India blamed on Pakistan.

Another devious plan to disable Pakistan

By Asif Haroon Raja

Both Israel and India aspire to become unchallenged military powers of Middle East and South Asia respectively. USA provides requisite backup support to accomplish their ambitions. In order to retain their regional ascendancy both have laid particular attention towards modernising conventional and unconventional military means far outmatching their neighbours. Apart from building their military power it becomes necessary for the duo to ensure that none of its neighbours acquires any weapon system superior to its own or is in a position to flex muscles or group together to pose a credible challenge.

Above all, they over ensure that no Muslim country possess nuclear capability and be in a position to avert blackmailing and bullying tactics. In other words, both desire weak and subservient states doing their biddings. Nuclear capability with any country is a death knell for their megalomaniac aspirations and hence a binding necessity to prevent its acquisition.

Iraq was the first Muslim country which was fast moving towards acquiring nuclear capability. Once Iraq got fully embroiled in war with Iran, Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak in 1981. Later on, USA helped in decimating Iraqi conventional military power through First and 2nd Gulf Wars and reducing the most powerful military machine of the Arab world to a mere counter insurgent force. Having already neutralised Egypt through Camp David Accord, Israel emerged as the unchallenged military power of the region. Suspected nuclear program of Syria in Negev desert was destroyed by Israeli planes when Lebanon was invaded by Israeli troops in 2007.

Israel is now worried about Iran which it suspects is developing weapon graded nuclear program with the active assistance of Russia. Iran?s well-developed delivery means and aggressive stance adopted by Iranian leadership against Israel add to its woes. Tel Aviv is not in a position to cause any harm to Iran at its own and is therefore persistently pestering USA to destroy Iran?s nuclear plants. Unless these nuclear facilities are destroyed, Israel would always remain insecure and even hesitant to go full hog against Iran backed Hezbollah and Hamas, the two radical groups who have seriously compromised the authority of Israeli military power for the first time. Ever since the rise of Islamists in Iran, USA has been resorting to covert means to bring the regime down and replace it with moderate reformists. It had pumped in millions of dollars during the last elections in Iran to affect a regime change but failed. It has also failed to coerce, isolate or entice the leadership to abandon its nuclear program in return for monetary benefits. CIA is however still busy carrying out covert operations through Iraq and Baluchistan where it has cultivated a Sunni Iranian group Jandullah for carrying out sabotage and subversion in neighbouring Zahidan province. Shamsi air base in Baluchistan still in use of US troops is used for monitoring Iran.

As far as India is concerned, it is faced with nuclear Pakistan which is presently an ally of USA in the ongoing war on terror. Pakistan has never accepted the hegemony of India even when it was non-nuclear and had gone to war with India in 1948, 1965 and in 1971. Kargil conflict in summer of 1999 had the potential of getting converted into full blown war with possible nuclear overtone. Nuclear Pakistan is a common threat to both India and Israel since the latter feels that either it could transfer nuclear technology to any of its Arab neighbour or come to the aid of a Muslim country embroiled with it. It also fears that Islamic militants might steal nuclear bombs and pose a threat to its existence. Because of commonality of threat perceptions, both India and Israel are working in tandem in pursuit of common objectives.

The duo has developed close military, economic, and nuclear ties and Israel is now the biggest arms supplier to India. Both have been vying to destroy Pakistan nuclear facility at Kahuta since 1980s. Having discerned that its destruction through a surgical strike is risky because of efficient and credible response system of Pakistan, the duo has been trying to disable Pakistan nuclear capability through indirect means.

Occupation of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 provided a godsend opportunity to India and Israel to give practical shape to its nefarious plan of disarming Pakistan. From 2002 onwards RAW, Mossad with the active collaboration of CIA and FBI have been undertaking subversive activities inside Pakistan from Kabul to weaken all the protective bunds around nuclear assets and hijack it at an opportune time without having to wage a war. The godfather USA helped its chief operators by winning over Gen Musharraf and opening up western border for undertaking clandestine operations in the selected regions. The trio then set about weakening Pakistan?s state institutions through a wilful and well orchestrated propaganda campaign. India has always used propaganda warfare as an instrument to achieve its ends. The vilification campaign was intensified from 2005 onwards and it gained momentum in 2008 onwards. The targets chosen were the army and the ISI since the plotters knew that without sufficiently enfeebling these two institutions it would not be possible for them to achieve their objectives.

The trio worked on following objectives: One, dupe Pakistan leadership by promising carrots, peace with India and solution to Kashmir. Two, cultivate important officials in various government departments, media and legal fraternity. Three, inject secularism and remove the notion of Jihad, project militancy as the main threat to the existence of Pakistan and accentuate secular-Islamist divide. Four, stoke ethnic tensions, sectarian strife, fissiparous tendencies and aid insurgencies. Five, create divisions within the society and polarise it politically. Six, defame the army and then create a wedge between the army and the civil government. Seven, create misgivings, frustration, disillusionment, fear and despair among the people. Eight, cripple state institutions and render the nation headless and disoriented. Nine, weaken economy and make Pakistan subservient to IMF. Ten, deny Pak army and the ISI any role in protecting nuclear arsenal. Eleven, make Pakistan ungovernable and a failing state. Eleven, justify entry of US-Nato forces into Pakistan to save Pakistan from its takeover by militants and to take nuclear assets in their safe custody.

While India established string of Pakistan-specific consulates in Afghanistan, RAW was given huge funds to accomplish its mission of destabilisation of Pakistan. It recruited, trained and launched agents into Baluchistan, Fata and Swat. Likewise, Mossad set up camps in Badakshan to launch its agents into areas which had already been made restive by CIA as a consequence to forced induction of Pak troops into Fata and the CIA-FBI combine playing a double game. Afghans, Chechens, Uzbeks, Caucasians and disgruntled elements within Pakistan were trained in a manner that they could easily get mixed up with the locals. Some of the Hindu agents of RAW were caught and found uncircumcised. The tasks assigned to the agents were to create lawlessness and to defame the Taliban and to keep the pot of militancy boiling.

After making the peaceful areas restive, ironically, increasing militancy in nuclear-armed Pakistan has become one of the major causes of worry for USA. Madeline Albright said that Pakistan is an international migraine. Continuous drone attacks killing innocent people and meddlesome role of RAW and CIA has in fact given migraine to Pakistan. It must be remembered that CIA is instrumental in fomenting Jihadism and militancy in Pakistan in 1980s because of which the people of Pakistan are suffering the most. Illegal occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 together with oppressive policies has triggered militancy in the region. In nuclear-armed India, neither USA nor any other country stoked extremism and militancy. Yet the level and scale of militancy in India far outweigh Pakistan. While Hindu-Muslim riots in India are a regular phenomenon, in Pakistan the Hindus have never been persecuted. Whereas the Hindu extremists are intolerant towards all the minorities living in India and are always looking for an excuse to butcher them, in Pakistan all minorities are treated fairly.

Indian Muslims are looked at with suspicion and they live in perpetual fear. The hatred of Hindu Rightist and Leftist against them is so intense that they treat them as second rated citizens and yearn to kill each one of them. The recently released film Slum dog Millionaire has exposed the wretched state of affairs of Indian Muslims and has become a cause of embarrassment for India. No religious party in Pakistan seek destruction of India while the Hindu extremist parties have often voiced their wish to nuke Pakistan. There has not been a single incident of theft of nuclear material in Pakistan but several cases of theft have taken place in India and yet the western world brazenly say that Pakistan?s nuclear assets are in danger of getting stolen by extremists. Hindu extremists are so intolerant that they cannot even see their sports team getting defeated by Pakistani team..

The newly appointed Special Envoy Holbrooke undertook a visit to Pakistan, Afghanistan and India to tie up loose ends of a planned joint military operation from both sides of the Durand Line. In this US-Nato-Afghan-Pakistan troops would be taking part under the overall command of US or Nato Commander with focus on the strip along Pak-Afghan border. This operation would enable foreign troops to gain entry into Pakistan and to establish a military base in Fata under the guise of providing protection to nuclear assets. Looking at the list of objectives set against Pakistan, lot of ground has already been covered by our adversaries. Having come out of Mumbai trap unscathed, it is now to be seen how our leaders respond to this devious plan aimed at disabling Pakistan.

