Appearing from Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Muzaffarabad & Quetta
Saturday, July 4, 2009, Rajab 10, 1430

  Active Visitors: 136
  Total Hits: 29318877
  Since June, 2007

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

Over is humiliation of Nation

9 Feb 2009 -- It is impossible this week for any Pakistani columnist to ignore the great event which took place on Friday 7th February in Islamabad. National hero, and father of Pakistan’s “nuclear bomb” as the enemies said was granted freedom of movement as a free citizen This was a brave and patriotic judgment by the Islamabad High Court .

The frail and clearly bearing the signs of official harassment of 4 years under Musharruf regime clearly made Dr Khan look an oppressed person. This is the price he gave for making the country safe from the Indian military juggernaut at the hands of the former COAS General Musharruf , a token of his appreciation of Dr Khan’s national service. Pity looking at his visibly tortured existence in “house arrest” by his saddened face one could look what international gangsterism can do to weak nations through its puppets put in power or kept on chair by the blessing of foreign masters. However, it goes to the credit of Nawa-e-Waqt to have kept the question of release alive through an unending campaign That in freedom he has to have security protection should not be considered as a conditional freedom of movement. Dr Khan is a national hero whom Islam hating powers Would like to make zero that is assassinate him if they cannot kidnap him . The CIA had just got Obama’s approval for what the press said “kidnapping” of aliens in America’s hit list. The fact is that CIA, according to American books on CIA, is authorized with President’s permission to assassinate aliens on their list. Dr Khan is surely on that list. It is as simple a knowledge in this regard as two plus two make four. He has to move under security arrangements lest he finds himself in an American jail like Gauntanmo Bay torture cell. Those papers who have tried to make this great event less than what it means are mentioning much of the Annex and all that’.

That this judgment had made the anti-Pakistan powers, and all those who had been pleased to talk of Islamic Bomb for Pak nuclear bomb are most unhappy over the event, the decision to give Dr Khan the treatment of a free citizen. As the pro-West press in its under statement reported, under playing the unhappiness of the West over the event, Dr Khan’s release has irked West, in fact it has made them levid with anger. But their “irk” will become manifest in the Western press reporting band editorials. India is a lost case now by over playing its hands over the Mumbai incident. It will join the Western chorus in full swing.

What the anti-Pak nuclear lobby has up their sleeves will be known in a few days time. Thus we have to be careful that the experts in kidnapping and assassination are not upto their tricks now. But please let there be no apologists in the Government on thos decision Their hue and cry over Pak N-assets becoming available to “terrorist” will become shriller. But let them rest assured that if and when the terrorists want to steal the nuclear assets they would find Indian first , Israel second and US third , easier targets for stealing the nuclear assets from there. If eight terrorists could immobilized Mumbai, if the Twin Towers destruction could be done easily, stealing the nuclear secrets from these countries could be their first choice Not Pakistan. Of course unless the foreign cut outs operating under the garb of Taleban in FATA etc are used. They are already being used in destruction of girls school as I was told by some knowledgeables in unofficial media.

There were two other events which were land marks of the week, the Gaza Seminar in the IPS with Senator Professor Khurshid’ Presiding and the Kashmir Solidarity Day Seminar at the Institute of Strategic Studies .

The presentations were of high standard in many respects. Regarding the Gaza Seminar, two presentations which added to the knowledge of the participants were of General Aslam Beg and Asst Professor Nazir of Quaid e Azam University. Normally, else where experts at such events are persons who have a first hand knowledge of the area or region who have stayed in the region and known dramatis personae or the main characters involved in the situation. Dr Nazir perhaps did not have that area knowledge yet he was upto the mark. He presented a micro-view of the recent 22 days Israeli barbarity in Gaza, apathy of the Arab Rulers as if they wanted Hamas to be eliminated and the Arab rulers and Israel had parallel policy towards Hamas.

General Aslam Beg presented what can be called the macro view of Isareli war in Gaza. He presented a novel vision of military expert on the region. . His synthesis of historic nexus was on the pattern of Arnauld Toynby’s famous “ Study of History”. He based it on two coordinates history and geography and began with the events which have been unfolding beginning with Seige of Vienna in 1683 , and brought it upto the break up of the Ottoman Empire and 1917 Balfour Declaration. He paid tribute to Hamas that during all this war it did not show white flag despite Israeli brute force of air and tanks. In fact he said Hamas was the victor of the Gaza War this time. It was pointed out that neither the Senate nor National Assembly in their Resolutions on Gaza asked for War Crimes on use of white phosphorus by the Israelis on Gaza nor on slaughter of the children who were one third of the casualty nor of the innocent Civilains. Condoning or over looking such atrocities on which voices were raised in the West but none in the Muslim World is to say the least most unfortunate .

In fact I should say the great Revolutions of modern history like French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Mao’s Revolution and now the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan are indication in the direction History is full of final resting place of Great Powers as Paul Kennedy seems to conclude in his book on the subject. One would wish General Beg to publish his presentation as an article in an English paper what he called the message of the Battle of Gaza.

As regards the Kashmir Solidarity Day Seminar at ISS , it was in a way a disappointment that the worthies whose names were given as speakers did not turn up except may be three illustrious political figures This is not unusual for Pakistani politicians. They either arrive very late or not. When I was ambassador to Cairon and Jakarta I found Suharto and Sadat punctual to the dot. But Pakistani politician is a vadera and arrogance is part of its psyche. However, the standard of the presentation was quite satisfactory in some cases in some laudable.

It was said that there have been 120 rounds of talks between Pakistan and India on Kashmir and nothing came out of them. Composite dialogue was also not helpful in this connection. The bilateral or even multilateral talks on Kashmir remained in the context of Conflict Management and none for Conflict Resolution. Even Musharruf’s proposal to find a solution out of box produced nothing in fact it diluted Pakistan’s traditional stand of seeking implementation of UN Resolution. Surprisingly, while stressing on the failure of UN Resolution on Kashmir none of the worthies noted that neither Resolutions on Palestine nor Kashmir were passed under Chapter VII of UN Charter which are binding and enforceable by UN Security Council. It is astonishing that UN SC Resolutions on none of the Muslim causes or problems have ever been passed under Chapter VII.

The conclusion drawn from it was that bilateral talks have been tried but produced nothing. It was mentioned that whenever any concrete movement forward seemed possible it was always through third party intervention not through bilateral talks. A view was presented that this time an urgency has been felt for resolving the issue because President Obama is pushing the idea forward in the context of eliminating the causes of terrorism . This means that Kashmir is being seen by outsiders in the context of achieving peace in the region and elimination of global terrorism.

This is a new approach away from the old approach. A Kashmiri speaker reminded that India was also committing atrocities like Gauntanamo Bay Jail at Papa I and Papa II centers in Occupied Kashmir.However, it need be suggested that the present system of rationing the discussions by the experts who attend these Seminars should be reviewed. Limiting it to one question may as well be done away with.

Sad yet true

2 February 2009

Are we a failed State ? No not at all – for just try to undo Pakistan and Pakistanis will defend its existence by blood, it’s people are patriotic to the core , it has resources, it has even a large fund of skilled people and experts, men and women both. It can take its rightful place in the world. It is potentially a regional heavy weight . Yet, irony of the situation is that its leadership has failed to deserve being called leadership. They turn out to be self seekers, ruling by looting the country and forming an inner circle in which they share the loot, share power by making unlimited number of ministers, advisers , governors, putting nincompoops on top positions, the only qualification they have for being where they are is their nearness to the supreme loot distributor. etc. If you belong to his family every thing is open to you. You name it. It is dynastic rule called democracy.

Pakistan had failed leaderships after failed leaderships, if not failed democracies and its leaders are no more than – one would fail to describe them as any thing like a mafia, a group of tricksters. Although our people are very intelligent but when it comes to voting at national elections, they repeat the same mistake. They would elect hundred times tried and failed groups and bring them to power. It is a failed government, failed system, and the surprising thing is that each time polls are held, the same set of faces are put into the country’s leadership. I suppose people have a democratic yarning for the corrupt, tricksters, card sharpeners, glib cheaters who love to make fool of the people. Every day, more than yesterday, the masses love to repeat the same mistakes but excels in it far more than it was before.

Every powerful one treats the Constitution as a piece of paper, that is rejects to play the game according to the rules. The penchant in our leaders and persons in power is to disrespect rules and law. To them they are meant for the weak not for the power elite. Sacrifice is a forgotten word or deleted from their dictionary. Rule, regulation, Constitution, even promises are meant to be broken , which is the translation of the phrase what is the hurry, indeed they will be fulfilled- on doomsday after all you can wait that long. Only in the last days of the Ottoman Empire foreign powers controlled the rulers, and had the run of best of every thing. The shadow game of power through puppets was played in those days in Turkey. The Sultan was just a nominee of foreign powers and they had a say in selecting the successors. In France before the French Revolution all institutions had become mere names without substance, I believe Voltaire had written a satire describing how each institution was stuffed with incompetent and unqualified people who got the cake because they were just in the favorite circle Poor Plato, he said that when democracy is sick it becomes mobocracy, just to describe a system as democratic does not mean it is the beneficial rule of the people. In justice Plato said the large juries only made greater number of people who were to be bribed.. The quality of leaders matter. Saints and angels do not come to politics, or become “leaders”, they have some frailties and love for power and money when they become politicians. Yet here in our country, corruption is the unwritten law which governs every thing with a stout declaration of loyalty to democracy. Our politicians loudly proclaim that they have given so much sacrifices for democracy which means that they now want to cash whatever they conceive was their sacrifice, and having come to power after so much power-starvation they are going to cash their “sacrifices”. This claim of giving sacrifices while they were in wilderness of power mean now have patience till they enrich themselves. It is their right.!

Yesterday a youngster around 35, astonished me by remarking that perhaps now Pakistanis are the most backward people in education and technology in the world. He said if we compare ourselves in education, science, technology we are most backward in the second and third world even. The standards of our universities are very low compared to all these countries. Our Medical schools are no better, the level of students our universities are producing is low, our scientists of course have been terrorized by America by making A Q Khan an example for them, we can do nothing in any field because the Americans will frustrate our technical persons, our throats have been stifled by the Americans, we can at best be a low second class state as American wish us to be.

He said look at the Chinese, the Hindus, the Japanese, the Singaporeans, or the Jews, we cannot compare ourselves with them. He asked me were we so all along. I replied no, in the 60s and 70s we were counted as up and coming people in all fields. We were providing technical assistance to the Middle East, Africa. Our banks, shipping, airlines, pilots, soldiers were the best in this part of the world. That era is gone now we are beggars, most backward, the least respected people of the Third world and even in the Third world. This is now our standing in Asia and Africa. He asked me why do we need financial aid all the time. I told him that in Ayub Era the “Aid” was utilized for development purposes and we built Mangla, Dam, Tarbella Dam, established factories and industry with it but later we asked it for spending on fancy life style of the rulers and their inner circle. To have a regiment of ministers, another regiment of Advisers, give them royal perks. Perhaps today we have the largest number of ministers etc, in our government compared to any country. We are creating a record in being the most expensive government in the world in terms of numbers and keeping them satisfied through grant of all kinds of facilities, etc.

They always find an alibi for their misdeeds. Bureaucracy did this thing wrong and that thing wrong, they spoilt Pakistan’s success in democracy. Yet there had been Liaquat, Ayub Khan, ZAB and to some extent Nawaz Sharif who had put Pakistan on the world map. ( Quaid died in one year after Pakistan’s creation) Look at the value of our currency and its worth in foreign exchange, for the value of a currency is a good barometer of a country’s standing in the world, Pak Rupee was 3.25 to a dollar in Liaquat’s days , to 5 to a dollar in Ayub’s, 7 rising to Rs 10 in ZAB’s Rs 18 to Rs 30 in Nawaz Sharif’s first government, Rs 30 in his second government, and now Rs 80 to a dollar. Pakistan has lost its primacy in the Muslim world, now Friends of Pakistan need an encouragement from UN to help Pakistan. As low as this we have come down.

Will they – whoever those “they” may be take notice of where Pakistan has slipped in every thing. Should they not worry about it and plan to recover its rightful place unstead of milking the country to fill their coffers. Is it oligarchy or democracy?

Please this is not Islam

28 January 2009

When we the generation which made Pakistan, the students in their teens who formed the spear head of the Pakistan Movement, chanting on the roads, ley ke rahingey Pakistan, Bat ke rahey ga Hindustan, - take we will our Pakistan, make we will our Pakistan- we had unshakeable confidence in ourselves, sure of the place we wanted to give to our dreamland in the world comity of nations, proud, strong, self reliant, hoping that Pakistan will write a new history of glory of Muslims. As Iqbal said when the soul of falcon is awaken in the youth, they see their destiny as high as sky. We did wonders in making a new state out of almost zero, the towns of Karachi, Lahore, Pindi were small, no roads, no industry, no electricity worth the name, only one university in Lahore, no schools, etc, no this, no that thing- go on counting of no this thing and no that thing. We made it a country, we wanted to be competitive with the Hindus, the West, the advanced countries of the world. We did well initially. We were then united. Now there are very few common values among all sections of society. There are no common leaders. Common man is leaderless, at national level. .

Now it seems we are a lost people, no pride in our selves, do not know where we are going, no goals, dithering away, not sure of our tomorrow subservient living on IMF and foreign charity . There is utter confusion. Nation is divided. There are two classes, the extremists and the pliant puppets of foreign powers. Disunited on the goals, what we are what we want to be. Look at the killing spree the destruction of our Northern areas, the devastation of Swat- Swat is burning, northern areas are burning, lost people burning the cradles of learning, all in the name of Islam. Is it Islam? Every teaching of Islam is being disrespected. Islam says if you kill one innocent it is like killing the whole humanity. I will only take the most important matter of national concern today ; the move to deny education, modern education as well as Pakistani studies - education, schools education of boys and girls which is at the alter of sacrifice, and strangely in the name of Islam. I hang my head in pain and in shame. I might explain that I have studied both Arabic language and Quran and Hadith from third class primary to undergraduate classes. I have some knowledge of the subject I am writing on and not a foreign oriented person in culture or knowledge It happens that I was educated in Islamic schools and institutions, learnt Arabic language from third elementary class, it was compulsory with teaching of the Holy Quran and Hadith right from the third elementary in Jamia Millia Islamia . I went to Aligarh University, that citadel of Islamic modernism and custodian of Muslim values and culture. There teaching of Islamic fiqh , the book of Quduri, was compulsory and passing examination in Islamic subjects was essential for promotion to the next class. . They judged us leniently in fiqh because they merely wanted us to know what Islamic values and traditions were and not to let these subjects stand in our way for higher learning of science and arts, literature and medicine, etc. So when I say what is happening in Swat and Northern areas it is not Islam I have some idea of Islamic injunctions and ahadith sharif and the Holy Quran, and Islamic history, culture and traditions. In our part of the world female education was not unknown. My mother, who was a daughter of an orthodox father, a sufi, went to St John’s Girls Student in Agra in the early twentieth century like my father went to Oxford and Lincoln’s Inn but knew Arabic and Persian like he knew English . Girls of my family were well educated, to be a B A in those days was nothing strange. My sister who died at 80 or so two years ago was an M A Economics and a student of Raana Liaquat Ali Khan who was professor of economics at Inder Prastha Girls College Delhi befor marrying Liaquat- the first Prime minister. Girls of my family observed Islamic injunctions despite all this modern education.

Imagine, in Aligarh University the Ahadis, sayings of the Holy Prophet exhorting Muslims to seek knowledge were engraved on prominent places in the university “ Seek knowledge even if it be in China”, “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave” and “Acquiring knowledge is compulsory for every Muslim man and Muslim Woman” ( muslimin and Muslimatin) . Imagine what these ahadiths sharif told the Muslims. First acquiring knowledge was compulsory for both, man and woman, not optional, not that it is useful if Muslims men and women acquire knowledge but “farizatun” or no way you could ignore it. It need be reminded that the first Ayat of Quran, Al Alaq the very first word of the ayat revealed on the Holy Prophet SAWS begins with Divine Order “ Read” Iqra, In the name of Allah who created you from a blood clot, taught by the pen, taught man what he did not know. The Holy Quran says “ Nun, and by the pen, and what they writ” Learning is enjoined by the Holy Quran on all Muslims.

Go to China if necessary to seek knowledge or for learning. It meant wide scope on acquiring wisdom from where ever it could be gathered, no prohibition since you would reject your self if it is un-Islamic and accept if it is not in conflict with Islam. Obviously China in the days of Holy Prophet SAWS would be from Saudi Arabia. May be to travel to China from Saudi Arabia must have been as difficult as today from Earth to moon. Seek knowledge , seek from childhood to old age , no closing the doors of learning and compulsory both for men and women. In the days of the Holy Prophet, SAWS, prisoners of war in battles with Muslims, could earn their liberty just by teaching ten Muslim elementary reading and writing. This was the value the Holy Prophet SAWS gave to education for Muslims.. It was his programe of adult education for illiterate Muslims. Nor in early Islamic days education was denied to women. It is said that there were very learned women in early days of Islam in Arabia itself like Rabia Basri and quite a few others among whose pupils had been well known Muslim male scholars. In early Abbaside Caliphs Baghdad became a center of knowledge and under a Translation Bureau set up in that city the old greek books were translated by experts knowing Greek and siryani through whom the Greek wisdom was transferred to Europe. There are case in later history when the Roman Emprors sent envoys to Baghdad and Istanbul to get a copy of those books.

The Renaissance in Europe started through these books . In twelth century it is said that in Paris and Padua universities Arabic was the medium of instruction. One need not go to Andulus or Islamic Spain to talk of the various disciplines of knowledge, medicine, surgery, astronomy mathematics which were acquired by the west from there. The glory of a people is not just in conquests and use of sword but knowledge as well.

Now, if the Taleban are destroying the schools and destroying Girls schools and closing the doors of knowledge on female students are they obeying the Holy Prophet SAWS or defying his teachings.? Can a Muslim reject what the holy Prophet commanded the Muslims to do, not as optional but as compulsory duty? What reply they would be able to give to the Holy Prophet on the Day of Judgment. why they closed the doors of knowledge on Muslim women.? I read that about 40,000 students have been deprived of education in Swat as their schools have been destroyed by the Taleban . If someone destroys the schools or the center of teaching and learning how would the young Muslims both male and female learn knowledge. If the places from where education is imparted are destroyed it seems it would be an impediment in education. The injunction of the Holy prophet to acquire knowledge will be frustrated. A Muslim should create circumstances in which the injunctions of the Holy Prophet SAWS can be acted upon. Not make it impossibole to comply with the Holy injunctions. To destroy the schools would be contrary to the Holy Prophet’s ( SAWS) instructions. In fact it would be disregarding the Holy Prophet’s (SAWS) instructions. Would it not be doing exactly opposite to what the Holy Prophet SAWS asked the Umma to do. If they destroy the places of learning then how education can be impart3ed to the male and female students? The Muslims will become backward and by getting advanced the other peoples would make Muslims their slaves. Do we want to make us subservient?

I am inclined to think that these are not true Taleban or are they foreign elements who have infiltrated among the genuine Taleban.? It is surprising that no one in the responsible positions in the Governmnet has at all spoken on this subject drawing attention to these holy injunctions. In speaking of the Holy Prophet’s injunctions the leaders and the media should quote exactly the words of the Hadith in Arabic so they carry weight with the Taleban quoting the sorces of these Hadith and other religious injunctions. Much of our common man does not read news papers and much less English newspapers. Perhaps private TV channels should start a program on this subject which would take the message to the Taleban and the common man in Swat and Northern Areas. This program should be repeated to reach wide circle. It is surprising that Sherry Rahman whose elders founded Sindh Madrasatul Islam Karachi , as I understand, where my father was educated upto High School, has not quoted a single Hadith in support of educating female even those few I have mentioned above. .

There are many learned persons, scholars like Ghamdi, Dr Zaman, Mahmoud Ghazi who can help in putting across the message of the Holy Prophet SAWS in regard to female education. It is an elementary principle that one speaks the same language with a person whom one wants to convince which he understands. With Taleban quoting the Holy Quran and Hadith and Islamic authorities is necessary when convincing them about a certain view point. But the persons should carry conviction with them because of their standing in Islamic traditions.

