PML-N and The Truth: Why So Anti-Army?

By Ahsan Waheed
ZoneAsia-Pk

The aftermath of the OBL debacle resulted in a blame game at almost all levels of state infrastructure in Pakistan. Neither civil government officials not members of the military establishment were spared – by each other, or by the Pakistani media and the speculation-ridden conspiracy-driven people of Pakistan.

The ten hour long in-camera parliamentary session was one of a kind in the political history of this country – where both General Ashfaq Kiyani and General Pasha (DG ISI) were present. General Kiyani, throughout the session, seemed to be much of a silent observer; it was General Pasha, the Director General of the ISI, who beared the brunt of all the barrage of criticism thrown at him. At one point, when he offered his resignation, parliamentarians initiated a ruckus and shouted in the august house that the resignation should be accepted. While many argue that the military establishment of Pakistan is not subservient to the parliament or civil administration, it should also e or outside the legislature – have no respect for the military institutions of the country. This disrespect had obviously crossed all bounds after May 02, as has become obvious to everyone.

According to certain media reports, the most acerbic remarks were given by Ch Nisar of PML-N. He criticized the Army and their role in the politics of the country. He did not stop anywhere, not even where the matters could result in projecting a repulsive image of Pakistan being a terrorist state – where the army was possibly playing a double game by pleasing both the US and the Taliban. Ch Nisar’s rampant opposition for the sake of opposition severely damaged Pakistan’s intelligence sharing mechanism with the US – CIA Director Leon Panetta stated as matter of fact to the DG ISI that when his own country’s opposition leader couldn’t trust him, how could the CIA.

Such criticism needs to be seen in the light of how the whole situation has been outplayed after OBL’s death, and not just the difficulties faced by Pakistan’s institutions because of political ineptitude in general. No doubt that the army gets a major chunk of the budget; such a magnanimous budget endowment means that the army should be doing their job of defending the country and not dabble in the political processes of running the country. It is also important to point out that our role in the War on Terror has been to support the United States; it has only become evident since 2007 that Pakistan is actually a front in the War on Terror, after terrorists themselves declared Pakistan and Pakistanis as legitimate targets, and proceeded to conduct daily attacks ever since then.

Ch Nisar’s brother, Ch Ibtisar, was a high-ranking Pakistan Army official who became Chief of General Staff as well as Defence Secretary – most famously, he refused to sign Gen Musharraf’s removal orders and Gen Butt’s appointment orders, which led to uncertainty that was capitalized on by Musharraf’s corps commanders and helped in the 1999 coup – or Musharraf’s “countercoup” as he himself calls it. When the PPP and PML-N were “allies” before the judiciary issue forced them to part ways, it was assumed that Ch Nisar would be given the post of Defence Minister – obviously that did not happen, because maybe Ch Nisar was not as cultured as his brother.

Ch Nisar, being a representative of the people and a senior leader of the PML-N, should take a look into his party’s history as well. The PML-N was originally the PML reincarnated by Gen Zia – the architect of the Afghan jihad and the first head of state to use Islamic terrorism as national policy – so that he could have a dummy parliament that could rubberstamp his Ordinances into law. Incidentally one of Zia’s ministers is also currently Pakistan’s Prime Minister. Nawaz Sharif – one of Zia’s favorites – took the advantage of a rift between party leader Junejo and president Zia to carve out his own PML, and he attached his own name to it so that nobody could take it away from him. After this, Nawaz took it upon himself as a personal mission to counter Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan’s liberals – at Zia’s death anniversary, Nawaz Sharif swore on his tomb that he would carry forward “Zia ul Haq Shaheed’s Mission”. Again, incidentally, a lot of religious extremists, takfiris, Wahabbi fundamentalists, and traditionalist conservatives in Pakistan are also pursuing Zia ul Haq’s distorted and macabre mission.