Asif Haroon Rajar is a security, defence and political analyst.

- Asian Tribune -

India increases its defence budget by 1.4 trillion rupees to meet the ‘threat from Pakistan’

India's Budget - Bailout for Global Arms Industry

India increases its defence budget by 1.4 trillion rupees to meet the 'threat from Pakistan'

The interim budget presented by the Finance Minister - the last in the tenure of the UPA Government - displays a total unconcern for those ravaged by the global economic crisis. There is no indication of any measures to bring relief to those lakhs of people who have lost and are fast losing their jobs in various sectors - like textiles, garments, gemstones, jewellery etc... No announcement of an effective and adequate stimulus package was made. No concrete promise was made of increased public spending in various crisis-ridden sectors of the Indian economy and society.




Even the much-touted increase in allocation for "flagship" schemes like NREGA is also an eyewash. Actually, the Plan allocation for the current fiscal is Rs. 30,000 crore - revised from the previously declared allocation of Rs. 16,000 crore. This reflects only what the Government has already spent on NREGA: which is far below the actual needs of the scheme. The Plan allocation for the next fiscal year 2009-10 is just Rs. 30,100 crore, a tiny and far from adequate increase indeed. Further, while the total revised allocation for the Rural Development Ministry for the current fiscal is Rs. 64,854 crore, for the year 2009-10 the allocation has actually been slashed by 14.93%.




Pranab Mukherjee's excuse is that the Government has "no mandate," in its fag end, to introduce any far-reaching measures. This fact, however, did not stop the UPA Government just prior to the Budget session from bypassing Parliament to introduce new investment norms that virtually throw open the entire economy to FDI. According to these changed norms, FDI caps stand nullified, since investments by companies "owned or controlled" by Indians having substantial foreign capital are excluded. Even as legislation is pending in Parliament to raise the FDI cap in insurance, and working-class protests have prevented caps from being raised further in various other sectors, this piece of subterfuge allows FDI and foreign players to take control of sensitive sectors of the Indian economy via the backdoor. The very same forces responsible for the global economic crisis are being allowed to rampage into India unchecked.




The pretext of "no mandate" has not caused the UPA Government to have any hesitation in introducing a massive hike in defence allocations - a whopping Rs 1,41,703 crore, representing a 34% increase from last year. This, when the Government was unable to utilise Rs. 7000 crore from last year's allocation. Last year itself, the country's defence budget shot past Rs 1 lakh crore for the first time, three times more than the expenditure on health and education. This time, the Mumbai terror attacks have provided the pretext for yet another steep hike in defence spending.




The Defence Ministry has "assured" the arms industry at the recently held arms expo near Bangalore that defence spending is "recession proof." At the expo, it was Israeli and US arms manufacturers who dominated the show. In the past decade, India has emerged as Israel's largest client and also the largest arms importer among the developing countries. In effect, at a time of recession, the UPA Government with its hiked defence budget has chosen to bailout the global arms industry rather than the Indian poor.




The Interim Rail Budget too is nothing but populist eyewash. The Rail Minister claims to have reduced fares - but was silent on the pre-budget hike in freight charges on agricultural commodities, iron ore and steel. This measure will inevitably further hike the price of essential commodities and is yet another burden on the shoulders of the recession-hit aam aadmi. Also, the very day the Interim Rail Budget was presented, there was a major accident on the Coromandel Express in Orissa, followed by another in Bihar the very next day. These accidents point to the total neglect of public spending on rail safety, something the Rail Minister's boasts cannot explain away.




In a budget speech that shamelessly doubled as election propaganda for the Congress party, Pranab Mukherjee ended with the claim that "our people will surely recognise the hand… that alone can help our nation on the road to peace and prosperity". We can well say that the people of India in the impending elections will surely recognise the hand that gave succour to the imperialist US when its credibility was lowest and dragged the Indian people deeper into the abyss of the global recession.




This comment was published in A CPI(ML) Weekly News Magazine, 17-23 Feb

America Confusing Swat

Swat is exactly what the demonization of Afghan Taliban and the creation of a fake "Pakistani Taliban"; is all about. Pakistan has supported Afghan Taliban, so create these monsters inside Pakistan, call them 'Taliban', make them kill ordinary Pakistanis mercilessly, and when anger builds up, point the finger at Pakistani military. What the Pakistani media is not noticing is how that everything that the so-called Pakistani Taliban does ends up supporting the U.S. government and military's argument for boosting troops in Afghanistan and advocating U.S. military intervention in Pakistan. Swat peace deal is good for Pakistan; has nothing to do with America, is none of Europe's business. There is no way to eliminate the insurgency in Afghanistan without political reconciliation inside Afghanistan itself. Drone attacks and peace deals in Pakistan are irrelevant.

By AHMED QURAISHI

ISLAMABAD , Pakistan -The peace deal in Swat is confusing Pakistanis and Pakistan-watchers across the world. The central question is: Is the deal good as Pakistan says or bad as America says?

One of the classic examples of the confusion is this headline from the U.S. newspaper, USA Today: ' Pakistan appeases militants, endangering itself and U.S. The Deal allowing Islamic law in key area emboldens Taliban, al-Qaeda.'

Here are quick answers and explanations that should dispel confusion, expose fallacies and establish the Pakistani interest in Swat and the tribal belt adjoining Afghanistan :

QUESTION: Why is Swat peace deal good for Pakistan ?

ANSWER: Let's admit it. The situation on the Pak-Afghan border is confusing even for the most seasoned experts on the region. Most self-styled 'terrorism' experts you hear these days generally interpret developments through the prism of U.S. government and military interests. The media develops its perspective based on these experts, indirectly promoting U.S. government interests. The problem with this interpretation is that it leads to biased analysis that ends up hiding important pieces of the puzzle.

Thanks to the biased coverage of the Anglo-American news organizations, there are many pieces to this puzzle that escape the eye of the public opinion in Britain and the United States, not to mention the rest of the world that is beholden to the Anglo-American media machine.

First, understand the players on the ground in Swat [and to some extent in tribal belt]:

Militants who only attack American and allied occupation soldiers in Afghanistan .

Militants who only attack Pakistani civilians and military across Pakistan .

U.S. drones DO NOT ATTACK the second type, the anti-Pakistan militants. They only attack the Afghan Taliban that are giving the occupation forces a hard time in Afghanistan .

Pakistan 's priority is to eliminate those militants who only attack Pakistani civilians and military, as in Swat, and also in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, FATA.

This is a major point of divergence between Washington and Islamabad . [More details later in this report.]

The problem in Swat is that three distinct elements are fighting there: the Leaders, the Foot Soldiers, and the Criminals.

1. The Leaders: These are the shady commanders of the so-called Pakistani Taliban. Most of them are unknown, with no history linking them to the jihad in Afghanistan the 1980s. They are mostly local. But the secrecy surrounding their identities and the new ruthless tactics they have introduced in the region [throat-slitting, FM radio, hanging in public squares, and other psychological warfare tactics] show a degree of expertise in guerrilla warfare that never existed in these areas before 2004. There used to be small groups, well known to both locals and to security officials but nothing like these cutthroat professional guerrilla leaders that operate today across western and northern Pakistan . Some Pakistani officials believe that what they are seeing in Swat and in some of the other areas close to Afghanistan is something that bears the classic hallmarks of an organized insurgency, sustained from beyond the borders but using local commanders and fighters. In fact, the presence of well trained foreign mercenaries masquerading as Afghan Taliban and fluent in Pashto has been reported on several occasions. Pakistani officials have shared some evidence regarding this with the highest level of U.S. military and intelligence .