Miliband’s visit to Subcontinent

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

19 January 2009

It would be agreed that on 20th January, one day after this column is published , George Bush would cease to be US President. This would be one of the most welcome news all over the world. If history would record the names of most notorious of the American Presidents , George Bush would take the same slot among the US Presidents as Al-Capone took among the Chicago Gangsters. Bush’s destruction of Iraq on false pretexts, killing of about a million innocent Iraqis, death and destruction in Afghanistan, and his parting gift of supporting and underwriting the Israeli massacre of children and women in Gaza are his outstanding “achievements”. In Muslim history his name would be placed with Chengiz Khan, one who sacked Baghdad in 1298. Bush launched the Fifth Crusade under the label of ‘War on Terror’.

But one thing should be said in his favour he turned Muslim rulers as his compliant accessory in his war on Muslims; his Guntanamo Bay Prison, Abu Gharib Jail atrocities or Stalag Bush, , his use of third degree torture in interrogation, whisking away suspects from foreign countries, kidnappings of innocents like Dr Afia Siddiqui, her torture, reported making a video of naked Afia Siddiqi by jail guards,. denial of human rights, will remain irremovable spots on American record. They make him a neo- Nazi. Gone to the alley of ignobles of history, is Bush where he would rest After all in a family there have to be a villan. No one in the wide world would remember him with good words. As some one said about his end “Good riddance”

While the West had earned the dirtiest image in Bush’s era of atrocities, the sole exception to the long list of unwelcome Western visitors, typified by Boucher, has been one exception in the recent past – that of the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband , who visited India and is now in Pakistan. Since he is not one of the old foxes, it seems he has displayed younger generation’s desire to have a peaceful world. It seems there is a realization that a war in South Asia can have disastrous effects on the world situation.

His statements on Mumbai gruesome, abominable tragedy were different from the American visitors and with an open mind. His statement on the need for resolution of Kashmir dispute and now on war on terror have brought fresh air in the stale and stuffy diplomatic era of Bush diplomacy. One must say grudgingly that once a while one witnesses integrity among the Britons, a quality which has not altogether went under to diplomacy in that country altogether not always. I might be wrong but it seems that in Europe this quality is generally becoming too rare. Perhaps the Swedish had it at one time, but I do not know whether they still have it. Canada too is very different from American colonialist attitudes; there is an inclination not to see world problems from American perspective wholly. These are personal observations of an ancient mariner of diplomacy. One may say that I am indulging in over generalization. Forgetting the ramblings of an old diplomat, I would come direct to the current scene

Miliband has made three statements which have a fresh approach on this region, the Mumbai tragedy and abominable blasts which has worrisome implications for South Asia, because if there is a war between India and Pakistan, its consequences will be felt all over Asia and Europe and the so-called war on terror will be boosted many fold. Thus he correctly conveyed Indian feelings on this matter to Pakistan and correctly assessed that the issue of handing over to India the suspects in Pakistan for trial is a matter of Indian politics to try to humiliate Pakistan rather than holding a fair enquiry into the matter that is trial of the suspects involved in the Mumbai blasts. This is not the role the Americans have been playing. Then his understanding of the centrality of resolution of the Kashmir dispute in eliminating ‘terrorism’ in the region and the incorrect perspective of the war on terrorism. His statement that “ I understand the current difficulties, the resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.

About the war on terror he said that “we must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, for it is the corner stone of the democratic society . We must uphold our commitment to human rights and civil liberties at home and abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guntanamo and it is why we welcome President elect Obams’ commitment to close it.”

These ideas do show a little light at the end of the tunnel. For this concept is devoid of power play It reflects the rule of civilized values which under Bush Era had been forgotten. He indicated that he had divided the world into those who were within the pale of law and civilized values and the other world- the Muslim world- which was out of the pale of this civilized circle. This is where the whole outrage had come from.

Actually the seeds of terrorism as the word goes in the west are in the war for occupation of some targeted countries- Iraq, Afghanistan and the oil belt plus subordination of the Muslim world. I am quite firm in my assessment as a diplomat of long experience that once the problem of occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan is tackled and withdrawal of NATO and US Occupation forces begins in quick gradual time, Pakistan and the region will witness a decrease in terrorism and FATA will move towards normalcy. Miliband’s ideas can certainly provide a healthy beginning in solution of ‘terrorism’ problem.

I am putting the word terrorism in inverted comas because it is a highly loaded word and has offensive connotation. It is a matter of action followed by reaction like Newton’s Third Law of Motion, that is every action is followed by a reaction, opposite in direction but equal in magnitude. It would be worth trying the suggestion made in this article. If Miliband’s suggestion is really implemented it is possible much progress on the expected lines can take place. Honest intentions and not lip service is required to test what results can be obtained from it. Nonetheless, this idea cannot be the total solution, Solution is some steps beyond this formula but Miliband’s idea is a positive thinking even though not entire solution . Indian fulminations over his statement are understandable, Who in possession of a property illegally gives up willingly,

The other positive visit seems to have been of the Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Maqran , The manner he was received by the leaders of each and every political party head indicated the respect Saudi Arabia enjoys in the heart of every Muslim. Khadim el Haramain el Sharifen is a magic word and since every Muslim owes loyalty to the Haramain it’s representatives always receive an unusual response. No other country’s top personalities could have received that response from all factions in the country as Prince Maqran did. Blood is thicker than water of course but Islamic bond to the land of the Holy Places is supreme. There were some healthy events in this week, but the internal situation continues to cause concern. As also the Israeli killing spree being under license by Bush is a matter of agony to the people, not only in Pakistan but in entire Muslim world. Such blood baths when continue cannot extinguish ‘terrorism ‘ even with a perfectly good idea like that of Miliband. UK must do something to immediately stop this carnage. It is making Muslims wild with rage.

It is an unbelievable chickenry to accept a cease fire and continue to keep you troops in the country. Over clever Israelis will pay for all this one day with compound interest. They are reinforcing the believe that they are an unacceptable graft in the region by massacre of children, women and shedding streams of blood in Gaza. One can count it as a good beginning but not the end.

Diplomatic themes

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

14 January 2009

There were a number of events of diplomatic contents which have in the last week received considerable attention and evinced comments, three of them in particular, viz., giving national decoration of Hilals to two Americans Boucher- which thanks to a lady columnist from America is a French name meaning the boucher, or Qassab, and the other to US Vice President Joe Biden , and the sacking of the National Security Adviser Mahmoud Durrani. I should first begin with the two criticisms with which any diplomatic analyst would agree which is the Boucher affair and the sacking of National Security Adviser. First General Mahmoud Durrani’s affair. Perhaps he was a wrong choice as National Security Adviser, as he did not have that experience about international security matters which the appointment required and I said so in a column right after he was so appointed. That he had been Pak Ambassador to Washington was not a happening that could be counted as a plus. To be graced with a top assignment as a fluke or when of the Dame of Fortune smiled does not make one worthy of attention. The battle field experience is not the same qualification which a National Security Adviser need.

It is a soldier’s experience not an experience of an expert in global security strategy which needs experience of international diplomacy, economics and diplomatic moves on global chess board not of a battle field. I had then suggested as a possibility for this job my former colleague Iqbal Akhund who had been even Foreign Minister in Benazir Government after having served as Pak Representative to the UN and Ambassador to Paris, His performance in the UN was counted superb by his contemporaries in the UN. I remember that at one time during Yahya Days in the war games he had participated in the GHQ war game, as an expert from the Foreign Office. Besides the lack of the qualifications for the job, and besides his reported links with US the point is that he did embarrass the Prime Minister, and “the Government” by not clearing what is just as an exaggeration called in the policy planners’ parlance an earth shaking news and thus caused extraordinary embarrassment to Pakistan by different people speaking differently. Nothing makes a government look more disjointed than such an event. It made Pakistan look indulging in lies when one major partner in power says no, and the other says yes to a controversial fact. This was unpardonable and Gillani acted with the speed to eliminate this root of duality in the Government which visibly it seemed so. Churchill had said a prime Minister must be a good boucher that is must quickly kill the undesirable cabinet members. In any case we the old type diplomats believe that we can have no two masters but one and loyalty to the supreme interests of the country is absolute and dedication to its objectives, particularly its honour and retaining good image of the country is supreme duty. I do not know the gentleman, he might be a very decent person but to be competent person in the job another. As regards granting national honours to foreigners, three things are main consideration in doing so. Do the national agencies agree that the person deserve the award, have they been consulted, technically the President is the competent authority but the President in consultation with the Foreign Affairs, and other agencies which might have the record on the foreigner might be asked to the proposal. President of a state cannot act just on his own whim, likes or dislikes, he is the nation in taking this decision. Honouring Boucher with Hilal-e-Quaid-i-Azam was a little too much besides the criticism already made on the count that he is not of the rank to be given Hilal. He technically falls under the category of Sitara if the Foreign Office had agreed. Further normally such decorations are given on the final end of a mission. He was going to India from here on his mission, he is still on the job, in the process and there was bno reason why he should have been given this award. It was not a correct decision and surely a political personality should have known what will be the reaction in the country on “knighting” Boucher. It was an unwise decision and national honours should not be kept in a basket ready to be bestowed on any one who visits Pakistan and calls on the President. To begin with his calling on the President is not correct. He is a mere joint secretary equivalent. His counterpart in the Foreign Office is a Director general.

Coming to Joe Biden, I am afraid the criticism on granting his this award is unjustified. He is Vice President ( to be after a few days) of the US and had come in that capacity, not as a senator, It is normal to honour such high visitors. He had been friendly to Pakistan whatever an American has been nowadays. To criticize decorating him with this ward was bad taste because we are unnecessarily rejecting the good will of an important American leader.

No, there should have been no criticism of awarding him the Hilal. It was justified to grant him the Hilal. We should be careful with our criticism where the traditions of a host of a friendly leader of an important country is concerned. Diplomacy is in winning persons, and not annoying those who have been friendly to us.

South Asia becoming wasteland?

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

5 January 2009

It seems that India is still in a bellicose mood and the option of a surgical strike has not yet been given up. There is still some itch in their palm . As I said in a presentation at the Shura-e-Hamdard, the plans of foreign powers, US and Israel to encourage India to strike Pakistan seem to have failed. India’s own initial over reaction to the blitzkrieg like terrorist operation in Mumbai was understandable because it had humiliated India badly. Just a few commando terrorists taking one of the largest cities in the world and paralyzing it for over 72 hours must have made Indian and their government leaders lewd with intense anger that such a security lapse could take place and their mighty armed forces and police were made totally zero in handling the situation for so much time.

In such rage they lost their balance and talked all kinds of rubbish, particularly Parnab Mukerji, the Foreign Minister. The Israelis obviously got their opportunity in India’s soft state to turn it against Pakistan. Their aim remains to destroy Pakistan’s military might and its nuclear assets, and US wanted to let India attack Pakistan to demonstrate Indian supremacy in the region and have a partner in crime in violating Pak air space and striking Pakistan from the air and make Pakistan see its inferiority vis a vis India militarily. Indian demands that it hand over the person it named as the suspect, which was to demonstrate its- India’s – superiority over Pakistan. A greater power demands a foreign to hand over its nationals to the power which has been harmed by its nationals. Indian objections were two, to brow beat Pakistan and demonstrate to the world that Pakistan can be ordered about by India and Pakistan obeys its dictates.

The American comings and goings between India and Pakistan were to persuade Pakistan to submit to Indian demands. Rumours have it that the Americans had advised Pakistan that if India strikes Pakistan , Pakistan may not react to them. Here I might describe India’s sticking to the initial understandable wild reaction as a great mistake in letting its reaction colour its bellicosity towards Pakistan even after the dust had settled. India had two options: cooperative attitude or a adopt bellicosity towards Pakistan.- to put blame on Pakistan, ask it to hand over tom India “some people said to be in Pakistan” without giving any proof of their involvement in the terrorism That was to make Pakistan a country that can be ordered about by India. , and setting deadlines for handing over the alleged Pakistani terrorists to India , and set a certain deadline 26th December 2008 was not wisdom, and talking of “all options” open was a folly.

This was an over reaction, when neither Pakistan nor Pakistanis had any sympathy for terrorists and sympajhized with Mumbai people . India had experienced only a bit of such terrorism whereas for Pakistan it had been a running sore Pakistan had suffered far more the consequences of terrorism than India or for that matter any country except American devastated Afghanistan and Iraq. If it was easy for Pakistan to eliminate the terrorists then it would have done so in its own interest and would do so. Unless Sardar Manmohan Sigh was under some influence of wrong time to talk about it, he should have recognized that Pakistan’s own interests would take immediate priority for Pakistan than India’s sufferings.

This was a golden opportunity for India to establish a South Asia Anti-Terrorist Network if India had joined hands with Pakistan in a joint investigation without indulging in blaming Pakistan. . This was a test for India’s sincerity in CBMs and the comprehensive peace process . Instead India went berserk on the issue and setting back the CBM process for it showed that India was paying only lip service to the CBM and not sincere about them. The point is where do we go from here: I think some basic points should be understood: Going to war will be disasterous for the two N-powers.

It would in fact be a great folly. Any misadventure by India will lead to unforeseen consequences. Surgical strike would not be tolerated. People of Pakistan do not war and would wish and prefer peaceful cooperation with India. Only if war is thrust on them there will be matching reaction from them in retaliation not of their choice. Indian masses should appreciate that a war would destroy South Asia for at least for fifty years making it a waste land. All development will be destroyed. It will be no sense at all. Pakistan in conventional war power is not India’s equal and its equalizer is only N-option, use of which will be grand folly for the peoples of South Asia. Moreover, it may be said that if eight or so terrorists can paralyze Mumbai, they can also steal India’s nuclear assets and use them on India. So even if Pakistan does not go for use of its own N-options, the terrorists stolen nuclear option can be counted in India as Pakistan’s work and a N-war can be witnessed.

Moreover, if India attacks Pakistan and Pakistan starts having reverses on the major battle fields, like Lahore or in Azad Kashmir, then the Taleban and al –Quaida can have a field day in unleashing suicide bombers in India, Taleban or Al-Quaida indulging in massive guerrilla warfare in Indian rear. If Indians had walk over on some major front in Pakistan, its repercussions can be very, very serious then the threat can be an unleashing of a civilizational war between the combatants after the normal chain of command is weakened or disturbed even in Pakistan. Let South Asia not commit suicide by a war between India and Pakistan. Much is on stake in South Asia.

Wisdom demands that we reject the war option and hope that Pakistan’s self respecting attitude and reasonable stance will prevail that the two countries jointly investigate the facts but handing over of Pakistanis is out of the question. They can be tried in Pakistan. . There are no hot heads on this matter in Pakistan but it is for the Indian people also to assert adoption of cooperative approach on terrorism between India and Pakistan. May peace prevail and South Asia not witness any holocaust.

The Indo-American game plan

Comment
Dr. Samiullah Koreshi

16 December 2008

LET us not confuse two sides of the Mumbai terrorist incident , the humans tragedy , which is undeniable in no uncertain words, and it was in no uncertain terms condemned by all walks of life in Pakistan. This was the immediate reaction in Pakistan. And there is the other side which is the exploitation of a human tragedy for a diplomatic game- the exploitation of the event by USA mainly and to some extent by some western powers. This is most unfortunate fishing in the troubled waters. As a human being one cannot but condemn the tragic incident, but as a diplomat or having been a diplomat of long standing I cannot as a Pakistan help to expose this diplomatic game. What is the game?

As regards India while the shock its leadership must have felt cannot be doubted even a bit. The entire machinery was humiliated like never before. Their intelligence, security, police all were found most incompetent. Just a few persons could shake up a huge country like India. First and foremost India felt totally incompetent in elementary security precautions. Just a handful bravados could sneak into one of the largest cities in the world, make it their hostage! The entire law and order security and intelligence paraphernalia was defrocked . How strange. I will not dilate much on this failure in India’s own security machinery. Indian Government, in New Delhi and in Mombai were humiliated and shamed. From this situation they were so unnerved that they went on the line which was most lacking wisdom and cool headedness. They went on pinning the blame on Pakistan which could have been understandable had they not had Pakistan’s Foreign Minister in New Delhi – surely no Government would be so silly as to time the visit of its Foreign Minister to a foreign country which it was targeting or knew was going to face a holocaust by “its own nationals”.

Moreover a few days earlier President of Pakistan had entered into a dialogue with Indian think tank like civil society, in a language of warm friendship as never before either by any Indian or Pakistani and that too in a very, very friendly tone.

This had not come out of nothing. There was a long line of so-called comprehensive dialogue, confidence building measures, and a changed public opinion climate both in India and Pakistan. If some saber rattling was to be indulged by Indian leaders for a shadow boxing to compensate for Indian Governments public humiliation-found utterly lacking in a security system in one of the world’s biggest city but then India should have approached Pakistan to jointly investigate what happened , where the planning was done so meticulously successful. And a step further should have been taken in developing the Confidence building measures. India and Pakistan had an agreement on cooperation on anti-terrorism that mechanism should have been immediately put into action and Pak Foreign Minister should have been approached for joint investigation on purely bilateral frame work.

Instead Parnab Mukherjee more and Manmohan Singh next took the route which damaged the entire India Pakistan rapprochement. The Indian public in Mumbai which is the center of rabidly fundamentalist Hindu leadership of Bal Thakre went on its Pakistan bashing, Manmohan Singh went further in the wrong ally and Lo and Behold in no time a war hysteria took hold of India and its substantial anti-Muslim leadership to have the filed to itself. This torched the long process of confidence building between India Pakistan. It torched an over one decade long process of building bridges between India Pakistan.

It is quite obvious that going to war by India against Pakistan would be a disaster and use of novo fireballs called Nuclear weapons will even destroy what ever has been built in India and Pakistan. No sensible person knowingly would like to opt for this road to madness.

The line Manmohans Singh and Parnab Mukherjee have taken was based on two wrong assumptions: One that India is the new Super Power in Asia and will brow beat Pakistan into subordination, given its military juggernaut, economic development ( prosperity of India’s upper crust while utter poverty reigns in Orrisa, and Bihar etc, more than in Pakistan any where) and Pakistan society has an unpopular government, there is no national unity, it is a divided society etc. This is the moment to humiliate Pakistan. Show your muscles.

This provided US a golden opportunity to encourage India to be bellicose and make demands on Pakistan which it will find impossible to accept, and start a propaganda war against ISI shows it as villain of the piece. India thus instead of making this an opportunity to take its existing rapprochement to establish a closer anti-terrorist arrangement , went on the same road that it did in Indira Gandhi’s time of going round the whole world on the issue of return of East Pakistani Hindus to Pakistan . Instead of holding talks with Pakistan it internationalized the issue, because this issue was preplanned for a war on East Pakistan. Then the situation was not identical in so far as India Pak had not developed a favourable public climate among the masses in the two countries.

On US encouragement India went immediately to UNSC to brand certain organizations and persons as Terrorist etc. UNSC also obliged India- where US so want, its handmaiden UN obligingly submits- There are two implications of this acceptance of India’s complaint : Pakistan is a subordinate power to India , for Pakistan was not given any opportunity to present its point of view, as if India was suzerain of Pakistan. Any one who comes out with the apology that listening Pakistan was not necessary is trying to white wash the harm it has done to Pakistan. It is the principle of law that the affected party must be heard. Basic requirement. And obligingly we immediately bowed to the UNSC decision while I am sure that Pakistan did not even receive an authenticated text of the UNSC Resolution. Manmohan Singh has revived the feeling in Pakistan that Hindu India’s professions of friendship are like words written on the wind. No more Pakistanis will believe in India”s professions of friendship. The door is closed.

US immediately jumped into the fray on India’s side. Its drone attacks are highly criticized in Pakistan, Pakistan is still not vulnerable to India’s so-called military might, therefore if India at least makes aerial strikes on Pakistan on so called terrorist bases in where ever India’s vision has those bases in Pakistan, it would establish a principle in this region that such attacks can be allowed. India would become a partner in crime. Secondly Pakistan must be made to accept Indian hegemony and put in its place. All this going and coming of the familiar American emissaries is part of that game plan.

Pakistan has mainly acted wisely by not biting Indian bait. The one thing that happened after Indian bellicosity was that suddenly the shakey regime got an affirmation of support of genuine support from all parties, contrary to Indian calculations. The Armed Forces are ready to answer any Indian adventure. The Nation is solidly behind the Armed Forces. Pakistan would never accept Indian hegemony, suzerainty, or subordination, UN or no UN.