Up till certain years ago, it was alleged that links exist between Al Qaeda and the funding of PML-N – especially in the 1997 elections. Gen Musharraf was quick to remind the international community about this throughout the last decade, in order to dissuade world leaders from considering Sharif a valid political contender. However, with immense Saudi backing, and despite the financial malfeasance and daylight robbery the Sharif brothers conducted in Saudi Arabia – while they were the Kingdom’s guests and protectees – the Sharifs were given a new political lifeline after a deal was reached to allow former PM Benazir Bhutto to come back to the country. The judiciary decreed that it was also Nawaz Sharif’s fundamental right to return to his country – that is when everything hit the fan. By this time, Nawaz Sharif had a huge bone to pick with the Army, who had propped him up in the first place. Sharif could act like a reborn Bhutto who had escaped the military gallows and would come back as a revolutionary leader of the masses who is strictly against military intervention in politics – only because it packed up his government the last time it happened. Evidently, Sharif’s politics are not defined by national interest or public progress, but only by his personal sentiments and his prevalent feelings about the country, its institutions and its general political scenario. Of course, if President Zardari does not open the Hudaibiya Paper Mills cases and other scams, Nawaz Sharif will “silently” trumpet the Swiss cases issue, the NRO and other incidents of corruption that put the PPP in the docket. That is why Nawaz is aware that people call him a “friendly opposition”; while he hates the label, he should be glad that he’s not the “King’s opposition” and live with what the people call him – that is his reality.

The closeness of the PML-N to religious extremists and even terror elements like the SSP (Sipah e Sahaba Pakistan), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT, now the JuD, or Jamaat-ud-Dawa, led by Hafiz Saeed), and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) are well known. In fact, Nawaz Sharif was only recently attending talks and rallies with Hafiz Saeed, the leader of the JuD and India’s enemy number one. India blames Hafiz Saeed and his JuD for the 26/11 attacks. Nawaz Sharif, while claiming that Pakistan’s India-centric military focus should be altered, immediately jumped into Hafiz Saeed’s lap: this was done within days of each other, leading the people of Pakistan to believe that the N in PML-N stands for “neurotic”.

When the ISI indicated last year that some areas in Southern Punjab had become a breeding ground for terrorism, the PML-N refused their intelligence inputs and assessments outright, refuting the argument by saying that terrorists do not belong to any religion or ethnicity, and trying to pin Punjab as the centre of terrorism is a ‘plot’ against the people of the province. Of course, the PML-N – running the Punjab province more dictatorially than Musharraf’s henchmen the Chaudhry brothers – believes ignore and avoid is the best policies, especially when it comes to critical matters of national importance. South Punjab is a hub of extremism and marginalization, which has become more evident after last year’s floods, and the state is completely absent, while madrassas and religious charities have mushroomed. Of course, after giving them the benefit of the doubt, it still remains to be investigated whether terrorists and suicide bombers are being recruited from poor helpless families of South Punjab, or not. The PML-N, since it is indebted to the vote bank of religious extremists and banned political parties, will never let the provincial government, federal government, or even the army, take action in South Punjab.

And so, terrorism and extremism will fester in Pakistan, while Nawaz Sharif dreams of becoming Prime Minister for the third time. He may even become President. After all, the Charter of Democracy is used again and again to imply that the PPP and PML-N are going to take turns ruling Pakistan and administering its federal government. How democratic!

No pre-conditions for talks: Singh

By Jawed Naqvi

NEW DELHI : Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Srinagar on Thursday that there were no pre-conditions for talks with Pakistan but cautioned they could make headway without “effective control” of the terror groups operating across the border.

Asked at a press conference as he wound up a two-day trip of the disputed region if his statement on Wednesday that Pakistan should destroy terror camps was a pre-condition for talks, Dr Singh said: “It is not a pre-condition. But there is a practical way of looking at (things). Negotiations can’t make headway unless Pakistan brings under effective control these terror groups.”

Dr Singh’s peace overture came as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toured Pakistan though he insisted

India will “not act under pressure of anybody”.

The peace initiative came also after the Islamic nations of OIC pitched for a resolution of the Kashmir issue even if India overtly rejected the comments. China too had introduced an enigmatic element by issuing distinctly different visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir. The move annoyed Delhi.

Perhaps the most important factor in the timing of the announcement of peace talks was the successful conclusion of the state elections in Maharashtra recently in which Dr Singh’s Congress party managed to retain power. The lowest percentage of votes (36 per cent) were cast in the posh Colaba district of Mumbai, the venue of the terror attack in last November. This has been taken to suggest that contrary to common belief terrorism was not a popular issue with Indian voters.

Dr Singh said since India was a democracy unabated terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians would not be conducive to “create an atmosphere for negotiations”.

He said: “Negotiations can’t make headway unless Pakistan brings under control the terrorist elements which aid and abet terrorism in India.”

The prime minister made it clear that Pakistan’s actions against those believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks were not satisfactory and expressed the hope that Islamabad would bring all the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks to justice.