2. The Foot Soldiers: These are the regular members of the militias in Swat. They are mostly local. Some of them are passionately religious, angry at Pakistani government and military supporting the United States , Others have been convinced that they are fulfilling a religious duty by supporting with these militias that claim to be Taliban. There is no doubt that tactics such as suicide bombings and the extreme barbarian methods used by these militia members against local Pakistanis were introduced by mercenary elements coming from Afghanistan . These gory methods are designed to make the local population subservient to the brutal militia. There are two other places where such methods were used. One is Iraq where the Americans unleashed their own terrorism squads that maligned the Iraqi resistance by committing indiscriminate atrocities. Another place is Algeria , an oil-rich country where the United States is supposed to have used the same tactics, in cooperation with the Algerian military, to convince Algerians to stop supporting the 'terrorist' religious parties that had won fair and free elections. The guerrilla methods are the same and the only common element between the two examples and the Swat example is U.S. interest. In Swat, most of these Pakistanis who are regular members and 'foot soldiers' of these militias in Swat are misguided elements whose religious zeal is exploited by ruthless and professional guerrilla warfare criminals that command these militias.

3. The Criminals: Local criminal groups that have been emboldened by the chaos in the area. While they are all locals, Pakistani officials are astonished by the endless supply of weapons and money that sustain these groups.

QUESTION: Is it right to call the militias in Swat 'Pakistani Taliban'?

ANSWER: No it is not. There is only one Taliban, and that is the Afghan Taliban who also are the original Taliban. They are Afghan and they are part of a larger Afghan resistance to the American occupation of their country. The concept of 'Pakistani Taliban' emerged with the arrival of Abdullah Mehsud, a Pakistani citizen arrested by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2001 during the war against the Taliban, and then released in 2004 from Guantanamo Bay and handed over to Afghanistan, only to enter Pakistan to raise a 5,000-strong militia to fight the Pakistani government and military. Mehsud was an ordinary volunteer in the Taliban army that fought the Americans in 2001 but when he returned from Afghanistan in 2004, he managed to raise a well armed fighting force in no time. This is when the American media began talking about 'Pakistani Taliban'. Mehsud also associated himself with the Afghan Taliban. Mullah Omar in Afghanistan initially welcomed Mehsud's 'Pakistani Taliban'. But seeing that Mehsud's first order of business was to kidnap Chinese engineers inside Pakistan and kill one of them, and seeing also Mehsud's insistence on fighting and killing Pakistanis instead of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan , Mullah Omar ordered the Afghan Taliban to cease any links to Mehsud and his militias. The American and the British media, however, continued to prop up the myth of the 'Pakistani Taliban' led by Abdullah Mehsud. Reports emerged later that Mr. Mehsud was probably a U.S. intelligence asset. He was not released back to Pakistan from Guantanamo prison. Mehsud managed to raise an army of 5,000 fighters, well armed, trained and equipped to fight the Pakistani military. After attacking the Chinese and his call to the tribals to exclusively fight the Pakistani army and destroy its installations and bases, it became obvious that Mehsud was working an agenda that had nothing to do with Afghan Taliban. Pakistani security forces killed Mehsud one night in July 2007 far away from the tribal belt where he was based. Mehsud was sneaking back into Pakistan from Afghanistan , where he reportedly met his foreign intelligence handlers. He was cornered and killed in Zhob , Balochistan. The Pakistani government deliberately leaked the story to the local and international media in order to send a message to U.S. and Karzai's puppet government authorities in Afghanistan . After Mehsud's death, several other mysterious 'rebel mullahs' emerged across the area, all well armed, well financed and well trained. One year after Abdullah Mehsud's death, in July 2008, Pakistan 's president and army chief and the ISI formally warned the chief of the U.S. military and the number two in CIA to desist from sponsoring terrorism inside Pakistan .

QUESTION: Why the other powers would want to sponsor the so-called 'Pakistani Taliban'?

ANSWER: There is no question that Pakistan did support the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan . And why not, it was a Pakistan-friendly government made up of Afghans who had spent a considerable time in refugee camps in Pakistan in the 1980s and had a strong respect for Pakistan . The Afghan Taliban's hardline view on some issues was their domestic affair and there was and nor there is anything for Pakistan to be apologetic about for its ties to that government. Islamabad had tremendously suffered in previous decades because of weak governments in Kabul acting as proxies for the Soviet Union . India exploited its alliance with the Soviets to launch terrorists from Afghanistan into Pakistan . The 1970s and '80s saw a wave of bombings in all the major Pakistani cities planned from Afghanistan by the Indians. So Pakistan had every reason to support a friendly government in Kabul . Fast forward to 2004, when it seemed that Washington had concluded that Pakistan will continue sympathizing with the Afghan Taliban, especially when the Americans filled Kabul with pro-Indian and anti-Pakistan government officials. The creation of a brutal 'Pakistani Taliban' is meant to discredit the Afghan Taliban and to show ordinary Pakistanis that their government and military is supporting terrorists who are in turn killing them. The key word here is 'Taliban'. No distinction is made between the Afghan Taliban that Pakistan had supported, and the fake 'Pakistani Taliban'. Pakistan has no problem with the Afghan Taliban, and should not have any problem with it . But the so-called 'Pakistani Taliban' are enemies of the Pakistani state and need to be eliminated. The 'Pakistani Taliban' have gone to extremes to discredit the Afghan Taliban by resorting to gory and brutal methods of killing ordinary Pakistanis. Some of the stories of the brutalities of these militias are stunning. While the 'foot soldiers' of these militias may not realize this, but the commanders who order these acts are only achieving two things: Discrediting the Afghan Taliban and confusing the minds of ordinary Pakistanis about their military by linking it to the 'Taliban'.

QUESTION: So 'Pakistani Taliban' does not exist at all?

ANSWER: If any do, they have been lost between Abdullah and Baitullah Mehsud and their counterparts in Swat. As I said, the Afghan Taliban and whoever followed them have never advocated fighting Pakistan and killing Pakistanis. They are focused on the occupation armies in Afghanistan .

QUESTION: Why does not the Pakistani military eliminate the so-called 'Pakistani Taliban' in Swat? Why let Swat fall?

ANSWER: There are two reasons why Swat fell to these criminal militias that pretend to be Taliban. First, the military came late. The army was busy on two fronts, the west and the east. It was not watching Swat, which was the responsibility of other security forces. Second, Swat fell because the local police and security forces were unable to match the organizational and material capabilities of these militias, receiving aid from Afghanistan . Well trained elements were sneaking into Pakistan in large numbers. On Jan. 11, 2009 , for example, 600 fighters crossed from Afghanistan into Pakistan to attack a Pakistani military base. These fighters were Afghan but were not part of the Afghan Taliban. So who were they fighting for? Who armed them? Who paid for them? And who sent them? Second, Pakistani military could and still can clear Swat in a few days but only at a great cost in lives of ordinary Pakistanis. The beauty of insurgent warfare is that it deliberately plants itself among civilians. So when the regular army attacks, civilian casualties will end up creating more enemies for the known force (the military) and bolster the case of the unknown and hidden force (the militias). The tactics of both Hezbollah and Hamas in south Lebanon and Gaza are two good examples of this.

QUESTION: The Pakistani military and ISI are involved in supporting the so-called Pakistani Taliban in Swat?

ANSWER: This perception is exactly what the demonization of Afghan Taliban and the creation of a fake 'Pakistani Taliban' is all about. Pakistan has supported Afghan Taliban, so create these monsters inside Pakistan , call them 'Taliban', make them kill ordinary Pakistanis mercilessly, and when anger builds up, point the finger at Pakistani military. What no one notices in the Pakistani media is that everything that the so-called Pakistani Taliban does ends up supporting the U.S. government and military's argument for boosting troops in Afghanistan and advocating U.S. military intervention in Pakistan. And the answer to the question above is, of course, no. Pakistani military and ISI are not likely to support those who have on many occasions killed Pakistani soldiers mercilessly and decapitated their bodies.

QUESTION: Richard Holbrooke , Washington 's pointman on Afghanistan and Pakistan , says 9/11 perpetrators, Mumbai attackers, and the Swat extremists are the same?