However, it is necessary to point out that the attitude of the leaders of the Government in issuing statements which should come from India’s side is baffling. They should not substitute Indian spokesmen like on the violation of Air Space by Indian planes. The statement that Indian planes violated the air space unknowingly should come from India not from our PM and President. This is for Indians to say not for our leadership. They should avoid doing so.

One thing I am puzzled about is why our leaders are silent about Indian and Israeli terrorism in Baluchistan and FATA. Why this charitable treatment of India. Why Jable us Siraj subversive activities against Pakistan are being put under a blanket. Why our authorities are being charitable to India terrorism in Pakistan? Why?

The sum and substance of the present scene is that while we need not llicose as Indians are, but it should be made absolutely clear that in case war is thrust on us we will reply it with full force, even withdrawing our troops from FATA and Tribal areas. Bhutto-ZAB’s- idea in going for a N-option was to acquire a “balancer” with India’s hordes in conventional power. When pressed in the field the balancer would not be kept in the basement .This is where it would be suicidal for South Asia to go to war.

The terrorists attack in Mumbai

Comment
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

29 November 2008,

The events in Mumbai have rightly attracted so much attention in Pakistan as it involved huge loss of life and injury of over 340 innocent persons. The Government and people of Pakistan have strongly condemned the terrorist operation in Mumbai. The entire tenor of coverage of Mumbai events by our private channels shows Pakistan’s expression of sympathy with the people of India, even on people to people basis not only on Government to Government basis..

Having said that one must pay tribute to our private TV channels for not only giving the Mumbai events so much objective coverage but specially for very incisive and enlightening discussions. They could do credit to the most well informed experts on international affairs and international law. They presented very balanced views and analysis of the situation, making the task of our otherwise not so well informed politicians easy .The TV did the nation the service a free and well informed Parliament could do. Every body made however two points: India should not make politics out of the terrorist attacks as Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said, and certainly not indulge in the blame game against Pakistan. No doubt India is going to have its elections soon and in an election year one can understand some irresponsibility from petty politicians but not from government leaders at the highest level.. Despite such forth right statements by the elected leadership in Pakistan condemnation of the terrorist operation, the Indian Foreign Minister Parnab Mukerji’s accusation naming Pakistan as implicated in the terrorist operation in Mumbai and Indian Prime Minister’s reference to the “neighbouring countries” as involved in these incidents leaves much to be desired in keeping with the new confidence building measures between the two countries. Most, most unfortunate response to the friendly understanding Pakistan has shown to India’s predicament. What a logic it was, when Pak Foreign Minister was in India for friendly negotiations accusing Pakistan to be involved in the incident is not a very intelligent response nor indication of understanding the new chapter Pakistan is desirous of opening with India. It means that while Pakistan wants friendship, India wants to spurn Pakistan’s good will which was visible to even most ordinary person.

At first glance the Mumbai operations seems to be an indigenous operation, planned by locals over a long time. How could outsiders have brought so much ammunition and grenade and logistic support to the most posh and thus the most well guarded premises? How could they have had full knowledge of the premises in which they operated if they were outsiders? Such heavy weight could not be carried in one day, etc. Then in India local home grown terrorism is on the rise. A number of secessionist movements are going on in India. If any body could be a partner to the terrorists it would be local administration of police and hotels. Hindu terrorism is also growing and can be cause of this incident.

Any how, to show friendliness to India to the extent permissible within international rules and law as an independent country is one thing and for Pakistan leaders to forget the limits upto which Pakistan can go to cooperate with India to help in enquiring the entire incident is another thing.. In this connection the instructions for the DG ISI to go to India and place himself at the disposal of the Indian authorities is incorrect. In this connection any expert of international law and diplomacy would agree with Gauher Ayub and Shirin Mazari that it is highly undesirable to unwittingly fall in the trap of sending DG ISI himself to go to India and place himself as an accused before the Indian authorities and the Indian press but more to the Western press who are already after the blood of ISI. This decision should be reviewed and any joint enquiry can be held subject to the condition that the DG ISI should not go to India to place himself at Indian disposal. For sending him to India can be misconstrued as an implied acceptance that ISI is involved in the Mumbai incident. In no country on no pretext DG ISI should be presented for cross examination. This is against the dignity of the state and ill advised and unbecoming of Pakistan to submit itself to foreign jurisdiction. I do understand the Joint Enquiry is one thing and cross examination is another, but it will be so twisted. The Investigation teams can meet in normal manner otherwise.

Knowing international law, I entirely agree with Shirin Mazari in this regard along with the justification she has given for not sending DG ISI to India. I join the experts who are not in favour of this decision to send him to India. DG ISI should not be sent to India.

Have no false hopes from Obama

Comment
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

09 November, 2008

NO DOUBT Barak Obama’s victory is a landmark in American history as also in world history. After the Slave Dynasty of eleventh century in Indian Muslim history,- a fact to which Irfan Siddiqui has alluded in his column in the Jang, - this is the first time in the West that a black man has become a President. It remains to be seen if US has finally jumped over the wall of racial prejudice, for there are still fanatic racists in US. One hopes and prays that he does not meet the fate of Abraham Lincoln, or John F Kennedy. If he does not, then it will be established that America has really changed. Nonetheless, it is a landmark in the history of modern civilization. The world has applauded Obama’s victory with glee, and jubilation, as if it was celebrating victory of higher human values over prejudices. Politically votes for Obama were also votes against Bush’s infamous policies since Obama’s slogan was “Change”. Yet it seems premature to say that Obama would discard Bush’s policies of bombardment of Tribal Areas of Pakistan and conquest of Afghanistan. If his pre election statements are any guide, his idea of change does not include changing Bush’s policy in these respects. Any optimism in this respect is very much premature-if not unjustified. People in the Muslim world have given too much to Hussain as part of his name, despite the fact that in his pre-election speeches he has stoutly denied his Muslim connection, and affirmed that he is a Christian. Possibility cannot be denied that to prove his break with Islam he might be put under pressure to prove it by sticking to Bush’s policies in certain respects and areas

It should be kept in mind that in America policy formulation is a complicated matter in which several institutions are involved, including Pentagon besides Senate. The core of Bush’s policy is in Pentagon where the hawks want to continue the policy of aerial bombardment over the Tribal Belt of Pakistan. Bush’s departure does not mean that those centres of bellicosity have disappeared.

The question “What would be Obama’s attitude towards the so-called War on terror” in Afghanistan-Pak tribal areas and counting Muslims as “terrorists” cannot be answered with certainty right now. We would have to wait and watch further developments. His pre-election statements were not very hopeful on any change of policy on Pakistan.. On Iraq it might be possible but on other matters of interest to Pakistan, the Middle East and War on Terror, nothing can be said with certainty yet.

Muslims are seeing too much in Obama’s African Muslim origins although he had repeatedly disowned his Muslim-ness during the election campaign. In fact the neo-con or like minded people may count this link as a negative factor and pressurize him to prove that he is as anti-Muslim as the neo-con were. If he decides to prove that he is not Muslim by acting tough with Pakistan then it would be a danger sign for Pakistan.

It is quite likely that Americans will not see the opportunity they have through Obama to remove the hatred against them in the Muslim peoples and countries if they will let Obama’s ideas of change bring changes in three crucial areas, Afghanistan, FATA, and Palestine. Of course Obama has already indicated that he will change American policy towards Iran. If Obama changes Bush’s policies on Afghanistan, FATA and Palestine then America can expect to make Muslim world favourable towards it. But these policies were not only of Bush but also of Pentagon. We would have to wait and see if any major change can take place in regard to FATA, Afghanistan and the Palestinian.

One hopes that the Americans will understand that Obama’s Muslim origin can also be an opportunity for America to remove anti-US sentiments in the Muslim world . World opinion has seen Obama as a positive force for peace in the world and if Obama can pursue peace and not war as his principal alternative, in Muslim world, the 1.3 billion Muslims may well swing towards the US for the first time. But if he is compelled to adopt Bush’s policies, or he is assassinated by extreme white racists, the gulf between US and Muslims would increase manifold. In Africa where US and White people had a historic stigma of having been the slave traders would be greatly minimized if Obama can exercise his powers given to him at the polls freely in normal manner under American Constitution. In this matter his balanced approach on Palestine would also be necessary. He had made very strong pro-Israel statements during his election campaign. Zionist lobby is too strong in US to make him give up his staunch pro-Israel election posture.

So America stands on a cross road. Obama is their opportunity with Muslims, Africa, Third World, if he adopts policies of peace, but if any thing happened to him where he is stopped from taking the course he wants to, or is eliminated like President John Kennedy than America would have lost a great opportunity to rectify its sour relations with 1.3 billion Muslims. This is an element which many Americans might not have thought about..

US has a unique opportunity of making peace with the Muslims if Obama is allowed to pursue the policies of peace towards Afghanistan, FATA, attempts are made to solve Kashmir Dispute which Obama seems to do. But if Obama continues the policies of Bush in the Muslim world all hopes of a “change” in American policies would prove an illusion.

However, one can be certain that US out of its arrogance of power will not make use of this opportunity Only future will tell. Till then we should wait before assuming too much from Obama’s policy of “Change”.

Our options in current crisis

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

The present Economic Crisis is not one of those which come and go. It has virtually shaken the foundations of post Bretton-Woods economic mechanism which created IMF and World Bank. This virtually made dollar the world currency on which global liquidity is based and on market economy or capitalism. Now as Sarkozi, the French President has said this Crisis will create the 21st Century new Economic Order, or will shake the very foundations of the principle of market forces determining economic forces themselves. But after US rushed to rescue its economy by pumping $ 700 billion in it, it virtually said good bye to capitalism. If this is so, the IMF Rules of the Game would cease to be valid.

This makes it important for us to appoint a national task force of REAL experts with practical experience and proven wisdom in their field to address the present economic predicament. If in US and EU economic-political caucus are trying to find a remedy, Pakistan need to copy their example far more. No one person can be equal to the collective wisdom of the real experts- not political favorites labeled “expert”- but real experts . To begin with let us ask two questions: If US has come to this sorry state because of the Iraq and Afghanistan War, in our case too the War on Terror in which Bush pulled Musharruf has damaged our country. The country has turned upside down as a result of war on “terrorism”. Can we financially afford to remain part of this war any more just as can US afford the Iraqi and Afghan War any more? What accounted for the flight of forex reserves particularly during the last nine months since this democratic Coalition government has been in office?Estimatedly, Pakistan needs $ 4 billion immediately to float to the level six months ago., and $ 6 billion more. We have theoretically four options to over come the Crisis: loans from our oil-rich Muslim brothers, IMF bail out aid, Self help, and motivating Pakistanis to bring back their forex accounts to Pakistan. IMF loan is rightly called poison. It will worsen the situation. Normally it includes drastic devaluation of the currency, not applying restrictions on imports, lowering tariff on imports- luxury goods - acceptance of humiliating conditionalities, IMF control over the Budgets, - in short humiliating terms and in turn worsening the economy. Poor man will scream on these measures. Presumably on American bidding, the oil rich Muslim brotherly countries would not lend Pakistan, even just about four billion dollars in cash. This would be the first time they would not come to Pakistan’s help. As we know US wants to strangulate Pakistan economically to squeeze it to make Pakistan comply with its demands. One hopes that Muslim countries would show more understanding of the situation than to comply with US command. We have now only two realistic alternatives. Drastic cuts on Government spending on perks to the political appointees, Presidency, Prime Minister , ministers, Members of Parliament, stopping luxurious living like big cars, patrols, travels, size of delegations of the President, Prime Minister, ministers- and ban on luxury goods and big cars, and Pajeros..All these luxurious expenditures are now criminal waste of public funds. Officials of begging nations should not live ostentatious living. Could one find out whether the facilities given to our high and mighty are available in India to their counterparts?

In this grave national emergency the Government should trim down its expenditure by at least 35% of the allocations. This can be easily done without effecting the Government activities. I would recall that an exercise was undertaken in 1964/65 under ZAB’s instructions to propose how we should manage when US had stopped Pakistan’s aid. I recall that Ministry of Economic Affairs had produced a document, which I had read, identifying where expenditure should be cut. That document should be dug out and acted upon It had recommended cutting out foreign tours of ministers, not sending delegations to every UN agency’s conference, cutting down the size of Pakistani delegations to foreign meetings, instead the local ambassadors should represent Pakistan. In those days the sizes of the cabinets were smaller, the staff of PMs and Presidents used to be very small compared to now. Ayub Khan’s Presidency staff, if my memory does not fail, was Qudratullah Shehab, Deputy/Joint Secretary, Jamiluddin Aali, Zawwar Zaidi (?) an Asstt Secretary, a Military Secretary, some junior staff, and that’s all. PM Noon’s Staff was Abdul Hamid ICS Secretary, Altaf Guaher, Deputy Secretary, Amanullah Khan PRO, and a few others. I have the record of the strength of the Federal Cabinets of various regimes beginning with Quaid e Azam’s nine Ministers of the United Pakistan, of his first cabinet. It went to a maximum of 22 in all for the United Pakistan ( the present day Pakistan plus East Pakistan).

The tradition now that the President and Prime Ministers on their visits abroad take a barat in entourage, are appointing special advisers for the Prime Minister, to the President. This is unnecessary.. All the services of the delegation in foreign country can be performed by the Embassy staff. We are financially down and out country. They should have mercy on its scarce foreign reserves. All royal style expenses should be eliminated if we have not to become a greater beggar nation than we are now. Unless Pakistanis see that the top leadership is strictly economizing on its expenditure and they set an example, Pakistanis would not be motivated to remit their forex to Pakistan. Here I should refer to the most laudable act of Army Chief, General Kiyani, that in present financial emergency he has stopped construction of the new G.H.Q. in Islamabad. We salute him for this very patriotic decision. In At the same time, press reported CDA’s decision to build one hundred apartments in the MPs lodges. Would these inordinately pampered very rich MPs, who spend a crore on the average on their elections have mercy on this nation and emulate the example of the Army Chief – at least for the time Pakistan is practically bankrupt- and not ask for free luxury which Pakistan cannot afford.

To return to discussion of our options, simultaneously we should work on the Pakistanis to bring back their forex accounts in forex to Pakistan as a moral, legal responsibility. It is rumoured that Pakistanis have around $ 100 billion stacked in foreign banks. Supposing it is not $ 100 billion but one third of it, if brought back to Pakistan, we would not need to become a beggar or mortgage our country to the IMF. This represents the amount the business people, political big wigs, all kinds of politically influential “ government persons” and the flight of capital that has been taking since the days of the last nine years of military rule plus the fast outflow of forex during the last six month . So Government’s first task should be to appeal to all Pakistanis who have huge foreign accounts abroad to bring their accounts in Pakistani banks even keeping them in the foreign exchange they have. An example should be set by the existing leadership As every body knows, all leaders have huge forex accounts abroad. They should bring them to Pakistan. The will prove thereby that they love their country more than anything else They have not only but a legal responsibility but also a moral duty. In a Geo Talk Show “Kamran key Sath” on 18th October, one expert, Mansoor Hassan Khan, explained that according to forex regulations no foreign accounts beyond $ 1000 can be operated by any Pakistani without the permission of the State bank He estimated that huge amounts have been kept out of national economy by traders and also by our big wigs in contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulations. If I understood what Mansoor Hassan Khan said then the State Bank should issue a notice to all Pakistanis who have any foreign exchange abroad beyond $ 1000 limit to immediately bring them back to Pakistan within fifteen days. Simultaneously the ISI should be asked to conduct investigation of Pakistanis foreign exchange holdings abroad – not civil authorities or embassies- of the powerful and political heavy weight.

The State Bank should be empowered to direct Pakistanis to bring their Forex back to Pakistan on pain of prosecution for disobeying the orders. The intention of existing forex liberalization rules was to encourage investment by foreigners in Pakistan and not that while Pakistan starve for foreign currency reserves individual Pakistanis enjoy their forex holdings abroad. This is the right place to express deep sorrow on the State Bank’s recent clarification that there is no bar on Pakistanis remitting forex and keeping forex accounts abroad. They should not have justify flight of capital abroad this way. It meant like saying that if Pakistanis want to remit the remaining $ 7 billion there is no bar to their doing so. Is this the right attitude.? Simultaneously there should be an investigation on the recent flight of capital from the country In US no bank transaction of $ 10,000 can be made without the permission of the Central Bank In Pakistan no transfer of foreign exchange above $ 1,000 should be allowed without the permission of the State Bank. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures even Draconian Laws.

Topsy-turvy views on Pakistan

PEOPLE are so disappointed with the present shape of Pakistan that they have started saying all kinds of strange things like: “During the last sixty years Pakistan has always been subservient to US” and now an anchor person of a private TV programme has made an addition to this claim asking “Has there been anything in the last sixty years of which we can be proud of.” What a Question”… Possibly they view Pakistan of previous years from today’s down and out Pakistan-bankrupt, a foreign power puppet, with no national pride in the people. Same mentality has created a political mythology in which some of our leaders are demons and some angels. This might be alright for members of some political cults but not for a scholarly judgment of place of our past leaders in history. The fact is that no leader was good or bad in every respect. On some counts they were good, in some very good, in others average. An assessment should be based on over all performance. Few can be very good all round or very bad.

I would be very, very brief in describing the overall performance of some past leaders. The Quaid died one year after Pakistan’s independence as a sick man. Liaquat’s task was to build a state from nothing, without any help at all. There is no other example in history of creating a state in utter chaotic conditions-with no elements of statehood, no offices, no Central Bank, not even its own currency, no funds in treasury, no industry, hardly any electricity, no weapons for the Armed Forces, hardly any roads, ten million homeless refugees to be settled with no international aid of any kind – Lahore, Karachi were towns of about two hundred thousand populations, Pindi about one hundred thousand-small towns not cities. Was it not a great miracle that Liaquat created a country out such chotic conditions of 1947, a stable country which earned respect within three years in the UN of the Third World, consolidated it without any foreign aid, whatsoever. Upto 1954, Pakistan did not seek any aid-none whatsoever, although he did in 1951.

Another mythology of Pak history is that Liaquat went to US to become allied to US in the Cold War and seek aid, after turning down the USSR invitation. Patently false. I have written articles on this matter. Once again, Soviets after informally inviting Liaquat forgot about invitation, returned Liaquat and his party’s Passports through their Embassy in Delhi (See Hassan Zahir’s book “The Rawalpindi Conspiracy”). Nehru was in Washington months before Liaquat, went there and that too after USSR forgot all about the invitation. In USA he claimed “I have not come to ask for your charity,… if there are some countries who want to

American aggression on Pakistan

Comment

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

For some time now, speculations were rife that America and NATO may cross over into Pakistan border in the North and launch military forays against our tribals under the pretext of war on terrorism. One had hoped the Americans will not be so careless of international law and norms by violating Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty which is the most blatant hostile act. It makes such an aggressor an enemy. Pakistanis were living under the impression that one cannot be an ‘ally’ and also an enemy. But regrettably this has happened.

This makes it necessary to re-examine our relationship with US in its new role as an attacker of our country. This makes us ask the question can we collaborate in a war with a party which treats our country as an enemy” and describes our country as the new “battle ground”. The question arises which is America’s real face? Enemy or all, are we being deceived by US duplicity?

First let us examine whether there is any truth in their accusations that (a) Taliban on our tribal areas are a great menace to Afghanistan’s security (b) Tribal areas have become great sanctuaries of terrorists and there are ‘training ground’ against Afghanistan; and (c) Pakistan has been unsuccessful in eliminating the Taliban terrorism and now US should take action against the tribal Taliban directly.

In examining these accusations, one may ask what is the strength of the Taliban in our FATA? US has never mentioned what is their number? But its propaganda has spoken of the Taliban as if they are something like Hitler’s forces were. A huge horde now the scantily populated FATA area cannot have such a force. At most Taliban can be no more than a couple of thousand, not even hundred thousand, judging from the exodus of civil population from FATA when the military action was taken by our forces. This indicated that the civil population was dissociating from Taliban. Purposely US has never mentioned the number of Taliban in Pakistan. What kind of a ‘force’ the Taliban are or can be? Only guerrillas with no artillery, tanks, long range missiles, guidance system, and the rest. In the absence of these facilities the maximum foray the Taliban can make inside Afghanistan in a hit-an-run action of a limited nature, say five miles. As any military expert would see, they are not any where equal to ISAF or NATO forces in weapon, training, equipment, logistic support, communication as the ISAF or NATO forces. A local has several advantages over an army of occupation. This is where the Taliban have advantage as did the Viet Namese.