He described as “far-fetched and far from truth” Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s charge that India was abetting violence in Balochistan and funding Taliban.

“I have said earlier that India had no role in Balochistan and those who level these charges, the senior minister in Pakistan, know jolly well that there is no truth in it.”

Asked if India was satisfied with Pakistan’s steps on Mumbai attacks, he said: “Obviously we are not satisfied with action taken by Pakistan. We sincerely hope that Pakistan government will bring all the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks to justice.”

In his opening statement, he expressed the hope that his appeal for dialogue with all sections of the people of Jammu and Kashmir will be reciprocated in the spirit in which he had made the appeal on Wednesday.

To a question about Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Farooq justifying the use of gun, Dr Singh said he did not want to read too much into what was said in anger.

“I hope all those who believe in the good of Jammu and Kashmir will respond favourably to my appeal for dialogue. We are willing to engage in discussions with every group and all those who want abjure violence,” he said.

India’s Dubious Character in Mumbai Investigations

Waqar Ahmed

India is not in a mood to let the Mumbai probe go in a smooth fashion. Earlier, on the request of Pakistan to provide necessary information regarding the incident, India has been sharing the information with Pakistan in bits and pieces. As a result, fourth folder has been handed over to Pakistan few days back. If the information was provided to Pakistan in one go, the results of the investigation could have been much different. Besides, India has been trying to create all sorts of hurdles in the court proceedings. For example, A key witness in the 26/11 attacks case who had given statement against accused Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed at the trial failed to appear before the court on 28 August 2009 with the prosecution saying that he was “missing”, the Indian Express of 28 August 2009 reported. In his previous statement, the witness Nurudin Sheikh, told the court that the accused – Faheem and Sabauddin – had met him in Nepal and they discussed the maps of some locations in Mumbai. Special Public Prosecutor Ujjawal Nikam told the court that Crime Branch officials had gone to the witness’s residence, but his wife had said that Sheikh had left home early morning, saying that he had to go to the court. This clearly indicates that after obtaining the initial statement, the witness has deliberately been sent underground to create a delay in the judicial proceedings.

Despite Pakistan’s repeated demands, India has failed to supply solid information in relation to the culprits of Mumbai mayhem which occurred on November 26 last year. Instead of providing any evidence, New Delhi has only been propagating that the gunmen who conducted terrorist events in Mumbai came from Pakistan. Surprisingly, on July 21, Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon ruled out talking to Pakistan on any issue other than terrorism. Shankar further explained, “Our only issue with Pakistan is terrorism. We demand the perpetrators of terror be brought to justice” and Pakistan should “end infrastructure of terrorism on its soil.” It reminds the statement of PM Singh who had remarked on January 6 this year that Pakistan was using terrorism as state policy. Indian contradictory strategy could be judged from the opposite statements of some other important Indian personalities. For instance on February 8, Gujrat Chief Minister Narendra Modi revealed that the Mumbai terror attacks could not have been carried out without internal help from India. On February 12, the Mumbai police Chief Hassan Ghafoor also admitted that two Indians who were arrested by the Indian police had been involved in the Mumbai carnage.

Confused statements by the Indian high officials show that New Delhi has been making deliberate efforts to entangle Pakistan in the Mumbai tragedy through fabricated stories and India is not serious in Mumbai probe. The aim is to conceal the involvement of Indian terrorists and the role of its secret agency RAW which is behind Mumbai drama. During attacks in Mumbai, the death of Anti-Terrorism Squad Chief Hemant Karkare left sufficient proof that Indian intelligence agencies had themselves planned the scheme. Narayan Rane, an Indian-Hindu leader of the Congress, disclosed on December 16, 2008 that Hindu politicians provided logistical and financial support to Hindutva terrorists for killing Karkare. While, Indian Minority Affairs Minister Abdul Rahman Antulay who had changed his statement after pressure from Congress had clearly revealed in the Lok Sabha that the killing of Anti-Terrorism Squad Chief Karkare in Mumbai was a conspiracy, saying that Karkare was assassinated owing to his leading role in the investigation against Hindus regarding the 2006 Malegaon bombings which killed eight people outside a mosque. He further elaborated, “Anyone trying to go to the roots of terror has always been a target”, calling for a separate inquiry into Karkare’s death.