ANSWER: Mr. Holbrooke is either a novice on the affairs of this region or is deliberately promoting a confusing sales pitch that supports the military and strategic interests of his government in this area. The key players in Swat have been described in detail in paragraph 1 above. They hardly have known links to the Afghan Jihad, let alone any links to the 9/11 perpetrators who were from al Qaeda. As for the Mumbai attackers - if the Indian version of the story is true and if the Indian government answers a list of 30 Pakistani questions and the 'loopholes' in the Indian story turn out to be convincing - are from Lashkar-e- Tayyiba , which is a Kashmiri group that has been fighting Indian soldiers inside Indian-occupied Kashmir and has not been active in global struggle like al-Qaeda. Mr. Holbrooke is deliberately sowing confusion in making the above statement. [Remember a similar statement by by Secretary of State Colin Powell in the U.N. Security Council in Feb. 2003 where he showed fake CIA pictures of Iraqi WMD mobile units that turned out to be fake ?]

QUESTION: So if Pakistan signs peace deals with the militants, and U.S. stops drone attacks, then what will work?

ANSWER: The U.S is misleading the entire international public opinion when it says that the roots of Afghan problem lie in Pakistan . The core of this entire problem is the U.S. failure at political reconciliation in Afghanistan . This is the key to the entire U.S.-made, post-9/11 Afghan tragedy. Armchair strategists cannot exclude at will a huge segment of Afghans from power by calling them 'terrorists'. Washington routinely dismissed reasonable Pakistani suggestions internal Afghan reconciliation in the weeks that led to the creation of a new Afghan government in Kabul in 2002. Instead, Washington allowed its policy to be influenced by elements that are strongly pro-Indian and bought the Indian view on how things should be done in Afghanistan [especially on punishing the Pashtuns ] and how Pakistan and its military and its intelligence should be targeted as a means to defeating the Afghan Taliban. Even now, the U.S. military is somehow not willing to recognize the vast indigenous support to the Afghan resistance. There is no way to eliminate the insurgency in Afghanistan without political reconciliation inside Afghanistan itself. Drone attacks and peace deals in Pakistan are irrelevant. U.S. and NATO failures in Afghanistan are destabilizing the region. The mess in the Pakistani border areas is a result of the failed American project in Afghanistan , not vice versa.

Indian intrusions in Balochistan

Indian intrusions in Balochistan

Khalid Khokhar

WHILE the kidnapping of John Solecki, chief of the UN Human Rights Commission in Balochistan entered its third week, it is clear that the current complexion of the struggle has emerged in response to establish greater control over the resources than demand for provincial autonomy. Baloch Liberation United Front (BLUF), a nationalist organisation, has set a deadline to kill John Solecki, if 1600 hardcore militants under custody of the Government were not freed. Earlier, the 24 demands presented by Talal Akbar Bugti, son of late Nawab Akbar Bugti and President of the Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP), that pertained to an end to the military operation in Balochistan, removal of the military cantonments from Balochistan and the rights of Balochistan on its mineral resources and natural gas, confirms the change in the campaign. Since the 1970s, Balochistan has seen multiple insurgency movements against successive Pakistani governments that were generally tied to issues of provincial governance and autonomy. In contrast, the most recent and ongoing insurgency concerns with the Government's handling of Balochistan's key natural resources. Needless to say there are considerable differences between the present movement and that of the 1970s. Now the struggle is over the fate of Balochistan's natural resources without any share for the locals, the building of military cantonments in the province, and "mega development" projects. Balochistan needs more resources and authority to exercise its choice to develop a strategy of its own for economic and social development. Moreso, Balochistan also needs "area" and "level of development" of the province to be the criteria while distributing federally collected financial resources between the federation and federating units in the new National Finance Commission (NFC).

A host of mind-boggling questions, however, agitates an inquisitive mind. Why Balochistan has been gripped by insurgent violence since 2002? The things started to go wrong when the Centre launched fast track developmental projects aimed to bring the area into socio-economic mainstream. The militants are supported by a handful of tribal chiefs bent on resisting socio-economic development and progress of Balochistan. They challenged the writ of the Government by targeting national installations. Therefore, it was necessary to protect the population at large against a "handful of irresponsible, ignorant and anti-development elements" led by some "tribal warlords". The favourite targets of insurgents were energy production sites - such as Sui in Dera Bugti - and energy infrastructure that supplies natural gas to other parts of Pakistan. According to Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), at least 7,997 killed and 9670 injured in various clashes during 2008. The highest number of attacks, were seen from NWFP (1009), followed by Balochistan (682) and then Fata (385). Similarly, 381 rocket attacks, 46 incidents of beheading, 112 remote control attacks, 110 landmines incidents, 451 incidents of firing and 373 improvised explosives related incidents were recorded during last year.

Pakistan is facing turmoil in Balochistan because of the Indian meddling in Pakistan's affairs leading to the dismemberment of Pakistan. In a bid to destabilise Pakistan, few rebel tribal chieftain such as, Zamran Marri have being coordinating with India and Afghanistan to get all kinds of resources, wealth and arms to strengthen anti-state elements. The statement of Brahamdagh Bugti, grandson of late Akbar Bugti, that he would accept any "moral help and material support" from India to defend Balochistan from Islamabad's designs of capturing the riches of Balochistan, is very alarming. There is strong evidence of Indian support in planning, commissioning and preparing acts of terrorism in Balochistan through setting up of 26 centres of terrorism (consulates) along the western border in Afghanistan. Reliable sources have revealed that explosives were brought in by India under the garb of building of a road by Border Roads Organisation (BRO) into Afghanistan through Iran to be used for sabotage acts against Pakistan. Gwadar deep seaport has become sore in the eyes of Indian strategists who want to obstruct the developmental growth in Balochistan at all cost. Amongst others, India is opposing the Gwadar Port on the following three reasons: (1) Gwadar port would empower Pakistan to control strategically important energy sea-lane on the Persian Gulf. (2) Will enable Pakistan to have a strategic depth southwest from its naval base in Karachi that has long been vulnerable to blockade by the Indian Navy. (3) Increased Chinese presence in the region. India has taken following steps to put a brake on the ongoing developmental activities in Balochistan: (1) Widening the gulf between Punjabis and Balochis on the Gwadar Port by making it believe that the project is aimed at turning the Balochs into a minority (2) Cultivating in the minds of the Baloch nationalists that China is depriving the Baloch by "globalising" their natural resources. (3) Instigating foreign-based Baloch outfits to commit acts of terrorism in Balochistan by highlighting the so-called miseries of Balochis. (4) Downplaying the establishment of three cantonments in different areas of the province in Balochistan.

In order to resolve their grievance once and for all, a dialogue is needed between the Baloch people and the central government. The continued operations in Balochistan diverted important military resources that could be used in the fight against terrorism in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan. Equally it is important to remove the mistrust between the Baloch and the Federation by adopting following measures before attempting a negotiated settlement: (1) First one is to develop Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) amongst the stakeholders by: (a) Open acknowledgement of all injustices committed to the Baloch people. (b) Release of political workers and tribal people. (c) Inquiry into facts regarding the demise of Nawab Bugti and Mir Balaach Marri. (d) Rehabilitation of Marri and Bugti tribes in a fair program of compensating individual victim. (2) After adoption of some important CBMs, the next step should be the cessation of hostilities or suspension of all violent activities from both sides. (3) After creating a positive environment, the negotiation on actual demands for Baloch rights should begin. However, there is a need to identify the Baloch representatives who can influence the outcome of any negotiation.

It is on record that Balochistan opted for Pakistan through a clear democratic process, therefore, Balochistan is not a political issue, but it is an economic one. It is true that past governments were responsible for the present situation in Balochistan and India is just exploiting the bad situation. The greatest sin of our rulers has been that they have never tried to better the economic and political conditions in Balochistan despite repeated promises from them since the creation of Pakistan. Balochistan remains the most neglected province and 88 per cent of its population lives in subhuman conditions. Rural poverty in Balochistan was estimated to be 42% with a literacy rate of 36 percent against the national literacy rate of 53 percent. Some districts in Balochistan have among the lowest enrolment and literacy rates in the world, with one district recording only two percent enrolment at the primary school level. During the last six years, the Government initiated a number of mega development projects in Balochistan including Gwadar Port, Coastal Highway, Mirani Dam, Kachhi Canal and Sandak Copper Gold project. Indians designs to impede development activities in Balochistan need to be strategized effectively. The "development and incentive package" for Gwadar is a step in the right direction. The Government is investing millions of rupees into Balochistan with the aim of turning the province into a regional economic and energy hub. Mega projects in Balochistan are to improve the quality of life of the people of Balochistan. These measures will go a long way to bring the neglected area at par with the developed areas of the country.