The Taliban reaction is in fact mainly a reaction of the Pakhtuns to foreign occupation of Afghanistan. The roots of Taliban activity on both sides of the border is in the foreign occupation. It is not only Europeans who resent foreign occupation like they did in the shape of French Resistance. Any political scientists or diplomat knows this fact. The real root of resistance in Afghanistan is not in FATA, but in Afghanistan, as the British who had long experience of this fact during their Empire in this region knew. The problem is not as simple as US makes it.

However, the US or NATO before they accuse Pakistan of not doing more should realize that the fire power of their forces and the logistic support they have is not less than ten times greater than that of a Pakistani soldier, because of the money and latest weapons their soldier has, and yet it is a matter of every day report in the press that they have achieved no success in Afghanistan. They are where they were quite some time ago. How can a failed force claim that it will succeed in FATA or WANA or any where in our tribal area far more than our soldiers did. It is a claim that is based on an unjustified arrogance of power contradicted by the miserable record of US/NATO forces of Occupation in Afghanistan despite installing a puppet Karzai Government in Kabul.

Let us turn to a possible involvement of foreign agencies, three of them which need not be named, who have to give a kind of credibility to the claims that Taliban activity has increased in the recent past, infiltrated their men or operatives, in the area who are indulging in all kinds of terrorist activities as if it is Taliban operation. I cannot imagine for a moment that any Muslim would kill namazees in a mosque while praying. This is a sure passport to hell. I suspect that the attacks on Wah defence factories cannot be the work of a Pakistani its beneficiary are those powers who want to destroy a national asset of tremendous importance. There are some such actions, a few of them which point out to the hands of one of the three hostile agencies acting against Pakistan. If CIA could undertake the Gulf of Tonkin covert operation to destroy a US Navy ship to create public opinion during Nixon’s days for direct intervention by US in Vietnam that it is logical to suspect that they could be training and directing such operations from Jabal Siraj as it reported in the press.

As regards American aggression against Pakistan by attacking Pakistan territory under the Constitution the first duty of Pakistan forces is to defend its territory. Former Foreign Secretary, Shamshad Ahmed Khan, has said in a private TV channel that the UN Resolution on terrorism has no where used the world or authorized a war on terrorism. So there is no recommendations from UN to Pakistan to be part of American war on terrorism. If there is any terrorist activity in our area we will deal with it and certainly there is some which we are doing better than US or NATO forces are doing in their sphere of operations in Afghanistan. What is our war with terrorism we are taking care of it. But it is no business of any foreign forces to indulge in excursions in our territory. That is war on us and not Taliban. Ours in an army of world stature and we need not be tutored by any one on their responsibilities. Under the present situation, our Army Chief Kayani has made a statement in accordance with his Constitutional duty. He said “sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all costs and no external forces can be allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan. Foreign troops cannot operate on Pak soil. He was commenting on the recent incidents in which US invading troops killed a large number of civilians, women and children included, inside the houses in their illegal incursion in Pakistan. He made it clear that the rules of engagement with the coalition forces are well defined and within that, the right to conduct operation against the militants inside own territory is solely the responsibility of the respective armed forces. There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the Coalition Forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side. A forth right statement of a Pakistani defender of the country’s territory was universally applauded by Pakistani of every walk of life. How on earth could anybody not expect the Chief of Army of Pakistan not to make any statement which did not deplore the inhuman, atrocious attack on innocent Pakistani citizens. Pakistani soldier has a long tradition of valiantly standing for the defense of his country in the same tradition which an English poet has written” in the valley of death, rode the six hundred,…..There was no question but to do and die”.

It was interesting to see the reaction of the pusillanimous political leadership on defining our policy of standing against violation of our sovereignty. It was said we cannot fight the US, we cannot go to war against US and the like some one rightly commented that we do not need Chamberlains at this juncture, we need Churchills. It is not understood how to say that we will defend our borders; our territory is being equated as going to war with US. Nowhere have we said that we go to war against US, only that we will defend our borders. These two positions very different? or are they twisting Kayani’s words purposely and putting an interpretation of their own on them. Are they shunning their constitutional duty to defend Pakistan’s sovereignty? Kayani’ statement has been acclaimed because he said what public fully supports.

A question has been asked whether we can retaliate US incursions. It needs be pointed out that it is US that is violating our territory and not we who are making incursions into US? The reply is yes we can and should take on US war on Pakistan. US is in beehives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cannot afford to be in an other beehive, although it seems to be in mood to take on more trouble than it is good for it.

If US pursues its aggressive policy in Pakistan the terrorist menace will increase hundred folds not only in this region but all over. Even the coalition forces would find themselves in a blockade, as their supplies would be attacked when going to Afghanistan from the long Pakistan route.

Some commentators have suggested that Bush is taking this aggressive line in FATA as his election gimmick or of his Republican Party Presidential elections. I do not agree with this myopic view. The question of restructuring the Muslim world is a plan which started from the gulf war. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan are the US targets whether it is a Republican or Democratic President in power. Cutting these three tall poppies of the Muslim world is the eventual target. This is “ new battleground” any way our forces are concerned with their constitutional responsibility. Nothing is more scared for a nation than its territorial integrity. There can be no compromise on Pakistan’s sovereignty. We have not attacked US, nor have any intention of doing so, on the contrary, it is they who have violated our sovereignty, intentionally or blatantly. To no self respecting country sovereignty is negotiable. To uphold it every citizen is expected to pay supreme sacrifice, irrespective of the consequences.

Price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Post-Musharraf task for politicians

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

The long suspense about Musharraf’s departure was finally broken by his rather long speech at the end of which came announcement of his resignation ending the national crisis which had gripped the country for quite some time. He had reached the end of the road, and a man should bow out before it is too late. Majority in the country heaved a sigh of relief on his resignation.. Had Musharraf gone for a confrontation, it would have had damaging effects on Pakistan’s economy plunging the Rupee into a record low rate of exchange
In his speech he did not at all touch those policies which made him highly unpopular among them sacking of around 60 Superior Court Judges by a single administrative order — which deserves to go in the Guinness Book of World Record — Lal Masjid massacre FATA operations, killing of Balochi leader Bugti and operations in Balochistan, making Pakistan subservient to America and loss of independent. His surrenderist policy on Kashmir, the so-called ‘Composite Dialogue’ etc were not included among his achievements. This meant that he knew that those were indefensible. But the Neville Chamberlain like India policy which even PPP has adopted in the new Trade Policy towards India indicates continuation of “the Composite Dialogue” mentality.
Now the questions in post Musharraf era in internal politics are who will be the President, will there be a united leadership in the country will Zardari-Nawaz coalition last and what will be the political culture of new democracy. The demands that President should be from PPP shows that it is not realized what is the function of a President in a constitutional democracy. He has to be a symbol of national unity, above party politics and a wise man with wide experience and sobriety. He has to feel as if he is not a party man, once elected as a President. Prime Minister is a party man but surely the President cannot be a party jiyala. We have seen Taseer’s attitude as Governor Punjab which has not been up to the required objectivity of a Governor. He had acted more as a party jiyala. The President has to be above Party Politics, the father figure not a jiyala. There are in PPP a few such persons but one can mention their names because of what they are and not because they are PPP jiyalas. There are some former judges who foot the bill , but there are other considerations like provincial sensitivities of small provinces, like NWFP or Balochistan. The next President should be a consensus President particularly of NWFP and Balochistan but he too should meet the criterion of a father figure and not an activist of any party. Zafar ullah Jamali, or Isfandiyar Wali like persons can make a sober President, or even others.
At present on All-Pakistan level only Nawaz Sharif is a tried and tested leader and in the recent political Crisis he appeared to be a principled national leader but his base is limited to Punjab. PPP does not have the same standing in Punjab as PML (N). Similarly PML (N) does not have strong support in the NWFP or Balochistan and practically none in Sindh. In this power distribution Nawaz needs Zardari as much as Zardari needs Nawaz. Both of them need each other till next elections. The talk of how long Nawaz-Zardari coalition will last is not a problem in the present situation of power distribution in the National Assembly.
The other question relates to the new political culture, which if it continues to be of bribe, nepotism, total disregard of merit and justice than disenchantment can erode the new democratic dispersion. I am afraid that the new slogans the politicians have adopted indicate they attach no value to ethics or principles. These slogans are “ Nothing is the last word in politics”, “any thing is possible in politics”, “stake holders (in the country’s policies). These terms are very unethical and show that the politicians have very little regard for any value which is scared to them. Surely one draws a line from where no compromise is possible, despite the need to be flexible. I wonder what is the difference between horse traders and politicians, if “ any thing is possible in politics” is their motto. To call the parties or people as ‘Stake holders’ is to insult patriotism. This again is a commercial word. In it ‘patriotism’ or nationalism becomes synonymous with economic interests. I will sell my stake in the market if it is profitable etc. How cheap an approach to nationalism or national values. May God forbid these trading notions become prevalent among the masses. I need not elaborate on it further. But this approach can make national sovereignty, independence outdated concepts and introduce Stock Market ethics in national politics.
This can be the root of a corrupt society and of money grabbing politicians which had been the political culture in Pakistan for long – confined to politicians only. I am afraid it could not be curbed even in military dictatorships or democracy. The more sophisticated our leadership became the more money grabbing it became. The point is will in the democratic era now these corrupt politicians will come in their own. We know these corrupt politicians provided opportunity to the military adventurers in the past. The claim that dictatorship has been buried in Pakistan depends on end of corruption a galore in political leadership.
The top leadership should have clean hands to make sure that democracy will continue. The other point related to this aspect is the restoration of the Judges. What is the delay? Who is afraid of the honest judges. Let it be said that it is the ordinary humble man who needs honest judges at all levels. . The powerful do not need judges. An honest judiciary is required more at the lowest level first and one hopes that once at the top are honest judges corruption in judiciary will automatically stop. Does the freed democracy reinstall the judges or not will be a measure to determine their attachment to justice. So is the question of setting AQ Khan at liberty. The impression was in regard to his virtual detention that it was done in interest of Musharraf and American dictation.
Next item to be reviewed is the situation in FATA and Balochistan which are grave national problems, thanks to Musharraf’s subservience to America. Revision is required there. It should be clearly understood that Balochistan has become a foreign playground of subversive forces. There is massive foreign interference there. Then once I would refer to a military ruler who turned into a national leader, Ayub Khan. His slogan “friends Not Masters” should be our approach towards US. We should rationalize our relations with US giving up over commitment to US aims in the region. We have to go back to making warmth in our relations with China which means reviving collaboration with China in Balochistan, Sandak Copper Mines, Gwadar, Thar Coal, helping to curb Muslim Movements in Sinkiang and some such measures. Much needs to be done to create balance in our national policy and international relations. This opportunity we have following Musharraf’s exit should not be wasted in reappraising national issues by adopting partisan approach. This opportunity should not be wasted by bringing up the past practices of corruption, money grabbing, using politics as a means of personal aggrandizement. Musharraf’s exit has put our politicians on the spot and it is now up to them to prove that they realize their responsibility, particularly Zardari. It would be necessary for him to look at the national politics as a national responsibility and not as a family affair, or an opportunity for partisan politics.

Remote control leadership

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

This is the first time that the controllers of Pakistan’s national leadership are sitting abroad . It is a novel experience and is being criticized by people and quite rightly. In no country this emote control has been practiced. It gives the feeling to the masses that the leaders are distancing from the people and not sharing their problems which are being faced by the common man in Pakistan, the load shedding, the rising prices of essential commodities, the pains of daily life the common man is experiencing. They complain that they run away from Pakistan and seek comfortable living abroad not experiencing these tribulations of daily life. They allege rightly or wrongly that the big wigs of Pakistan have taken billions of dollars to their accounts in foreign banks and set up comfortable pads for them and thus the masses say the leaders do not identify with the people, do not know what is bothering the common man and may be they are staying away as a contingency planning to seek foreign shelters if the situation in Pakistan grows beyond toleration.
They wonder how many of our leaders have dual nationality, or divided loyalties, as they view. This is causing an alienation between them and the leaders or the led. They complain how can a person having a dual nationality, a foreign passport, a residency abroad can identify with the suffering masses of Pakistan. They wonder what to make of the leaders calling their lieutenants abroad for meetings, consultations and even national decisions. The masses are becoming skeptical of the national commitments of such leaders. They, the masses, take staying away of the leaders from Pakistan as lack of the leaders’ commitment to Pakistan or to swim or sink together ( may such fears be totally discounted) but columnists cannot instill in the masses the hope they need. It is the job of the leaders. No meetings should be held outside Pakistan on any sensitive national issues by the parties in power The decisions are made for Pakistan and should be made in Pakistan only. One hopes that the leaders are aware of the public criticism of their lavish style the present Government has adopted. Judging from their style one may get the impression that our leaders represent one of the most affluent countries. Their dresses, their cars, the barats which accompany them on foreign trips and the frequency of their foreign trips, the reckless bestowing favors on the cronies, their appointments on top posts for which one does not find any merit or qualification for the job in them, appointments of ambassadors-at-large and all that. Perhaps it is not realized what damage it does to the country abroad in diplomacy. It would do good if the public is educated why such unqualified cronies are awarded. In India their leaders and political important persons wear simple national dress – the high and mighty, not because they cannot afford, but because they want to create commonality between the masses and the leaders. Look at any Indian political party and its leaders. In Pakistan, leaders are dressed like they are going for a fashion parade. Their life style represents the millionaires rather than the common man of Pakistan. The cars of the leaders, one more expansive than the other. Thus there is on one side the poor labourer who cannot eat a square meal and on the other is the super rich “politicians”, made up with his ultra modern sophisticated suits, ties and boats.
I have lived in foreign countries for three decades on diplomatic posts. I would recall some life styles of the high and mighty I witnessed or knew about in the countries to which I was posted. In India during the Noon-Nehru Meeting on Border Disputes I went with the Delegation to Nehru’s residence at 3 Murti Marg. It was like a normal middle class family’s house, I attended wedding reception of my brother in law, at the residence of Begum Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed herself an MP, wife of former President of India stayed at the Raj Bhawan Simla, with my father in law, Nawab Aminuddin Ahmed of Loharu, when he was Governor of Himachal Pradedsh, (later of Punjab) It was a simple residence. He had invited the local cabinet – a BJP government- he himself an independent person- All were dressed like any ordinary Indian citizens ( I have described my trip to India in my book Diplomats and Diplomacy, Story of an Era giving in that comparisons of life of political high ups in India and Pakistan). In India it was down to earth,while in Pakistan we revived Mughal Imperial styles.
In Egypt Sufi Abu Taleb, Speaker of the National Assembly was living in a small apartment in Dokki, in a multi-apartment building with just one gunman at the entrance some what walking distance from my house. On Sadat’s assassination he became the interim President of Egypt till Hosni Mubarak’s election.. He continued to live in the same building. My friend General Mohanned Ali Fahmy, Chief of Staff of Egyptian Armed Forces- that is commander of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Air Defense, living in an apartment, and when he came to my parties he did not have a royal escort with him- Foreign Minister Fawzi was living in a normal sized apartment again in an apartment building. Hafiz Ghanem the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary General of the ruling party, living in a duplex in Helipolis in Cairo’s suburb. They did not have any special official residences, nor big huge limousines. They lived like ordinary Egyptians, not like Pharaohs. In Yugoslavia it was the same for even top generals, ministers, and others. In old official residence of flats behind Tito’s Mausoleum on small Ujechka Street lived the Members of the Presidency or the nine who were to be President and Vice President of Yugoslavia by rotation. Yugoslavia was a rich country with average per head income of $ 2,200 as compared to Pakistan’s then $ 450 , The President used to sit on the front seat with the driver with no escort to follow him and yet such strict protocol with Foreign diplomats that no Boucher could meet their President/ Prime Minister . Once the wife of Egyptian embassy minister Sami Abdul Latif came excited to my wife straight from the restaurant they had gone to for dinner. You know in the restaurant on a table alone was sitting Sergie Krjager, President of Yugoslavia. He was eating in the restaurant. Nobody took notice of him. Our Pharoas can take note of these styles of some third world leaders.
But while our poverty is growing, the life style of our Political Bosses is becoming more like that of the Imperial Mughals, in direct contrast to the down ward slide of our economy. Look at the demise of Pak Rupee in its foreign exchange value In 60s we were a model economy compared to East Asia. Look at the value of our currency in the sixties vis-à-vis Asian currencies. The value of a currency, its rise and fall is a fair indication of the strength or weakness of a country. At that time Pak currency was Rs 5.1/2 to a dollar, Indian Rupee was lower than Pak Rupee, today Pak Rs is 63 to a dollar, Indian Rs 42 to a dollar, Pak Rp compared to Indian Rp is about Paisas 65 .Our foreign exchange reserves which were about $ 16 billion a few months ago are now $ 10 billion. Our political bosses transferred their accounts to foreign countries Average East Asian foreign currency reserves are in the range of $ 250 billion with perhaps Malaysia’s in thousand billion. It would be useful if our TV channels when they show the values of Pak Rs in terms of foreign exchanges also show the daily rate of Pak Rupee vis-à-vis Indian Rupee.
The more the Pak Rupee is falling in value, the more our rulers are spending lavishly on life styles, foreign trips, delegations, increasing the size of government, creating more top ranks. Advisers are being nominated to top assignments. If PM would have so many advisers and special envoys and what not than the PM would have his own cabinet which will soon compare in size with the “Cabinet”duplicating the “Cabinet”.
It is necessary that our leaders take note of the country’s growing poverty and give up expensive life styles, even if they can afford them. They have to set an example in addition to economizing and saving our dwindling reserves.

Destruction of girls schools in FATA

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

A number of girls schools were destroyed by some fanatic groups in the FATA area. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on his recent visit to the Frontier Province has instructed that they be immediately reconstructed or repaired.. As he comes from a family of Makhdoms, a family of the saints, and of all the places from Multan which is the land of saints, he was the appropriate person to have remind the fanatics of the Hadith Sharif prohibiting such destructions. I think it was time for someone to remind those who destroyed these female educational institutions of the Injunction of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The hadiths in English are translated as Traditions, which is incorrect translation of the meaning of Hadith. A Hadith sharif is the saying of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) which may include instructions for Muslim when it provides to the Muslims a code of conduct. It seems that those who destroyed the female educational institutions were violating the instructions of the Holy Prophet. The Hadith is : Talabul Ilme farizatun a la kule muslimin wa muslimatin. Acquiring ( or seeking of) knowledge is absolutely enjoined on all Muslim men and Muslim women. “Farizatun” is the strongest injunction. It is compulsory, an injunction. Faraz is the strongest word for something which must be done and should not be neglected. Perhaps this was the occasion for Makhdum Yusuf Raza Gilani to remind the fanatics to obey the Holy Prophet and not create hurdles for the girls by blowing off the educational institutions. The Girls are merely obeying the instructions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) by educating themselves. Of all the people those who should stop the girls from acting on the injunctions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) must not be religious groups.

When I was a student in Aligarh Muslim University, several Hadith sharif/Ayat were repeated on several occasions and places extolling the virtues of eduction.. One I have mentioned just now, the second was Utlubul Ilme min al mahde ilal lahade (seek knowledge from childhood till death) and third Utlubul ilmo wa lo kan bis Sin.( Seek knowledge even if it is in China). Pardon my transliteration of Arabic words into English. I would like to take this occasion just to mention several ladies scholars like Rabia el-Basri who were teachers of famous scholars of Islam If I had time, on some other occasion I might give names of such famous Muslim ladfies who were counted as the most learned of their time and were teachers of famous ulema I should like to ask such fanatics who oppose female education to give up their opposition to female education and conform their actions to Islamic injunctions. While on Islamic themes, I would like to refer to the action Indonesian President Bambang Yudhoyono has taken on the blasphemous Dutch film “Fitna” which is worth emulating by others also. This report is based on an official Indonesian Government handout The Indonesian President has not described the film as blasphemous but one which can destroy harmony in inter-human relations , nonetheless the message is clear. He has banned the import of the film ‘fitna” in Indonesia “because the film would destroy the harmonious relations among humans in the world”.