In wake of a continued debate and rising tension between the two South Asian nuclear states in connection with the culprits of Mumbai tragedy, Pakistan has proved itself as a responsible state actor. On February 12, 2009, Islamabad not only submitted its report to India after lodging FIR against the nine suspects and taking six accused persons into custody, but also repeatedly offered joint investigation to get hold of the real culprits. The fact of the matter remains that Indians were well-aware that any joint inquiry would have exposed the identity of Hindu terrorists and Indian militants. It would have also exposed the killing of Anti-Terrorism Squad Chief Karkare during Mumbai events and the arrested Lt. Col. Srikant Purohit who was found involved in supplying high-grade explosives to the Hindu fundamentalists-played a key role in setting the Samjhota express on fire.

Setting aside Islamabad’s offer for joint investigation, New Delhi has also failed in providing reply to the questions asked by Pakistan in relation to the death of Karkare, progress regarding investigation of Purohit-and particularly about the first statement of the lonely-arrested gunman, Ajmal Kasab regarding the Mumbai events. Notably, in the recent past, Ajmal Kasab had disclosed in an Indian court that the police had forced him to give statement against Pakistan and ISI. He has also been forced to change his previous statement. On July 20, he confessed in the special court that he is Pakistani, and that five men who were involved in the Mumbai carnage also includes key operatives of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT). Backing out of his initial statement clearly proves that Indian intelligence agencies, especially RAW has kept him under continuous torture and thus forced him to show the involvement of Pakistan and ISI. The main aim behind is to conceal the real culprits who are Indian terrorists trained by RAW. In its latest dossier, sent to Islamabad, New Delhi has declared Hafiz Saeed as mastermind behind the incident, while earlier; Kasab was announced as the mastermind. Nevertheless it is another major contradiction in the matter.

As a matter of fact New Delhi wanted to achieve a number of goals through self-arranged Mumbai tragedy as its aftermath proved. First of all India suspended the Indo-Pak composite dialogue in order to use the incident to avoid the solution of Kashmir. Second, it tried its best to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state with the help of US-led western countries. Third, it intended to isolate Pakistan diplomatically in the comity of nations. Fourth, India wanted to distort the image of Islamabad through a propaganda campaign that Pakistan is officially sponsoring terrorism in India and Afghanistan. After its failure in isolating Pakistan diplomatically, at present its leaders have been acting upon a hollow strategy which is based on opposition for the sake of opposition in order to conceal the Indian home-grown terrorism and the hand of RAW in Mumbai tragedy.

‘India has no dossier on Balochistan’: Pakistan, India need to build trust: Singh

* Indian PM says Pakistan has formally admitted LT involvement in Mumbai attacks
* Information sought by Pakistan will be provided soon

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Defending the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement between India and Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday asserted the two nuclear powers have to trust each other or risk war.

Intervening in a Lok Sabha debate, he said Pakistan had not provided any dossier on Indian involvement in Balochistan, adding New Delhi would verify Pakistan’s claims on tackling terrorism before moving forward. He said the Indo-Pak dialogue should be seen in the context of Pakistan formally admitting that its nationals had conducted the 26/11 attacks and the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LT) had conspired, financed and executed the attack. However, he added, further steps were expected. “We need evidence that action is being taken to outlaw, disarm and shut down the terrorist groups and their front organisations that still operate on Pakistani soil and which continue to pose a great threat to our country,” AFP quoted him as saying.

Soon: He said some information requested by Pakistan through the dossier would be provided shortly. He said dialogue and engagement were best, as “unless we talk directly to Pakistan, we will have to rely on a third party”. Singh said the Balochistan issue was added to the joint statement at Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s request, adding he had assured the Pakistani premier that India was “not interested in destabilising Pakistan”.

The Minority Perspective On The BJP Manifesto

By Firdaus Ahmed
Countercurrents.org

A party’s manifesto is not taken too seriously since the compulsions of power impact the promises in it considerably. In the coalition era, this is even more so. Therefore to assess the BJP’s position on security through its manifesto may be neither fair nor accurate. However, the exercise needs to be done if only to point out that the manifesto in its references to national security shows a remarkable insensitivity to minority concerns.

The very first reference to national security is on the Congress’ ‘abysmal failure to protect citizens from terrorism’. The verdict on counter measures is that ‘this is clearly not enough.’ Understandably the very first section after the Introduction is on national security. In this the first point is on terrorism. Unsurprisingly excluded from the list of terrorist activity in the Congress’ tenure is missing Malegaon. The overall impression is that the major instances of terror have been Muslim perpetrated, culminating in the 26/11 attacks by Pakistani terrorists.