Confession by Hindutva terror

Afshain Afzal

A DAY ahead of Mumbai attacks on November 25, 2008, Sudhakar Dwivedi Panday of Abhinav Bharat outfit, who was a prime accused of Malegaon blasts, got his confessional statement which was duly signed by him and properly tape recorded by Anti Terrorist (ATS). The confessional statement came as a result of investigations carried out by ATS Chief Hemant Karkare who was murdered few hours later in Mumbai attacks. In the statement Sudhakar Dwivedi said that during one of the initial meeting held at Deolali in August 2007, his outfit focused on how to carryout attacks during annual Urs at Panipat where a large number of cows are slaughtered. The said meeting was also attended by other co-accused Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Colonel (Retired) 5.5. Raikar and Major (Retired) Ramesh Upadhyay. Dwivedi stated in his confession that Lieutenant Colonel Purohit was supplying firearms in return for money and one of Dwivedi's disciples namely Ashok hailing from Bhopal procured weapons from him. Ashok deposited the money in Lieutenant Colonel Purohit's ICICI bank account. An amount of Rs 5 lass was also paid to Lieutenant Colonel Purohit for another arm consignment. Dwivedi confessed of attending several meetings including at Ujjain, Bhopal, Jabalpur and Deolai in which members of Abhinav Bharat discussed incidents where Hindus had been killed by Muslims. In order to take revenge from the Muslims, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur made demand to Lieutenant Colonel Purohit for the supply of explosives. Dwivedi stunned the investigators when he took the name of a former Member of Parliament for his role in terrorist activities against Muslims and other minorities.

Although after the murder of ATS Chief Karkare in Mumbai attacks, the Malegaon blasts investigations against Hindutva terror has gone to dogs. The first surprise came on February 18, 2009 when ATS submitted confessional statements of Dwivedi and Rakish, two main accused in Malegaon blasts. Dwivedi is said to have given statement before Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Zone-II that during meeting at Pune in August 2008, he met Sayiam Aptay who told him that two members of RSS Muslim Wing namely Indresh Kumar and Baghwat were receiving financial aid from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Lieutenant Colonel Purohit instructed him to kill both the members of RSS. Lieutenant Colonel Purohit took the responsibility to provide the explosive while Chaturvedi was to arrange a suicide bomber. Surprisingly, Chaturvedi who had earlier confessed that Lieutenant Colonel Purohit provided explosives while Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur carried out Malegaon bomb blasts told the court on February 18 that his confessional statement differs from the one he actually said. Thus all the efforts of slain ATS Chief Karkare is back at square one. However, since the earlier confessional statement was duly signed as well as properly tape recorded so it would not be difficult to get the truth divulged.

The latest confessional statement reflects modus operandai of Hindutva terror under the supervision of Indian MI and RAW. It would be more appropriate to mention here the letter dated November 13, 2006, initiated by Nashik Police Commissioner Himanshu Roy to Lieutenant Colonel Purohit to have a clear idea how Hindutva groups win the public support for their terrorist activities. Roy wrote 'This is to put on record, the assistance and cooperation experienced between the Nashik City Police and MI of Southern Command represented by you for over a period of last one-and-a-half-year." He further writes, "You (Purohit) have shared information of vital and sensitive nature with the Police which has proved useful to both the organizations. An educative workshop comprising of Islam, SIMI and ISI conducted by you on November 11 was also of great help to our organization. The workshop reflects the depth of your knowledge regarding your specialized subjects of Islam, SIMI and ISI. I am confident that we will continue to get such cooperation in future also." Since Lieutenant Colonel Purohit had good grip over subjects of Islam, SIMI and ISI so he also learnt the art to manipulate them. Now if we place the confessional statement of Dwivedi in which Sayiam Aptay told him that two members of RSS were receiving financial aid from ISI, Lieutenant Colonel Purohit got a chance to instigate the Hindus present in the meeting to kill both the members of RSS. Thus in this manner he was able to build a Hindutva terrorist force against Indian minorities as well win the support of common orthodox liberal Hindus. It is early to comment with confidence what are the exact motives of Hindu extremist organizations like Abhinav Bharat but generally speaking, Hindus are peace loving people and there must be a foreign hand behind exploitation of masses which is encouraging them to adopt hard course of terrorism.

Holbrooke warning not to be taken lightly

C. Uday Bhaskar

AMBASSADOR Richard Holbrooke, the United States' special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who made a brief stop in New Delhi on February 16, made a very short statement, which is as significant as it is terse. After meeting External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, he noted: "For the first time in 60 years since Independence, your country, Pakistan and the United States all face an enemy that poses a direct threat to our people." This enemy is represented by the extreme religious fervour of the Taleban, which has used violence to intimidate the local people to follow their diktat and the Pakistani security forces have not been able to effectively counter this challenge to the writ of the state.

The Holbrooke observation came a day after the Pakistani government has found it necessary to seek a truce with the Taleban in the Swat Valley, and ?this has been achieved on the condition that Sharia law is enforced in the ?entire region. But even this temporary 10-day ceasefire is tenuous and the very next day, on Feb 17, it was reported that at least three people were killed by a car bomb, which exploded outside the home of a government official in the northwestern Pakistan. It is undestood that the bomb targeted a local anti-Taleban official, Fahim-ur-Rehman in the suburb of Bazidkhel near the city of Peshawar who survived the attack.

It is pertinent that the Holbrooke assessment of Pakistan has been echoed by the US Secretary of State. Hilary Clinton, also. On her first foreign visit, she met with the Japanese leaders in Tokyo and cautioned: "We believe that the activity by extremist elements in Pakistan pose a direct threat to the government of Pakistan as well as the security of the United States and a number of other nations." That the internal situation in Pakistan is indeed very precarious is borne out by an interview that President Asif Ali Zardari gave to an American TV channel (Feb 15), where he conceded: "We're fighting for the survival of Pakistan. We're not fighting for the survival of anybody else."

Zardari also added that the Pakistan Army was backing the government in its war against terrorism along the restive border with Afghanistan. He paid a compliment to the army, and said ?otherwise the Taleban would have ?overrun Islamabad. This is no exaggeration, for in mid 2007, the then president Pervez Musharraf who was also the Army Chief was severely tested by Islamic extremist elements who had taken hostages and holed up in a mosque (Lal Masjid) in the centre of the capital - Islamabad. Ultimately it was a determined action by the military that cleared the mosque - but it may be averred that this was the beginning of the end of the long Musharraf reign.

Popular sentiment in Pakistan is now virulently anti-American and the continuing missile attacks will only exacerbate the situation. The Zardari government has been pilloried by the street for allowing sovereignty to be trampled, and kowtowing to the United States. Pakistan Army is reported to have had deep reservations about conducting robust operations against the terrorists, and till recently there was a facile view that if the US stopped its military strikes, the Islamist right wing would be assuaged and the situation within the country would soon ?return to normal. The Zardari interview and the Holbrooke-Clinton assessment paid to this kind of reasoning and have unambiguously identified the nature of the threat that Pakistan is now facing. It is the very survival of the state - and this is an assertion of very grave significance.

What About Bagram Detainees?

23 February 2009

The proposed closure of the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison by US President Barack Obama on assuming office was hailed far and wide as the end of a dark chapter of the outgoing Bush administration.

It became a supposed preamble to a new US approach to deal with detention facilities in Afghanistan as well. But all such hopes, including, those of a hearing by the Bagram prisoners, who had filed an appeal for justice in US court, have been dashed as the Obama administration reiterated the previous government's stand towards the detainees of the Afghan airbase.

The Bush administration had argued that the detainees at Bagram airbase had no right to challenge their imprisonment in US courts as they were military detainees.