The official announcement quotes the Indonesian President as saying: “ I have banned the entry and distribution of the film ‘Fitna’ in Indonesia. I have also asked the Dutch Prime Minister to withdraw the film from the distribution channels. The distribution of film could harm the existing harmony in inter-human relations in the world.” Speaking on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi at Al-Nur Mosque in Bogor the Indonesian President made this announcement. Bogor is also his native town. According to the Indonesian President the film produced by the Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders could trigger hatred of Islam and hostility towards Muslims through out the world He said “ In order to build world peace there should be no provocation of hostility He announced that he had asked the Law and Human Rights Ministry to put his name of foreigners not allowed to enter Indonesia. The Indonesia Government also called on the media to deplore the production of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian as it had the potential of triggering a conflict among members of the society,
Al Muzzammil Yusuf, President of PKS ( Prosperity and Justice Party of Indonesia said : The Dutch Government should actually apologize to Muslim countries in the world for making the film Fitna which was considered a degradation of the Holy Quran He added “the phenomenon showed that the formulation of human rights freedom Western Style, was no longer conducive to international maintenance of religious tolerance.” In Pakistan they take out protest marches on such painful events but do not take any concrete action. Agitation does not fully solve the problem Concrete actions do. There was once a demand hat we should withdraw our ambassadors from such offending countries.

Does withdrawal of Ambassador makes much difference. I remember on the signing of the Camp David Accord many Arab countries closed down their embassie3s in Cairo and some important countries pressed Pakistan to close down our Embassy. I was Pak Ambassador to Cairo then and when President Zia asked me whether we should do as he is being pressed by some important Arab countries, I opposed the action saying soon the Arabs will forget their differences and be kissing each other on the cheek. Real break of diplomatic relations is a very serious matter and none of the countries asking us to follow suit will go to the logical end of their action. I told the President Just withdrawing me from Cairo to please such Arab countries but we should not break diplomatic relations with Egypt. This is written in my book Diplomats and Diplomacy: Story of an Era” Concrete action like boycott of Danish and Dutch goods, banning of the offensive film and material and such action has more teeth than just withdrawing the ambassadors from such offending countries as Denmark and Holland. Even individuals can impose such boycotts I should like to join Wasim Akhter Khan of Karachi who in an English daily otherwise quite pro-West has written a letter to the Editor saying “Hats off to a future hero, meaning Samad Khurram who played tremendous courage at securing and maintaining our collective national dignity by declining to receive a Harvard Scholarship award from the American Ambassador” It is surprising to see such sense of dignity in young people who seemed to have lost sense of direction in the last decade Such cinders are still burning in the fire! Not all is lost it seems.

Thirst for Muslim blood

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

An ambassador cannot be myopic by confining himself to reporting mere events stated in the press and ignoring the pointers to new moves. He has to digs deeper to see what new move those facts represent.His concern is dynamics of diplomacy. He is not a cataloguer of events and who said what , but a perceiver of the dynamic of international diplomacy. And if there was ever a very sinister move made against the Muslims in the region it is these exercises Israel is making in preparation for an attack on Iran’s Nuclear installations. After American destruction of Iraq, this move is the second move of the same nature, Its purpose is to destroy the next credible Muslim power in the Middle East, in fact at present the only credible power in the Muslim world. If it is destroyed, as they wish, the Muslim world would consist of pliable dummies.

The American/Western targets have been destruction of powers of three countries in the Muslim world who had some life left in them or backbone in their peoples, after the Arabs compromised with Israel and abandoned their policy of military containment of and confrontation with Israel. These were/are Saddam’s Iraq, new (or post-Shah) Iran and N-Pakistan. They intend to eat up the Muslim credible powers one by one, step by step.. After a long time, Israel is being given the task for which it was originally created, a proxy for US/West for military subjugation of the Arabs, and to destroy the Muslim powers in the crescent. In this respect Pakistan has been certainly included in the ambit of Israel’s “responsibility”. This is why India and Israel are allies in an encirclement of Pakistan and Mossad is involved in subversive activities in the North and Kashmir. Our Anti-terrorist forces have caught Indian Marhattas and Israeli commandos in Pakistan’s Northern territory in their subversive missions. Thus the title of this article is not sensational but realistic.

As we know the prelude to the attack on Iraq was the false propaganda that Iraq has an inordinate number of Weapons of Mass Destruction capable of hitting New York and US cities and had chemical and biological weapons etc. All lies and false accusations as now is known. But this propaganda was a step towards the war, knowing well that it was an excuse for an attack on Iraq. This is American and Western tactics that before they go for destruction of a country or a people they unleash a propaganda war against that country next comes the military operation. This pattern is being used in the case of preparing a war psychosis against Iran, Ahmedinizad and Iran’s so-called nuclear threat. The only difference is that Israel has been given the task of attacking Iran, like Karzai was to be used as the first tool against Pakistan recently. It was reported in the American press that one thousand nuclear items were missing from American custody, who worry about the terrorist getting access to “Pakistani N-assets” but cannot guard their own nuclear material. Has US been negligent in guarding its own nuclear assets or were they gifted to Israel ?.President Jimmy Carter had earlier declared that Israel possesses 130 nuclear weapons which is three times more than Pakistan’s. After the Camp David Accord Israel had been trying to indulge in deception diplomacy of appearing in a lamb’s skin. It found in Mahmoud Abbas a partner in this drama. People started to believe this new phase of Israel so much so that President Musharruf became the first Pakistani enamored of Israel. But its preparations now to attack Iran have torn that façade it had built. Now the vampire has come out in her true face. This is what Israel’s real face is which it has been hiding so far, That Israel wishes a success in its mission is one thing and can it do so is another?. El-Baradei has rightly said that if Iran is attacked Middle East will become a ball of fire. He considers Israeli intentions so patently illegal that he has threatened to resign as Director General IAEA if Iran is attacked..

The question is what has encouraged this tiny little mosquito size Israel it to take on a giant power which has the oil weapon at its command too. Is it that Israel has succeeded in lulling Syria to be isolated from Iran by agreeing to hand back the Occupied Golan Heights, taken fron Syria in 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Israel had established relations of some sort with many Arab States, that American/Israeli assessment is that Arab rulers are more afraid of Iran than Israel, that in their estimates the Shia Sunni divide in the Arab World is so sharp that Sunni Arabs, the majority in the Middle East would be happy on destruction of Iranian nuclear power, and that the Muslims are so down and out and their rulers so much in American pocket that they will keep quite on Israeli attack on Iran? In this connection the reported Iraqi permission given to America to use its territory to attack “any country” is deplorable coming at the time Israel is indulging in war preparations against Iran , and certainly it means that US would wish to join to help Israel should it get the slap on Iran adventure like it did in its attack on Lebanon from Hizb Allah. It remains to be seen whether American and Israeli assessment in this connection are too wishful. First the Arab regimes should express their opposition to Israeli preparations of attack on Iran in no uncertain terms by calling American Ambassadors in their countries. If they do not stop the Israelis now the Rulers will pitch themselves up against their masses. The concept of oneness of Ummah might have died in the Rulers who consider it “extremism” but it is the throb of the masses when the Muslims are in trouble any where. It is only a secondary thing that Shias are a significant political factor in entire Middle East from Turkey’s Eastern provinces to Syria, Lebanon, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Gulf, Central Asia, India, Pakistan. The Vampire’s thirst for Muslim blood here in this case might cost her dearly than it did in Lebanon. American sea lanes in the Gulf would certainly be threatened and there would be an increase in suicide bombers on American installations and interests. Hell might lose in the region.

This planning if postponed today will be a temporary lull. US/Israel are bent upon conquest of the Middle East at any cost. Vampire has also lust for Pakistani blood as it is already a nuclear power. It would be recalled that on 28th May 1998 we had in the mid night called an Israeli friend’s country’s envoy and told him that if Israel attacked Kahuta we will bomb Tel Aviv. This desisted Israel from implementing its plans to stop our nuclear explosions. If Israel does attack Iranian installations we would have to revise our n-deterrence strategy. We would have to expand its target, making our Nuclear capability beyond India and including Israel as a target. Seymour Hersh said in a Conference in Islamabad which I attended that only two nulear bombs can wipe Israel out of existence Israel should understand that its 130 nuclear bombs would not save it from Pakistan if it ever tried to attack Pakistan. We have to not only condemn Israel plans but make it plain that we are brother country of Iran and would not join any foolish advebture against Israel and be ready to revise our Nuclear targets if Israel attacks Iran.

The roar of a hired mouse

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

There have been indiscriminate and cowardly killings of civilians and Pak soldiers off and on in FATA area, Bajaur, South Waziristan and tribal belt by NATO forces through missile attacks on civilian populations on the baseless claims that there are Taliban bases where these missile strikes were made. According to a columnist in a prestigious Urdu daily there have been thirteen such attacks by US forces in the last four years. Pakistan has several times warned the aggressors to stop violating Pakistan sovereignty, The NATO Forces are so incompetent that they have miserably failed in combating rag tag Taleban , despite the fact that NATO forces are trained and equipped for a Third World War but they have been found incompetent to face a determined enemy in his own country. Talebans are far smaller in number and much insignificant in fire power, but what gives them superiority is the same old story of a guerrilla fighter versus occupation forces NATO forces work on such laughable “intelligence” as discovering that Usama Bin Laden is hiding in K-2, the second highest peak in the world. To make their claim credible they should have announced the discovery that Usama is hiding in a hols in Mount Everest. That would have been more convincing! Now they first claimed that NATO forces would pursue him in Pakistani territory.

Pakistan has been warning in no uncertain terms that it will not tolerate any violation of its territory – But the violators of sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan are now dreaming of making incursions into Pakistan territory. As a prelude to their aggressive designs, for last one week NATO have been almost daily striking missiles on the Tribal territory every day and its air force has been flying in tribal residential areas at low heights. They have been causing a number of casualties of the civilians. The most serious incident occurred two days ago when 37 Pakistanis were killed by NATO missiles in Mahmand area which included 11 soldiers- among them was a major and a JCO something like a Sergeant Major in NATO forces. These attacks have coincided with the rising claims that NATO search forces will enter Pakistan and destroy the so-called Taleban bases , despite clear warnings by Pakistan that it will not allow anybody to violate its territory. Today Karzai who is nobody except a puppet NATO forces of occupation in Afghanistan had the cheek to declare that Afghan Forces would enter Pakistan territory and kill the Taleban who are operating from there on Afghanistan side. It is quite clear that poor Karzai cannot make such a foolhardy statement on his own. He was asked by NATO occupation forces to make this tall claim. One hopes that Karzai who had lived on Pakistan’s territory for two decades when Afghnaistan was under Soviet occupation would not be so rackless as to attempt such a dangerous adventure. It is not a coincidence that when ever peace accords are reached with Pakistani tribals and Talebans the Occupation forces and their puppets try to sabotage them because they think that if peace is established in Pakistani tribal areas, then the argument that militancy is a danger to Pakistan also will fall to the ground, So now when they see that these deals are being successful they came up with the fantastic discoveries of Usama being in K2 and they threaten to send NATO troops in Tribal areas despite Pakistan plainly saying No to such marauding in its sovereign territory.

However, the important thing is that not only Foreign Office but even the gentlemanly
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yusuf Raza Gilani has in no uncertain terms warned that nobody will be allowed to violate Pak territory He said that Pakistani forces are capable of defending our territory. Let us add to it that our people and forces are capable of giving a bleeding nose to any military adventure violating our territory, Karzai is ignoring the dangerous consequences of such an adventure into Pakistan whose armed forces are world class and tribal areas are quite capable of giving a smashing response to any adventure against their freedom. Karzai should understand that playing the game of foreign occupation forces in this region cannot pay. If he wants to play with fire he will merely burn his hands. One very serious repercussion of Karzai’s foolish adventure can be that the public may demand that we disassociate with the war on terror since if this is the respect the so-called Allies give to Pakistan’s partnership with them that they treat Pakistan as a colony of the NATO countries and not a sovereign country than it is better for Pakistan to withdraw from such humiliating relationship. If countries forming NATO have not learnt any lesson from the Iraqi adventure and they want to get into worst debacle than Karzai can handle they are sadly mistaken. Everybody knows that Karzai writ in limited to Kabul. One wonders from where he got the courage to take on Pakistan.

This raises the question: Was he hoodwinking Pakistan Foreign Minsiter, Shah Mahmoud Qureshi , when he recently visited Kabul on a friendly visit and returned quite satisfied with his talks there. For he did not fulminate in his presence. There is another mystery in this sordid affair. American press says that Pakistan was informed of these raids. Who is this “Pakistan” Where is the duality, when the honorable Yusuf Raza Gilani has in no uncertain terms warned against this violation of our territory. ( I am using the words honorable for Yusuf Raza Gilani because so far he has not used equivocal words in his statements and seems to be a different kind of politician in the PPP lot.) or Is there another “Pakistan” who? Is it the Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, or president Musharruf? Mukhtar too has been quite a softie in this affair. Any how we have entered a zone credibility gap with the so-called “allies” in the war on terror or may be the end of the road if the naked aggression on Pakistan is committed. It is necessary that this threat of a naked aggression is discussed in the National Assembly.

Madrassah education in India

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

The Institute of Strategic Studies had invited an Indian lecturer, Dr Mehdi, to speak on the Madressa Education in India. The gentleman is a lecturer in English at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi., I wanted to hear Dr Mehdi as I started my earliest education in 1933 from Jamia.. Dr Zakir Hussain was its Chancellor of Jamia in those days and just to keep himself in touch with the budding generation, he used to teach us one period in English grammar. Dr Zakir Hussain was a great name as a beacon of sacrifice in anti-colonial struggle against the British Raj. After independence he became the President of India. Madrassas have been the backbone of Muslim education in India. Their hallowed names are enshrined in cultural history of Indian Muslims. Many of them were trend setter in Muslim society. The traditional Muslim society and its culture bore the stamps of these Madressas.
Jamia- its full name is “ Jamia Millia Islamia” or Islamic National University was to be an Islamic school but “national” or supportive of the nationalist movement led by the All India Congress – Gandhiji and Nehru - and an academy of both modern and Islamic studies. We had Arabic language, of which books were brought from Cairo. Learning the Holy Quran, in Arabic with its meaning and Hadith in Arabic from elementary classes was compulsory. We were required to wear national dress, with Gandhi cap. . Jamia’s mission was to produce a new generation to carry the freedom struggle (against the British Raj) and to serve the country. We were taught handicrafts, like carpentry, book binding, carpet weaving, and cultivation in the fields. We were supposed to sell the vegetable, grown by us on the small plots in the school grounds, sitting on the ground outside the school. The idea was that to work for freedom struggle one must stand on one’s own feet in all circumstances and not depend on jobs or government service. It was founded by Congressite Muslims like Dr Ansari- ( who took the Medical Mission to Turkey ( 1912-1913) during the Balkan War – after breaking away from the Aligarh University. They branded Aligarh University as a “toady” organization – supportive of British Raj- and set up Jamia in Aligarh and then transferred it to Delhi. ( Dr Mehdi replied to me on a question that Jamia broke away from Aligarh on the question of support to Pakistan, which was not correct as the break took place around 1920 or two decades before Pakistan Demand was made ). Jamia as such was a unique madrassa, but madressa it was. However, it can be likened to Plato’s Academy in its spirit of independence. This is what took me to hear Dr Mehdi.

He gave a fairly good lecture within the very narrow confines of his choosing He confined himself to Deoband, the most orthodox Seminary, if one can borrow the word from Western terminology-.There are a few archetype among the Indian Madressa, of them the two most well known are Deoband and Naqwa. Both are “seminaries” Deoband is Wahabi tradition strictly orthodox, and in a way rejects mysticism . Wahabi creed was the great puritanic revivalism , and can be described as a sect among the Sunnis in broad terms. In Pakistan Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI is a Deobandi. The other archetype was Nadwa which represents the main stream, Sunni liberal tradition madressa. Interestingly Deoband is known in Pakistan’s history as the group which supported Gandhiji and the Congress and criticized the Quaid-e-Azam as toady and British “agent”. We in the Muslim students leadership faced their propaganda against the demand for Pakistan and the Quaid. As against this, Nadwa supported Pakistan movement.

While speaking of Deoband and its current leaders the Speaker did not mention that Deoband was pro-Congress and pro-Gandhiji, during the Pakistan struggle . Its leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmed Madani was the head of Jamiat ul Uleme-i- Hind. Iqbal had written two short poems criticizing him. Dr Mehdi’s lecture was to dispel the well known Western concerns or fears that Indian madressas are “ jihad factories” and perhaps used Deoband as a model to show that Indian madressas are not terrorist breeding grounds. He emphasized that it has only recently passed a resolution denouncing terrorism as prohibited in Islam, that there are hardly any foreign students in Deoband, that it had been financed by the Saudis in the past but seldom now, that Nadwa had been visited by Saudi envoys, and curriculum of Deband is outdated, that most of the students he interviewed do not want madressa education but want to learn English, that they go to these madressas because they have no other alternative. But he admitted that minus these madressas the poor segment of society would be deprived of any education.

It is surprising that Mehdi, who was perhaps a Shia, made no mention of the Shia madressas in Lakhnaw, a famous and great center of Shia learning, as I remember at one time Imam Khomeni had his religious education as a Youngman. In Bengal, in Bihar, in Kashmir, and so many places exist and have existed madressas for long time, of which Dr Mehdi made no mention of them or their problems.
This was a highly selective presentation of madressas in India, because from the south to the North, from East to the West where ever there are sizeable Muslim communities there have been madressas from hundreds of years and Deoband pattern is only one of them. Madressas in Occupied Kashmir were not even mentioned in his talk by the speaker and existed much before the ones in Pakistan were established. These madressas are mostly in mosques and low paid teachers teach the students what ever they can. He made no suggestion how to obtain funds for madressas to modernize their facilities. Indian Muslims are very poor although there are some very rich persons also in the community. The question was like someone complaining that bread was not available and in reply suggest why do’nt they not eat cakes. Regarding the speakers implied criticism of financing of the madressas by foreign Muslim, while being apologetic about it, he omitted to mention how much financial assistance the Christian missionary schools receive from the Pope, Western countries, charities and governments. Without such aid, no Christian missionary school would exist. Because much of this aid is given for conversion of locals for political purposes it is resented in India. But when any Muslim Government gives financial aid to Madressas, which has been given from decades in the past, western countries raise objections on such donations.

In the end, the point worth pondering on is whether the current Islamophobia is a byproduct of the “9/11” events or it has existed all along but was kept dormant as a second priority till confrontation with Communism was over . I would in this connection quote some excerpts from a book, The Indian Musalmans” by WW Hunter once upon a time an English ICS officer then serving in East Bengal : “ I have tried to bring out in clear relief the past history and the present requirements of persistently belligerent class- of a class whom successive Governments have declared to be a source of permanent danger to the Indian Empire”. The Publisher, Prof Bimal Pershad adds: the book was written as an apology to the question mooted out by Lord Mayo: “ Are the Indian Musalmans bound by their religion to rebel against the Queen”- and Queen here meant Queen Victoria. Mayo was Viceroy of India from 1869-72. The book was first published in 1871 and last in 1876 and reprinted by Rupa & Co, , New Delhi in 2002 .

It seems that this task has now been taken up by another global power, 147 years later. The main suspect counted as permanent danger are again the Muslims of the Subcontinent. Perhaps the task was postponed while USSR was chosen as the immediate danger . In the end I should say that it is most frustrating that in such seminars the question-answer session is highly controlled and experts and scholars are not allowed to pursue a question with the speaker a little more than just limiting to raising a question and then not get elaboration of the answer. If the scholars and experts are to be equated with run of the mill generalists it is not worth it for them to attend such seminars.

The unwelcome intrusion

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

The news is that Negroponte is again coming to Pakistan. His visits are not like those of diplomats of other countries. They normally have a friendly purpose, either to renew acquaintance with leaders of the country or to exchange views on matters of mutual interests or concerns. The frequency of Negroponte’s visits have acquired the aura of a boss coming on an inspection tour of his domain. This is what makes his visits offensive, and undiplomatic; their frequency , their purpose and the arrogance of his visitation are most unwelcome. because of pocking of his nose in Pakistan’s internal affairs, and violation of code of diplomatic conduct.It is not known from the announcement that the dates and the purpose of his visit has been approved in advance by our Government or he has the liberty to arrive in Pakistan without ascertaining the suitability of dates. This impression is formed by an earlier visit in which he arrived and said the visit could not be put off to another date because the program had already been made. This taking for granted attitude is very mystifying because no foreign diplomat arrives to meet officials of another government without prior agreement of the dates, subject to mutual convenience.