Clearly, this bracketing of all terror instances is untenable as insufficient evidence exists of a minority linkage with the pattern of blasts in major cities last year. Since Malegaon investigations have not progressed adequately and the other possibilities with regard to BAD (Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Delhi) have been buried with the Batla House ‘encounter’. As intended by perpetrators other than the ‘usual suspects’, the trail has not been picked up. A canard thus takes on the status of a truth or ‘common sense’. It bears reflection as to why these attacks have mysteriously stopped since the Malegaon revelations. That the manifesto propagates the error as a given is explicable in light of the ideological orientation of the party. Having deliberately misperceived the problem, the solution can only be persistence in error.

The manifesto is keen that Afzal Guru hang. That this has not already happened, despite the strong incentive for the Congress to have wanted to profit from the action, indicates there is more to the Parliament attack case than meets the eye. Afzal Guru is perhaps an innocuous victim of a larger conspiracy which in media reports spread to the considerably autonomous ‘dirty tricks’ department of J&K police. Since invoking national security can help legitimize anything, one Indian less in keeping its secrets secure is really no big deal. That Afzal Guru lives bespeaks of substance to the book ’13 December: The strange case of the attack on the Indian Parliament’.

Illegal immigrants are seen as the unwitting foot soldiers of terror with their ‘vulnerability…exploited by the ISI and its jihadi front organisations as well as local terror cells to carry out bombings and provide logistical support to foreign terrorists (italics added).’ Securitisation of the problem of economic migration as an ‘internal security’ issue helps focus attention on the need for their eviction. Its yet another handle on the minority since the party intends to in ‘Launch a massive programme to detect, detain and deport illegal immigrants’ in its very first hundred days.

There is an element that has been missed in reflection on this issue thus far. It is the possibility of such a targeted drive arousing Bengali nationalism. Nationalism is multi dimensional with one or other identity facet coming to the fore. The break up of Pakistan in which religion was trumped by ethnicity is an example. The Bengali ethnic group is the largest on the subcontinent. Presently it is divided on lines of religion. It would be prudent to preserve the status quo from point of view of Hindu nationalism. That this possibility has not entered the discourse points to the religion tainted limitation of cultural nationalism.

More disturbing is that reference to a reversion to 2002, despite its lesson. The Manifesto states: ‘Coercive measures, including diplomacy, will be used to deal with countries which promote cross-border terrorism.’ This is accentuated in the linkage drawn between the global war on terror and internal security in its very next sentence: ‘India will engage with the world in the global war on terror while not compromising on its domestic interests, primarily protecting citizens from the ravages of terrorism.’ This portends a more proactive engagement with GWOT as it unfolds with greater potential for violence in wake of the Riedel-Holbrooke-Petraeus ‘Af-Pak’ strategy recently unveiled by President Obama. The contrived linkage with India’s internal security makes for a continuing overhang over India’s largest minority.

That peace would continue to prove elusive with Pakistan is a given if the manifesto were to guide its actions when in power. It maintains that, ‘There can be no ‘comprehensive dialogue’ for peace unless Pakistan…hands over to India individuals wanted for committing crimes on Indian soil.’ This eminently avoidable condition gives out the agenda of using Pakistan as the threatening other to deepen the roots of the BJP’s brand of majoritarian nationalism.

Security issues comprise the first 17 pages. Other issues are also given the by now mandatory ‘security’ tinge such as ‘food security’, ‘social security’ or ‘energy security’. The civilian led militarization of mother India is virtually complete.

In saying that ‘the BJP repudiates the division of Indian society along communal lines which has been fostered by the Congress and the Left in pursuit of their vote-bank politics’, the BJP attempts to obfuscate it’s resort to and greater success at the same game in attempting to make the denominational majority its vote bank. It has contradicted itself in stating that, ‘categorisation of communities as ‘minorities’ perpetuates notions of imagined discrimination and victimhood; it reinforces the perception of the ‘minority’ identity as separate from the national identity’ in a section title ‘Minority Communities’. This slip indicates that the defining reality of India is its being a symphony of minorities along differing dimensions. Forging of majorities therefore should not, and hopefully cannot, be on lines of religion as the BJP seeks. Its effort in this direction is laid bare from the last section of the manifesto detailing measures for ‘Preserving our Cultural Heritage’.

The manifesto indicates that secularism continues as an embattled concept. Giving secularism a fresh lease of life requires a judicious and informed exercise of the vote.