There are currently more than 600 prisoners at the US airbase located about 50 km north of Kabul. The habeas corpus case filed by the four prisoners, who were imprisoned for the past six years, demanded that a federal court should review the evidence that had been used against them. They also pleaded that they were not enemy combatants. As reported by the US media, the single most controversial legal issue was of a federal judge to review the decision by the government to detain an individual as a terrorism suspect or as an enemy combatant, one that continues to date. The Bagram inmates currently cannot appeal either in a US court or before an Afghan judge. There are plans to shift the detainees to the Afghan National Detention Facility, a high security facility that is being built by the US at the cost of $60 million, and is expected to house about 1,100 inmates.

The infamous prison at Bagram has reportedly been the scene of many inmates' deaths due to torture and beatings at the hands of authorities. There are also reports that the inmates are extremely concerned about their detention on military charges without recourse to proper judicial defence. Whether they are 'enemy combatants' or not, all Bagram inmates are lumped in that category.

Afghan nationals must be detained under the Afghan legal system and must be given every opportunity to defend themselves in a proper court of law. The Afghan government should accord the issue highest priority - just as President Obama did with regard to the Guantanamo Bay prison within hours of taking over the White House - making sure the prisoners are accorded humane treatment under the Geneva Convention. Though Afghanistan itself is yet in a transition phase, the existing systems that are in place can be developed to accommodate the inmates' issue.

It’s not acceptable Mr Holbrooke

M Ashraf Mirza




US President Barack Obama's special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan has made two highly provocative observations in his TV interview in Washington on Thursday to the effect that he was not sure if the Pakistan Army and ISI back President Zardari's commitment to eradicate terrorist sanctuaries from the NWFP and that those who were behind 9/11, Mumbai attacks and who seized Swat had the same roots and were located in the same area. He has also linked the announcement of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation by the NWFP chief minister 'to military's reluctance to support President Zardari's anti-terrorism policies'. Mr Holbrooke has thus unjustly painted a melancholy picture of the security situation in Pakistan especially in Peshawar and Lahore .




Whether it's a pretext to adopt harsher policy towards Pakistan to the extent of physical intervention by the US army in the Tribal areas and Swat or is a crude attempt to create wedge between civilian administration and the establishment in Pakistan is obviously premature to comment on at present since a review of the policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan by the US is on the cards. The remarks have, however, made it clear that Pakistan is going to be in hot soup in the days ahead irrespective of the Obama administration's boasts of support to the democratic dispensation in the country. It's seemingly an indicator of reversion to the Bush administration's doctrine of military-civilian coalition that had made Musharraf and Benazir to agree to work together in the pursuit of the US objectives pertaining to the war on terror. It also reflects a new thinking at the Capitol Hill on the basis of Holobrook's motivated evaluation of the situation along the Durand Line as well as in Pakistan and Afghanistan . Or does it manifest a design to seek change in the military leadership in Pakistan . Or is it designed to create a situation that can at some stage be exploited to create doubts about Pakistan 's ability to protect its nuclear assets from the terrorists and militants as it's established that Pakistan 's nuclear assets are an eye sore for the West especially the United States . The contours of such a thinking are, however, expected to emerge from the outcome of the review of the US policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan at a meeting scheduled be held in Washington next month.




The knee-jerk US reaction to the announcement of Nizam-e-Adl for the Malakand division including Swat has, however, not come as a surprise to the people of Pakistan . They have long endured the US coercion and witnessed bloodshed of the citizens at the hands of their own government. Holbrooke's remarks are meant to make Pakistan 's civilian and military leadership wage war against its own people to kill them indiscriminately. It's a well known fact that the US has not only consistently opposed the dialogue path with the tribal elders and leaders for restoration of peace but had also sabotaged the process whenever Pakistan attempted to seek peace in the Tribal areas through the dialogue process. It virtually killed the accord that the government signed with the Tribal elders of South Waziristan .




The quagmire that Pakistan finds itself in today in the context of Tribal areas and Swat is, in fact, the result of the unabated US insistence upon Pakistan to do more militarily in the tribal belt. The US wants the Pak army to use its military muscle extensively to annihilate the Pakistani citizens despite the fact that Washington knows full well that force alone is not the solution to the problems in Afghanistan and the Tribal areas.




No one should know it better than the US itself since it has always miserably failed to achieve its political objectives through the use of military force. Vietnam and Iraq are the glaring examples of the failure of its doctrine of force. US is bound to face a similar defeat in Afghanistan as it did in Vietnam primarily due to its dependence on force in its arrogance on account of its military power. History bears testimony to the fact that no political dispute has ever been resolved through the use of military force. All wars end ultimately on the negotiating table. The US should not, therefore, be jittery over the announcement of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation for enforcement of Shariah law in the Malakand division. Pakistan is a Muslim country and its constitution provides that no law repugnant to Islam will be enacted in this country. The Regulation is, therefore, fully in consonance with the constitution. It represents acceptance of prolonged demand of the people of the Malakand division.




Pakistan should, however, watch its own interests and should see that it is not further sucked into the mire at the behest of the United States . It must also not succumb to US pressure on this count and take pragmatic and prudent decisions suited to the country. It has got practically nothing from the United States for its all out support to her in its invasion of Afghanistan on the pretext of war on terror. It has endured bloodshed and destruction. It has lost about 1500 of its soldiers besides suffering huge civilian casualties. It has borne the suicide bombings besides bomb blasts at the places of worship, religious gatherings and political rallies with massive deaths. And in return it has faced intimidation, coercion and blackmail.




It's, therefore, hoped that both President Zardari and COAS Gen Pervez Kayani will not fall prey to the US machinations and will conduct themselves discreetly in the supreme national interests. A special responsibility devolves on President Zardari to rise above his personal motives since it's evident from the American journalist David E. Sanger'a book that he was facilitated into the presidency by Washington . He has to be steadfast rather than capitulate in the face of American pressure for the sake of power. Pakistan is obviously faced with monstrous challenges at present. On the one hand, militants and terrorists are eroding the government's writ and country's sovereignty while on the other the US is exerting undue pressure to use force against its own people. The country's economic situation is also far from being satisfactory. Mr Hobrooke's sweeping statement thus amounts to rubbing salt in the wound. His contention that the perpetrators of 9/11, Mumbai carnage and Swat violence has the same roots and were located in the same area is simply unacceptable. The US envoy has, in fact, jumbled up the three incidents to make his case of taking on Pakistan on one count or the other. It's seemingly an attempt to pit the civilian and military leadership against each other by casting doubts about the commitment of Pak army and ISI to pursue the democratic government's fight against terrorism. And more outrageous is the timing that he has chosen to make the statement since the COAS Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has already left for a weeklong visit to the United States.

Are Muslims In India Appeased?

By Tomichan Matheikal

23 February, 2009


Countercurrents.org

Appeasement of the minority communities in India is what allegedly drives the adrenalin of the menacingly increasing number of Sangh Parivar outfits. The ire of these outfits is usually directed against the Muslim communities since they are said to be constantly "appeased" by various governments, both at the Centre and in the states. In the last few years the Christians too have incurred the wrath of the "majority". This article examines the issue of Muslim appeasement since that community has been at the worst receiving end of the minority-hatred spawned by the Parivar outfits.

Sachar Report

A Committee headed by Justice Rajindar Sachar was instituted by the Prime Minister's Office in 2005 to study the socio-economic conditions of the Indian Muslims, and the Committee submitted its report on 30 Nov 2006. Let me highlight some of the findings of the Committee:

· The literacy rate among Muslims is far below the national average. 25% of Muslim children in the 6-14 year age group have either never attended school or have dropped out. Expansion of educational opportunities since Independence has not much benefitted the Indian Muslims. In premier colleges only one out of 25 under-graduate students and one out of 50 post-graduate students is a Muslim. Unemployment rate among Muslim graduates is the highest among all socio-religious communities. Only 3% of Muslim children among the school going age go to the Madarsas.1

· Though the calumny against Muslims is deep-rooted in India that they prefer to send their children to Madarsas rather than schools providing mainstream education, the Committee found that the access to government schools for Muslim children is limited. There is non-availability of schools within easy reach for girls at lower levels. The Committee also pointed out that the affirmative action taken for the uplift of the SCs and STs has "reaped at least some advantages" and similar affirmative action is required in the case of Indian Muslims too.