According to the press, he is coming to (a) hold talks with on one side with the government top echelon, namely, president Musharruf , Yusuf Raza Gilani and others , on top party level with Asif Zardari & Nawaz Sharif (b) to discuss a host of issues including re-instatement of the deposed judges , political and economic situation in the country – with a view to bridge the gap between president Musharruf and the new government. (c) express US concern on the peace talks with the militants in the tribal belt as US does not approve of them.

It would however seem that the main purpose of his visit are three :to put pressure on the Top Leadership not to remove president Musharruf, not to reinstate the Chief Justice, and not to go for peace talks with the tribal militants. This would show that he is not coming for exchange of views on foreign policy with Pak officials but to put American pressure on the top leadership to accept American line in our policies, internal and external both. The Americans have prepared the ground well for Negroponte mission by issuing statements on the great danger that the tribals will pose to US and “indeed world peace”. They have indulged in hyperboles on the so-called “great threat” the militants in the tribal areas are allegedly pose to US including launching another 9/11 like attack on US. General David Petrraeus , nominated to head the US Central Command based in the Gulf has gone to the extent of saying the next 9/11 type would come from FATA, and earlier a US intelligence assessment also indulging in a fairy tale of this kind, along with American off again and on again raids on peaceful Pakistani citizens killing children and women are calculated to blackmail Pakistan With the NATO braves sitting in Afghanistan using weapons of mass destruction minus nuclear bomb, to talk of such future is to create an unjustified scare, Pakistan has its own approach how to eliminate militancy and violence in FATA through dialogue, but to no small measure calming down the situation would depend on American policies in Afghanistan and stopping air attacks on FATA. We are interested in peaceful tribal area in our own interest and we have a national policy on the issue.

It is astonishing that an officer of the level of Foreign Secretary, which Negroponte is, takes it for granted that he will have meetings with the President, Prime Minister and top political party leaders. Were he to try to have such meetings in India he would not get any one except his counterpart in India’s External Affairs Ministry. Of course in a Banana Republic or a small African state even a country director of the State Department would can have talks with the President or Prime Minister. The level at which the top leaders of a foreign government are dealt with by any outside power shows what is the respect (or lack of respect) for a country It is only in Pakistan that an Assistant Secretary of State equivalent to a Director General in our Foreign Office is considered a high ranking American official. It is necessary that these equivalents are known to those who are not familiar with them. Diplomatically correct thing to do for Negroponte would be to have a meeting only with Salman Bashir, the new Foreign Secretary and not beyond..

Were in good old days any foreign dignitary to discuss any internal or domestic issue like re-instatement of the deposed judges, he would have been told that this matter is entirely out of scope of foreign inspection, or open to discussion, as it would be an interference in internal affairs. The other matter according to the press reports, which are as reliable as one can get as an outsider, Negroponte also wants to offer his wisdom in settling the current issue regarding the President’s exit now being demanded by the Ruling parties. This is the limit a foreign power can cross in being an uninvited meddler in internal affairs. The topics on which he wishes to talk to the leadership are not only the ones in which US is involved but highly sensitive issues in the public in this country.. US does not like that Justice Iftikhar took up the cases of missing Pakistani persons because some of them have been abducted to Gontanamo Bay , or taken to American secret jails in Afghanistan or Europe. The future of president Musharruf might be of great interest to US foreign policy nonetheless it is a matter for new democratic leadership to decide, as indicated by Asif Zardari, and not for U.S...

Interference of this nature as Negroponte’s mission only complicates our problems and damage Pakistan’s cooperation in curbing militancy and violence called terrorism by US. Terrorism is borne out of occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by foreign forces and the colossal damage this occupation has inflicted on the occupied countries. Solution lies in taking a balanced view in which two sides are responsible for terrorism. Anyway we have our own solution for our own people and areas to eliminate the present horrible situation in the region. We are doing what we can to pacify our tribal belt and we know better than foreigners how we can achieve the results. We need not be preached by foreigners how to pacify our own areas. War has not solved any problem, dialogue and negotiations have and we are trying that.

It would better if foreigners develop an understanding of local psyche and ethos. Like the new military attaché to US Embassy in Islamabad on cancellation of General Hood’s appointment as Military Attache in Pakistan that “ Washington hopes that the gesture “ of canceling the appointment of Hood “ will be recognized in Pakistan as a sign of US willingness to accommodate Muslim sentiments on religious grounds” Wonderful. Instead of understanding the extent of mistake to nominate Hood of disrepute in the Muslim World he feels we should recognize the “gesture”. In any case as the new military attaché would be knowing a receiving government has an absolute right not to accept any one as a diplomat or a member of a diplomatic mission without assigning any reason. The US had no choice but to cancel Hood’s appointment. It was not a gesture of good will on the part of US but understanding the mistake of nominating Hood to Pakistan which US rectified. This shows how US officials have no idea of Muslim reactions....

Is it arrogance of power or real ignorance that the Americans make wrong moves?

Carnage in the Pink city

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

I was pained to read of the heinous, barbaric and shocking incident of terrorism in the pink city as Jaipur is affectionately called by its inhabitants, proud inheritors of a glorious history extending over centuries and centuries. It has pained me and we hang our heads in shame, if some Muslim organisation was involved in this act. My thoughts go back to 1947 when His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur went round the city in his jeep with a machine gun in his hand announcing that if any one stoke Hindu-Muslim riots he will shoot down them down personally . The Rajputs of Rajesthan are a unique Indian people. They are staunch practicing Hindus- in modern term “fundamentalist Hindus- yet not terrorists or fond of violence for the sake of violence. They have a code of chivalry and honour and only on battle fields or on matters of honour have they used open warfare, not hidden attacks. In this respect they are to be distinguished from the Jats. As the Rajputs claim only Rajputs of Rajasthan had this code.

Even otherwise, there has been a long tradition of generous treatment by Rajput Rulers towards their Muslim subjects. The history goes back to the days of Akbar the Great (1556-1605) and there after consistently the Rajputs had been generous towards Muslims. Jaipur has been very peaceful all along and this was not the way some bad Muslims have returned the good deeds of Rajputs of Rajasthan towards Muslims, particularly the Rulers of Jaipur

Let me count some facts about the Muslim-Rajput relations of the olden days. The fourth Mughal Emperor of India, Jehangir (1605-1627) was born of the Rajput Princess of Jaipur, Jodha Bai whom Akbar allowed to have a mandir in the Agra Fort. The fifth Mughal Emperor, Shah Jehan ( 1627-1656) succeeded to the throne after a war of succession with his brothers because the Rajputs sided with him, particularly of Jaipur because of the Rajput blood in him. The Second Mughal King Humayun, when he was engaged in quelling a rebellion in Bihar, on receiving an appeal of a Rajput Queen who had put a rakhi on Humayun’s wrist , to come to her aid against some rival Rajput Ruler, abandoned his war on the rebels and went to the aid of his Rajput ‘sister’ and in the process eventually he lost his Kingdom and sought long refuge in Iran till he returned to India to regain his kingdom. As is known the custom is that once a woman puts a rakhi on a man’s wrist he becomes her brother. The last Great Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s Chief Commander of the Mughal Army was Rai Raja Jaswant Singh of Jaipur. Aurangzeb ruled India from 1656 to 1707 ( and for the first time over almost the entire Subcontinent, as big as the British ruled).

I should now come to modern times. During the 1947 carnage of Muslims in India the Rajput rulers, as a general rule there might have been exceptions, looked after their Muslim subjects’ safety as a sacred duty , a trust and were conscious of the link of the Ruler and the Ruled which in our ancient system was described as the Rulers being Mai baap or father and mother of the subjects, or responsible for their safety and rights as a mother and father would be of their children. This again was a tradition of this area .

This was more so of the big Rajput states , which were almost like Kingdoms, like Bikanir, but particularly Jaipur. While the East Punjab Sikh States and of Jats from Rajasthan were enjoying the spree of massacre of Muslims, loot and kidnapping of women, in Rajasthan it was a different story. I was told by husband of my wife’s sister, Nawab of Rampur, who remained an MP of Lok Sabha in India for decades, till his death, and was a friend of the Jaipur Princely family, that in 1947 when there were some indications of communal riots in Jaipur, the Maharaja went round the city in his open jeep with a machine gun in his hand announcing that if any Hindu Muslim riots took place in his state he will personally shoot the people with this gun. “After all, I am a ruler, and I give death sentence. I can execute the mischief makers myself”.

Similarly, Maharaja of Bikanir, had the Muslim population of my father in law’s state , Loharu, under the protection of his army, in his State Railways, Bikanir State Railway, till Pakistan’s border who moved over to Bahawalpur, since the Rulers of Loharu and Bahawalpur had traditional friendships. Even Nawab sahib, Nawab Aminuddin Ahmed Khan, sought temporary refuge in Bahawapur till situation returned to a kind of normalcy in India. Then he returned to his native land. He said that is where are the graves of my ancestors. After he signed accession of Loharu State to India, in area about Singapore, he left Loharu for Jaipur and settled there. Its population was overwhelmingly Jat Hindus. He said he could not live as an ordinary person in a place, where he had been the Ruling Prince. He moved to Jaipur as Maharaja of Jaipur was his friend and settled there. Loharus had long historic friendship with the neighbouring Rajput states, Jaipur, Bikanir, Alwar, etc. After my marriage on posting to Delhi, I was taken by my wife to Jaipur for the customary visit. Nawab Saheb was then 44 years old.

It was there that I learnt of the noble manners and code of the Rajputs of Rajasthan.It is there I witnessed the Rajput’s relations with Muslims. The various Rajput ruling families gave customary dinners and hosted me and my wife like we were from their own family .And this was in 1955 when Pak-India relations were strained. It was the Rajput code of respecting family traditional relations between families that HH Maharaja of Bikaneir, Karni Singh, on his visit to Tokyo as leader of Indian Olympic Team in 1965- himself a champion of pigeon shooting in the Olympic with her Highness called on the daughter of the Nawab, my wife that is, and had a dinner for which we had to find some expert vegetarian cook since they were strictly vegetarian, and then HH Maharaja of Kotah and Her Highness called on us in Tokyo because Nawab Saheb had mentioned that his daughter was in Tokyo. This visits took place when I was Counsellor in Pakistan Embassy in 1965 few months before India Pak War 1965 . Family relations were counted as above politics by these Rajput Rulers. Similarly Natwar Singh India’s Foreign Minister, when he visited Belgrade, called on us because the Nawab Saheb had traditional relations with Alwar State.

Nawab Sahib won many elections from the constituency in Jaipur where Muslim meo community was predominant and became a Minister in Rajasthan Governmnet and subsequently Governor of Himachal State and later of Punjab. On his death the Falgs of three Indian states, Himachal, Rajasthan, Punjab were flown at half mast. His son Nawabzada Imafduddin Ahmed succeeed him as a Member of Rajya Sabha (Indian Senate) and Rajasthan Assembly. His daughter, Noor Banu Begum, Begum of Rampur is a Member of Lok Sabha from Rampur., a Muslim majority area in UP.

I am thus well aware of the problems of the Indian Muslims. Rajasthan is not Gujerat. It is just its opposite. My mind goes back to 1947 when His Highness Maharaja of Jaipur went round the city in his jeep with a machine gun in his hand warning that if any one stoke Hindu-Muslim riots he will shoot down those persons personally . Why this noble act returned with terrorism, if Muslims were behind it. Why compound problems of Muslims in India by such senseless terrorism. Those who indulge in such terrorism in such places as Rajasthan are enemies of tranquility for Muslims. They will sow new enmity between Muslims and Hindus. Rajasthan is exactly opposite of Mody’s Gujrat.

UNSC seat for India?

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

When first time in a newspaper I read Barrister Sultan’s generous statement offering UN SC Permanent Seat to India linking it to a “resolution” of Kashmir dispute I wondered whether he had been misquoted but when I read him repeating this strange proposal and read it in a prestigious newspaper I thought he is ignorant what are its implications and how unrealistic his expectations. This is the most meaningless statement based on an immature approach. I do not understand on what authority from, Pakistan or the Muslim World he made this offer. Pakistan has never entertained any such bizarre idea as to swap UNSC Permanent Seat to India conditioned to “the resolution” of Kashmir dispute whatever this “resolution” means. He was reported to have said that “ his party in Britain proposed to submit to the Ruling Labour Party Convention scheduled for September”. Mr. Sultan is a former Prime Minister of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government.

He is reported to have said that we are collecting signatures of all British Kashmiris on such a petition to submit such a petition to the Convention.

I am sorry to say that if Barrister Sultan feels that he has struck on a brilliant idea to solve Kashmir dispute and it would make him a historic personality by discovering a wonderful give and take he is mistaken. This is an amateurish idea.

Briefly it means a nebulous “resolution of Kashmir Dispute in exchange for making Pakistan a State under India security umbrella and abandoning the demand for a Muslim seat among the Permanent Members of UNSC, making Indian role in UN decisive for the Muslim World also.

Following is an analysis of this proposal. He has not clarified what that “resolution” of the Kashmir dispute he wants? He has left it ambiguous which means the “resolution” is to be decided in negotiations. We are back to square one:. Negotiate with India a nebulous “resolution”. To any diplomat it means Sultan’s willingness to give up the question of the “ future of entire Kashmir territory” is dropped in exchange for some sort of compromise with India. India says Kashmir is atot ang of India or inalienable part of India. Then what “out of box” solution of Kashmir is Sultan visualizing?

Actually India’s insistence that Kashmir is atot ang of India if looked upon closely is a declaration that India has military muscles to keep Kashmir in its possession and Pakistan cannot challenge Indian occupation on the battle field. This implies that if ever this atot ang is to be disputed the only effective way to do will be militarily, and dare you! Pakistan knows the military implications of India’s claim that Kashmir is atot ang.

No “resolution” of Kashmir dispute is possible through talks except legalizing status quo. International climate is against Muslim Pakistan. No realist can deny that Western powers would never like any Muslim country, far less Pakistan to be stronger militarily, which would be the result of Kashmir or major part of Kashmir coming to Pakistan. US-India-Israel is an unstated combination against Muslim powers in the region from Arab World to Asia. Moreover, West is creating a military encirclement of China in which it automatic assumes that India is US’ partner in military containment of China. It would support India’s hold over Kashmir adjacent to China’s vitals. This is why no a demand has been made that Kashmir dispute be redefined away from its traditional parameters, which is that Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim and /or it is left over part of the Division of British Empire in the Subcontinent. The demand that we get away from this logic is intended to make India’s hold over Kashmir legitimate by removing from the dispute the question of the will of the people or decide the dispute by referring to ascertaining the will of the people.

Entertaining any hope that India will ever agree to any solution to change the borders of Kashmir with Pakistan or agree to an independent Kashmir is unrealistic simply because India is sitting comfortably, Pakistan cannot alter the situation by power, international-that is, Westrn powers- are in fvour of Indian status quo in Kashmir.

Now comes the point who authorized Barrister Sultan to offer India UNSC permanent seat ? It assumes that Pakistabn will sponsor Indian candidature to UNSC. This is not in line with either Pakistan’s stand on India’s UNSC seat – which wants no additions to the existing number of UN SC members but only reforms in the UNSC which will take away the monopoly of veto with the UBSC Permanent Members - nor with OIC stand or of such countries as Egypt which want representation of a Muslim seat among Permnent UNSC members. So Barrister Sultan’s offer is in conflict with OIC and Pakistan’s position.

What Barrister Sultan is offering to India is to be the Super Regional Power with Pakistan acknowledging India’s hegemony and denying the Muslim world a voice in the UNSC. In terms of civilizations, Muslim civilization will be an appendage of Hindu/ Indian Civilization. Has Sultan this authority to write off Muslim claim to be in the power Directorate in the UN.

This is therefore not only an unrealistic plan but the Western powers can interpret it in its broader implications that there is a group among Kashmiris which is willing to support India hegemony over not only Pakistan but the Muslim world. Thus this kite flying can do tremendous harm to Pakistan and the Muslim World. This is quite normal when amutures try their hands on matters connected with international security. It would be better for those who do not understand international games stay out of meddling in them.

Of course it is quite obvious that the short lived hope resulting from the last elections has faded ay and we are back to square one, in the US clientage , people have started to assume that since we are a subservient power, what difference would it make if we accept Indian hegemony.

I thought the implications of this statement should be presented lest they had been ignored.

Coming to international themes engaging the people, I do not understand why when the mass demonstrations are led against Danish and Dutch blasphemy, the people do not demand “Boycott” of goods of these two countries through out the Muslim world. This is in their hands and it is an easy self help This is the best weapon in international relations. No government decision is required that people stop buying Danish and Dutch goods. Breaking diplomatic relations can be a short term measure and that too not very effective. Arabs broke diplomatic relations with US in 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and after the Camp David Accord but they were short lived. The most effective retaliation is economic boycott and boycott of Dutch and Danish goods throughout the Muslim world. The Blasphemers and their supporters would keel down if this boycott is real. Please boycott them, this does not require any Government decision. Peoples’ decision is far more effective. This was Gandhian weapon against the British. Do what you can do yourself.

What a pity the question of release of our ambassador to Kabul from the kidnappers has been put in the limbo. Had it been even a small American vice counsel kidnapped the entire Pakistan Government machinery would have moved for obtaining his release. Here it is a miserable civilian Pakistani diplomat case, what does it matter? Is this the attitude!

Dawn of a new era?

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

The 28th March, 2008, was a red letter day in Pakistan’s history. It seemed a dream had come true, democracy has returned at last, even though much remains to be done to make the country independent. Had democracy not come any thing could have been possible in the country. People were sick and tired of the abyss in which Pakistan was going and feared that it was the becoming of a nasty turmoil, but thank goodness it brought a half way democratic revolution. through the elections of 20th February. True, the election gave a kind of hung Parliament but the two major parties who opposed each other in the past have joined hands to struggle for replanting democracy in the country so that there are no more military adventurers’ coup d’etats in future

Let us first count the blessings. March 28th became a historic event with the two glorious firsts ever, electing a dignified lady, Fahmida Mirza, as the first ever lady Speaker of the Assembly, symbolizing the best of Pakistani culture. She became the first Muslim women to be the Speaker of a National Assembly. The second first in Pakistan’s history was the election of Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani as the consensus Prime Minister by the House. another suave, another dignified person, a man of balanced views who seems determined to implement them.

Whatever be the reason why every party agreed to vote unanimously for these two top appointments, yet this action can be construed as a stratagem to make any resort by the incumbent President to snap Art 58(2) b impossible when the entire Assembly had reposed unconditional confidence in the Prime Minister and the Speaker. Furthermore the declared attitude of the Opposition in the House to be like in UK a “faithful opposition of Her Majesty” is a good omen in this regard.

Much of Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani’s speech laying down the objectives for his first hundred days in the Office were very much appreciated. He spoke calmly and convincingly. His body language indicated that he is a determined man who means what he says. The three issues on which the Coalition allies have won the elections, supremacy of the Parliament will be ensured, all decisions shall be made in the Parliament, judiciary’s independence will be ensured, judges will be restored, Constitution will be supreme, , Constitution will be respected, were included in the Election promises. Gilani said that all illegal actions from 3rd Novemebr will be annulled.

He also disbanded the NAB. NAB had in fact become an instrument of victimization of politicians of opposition on alleged cases of corruption.

Main emphasis of his speech was on economic issues such as.unemployment, projects for generation of more electricity , controlling government expenditure beginning with 40% cut on PM’s official household expenditure, building small dams, houses for low income wage earners including government employees, provision of public transports , health and educational facilities, etc. He declared restoration of trade unions and student unions, grant of powers to the provinces and virtual decentralization of power in the federation. The one omission in his policy speech was to abolish the Nazim system which has come much under criticism as the source of abuse of political clout for political purposes and a new source of corruption , not only abuse of power. In the envisaged reforms he stood for abolition of Frontier Crimes Regulations.

It was a novel experience for the viewers to watch the reaction of the Party leaders in the National Assembly. No invectives were used in even criticizing the Prime Minister. The mood was to create harmony rather than controversies. It was a pleasure to hear the Opposition repeating that they intended to cooperate with the Government in the interest of the country’s welfare and not to indulge in criticism for the sake of criticism.

The three best speeches not only for their eloquence but also substance, made on the floor of the Assembly were by leader of the Opposition ( yet to be officially so designated) Faisal saleh Hyat – not reputed to be generally a conciliatory speaker, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, and Iqbal Ahsan.

Yet the Prime Minister did not come upto the expectations from him in regard to some important matters. It seems that his Party’s stance had been affected by the meetings between the American dignitaries, State Department senior officials and Congressmen on the one hand and Party leaders on the other.. This was obvious from the formulation and stand the Prime Minister took on the issue of War on Terror. Earlier it was indicated that the manner in which the War on Terror is viewed as American war and not Pakistani affair the issue will be decided by the Parliament. Earlier the emphasis was on use of dialogue with the militants to give up terrorism and not on the “war” as such. The earlier approach was to eliminate the militancy through talks and dialogue and not on “War”.

It was learnt that there was criticism of Zardari’s meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher. It was correctly counted as infra dig for the top party leader to sit in a conference with such a medium level American diplomat ( equivalent of our Directors General in the Foreign Office) The explanation given by the duo, Negropointe and Boucher that the visit was planned well before the elections results, and although advised to postpone it, since they had fixed dates of their visit to Pakistan, it could not be postponed - is a very lame excuse, because one does not visit the other side unless the dates of the visit are agreed to mutual satisfaction. Giving such a lame excuse and accepting it is a record event in diplomatic history. Thus the desire to have an independent foreign policy under the new regime seems to have been compromised. We want elimination of terrorism and extremism but not by measuring its success by counting the dead bodies of our Tribal people. Indeed some measured use of force might be inevitable but it should be subsidiary to dialogue and talks. In this regard Asfandyar Wali has the right approach. Nobody is in favour of militancy, acts of terrorism but its elimination is to be done through mutual negotiations. After all if Americans had to open peace talks with General Giap of Viet Nam and the British with Irish terrorists why Pakistan cannot do similar thing with its own tribals.

But the smug feeling that the old order has bid farewell was rudely shaken with the incident of throwing out Justice Ramday’s luggage from Judges House No 15 in the Judges Colony the same day the Prime Minister had declared in his Policy Speech in the House to restore the suspended judges according to the Murree Declaration which meant in a month’s time. If this was to be the day one of those 30 days, the incident took place just when the count down was to begin. Was it coincidental? Was it a show of force against that count down? Is this a challenge of the old Order to the new !

There are some administrative actions like appointment of some as Adviser, and Ambassadors-at-large are open to criticism. Only very seasoned diplomats are appointed as ambassador at large if at all. The first ever ambassador at large was Averil Harrimon, an expert on Soviet relations when US had decided to engage USSR in a dialogue to end the Cold War. Well, we have been resorting to imports of our high officials, Moin Qureshi, Shaukat Aziz, and so on. This is obnoxious and we have seen the results of such imports.

Yet one can say Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has made a good beginning and seems to have the right approach on national policies and national reconciliation. Some adjustments might be needed here and there. Yet one would wish him success in the interest of future of Pakistan’s democracy. At least he is the right man on the top spot.

Elimination of terrorism

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

Four events have made “terrorism” a matter of grave national concern , viz., 18th October 07 Karachi Blast on Late Benazir Bhutto’s welcome procession , 27th December 07 her assassination at Liaquat Bagh, mob attacks in Sindh which coincided with her burial at Nau Dero, Blast at Karachi SITE, suicide attack on the Police at Lahore. These blasts took place well inside Pakistan as distinct from the militants conflict in Tribal Area. Those activities resulted from the American war on terrorism and a direct outcome of US /NATO operations in Afghanistan in which every day they kill a number of Afghans “suspected of being Taliban. ” We have two distinct manifestations of the problem. Nonetheless the root of both is in Afghanistan . .
Whether it is accepted that this resulted from the Lal Masjid military operations or not- as a cause and effect sequence, it cannot be denied that the flames of terrorism reached inside Pakistan after the Lal Masjid military operations.
Now we have the tribal belt militancy versus Pak military. This is a very serious matter This is making Pakistan a mini Iraq, even worst because the target is our own military, our own people vs our own people. This is what is condemnable in the strongest terms. A military action on one’s own people should normally not an indefinite operation as it can have serious repercussions particularly in a federation. A national army’s power are its own nationals. Older people would remember 65 war. It was a national war and entire nation was at the back of the Armed Forces.
So the objective of the military operations in the Tribal Areas cannot be an indefinite war till success is achieved, and success means what: it cannot mean conquest of our own people. To Americans it is of little interest whether Pakistan is badly dented in killing the Tribals. To them Pakistan’s repercussions are of no consequences. We can agree with the objective of elimination of terrorism but with what means is for us to decide as we have great stake in the welfare of our own people whether in the Tribals belt or well inside Pakistan. We have to keep in view that they are Pakistanis as they have to keep in view that the Pakistani soldiers are as much Pakistanis as they. The State is concerned with both alike.
One does not conquer one’s own people; it cannot be total elimination of the opposite side, therefore it would not be described as a war but a limited operation, the aim is to be elimination of militancy, not an indefinite war till the other side has been eliminated. Tribal area is our sword arm, and it should be alienated beyond a point. Every operation rebounds into a reaction. So, this suggests a limited objective. Whether it is a Pathan militant who is killed or our jawan both are Pakistanis, and we have a situation of Pakistani killing Pakistani which should not continue. Our objective is not victory at any cost but elimination of militancy and pacification of tribal area, where peace prevails.
How to achieve this objective is the test of wisdom of our leadership, and our people. It is quite clear that the American idea of taking on the tribals themselves will compound the problem many fold. Then first of all the Tribals would go for a real war and have no inhibition of going as far as they can against Pakistan itself..
Secondly, with what face the Americans want to engage themselves in war against the Tribals. The US and NATO forces are a total failure in their objectives against Afghans and Iraqis. Total failures, despite the greatest fire power in the hands of the Western forces. They have been virtually beaten hollow in both the places .How can a failure in a similar endeavor boast of undertaking another endeavor from one of the world’s best forces? With what face. Can a D grade student offer his services to an A grade student to succeed in its task. Kindly US and Western Forces you have been beaten hollow in these two places and even after killing one million Iraqis and a large number of “ Afghan suspected of being Taleban “ not sure that they were Talebans, you want to try your hands on our side. Have a sense of reality about what your inordinate power cannot achieve in these Muslim areas. We cannot let anybody jolt the foundations of Pakistan. You show that you can do your declared job and decide when you should walk out from there , not wind up in Iraq and dig heals in Pakistan, which will be worst than what they have so far had in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem in the Tribal area will automatically come under control once Afghanistan is pacified .. Show that you can chew what you have bitten in Iraq and Afghanistan. before casting eyes on Pakistan.. I would not like to call your braves incompetent soldiers but surely you need to do your own job well before you want to mess up in Pakistan. A failure like you should not boast of success in a place where Pakistan’s best troops have to be very cautious. This besides the other reasons, of sovereignty of Pakistan, .
Coming to what Pakistan should do to revise its policy to convert the operations from the war on terrorism to elimination of terrorism and pacification of our tribal areas, it is suggested that talks be held with the tribal leaders to reach a negotiated settlement of the present situation with tact and local wisdom. A Think Tank should be set up under the chairmanship of the last Pakhtun Governor of NWFP who hails from the tribal area with suitable Islamic scholars and leaders to prevail on the Tribal leaders to give up the terrorism and even if a way is to be found to close the chapter of Lal Masjid killings and pacify tribal areas. Governor Oarakzai was respected by the tribals to quite some extent and in such negotiations it is necessary that that the interlocutor is persona grata to the other side. It may seem to be too simplified but I would like to remind that when Churchill asked his advisers to open the Second Front in the WWII he merely showed them with a pencil that it should be through as direct route as possible and illustrated it by a pencil, “as straight as this” The religious leaders/ scholars should be as much from Pakhtuns as possible, but scholars like Dr Khamdi, Dr Mahmood Ahmed Ghazi, Dr S M Zaman, who can convince by quoting ahadis and the Holy Quran on prohibition to kill innocent Muslims, unjustified suicide bombing etc. Only a scholar can interact with Mullas and not a laymen or Army Officer. The words spoken by a credible person carry conviction. This persuasion should continue till actions from both sides are stopped.
On this occasion I would like to express my great shock on the most disgusting insulting abominable treatment given by American immigration to an angel of a man like Abdul Sattar Edhi. This shows how deep is the hatred in the hearts of American officials against Muslims that a person who should be known to any person connected with Muslim world who Edhi is. So this is an example of “tolerance” “liberalism” preached by us that any sign of a devout Muslim a beard and that a long beard and simple Pakistani dress scares them. Preacher heal thyself and stop talking of liberalism and tolerance. Fie on such bigoted American “Christians” Kindly do enlighten me what else it was. By insulting Edhi you have insulted the loftiest values of humanity.

Indian Naval Chief on Gwadar

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

Recently the Indian Navy Chief made a statement claiming that this port will be able to block the Gulf to India by closing the Straits of Hormuz . I am surprised that the Navy Chief of the second largest blue water navy in the Indian Ocean can make such a statement for it refelects badly on his caliber and understanding of the power equations in the Gulf for Gwadar is situated in its vicinity.
The Admiral of mightiest fleet in the Indian Ocean, second to American Sixth Fleet in this area has expressed his concern that Pakistan would be able to block the Gulf to Indian Navy by blocking the Gulf to Indian Navy. Astonishingly he sees in building of Gwadar a military offensive intention. This means he had not read his news papers for several years in the past and his general knowledge is antediluvian. This is not what a Commander of a major military force , Navy, should be. It seems therefore first to correct the mistakes in his statement and then to see his motives in making such a cock and bull version of building of Gwadar Port.
First let me recapitulate what has been appearing in the press for at least two decades about the necessity for Pakistan to build the second deep sea port. .
The search for locating Pakistan’s second port started long long ago. Karachi as the only Pakistani port was found to be unsatisfactory for handling of foreign cargo ships, and at times caused congestion at the port making foreign ships stay in the harbour for long time. Foreign Shipping companies started showing impatience on long waits. In fact it annoyed them so much that major shipping lines started to avoid Karachi Port. If not to curtail their services to Pakistan So Pakistan was engaged I the exercise to determine where the second port should be First consideration was given to having Pasni as the second port but for a number of reason it was found unsuitable. It was to near Karachi and that would not benefit Baluchistan but Sindh. So search continued and Gwadar was considered the best place for it. Having a major port in Baluchistan’s pivotal position was necessary for Baluchistan’s economic development particularly it makes it in the vicinity of the hub of trade and commerce which Dubai and Abu Dhabi have become. Pakistan has much trade and economic interest in the Gulf, not since it became a rich area but from long time in the past. There are great economic advantages in having a second port in Gwadar as any economist would readily agree. Now in Pakistan, development of development of Baluchistan is being given high priority. After the Sandak Copper Mines project when it is developed Baluchistan would need a port readily avaialble to it.
There was another reason for having the second port so far away from Karachi. Our experience of the wars with India had shown that Pakistan’s sea lanes were dominated by Indian Navy which had effective control of the Sea around Karachi and Indian Navy had virtually blockaded Karachi and denied any excess to its importa and exports and Pakistan Navy was bottled up in Karachi port and thus was at the mercy of Indian Navy. Karachi was vulnerable to Indian blockade . If Karachi is so paralyzed by Indian Navy entire Pakistan can be a hostage to India. Thus Gwadar is not a port for offence but for protection and defence where Pak Navy can have a sanctuary in case of need.
Now to come to the question can Pakistan Navy clsoe the Gulf of Hormuz to Indian Navy or any other Navy . It is the funniest idea which can be a fantasy but not reality. Major shipment of oil, is it 60% of world production passes through this route. Blocking it would threaten world supplies and affect the interest of Super and major powers. US Fleet is essentially for this purpose in the Gulf and has the most effective presence in it. Can any body in his good senses imagine that Pakistan Navy, one of the smallest Navies in Asia can undertake the task of blocking ther Gulf of Hormuz. Funny.
Now India is the largest deep sea navy in nAsia secind only to the US Sixth Fleet. Jane’s Defence Journal counts Indian Navy far beyond its defence and in fact for power projection to obtain benefits of power without using it. It has its sphewre of influence from Malaccas to Aden or on entire Indian Ocean an objective even Pannikar has visualized as its ambit of influence . Indian Navy is an offensive fleet with plans for nuclear submarines to be obtained from Russia if not already obtained. It isa three fleet Navy at Bombay, Cochin, Vizgpattam and a Naval Base at Nicobar, 80 miles from Sumatra of Indonesia. It plans to have nuclear submarines at Nicobar. What do all therse plans mean. Indian Navy is for spreading India’s suzerainty over Indian Ocean littoral states. Pakistan’s is a modest Navy several timesw less than India’s may be Indian Navy is ten times greater than Pakistan’s when viewed in the context of it Army and Air Force being greater than the armies of all ASEAN states put together and more, that is Indonesia plus Malaysia plus Singapore plus Maynmar plus Philippines plus Thailand plus Burma plus Bangla Desh plus Sri Lanka plus Pakistan. And add to this nuclear warheads and missiles and what not . Who is an offensive military power in our region or in Asia?
Pakistan’s entire defence set-up is for defensive purposes and its nuclear capability is only for deterrence purposes. In fact had India not gone for nuclear bomb Pakistan would not have gone for its nuclear capability. It exercised restraint in 1974 but then in 1998 India. compelled Pakistan to worry about it becoming a hostage in India’s hands with all gigantic militarist paraphernalia. No we have no offensive plans.
Since Indian Navy Chief cannot be such a simpleton as not to know all these facts what is the method in his ,,,?

Bush casts his net on Arabs

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

At the fag end of his term, every ruler, whether dictator or democratically elected worries how history will record his era, successful or unsuccessful. Bush has much to worry about his performance for he is considered as the most aggressive President America produced and who shed immense blood, in Arab Iraq and Muslim Afghanistan. Now he wants to white wash his blood stains in Arab world, particularly as he is itching for a war on Iran.. No American President has earned so much hatred in the Muslim world as Bush. His eight days trip to the Arab world was aimed at casting his net on the Arab countries ostensibly to obtain their support for his peace plan between the Jews of Israel and Arabs of Palestine, since now even the Americans agree that Palestine Problem is the key to tranquility in the Middle East. His father started the process of eliminating military threat to Israel through his Gulf War. The project was intended to eliminate the only Arab military power and tall Arab leader who was not willing to surrender to US on Israel problem. Since that war US had added one more objective to its objectives in this region, military supremacy of Israel plus American occupation or control of the oil belt. Now Iraq has been conquered, Saddam eliminated, in Palestine, Palestinians are sharply divided between Fatah and Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas friendly to Israel’s Olmert and hostile to Hamas and towing American line , there is no powerful Arab leader with backbone to face Israel and have Arab masses support, Saddam eliminated , Arab masses leaderless, Bush must have thought time propitious for a “peace effort” to solve the Palestinian problem. So he wants to launch his Camp David II Peace Plan..
But this was not the only objective Bush wanted to achieve by his visit. He had another objective viz., to drum up anti-Iranian feelings among the Arabs and convince them to counter the “threat” from Iran. He used strongest invectives against Iran in his pronouncements in Arab countries. “Iran was the greatest threat to world peace”, Bush said, it is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world. Now having cowed down all Arab leaders in the Middle East he finds Iran as still retaining its independence, pursuing nuclear program and Ahmedinejad as a leader of different type than the pliable Arabs. He has a backbone. Another reason why US is against Ahmedinjad is that now in the Muslim world the only leader who stands on his feet, because his people are with him, is he. All others are in US pocket, have no democratic support of the people. He has. The lone tall poppy is to be cut down, in American thinking.
This drumming up anti-Iran propaganda had a sinister purpose of bigger nature than just drumming up support for American anti-Iran policy. It was to divide Arabs and non Arabs in the Muslim world. Some Americans in their think tanks have sold the idea that the ancient Arab and Ajam division can be used even now to weaken Muslim feeling for Ummah which is counted by US as a grave threat to its interests in the Muslim world. Thus the net Bush has cast is far more wider than just finding a solution of the Palestine Problem It is also to destroy the idea or feeling of brotherhood among multi-racial ummah. According to the press such a study was prepared by the Rand Corporation. He first started his mission with a meeting with Israelis- Olmert- and then came to see his new most obedient client Mahmoud Abbas. He visited Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. The only place where he found a ready listener was in Egypt where the aging Husni Mubarak fervently backed Bush’s Middle East program and said he will work hand in hand with the United States and “other nations” for an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. At other places, except with Mahmoud Abbas, he did not find such enthusiastic support. In Saudi Arabia where he tried to play on the so-called Arab-Ajam rivalry and painted Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to the Arabs also he did not find Saudis gullible to accept his exhortations about Iran , “The threat to the world peace”. Of course no Arab country asked him or reminded him that largest nuclear arsenal in the world is owned by the US which it uses as a card to blackmail the third world to fall in line with US policies and Israel has 70 nuclear bombs which it can use to destroy entire Middle East.
Any way, no country of Bush’s visitation pointed out that Israel continues to kill a number of Arab Palestinians on one pretext or the other and so creates doubts about its credentials for peace. Even after any so-called peace initiatives Israel shows its true colour of being a blood thirsty power which makes it akin to Bush. With massive killings in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere Bush makes a meek face when he talks of peace plans. The Wolf of the little Red Riding hood that he is.
Anyway, while no Arab country seems to have boght Bush’s plan to stand against Iran, it is necessary to warn the Arabs that if they teamed up against Iran they will be guilty of dividing the Ummah, if one believes in it, into Arabs and non-Arabs for which history would not forgive them and it might in fact punished them for this sin. I am not being emotional. Do they remember what happened when the Arabs teamed up against Ottoman Caliphate and sided with Lawrence of Arabia, they got the Balfour Declaration in the package which founded Israel . Arabism in lieu of Balfour Declaration equal to Israel. Was the gift of Lawrence of Arabia to Arabs . Now Bush would give them msame kind of gift if the fell for his Iran Arab divide scheme.
Let me on this occasion recall what Grand Mufti of Palestine remarked to me on this subject in Beirut during the time I was Pakistani Ambassador there. He said Pakistan made the mistake of not finding a solution of Bangali’s demand within Pakistan and caused the birth of Bangla Desh. Similarly the Arabs made the mistake of “Bangla Desh” when they broke Caliphate. They could have converted it into a Common wealth of Muslim nations” Well this is now a closed chapter but the lesson is not to be forgotten.
Ummah is not a sentimental concept but a collective political security system. While no one preaches closing doors on mutual beneficial cooperation with any country, in the East or West, this should not be done at the expense of omitting lessons history had given only in the recent past. Selling once independence should be avoided. There is a news that UAE is giving a base to France. There had been Resolutions of OIC against giving bases to freign powers, once the Arabs were very vociferous againt military pacts and granting bases to foreign powers. There was wisdom in that opposition to bases and miliutary alliances. One should keep that principle in mind. France wants base in UAE against whom? Ofcourse in this case France is an ally of USA in the Gulf area, agau=inst whom. The lesson to be drawn from the Lawrence of Arabia Divide Muslims policy should be kept in view by Muslims in all their dealings with foreign powers particularly Western Powers. Lawrence of Arabia in first world war divided Arabs from Ottoman Empire and broke Khilafat