· There is discrimination against Muslim workers. The participation of Muslims in the professional and managerial cadre is low. Muslim workers are the most vulnerable as they are often deprived of written contracts of social security benefits. Muslim regular workers get lower daily earnings in both public and private jobs compared to other socio-religious communities.

· Banks are wary of providing loans to Muslims. The average amount of bank loan disbursed to the Muslims is 2/3 of the amount disbursed to other minorities and in some cases it is half. Some banks have identified a number of Muslim concentration areas as negative geographical zones where bank credit and other facilities are not generally provided.

· Jobs: The presence of Muslims in the IAS is 3%, 1.8% in the IFS and 4% in the IPS, though 14% of the Indian population is Muslim. The Muslim community has a representation of only 4.5% in Indian Railways and 98.7% of that meagre representation are positioned at lower levels. Representation of Muslims is very low in the universities and banks. In no state does the representation of Muslims in the government departments match their population share. Their share among police constables is only 6%, in health 4.4%, and in transport 6.5%.

· Most shockingly, the Committee also found that there is some truth in the allegation about a systematic conspiracy to deny Indian Muslims any meaningful political participation. For example, in states like Bihar, UP, (both where the two Yadavs - Laloo Prasad and Mulayam Singh - are supposed to be appeasing the Muslims) and West Bengal, "Muslim concentration assembly constituencies (are) declared as 'reserved' constituencies where only SC candidates can contest elections." (Muslims are not SCs.)

Appeasement?

The results of a survey conducted among Indian Muslims were published in CounterCurrents by Imran Ali and Yoginder Sikand show that various governments "took little or no heed to these suggestions [made by various commissions], using the commissions simply as vote-grabbing gimmicks in order to give the impression of being serious about Muslim 'backwardness', but, in fact, doing precious little about it."

The survey shows that the economic condition of the Indian Muslims is pathetic indeed. "30.4% reported an annual household income of less than Rs.10,000, 24.4% between Rs.10,001-Rs20,000, 7.5% between Rs.20,001-Rs.30,000, 3.8% between Rs.30,001-Rs.40,000, 1% between Rs.40.001-Rs.50,000 and 5.6% above Rs.50,000.... a significant 27.6% live in jhuggis in slums.... 46.1% respondents live in one-room houses..."

If the Indian Muslims were "appeased" by various governments why is their economic condition so pathetic? The answer is that they were not appeased; but only made to look like so! Vested interests had ulterior motives in doing that.

Vote bank politics is the arch villain among the motives found in Indian politics. When the Mandal recommendations on reservations were implemented they were to benefit the backward communities among Hindus. 27% of the central government jobs were to be reserved for the category called OBCs (Other Backward Communities). When the Mandal recommendations were published the Congress government at the Centre, headed by Indira Gandhi, ignored it. Since it would be an electoral hara-kiri to directly oppose the recommendations, the BJP chose to divert the attention of the gullible public by engineering the Rath Yatra for Babri demolition. The National Front government headed by V P Singh implemented the recommendations in 1989. Who was V P Singh appeasing by implementing the recommendations? Not the Muslims; they had nothing to gain from Mandal. It was the Hindu backward communities who were being "appeased". About 20% of the population in North India are upper caste Hindus. Their interests were being undermined by Mandal. It is they who led the violent protests against Mandal recommendations; against the less privileged sections of their own religion. Was this 20% population upholding the interests of the majority in India? That's a different question anyway.

Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav were eager to implement Mandal recommendations because they were thus "appeasing" the OBC vote bank in their respective states. The Yadavs constituted about 10% of their population. The Muslim population too shared the same percentage. These 20% (10% Yadavs and 10% Muslims) along with the OBCs would ensure about 40% of the votes; and 40% of votes are sufficient for any party to come to power in the Indian democratic system.2 Thus the two Yadav leaders were ensuring their victory in the electoral arena by "appeasing" the OBCs and appearing to be appeasing the Muslims.

Undoubtedly there have been stray episodes like the Shah Bano case where the Muslims were appeased, or again apparently appeased. Shah Bano was again the result of the vote bank politics that Rajiv Gandhi succumbed to. Regarding the issue of personal laws, however, the advice of Mani Shankar Aiyar is the most sane I have come across so far: The personal laws of any community are their internal matter and they should work to reform it from within. Reformation cannot be imposed from outside. "Equally," says Aiyar, "the fact of a minority being a minority warrants special measures in favour of protecting its minority character." "To impose reform in such matters is to force a minority community into a majoritarian mould. That, precisely, is communalism."3

Conclusion

What do the Indian Muslims think of their situation in India? The following quotes may help us understand that.

Jurist V M Tarkunde who studied the situation of Muslims in Jammu & Kashmir in 1990 wrote: "The Muslims allege that they are being killed and destroyed because they are Muslims."4

"Discrimination in various walks of life and police repression and often active collaboration and instigation by state authorities during communal riots further demoralised Muslims, caused loss of confidence in secular forces and resulted in withdrawal symptoms and a siege mentality."5

"Politics of hate gave birth to top terror commander," says an 8-column headline in The Hindu dated Feb 23, 2008. The report says that Mohammad Ismail Riyaz Shahbandri, known better today as Riyaz Bhatkal, a key commander of the Indian Mujahideen networks, was led to terrorism by such acts of violence against Indian Muslims as the Gujarat communal pogrom. Riyaz was a civil engineer. His case is an example that the best of minds can be vitiated by the venal communal approaches taken by certain right-wing political parties and groups.

What is needed today in India is stop making irresponsible statements like 'Muslims are appeased' and help the community develop better so that they join the mainstream and live in peace and harmony with the mainstream communities. That's not impossible. A sizeable population of Muslims in Kerala (25% of the State's population) have lived in harmonious relationship with other communities (until the BJP began to make a strong foothold in the state!). The socio-economic condition of the Muslims in Kerala is far better than that of their counterparts in other parts of India. Socio-economic development is the best remedy for most communal problems; hatred and false propaganda are the biggest stumbling blocks.

Notes:

1. "One reason for the misconception that the majority of Muslim children are enrolled in Madarsas is that people do not distinguish between Madarsas and Maktabs. While Madarsas provide education (religious and/or regular), Maktabs are neighbourhood schools, often attached to mosques, that provide religious education to children who attend other schools to get 'mainstream' education. Thus Maktabs provide part-time religious education and are complementary to the formal educational institutions." [Sachar Report, p. 98-99

2. India After Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha, Picador, 2008, p. 610

3. Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist, Penguin India, 2006, p. 202 & 201. [Emphasis added]

4. Quoted in Guha, p. 624

5. Counter-Currents

www.matheikal.sulekha.com

The Future Challenge of the Iraq and Afghan-Pakistan Wars

Anthony H. Cordesman

February 23, 2009

Q1: What are the resource conflicts between Afghanistan and Iraq? Does the United States need to rush out of Iraq or delay on Afghanistan? What are the trade-offs? Can the United States do both?

A1:

Everything depends on whether Iraq moves steadily toward peaceful political accommodation and how quickly the situation deteriorates or improves in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Iraq moves forward peacefully, the United States can provide the troops that Afghanistan needs during at least the coming year, and the drop in the cost of the Iraq war should ease the strain of spending more on the Afghan-Pakistan conflict. Commanders warn, however, that the situation in Iraq remains delicate and uncertain and that Arab-Kurdish tension, Sunni-Shiite tension, the threat from al Qaeda in Iraq, intra-Shiite tension involving the Mahdi Army and other militias, intra-Sunni tension involving the Sons of Iraq, pressure from Iran, and a major drop in Iraqi oil revenues all present significant risks.

On the other hand, the 17,000 new troops pledged for Afghanistan are the bare minimum needed to meet command requests, Pakistan is not yet fully committing its forces to the fight, the Afghan government is weak and corrupt, and massive waste and abuse is damaging the U.S., NATO/ISAF, and Afghan government effort in the Afghan-Pakistan war. The cost of the war should not be a critical issue, but the United States may be confronted with high-risk trade-offs between keeping troops in Iraq or providing adequate forces for Afghanistan.

Q2: What is the United States doing in Iraq? Why is it important? Isn't the real priority the other war?

A2: Pakistan may be the center of gravity for al Qaeda and the war on terrorism, but Iraq is critical to containing Iran, stabilizing the Gulf and world oil exports, and fueling the global economy. Both conflicts involve critical strategic interests.

Q3: Why do we care about Afghanistan if the Taliban are a local threat and al Qaeda is based in Pakistan? If the real enemy has a sanctuary in another country, why should we take on the Afghan problem?

A3: There is no easy answer to this question, but a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan would probably create a new sanctuary for al Qaeda and extremist and terrorist movements throughout the region, inspire terrorists and extremists throughout the world, and make any lasting victory in Pakistan impossible. The fact remains, however, that Pakistan is the strategic center of gravity and its future is far more important to the United States than that of Afghanistan.

Q4: Can the United States win in Afghanistan if it doesn't have a convincing plan and option to win in Pakistan?

A4: No. It is clear that securing Afghanistan may be impossible as long as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Baluchi region of Pakistan remain sanctuaries for the Taliban, Hekmatyar, and Haqqani insurgents. More importantly, securing Afghanistan would still be a defeat if Pakistan remained unstable and was a de facto sanctuary for al Qaeda and extremist movements. To win, the United States must have an effective strategy for dealing with the political, military, and economic dimensions of the fighting in both countries.

Q5: It is nice to talk about the nonmilitary dimension. Where do the people and resources come from? What does this really mean?

A5: It is easy to talk about "soft power" and "smart power," but more than 1,000 of the people in the U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Teams are military and less than 50 are civilians. A "win, hold, build" strategy requires as much effort in providing local security, governance, and economic aid as success in combat, but the United States' only present source of the people it needs is now largely military.

Q6: If the United States shifts to "clear, hold, build," what does this really cost? Can it really be done even with 30,000 more men? Is this an open-ended fight?

A6: It will be a month or more before the United States can hope to have an integrated campaign plan and strategy proposed by the president, drawing on the expertise of the country teams and key commanders like General David Petraeus and General David McKiernan. They will have to define the level of risk, the forces needed, and how long the war may continue. The last seven years,

however, have seen a sharp and steady rise in the level of the threat, and it is not clear that adequate troop levels and resources are currently available.

Q7: If the United States does fix the military dimension, who fixes a corrupt set of governments and a corrupt and wasteful civilian aid process?

A7: This is a critical problem in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States must ensure that sufficient military and civilian aid workers are present in the field, tie aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan to the honest elements in these governments, clear audits of all expenditure, and have clear measures of effectiveness. At present, the aid effort is far too corrupt, incompetent, and wasteful. It lacks integration and is not focused on critical short-term needs.

Q8: Is this affordable at a time of economic crisis? Does the United States have another $12 billion a month for war?

A8: The wars should now be much cheaper if Iraq moves toward political accommodation and stability, and if the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan does not radically deteriorate. In any case, the total cost of the wars seems affordable when seen as a percent of our total defense spending, federal budget, and economy. Another way of looking at the question is can the United States afford to lose the security of the Gulf or the fight against al Qaeda or a nuclear Pakistan?

Q9: Where is the plan after seven years? Where is the transparency?

A9: This is a challenge that President Barack Obama must fully meet. The American people must know what is happening, see detailed plains that they can trust, and believe sacrifice is needed. None of these tests have previously been met with any integrity or honesty: No details, no plans, and no transparency; just "spin" and empty rhetoric.

Q10: Can the United States trust NATO? The United Nations? Karzai? Symbolism doesn't count. What are the real-world options?

A10: We aren't perfect, and we don't live in a perfect world. The United States has real allies, but they have limits, and there are few prospects of either suddenly changing NATO/ISAF or finding the perfect leader and government for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. The United States will need to press its allies to do as much as they can and local regimes for political reform, but it will have to assume much of the burden. The key in military terms may well be to build up Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani security forces-not seek major new forces from NATO.

Q11: Four to five more years?

A11: The peak fighting in Iraq seems to be over, and the course of the war in Afghanistan will either be reversed during 2009 to 2010 or the war will be lost. It will take four to five years, however, to build fully independent Iraqi and Afghan security forces and help Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to build the improved governance and economic efforts critical to match military success. Only failure can be quick.

Q12: Why isn't containment an option?

A12: The United States will be forced into containment if it sees Iraq collapse into internal strife or come under Iranian influence, if Afghanistan is taken over by the Taliban and extremists, and if Pakistan fails as a state or becomes an extremist state with nuclear weapons. What is far from clear is that any such defeat will be cheaper or easier to live with than pursing a reasonable definition of victory in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It is easy to talk in broad terms about the ease "containment"; defining it in practical terms is far more difficult.

Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2009 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Armed forces alarmed over construction of dams on River Indus

Saturday, February 21, 2009

By By Khalid Mustafa

ISLAMABAD: Armed forces got alarmed over the construction of three dams by India on River Indus and asked the authorities concerned to look into it in detail and chalk out a modus operandi to reduce the impact of the said establishments on

Pakistan's interests. "Pakistan's authorities concerned including the officials of General Headquarters (GHQ), (National Engineering Services of Pakistan) NESPak, Wapda, Irrigation Department of Punjab and Pakistan Commission of Indus

Water would assemble in Lahore today (Saturday) to discuss the fallout impacts on Pakistan's water and defence interests of the ongoing construction of three dams in Ladakh region on River Indus," a senior official told The News.

"In addition, the participants would also figure in the Kishanganga hydropower project as Permanent Commission of Indus Waters has failed to resolve this issue. The participants are likely to recommend that this issue should be taken up at

government level and if the dispute remains unresolved by both the governments, then neutral expert should be moved."

The meeting, the official said, would also recommend to the government to take action against India for violating the treaty during the filling of Baglihar Dam, resultantly Pakistan experienced a massive dip in Chenab water that inflicted damage to the sowing process of wheat.

Earlier, it was proposed that the government would write a letter to the Indian government registering severe protest on the Chenab water 'theft', but the government of the day did not send a letter for unknown reason. The Punjab government then wrote a letter to the Centre in this regard, asking for required action for Chenab water dip. The federal government remained unmoved.

Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Commissioner of Pakistan Commission of Indus Water, would chair this crucial meeting. The News in Feb 9 issue disclosed that India has initiated the construction of three dams on River Indus. "India is constructing large dams on River Indus, which include Nimoo Bazgo with a height of 57-metre, Dumkhar of 42 metres height and Chutak dam of 59 metres height to basically generate hydropower.

The three dams on River Indus in the Ladakh region will harness 219 megawatt (MW) of hydropower. "Yes, I have convened a meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the issues including the construction of dams on Indus," Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, said when contacted by The News.

Responding to a question, he said he would visit the sites. Shah insisted that it is not a special meeting but a routine one. However, he avoided responding to queries over the concern of the GHQ over the dams. Shah said Pakistan's main concern is India is indeed violating Waters Treaty of 1960 while constructing the said projects. However, it is not possible to connect the 219 MW hydropower to held Kashmir or other parts of India through the national grid. "The construction of these projects shows that the intention of the Indian government is to spoil health of Himalayan glaciers which are water tanks for Pakistan. It is feared that India may utilise the cheap electricity for armed forces, which may be increased at Siachen. For this purpose, India may construct power transmission lines up to Siachen," the official said.

The purpose of these projects is basically to facilitate more troops in Ladakh region that will adversely affect the efforts to demilitarise the environmentally fragile region." India has the worst record in dams' failure even in the modern history of dams, as nine dams of India have so far collapsed and the failure of the Indian dams is part of syllabus for all students studying hydrolgy and dam construction in any part of the world. If this bitter reality is kept in view, the huge quantum of water to be stored in the three dams, could play havoc in northern areas of Pakistan if the reservoirs either get collapsed for any reason or New Delhi intentionally or unintentionally releases the huge quantum. "The dams have actually exposed the Diamer-Bhasha Dam, on which the authorities concerned have started work other than construction, to everlasting danger being posed with construction of dams on River Indus."