Hariri’s UN trial & Benazir’s case

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

PPP has demanded that UN should investigate (or determine) who assassinated Benazir Bhutto? It will be agreed to that results of an inquiry by Pakistani police and investigation agencies may not be accepted as reliable for reasons which need not be stated. Our police and intelligence agencies are under the influence of their top bosses.
Now Scotland Yard is busy investigating the cause of her death. British Government’s offer of their services was accepted by our Government. While Scotland Yard is, as a columnist has described it , a legendary institution, known for its expertise, even after its inquiry is finished further two steps would have to be undertaken ,viz., to identify the murders and to try them. These two steps are beyond the competence of the Scotland Yard.
Her’s was a political assassination and not just a simple case of murder. If some high Pakistanis are involved in the murder , Scotland Yard cannot interrogate them. Next step is trial of those persons, and if they are highly placed one cannot expect Pakistani courts to be impartial as judiciary’s independence has become controversial. Had the pre-Nov 3 Judiciary been on the Bench, there would have been no question of any outside agency being asked to judge the evidence the Scotland Yard would present.
If by any chance the old Judiciary is reinstated after the elections there would not be any need to have a Special international Commission or tribunal to try those accused of Benazir’s assassination. In the absence of an independent judiciary, the best course would be to have a UN Special Commission appointed to undertake the trial of the murderers of Benazir.
The only precedent for such a trial is Rafik Hariri’s murder. The UN tribunal was appointed to investigate a purely local nature of murder almost in similar circumstances as of a former Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafik Hariri who was assassinated on 14th February 2005 in Beirut. Rafik Hariri was Prime Minister of Lebanon. from 1992 to 1995. Looking at Hariri’s murder we find basic similarity in the two cases.
I knew Rafik Hariri during my five years ambassadorship to Lebanon. He was then just coming into notice as an up and coming businessman of Saida as President of its Chamber of Commerce. At that time he was a pleasant young man of about 30 years born in 1944 into a modest family. He essentially remained a businessman: He became one of the richest businessman said to worth about $ 2 billion, in collaboration with the Saudis. His main achievement was to bring peace to devastated Lebanon as its Prime Minister, made it stand on its own feet, and re-establish harmony between Christians and Muslims. in the factionally divided country into Muslims and the Christians and further subdivided into Sunni, Shia, and Druzes among the Muslims; and Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Catholics and Armenians among the Christians. For the Lebanese his achievement was to unify the Civil War devastated Lebanon
After acknowledging all his achievements, it may be said that while he was a popular national leader of Lebanon , Hariri did not have an international stature. He was loved by a majority of the Lebanese but his standing was limited to Lebanon or at most to the Levant but not beyond. Thus there was no comparison between Rafik Hariri and Benazir Bhutto, not because Pakistan is greater in area than Lebanon but because Benazir was a leader of international standing. Thus if Hariri’s murder can be investigated by the UN Benazir’s deserves UN investigation and trial more than Hariri’s. .
However, the circumstances of his assassination were very similar to that of Benazir. He died on February 14th, when a car bomb exploded killing him and his 25 companions at Beirut’s main square the Memorial of the Martyrs. Both were political assassinations. Both were allegedly murdered as a result of political rivalries. It was alleged that Rafik Hariri was murdered by the Syrian ‘mukhabarat’ or intelligence agency , and in the case of Benazir there are two versions, that she was murdered by Taliban, according to Musharraf but according to her supporters , by the persons named by Benazir in her letter to President Musharruf and to some foreign friends. But no foreign power or element was named by Benazir as her would be murderers.
This is an important detail. In the case of Rafik Hariri, Syria, a foreign power, member of the UN was accused of Hariri’s murder. This made it necessary that before the UN could take up consideration of Hariri’s murder case, Lebanese Government had to sponsor it in the UN. Perhaps, this requirement is not necessary in PPP’s case for UN Commission because it does not involve accusing any Member State of the UN. There is no such complication in Benazir’s case..
I cannot speak on this detail authoritatively, that is, Does UN require or does it not that Pakistan Government itself present the case to the UN, before it can take it up in the Security Council?
Amongst the seniors of the Foreign Service the most competent persons who can give sound advice is Iqbal Akhund , my batch mate in the Foreign Service, who had been Benazir Foreign Minister after his retirement. The UN could have been inhibited from taking Hariri’s case as it involved a complaint against a UN member State, Syria. This case was taken up during Koffi Annan’s Secretary Generalship, who had some pretensions of being a Third Wordler, as a Ghanaian., and therefore would have liked a proper procedure to be observed where the matter was to became an inter-state dispute. This is not the case in asking UN to appoint a Special Commission to investigate all aspects of Benazir’s murder..
There was a political objective in going to the UN on Hariri’s murder..Certain circles in Lebanon were of the view that the Syrians had killed Hariri,. The Maronites Christians are not well disposed to Syria. Whereas Muslims are pro-Syria. US is hostile to Syria and was interested in pinning Hariri murder to Syrian High Command. US was backing the “Lebanese” move for the UN Enquiry. In this background, Koffi Annan must have thought that this request for the UN Commission to inquire into Hariri murder must be sponsored officially.
This is where PPP’s demand for a UN investigation is not politically motivated against any foreign power, and thus have cleaner motives than the Hariri UN inquiry had..
Pakistan Government would do well to sponsor the PPP demand in the UN. It would show that Government too is interested in an objective inquiry into Benazir’s murder. However, it would be better if the UN Commission is headed by Judges of the International Court of Justice. Nonetheless it should be understood that matters in the UN proceed with snail pace. No timely action is or can be expected from the UN It might get bogged down in procedures as is has happened with Hariri case which is no where its end as yet. Nonetheless if the PPP forms the Government after February elections they can pursue the matter at the UN vigorously.

Benazir’s assassination enquiry

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

Benazir’s assassination was no ordinary event. Its importance is obvious from the Global grief and condemnation expressed by the top leaders in the World, press in all countries, even political parties on this death.. In Pakistan itself the three days mourning declared by the Government, flying of the National Flag at half mast, thronging by millions to Noudero, her home town, the wave of anger which caused billions of dollars damage to public and private property which indicate the magnitude of the public anger and grief over her death. It was counted as a national loss, and the murder and death itself as equal to the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime minister of Pakistan. Who assassinated her and why are the questions which will haunt Pakistan’s national history. At all times in future the coming generations will ask this question if not resolved now, and draw their own conclusions since there would be no censure then. This question might be raised even by anti Pakistan federation forces if no credible Enquiry is held now.
An inquiry above suspicion , by an organization of impeccable credentials of objectivity is a must in this case. Who killed Liaquat and who engineered the air crash which killed Zia have remained unsolved mysteries.The hazards of not having a credible inquiry will haunt us for long times to come.
Having said that, it is clear that it was a political murder. Who cold have done it: international terrorism, Al Quaida or Taleban as claimed by the Government or by her political rivals upset on her sweeping popularity as believed by PPP and PML-N , and Zardari has used a strong word to describe the political rivals. This accusation itself speaks much about why our own security agencies and police investigation teams cannot be described as “impartial” investigators. It is generally believed that it is not so much a matter of lack of professionlism as of lack of impartiality in high profile cases which makes our own investigation teams not as credible as foreign or international investigation teams and of course lack of highest standard equipment required for a very delicate investigation.
People in this connection point out the changing versions of the official spokesmen on the cause of death of Benazir. It is not the question of blame game or conspiracy theories as PJ Mir or ARY TV claimed, but of changing stands and doubts about the authencity of the statements.
It is in a way good that the British offer of the services of Scotland Yard team have been accepted to examine the evidence and to look at the facts on the ground relating to Benazir’s assassination. Of course Scotland Yard is a very reliable professional institution as against CIA which is part of US psychological warfare and is involved in political game plans, which so far as I know is not the case about Scotland Yard. It has the reputation of high integrity too and one hopes that they will retain that reputation in regard to this inquiry too.
We do not know what are the terms of their inquiry. One would assume that they are limited to examining the technical matters and not to go to the following: cross examining the suspects who could have committed the crime and not obtaining the views of the aggrieved party which is PPP high command and specifically Zardari and Bhutto’s Chief Security Officer, Malik. Or to cross examining the persons they name as the prime suspect . Nor they can try them for the crime.
From here is indicated the need of a UN Commission to proceed further. Scotland Yard cannot for example ask leaders of political parties to come before them and be cross- examined and charge sheet them if need be . This can be done only by a UN Commission on the pattern of UN Commission on Hariri Murder case. There is great similarity between the two cases in fat more in the case of Benazir’s political elimination.
Hariri was a minor stature leader compared to Benazir. He too was out of office when murdered, and he was said to have been murdered by a foreign power. Here the Government says that Al-Quaida was involved in her murder The UN SC has authorized war on him and thus the suspect of the crime in government view is also some one after whom UNSC is moving . Actually the UN Resolution which authorized the Hariri Commission has to be examined by the competent international law experts. However, the main common factor in Hariri case and Benazir case is the fact that it was an enquiry into the causes of murder of a former Prime Minister , Benazir had been Prime Minister of Pakistan twice, Hariri’s murder affected security and stability of a country and here too it is the same case, etc. Ofcourse no two cases can be identical but one has to see the main common factors or features of the two cases. It would be found that the main features of Hariri Case are more present in the case of Benazir’s assassination.
In fact a UN enquiry would be helpful to those who are being blamed for Benazir’s assassination because once exonerated by a UN Commission history’s mouth would be shut against them and nobody should be able to point a finger against them if their claim of innocence is true.
In UN the trial of Serbian leaders on some what similar charges was conducted by International Court of Justice. Instead of presenting to a Commission perhaps the Scotland Yard findings can be presented to a tribunal of International Court of Justice. But apparently the persons concerned are too high powered to be cross examined by Scotland Yard Team. Nor it can have such jurisdiction.
It seemed that having a UN Commission look into this murder would still be required even after a Scotland Yard inquiry. It is too high powered matter to be enuired into by Scotland Yard team. A UN Commission can put all rumour factories and blame game to rest for ever. This assassination is a case in which History is also a party. It is beyond national jurisdiction. The UN Commission Enquiry will or should not imply that any one or the other party is responsible for her murder till proved otherwise.

Postpone elections to early March

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

Just when it seemed that democratic process was getting steam , and elections were only a few days ahead, happened the heinous crime of sniffing the life from the blooming flower of democracy Benazir Bhutto at the killing fields of Liaquat Bagh on 27th December 07 – a date which will be long remembered as one of the blackest days in the history of Pakistan.. Benazir Bhutto had just finished her moving oration to a large admiring crowd of PPP workers and got out and boarded her transport packed with her most trusted party big wigs, she was made target of some bomb blast and shooting from a gun . Taken to the nearby hospital, she expired in no time, perhaps on way to the hospital . The assassination raised two questions: Who assassinated her, and what would happen to the elections?
The momentum of electioneering was suddenly brought to a halt. It was obvious that when one of the top leaders fell, the process had to come to a halt. The country was in a gloom, as never before. There were protests, killings and arson through out the country, some where, less some where intense. This article is written on the second day of her assassination, practically the entire country is in the mourning. There is shutter down in the country’s bazars and total lock up. Grief has over powered the country. Naturally, no electioneering is possible nor the election date of 8th January 08 can be adhered to. The main proponents for retaining the election schedule were foreign powers, US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Brown. Surprisingly politicians of long experience and production of votes and elections. This was surprising coming from them and incorrect as far as fixing dates for the elections was concerned which surely is not their concern. While one can understand to some extent their interest in democracy abroad and in Pakistan too, but not in fixing the dates of the elections. This is a matter for the political parties under the present tragic circumstances which obviously need refixation of the dates of the elections for undeniable reasons. Perhaps in keeping with the wishes of foreign leaders the Caretaker Prime Minister cum Chairman of the Senate Mohammedmian Soomro said that the election date was still on .
A number of reasons make fixing another date for the elections absolutely necessary. PPP is now faced with the question of electing a new leader which would not be possible within a few days because of emotional block in imaging the party without Benazir for its emotionally shocked jiyalas, The shock of Benazir’s killing was too intense to allow a peaceful vote so soon after the greatest trauma the Party has experienced after ZAB’s death.
As far as the Opposition parties are concerned they have now to decide whether to boycott the elections or participate in it, because they have considered Benazir’s assassination, rightly or wrongly, as an act of a kind of unfair practice of eliminating the star political name from PPP’s vote magnates. Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif too were eliminated but by disqualification as a voter. Nonetheless, they are still there to lead their party and ask for votes for their nominees whereas Benazir is gone.
Early March, as soon around 8th March 08 as possible would be suitable because PPP would be observing forty days mourning period for Benazir which takes up the whole of February, so it does not disturb their mourning period and it cannot be postponed too much lest the electioneering momentum has to start from scratch. This will give an opportunity to induct a new EC, remove the local governments and establish credible machinery for free and fair elections. Moreover, March is associated with Pakistan Resolution, establishment of the Republic in Pakistan and it has comfortable weather too.
In no case should the present disturbed situation be allowed to re-impose emergency or any extra-judicial measure is taken or alternative to elections contrived.. It would be best to avoid street confrontation with the opposition which can create complications in Pakistan’s fragile situation. Political means for reconciliation by doing away during the interim period with obnoxious measures like controlling the media or gagging it, or of some obnoxious amendments to the Constitution should create an amiable political environment .
It would be best for the opposition when they have the public opinion in their favour not to start street agitations as an alternative to the elections. Such a step would be harmful to the country in its present weak condition as regards national cohesion. Instead matters which bother the country like bringing the Constitution to the original Constitution of 1973, reinstatement of the Superior Court judges should be sought throught two third majority. This is possible if the regime does not adopt a confrontationist attitude towards the new emerging realities. Same should be done by the Opposition that is it too should not go for a confrontationist posture.
It should be acknowledged that the olden days of authoritarianism are now gone, not only in world elsewhere but even in Pakistan. The spirit of age is also reflected in Nepal and Thailand, where in one case an old kingdom is being abolished by the Parliament and in another Military regime is faced with accepting the same person through the elections whom they had toppled in a Coup d’etat . Even Thailand which at one time was jokingly mentioned as a country with four political parties, Army, Navy, Air Force and the Police has ceased to be the same old Thailand. In Indonesia the old doctrine of “dua funcsioni” or the Armed Forces having two functions the civil and military has been abandoned.
Pakistan is a contradiction of being a country of very advanced people with outdated concepts in some respect. It is not a backward country nor of backward people who are learning what are the values of modern civilization. We have been backward because our state institutions were not manned by the professionals but administrators . How so ever good they may be in giving good administrations but the technical and professional institutions require experts from those very fields . Imagine how dormant our universities are in contributing to advancement of knowledge and professional discoveries. The energies of the nation once they are liberated will make Pakistan what it was in the Sixties, Seventies and even in early eighties when ever professionals were headig their line of works.
Pakistan needs new infusion of leadership through the Elections, who are people’s representatives. In the past because first elections were avoided or they were not free and fair we reached the present state of Wadera Shahi which must go and be replaced by elections.
Aristotle has said that while the individuals might not be wise, yet their multitude in its collective wisdom knows best what is the best for it more than the wisest individual.

Desist from foolish adventure

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

It is not possible to ignore US aggressive intentions on our tribal areas as revealed in the statements of Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defence, and Admiral Michael Mullun , Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at the House Armed Services Committee on ‘Stability and Security in Afghanistan’ on 12 December 2007. Gates said, “United States can act ‘unilaterally’to strike at terrorists hiding inside Pakistan tribal areas, but has no plans to send troops inside the country. He further said that “ US would first like to see if we can get the Pakistanis to take it on”.
The two American military bosses have obviously a topsy-turvey view of the situation in Afghanistan. They do not realize two basic truths about their operations in Afghanistan. First, they have miserably failed in their war in Afghanistan, and instead of facing facts they are trying to find an alibi for their failure in Pakistan’s tribal areas. . They do not understand the simple truth that the Pakhtuns in Afghanistan are intimately linked with Pakhtuns on Pakistan’s tribal belt. If Afghanistan is peaceful, peace will prevail in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Had American NATO forces not failed in their operations, there would have been no problem in Pak tribal belt. The responsibility for unrest in tribal belt is directly on American-NATO forces who should do “more on their own side” rather than blame Pakistan.
Who has greater fire power US-NATO forces or Pak military. The repercussions of what happens in the so-called NATO-American war on terror affects our tribal belt and Northern areas immediately. The entire turmoil on our northern belt is a direct outcome of that war in Afghanistan’s side just as “terrorism” in this area is a direct outcome of US “Jihad” in Afghanistan in the eighties. One cannot be sure what are the real intentions of the Western presence in Afghanistan for the war is going to cause us much problems as long as they are there. One cannot unfathom whether the war on terrorism is a label under which are some long range plans for the great game in Central Asia or what.? There are many contradictions in the NATO-US claims of success in Afghanistan over the Taleban, desapite their daily claims of killing scores of ‘suspected talebans, and the statements that the NATO forces are insufficient to combat the Taleban . Currently a NATO meeting is being held in Edinburgh considering the demand that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. For long time now we have ben hearing daily claims of NATO’s success in killing umpteen number of Taleban suspect, and now has come reports of NATO forces taking “the last strong-hold of the Talebans in Musa Kala in Helmand Province.
How condescending to say that when Pak forces “fail” then they will strike on the tribal areas. They talk as if they have scored successes in Iraq and Afghanistan. But at the csame time they say that it will take them five years at least to achieve their targets in Afghanistan. So knowing that they have failed in Afghanistan, they claim that in Pakistan they can perform better than the local forces which know the area better than the US-NATO joint forces would ever know.
Leaving this boasting aside, this is highly foolish idea to strike on tribal areas as if it can achieve the results they imagine they can achieve. It is foolish because instead of eliminating the revolt there it will enhance it. The tribals will then make the US forces their target and US would be pitted against a formidable enemy. Instead of reducing the resistance , this action if undertaken , would enlarge the theatre of war, looking at its possible implications.
They must come to the accept the hard fact that when finding a military solution becomes difficult, dialogue with “the enemy” becomes inevitable, as happened in Viet Nam. Afghanistan is in fact America’s new Viet Nam. If they want to touch another hornets’ nest then they can try and see what happens. Let me recall that Speaker of British House of Commons once ruled that the word ‘foolish’ is not unparlaimentary language, in a debate between the British Government and the Opposition.. Besides the reaction in the tribal belt on American strikes in the area, Pakistanis elsewhere too would react against American interests. Americans should not under estimate the capabilities of Pakistanis. US is already consider an enemy of Muslims and Pakistanis. Attack on Pakistan would enlarge the war zone of America from Palestine to Pakistan.. If US is itching for more trouble than it has received in Iraq it may try to “strike” on Pakistan’s tribal areas. If the Americans have wisdom they would foresee now how much Pakistanis public opinion would be enflamed if they strike on Pakistan , they would be violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. Pakistanis are not the type of people who swallow disrespect to their national honour.
One will hope that sanity will prevail and adverse repercussions on American interests in Pakistan will be kept in view. If they can take into consideration that since their ‘strike’ on Bajour- which Pakistan covered up by claiming that it was done by Pakistan- there has been an escalation of strife in Pakistan . .
On this occasion I might add a relevant comment on the genesis of Jihad in the 80s. I heard Ambassador Najumuddin Shaikh on a TV program saying that the resistance in Afghanistan in the 80s was named Jihad by our agencies and not the US. I admire Ambassador Najmuddin Shiakh for his balanced views, erudition and normally excellent presentation of the subject on which he speaks, but in respect of the origin of the “ Afghan Jihad” in the 80 I differ. When the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred, was on a foreign posting . I was Additional Foreign Secretary Political at the Foreign Office and saw the developments in Afghanistan till my posting out.
I was also one of the members of the 6-member “Afghans Cell” presided over by President Zia himself . Of course the entire Afghan policy was made by President Zia, Shahi, General Abur Rehman D.G, ISI . Others were spectators in that group. At least this gave us the opportunity to have a glimpse of what was going on. Till American involvement we were offering Soviet Ambassador Server Azimov to visit any where in Pakistan to check that the Afghan Refugees were not being armed or trained by us. He said they were being trained in Pakistani jails. President Zia offered him to go without informing us any place about which he might have received information that Afghani refugees- till then the word used for the Afghans was refugees- were said to being trained ( in 1979-80 they had grown in numbers to about 1,90,000 only) and if he wanted our assistance we could place a helicopter on his disposal to go to the “jails” where the Afghan refugees were allegedly being trained.
Later international press started to report in mid 80s that Pakistan had become “conduit” for arms being given by US to these refugees. Shahi called General Akhter Abdur Rehman ( DG, ISI)- I was in that meeting where he confronted him with this publicity and asked him to tell us what was the truth because we were continuously denying these allegations of Pakistan having become “conduit” to Afghan refugees. Gener Abdur Rehman denied straight face “ No, there is no truth in them” Shahi again asked Akhter Abdur Rehman. He said as Foreign Office we would like to know the truth,; we will keep it upto us only; but Akhter Abdur Rehman again with a straight face denied “ No truth in these reports.” Much later, I learnt from Khawaja Masroor Hussian , my dear friend, that great gentleman with malice towards none, who was Director Intelligence Bureau during that Aghan Crisis, that Cassey, CIA., Chief used to arrive unannounced at Chaklala Air Port, and meet him in this connection. All this is written in my book “Diplomats and Diplomacy: Story of An Era” at pps. 326-332.. While Zia supported Afghan refugees was purely on political grounds, and Not on religious grounds, .to enter into this controversy is beyond the scope of this article. As I have written “ President Zia came under severe criticism in the public and some officials for his unwise support to the Afghan Mujahideen. They used to mock So these rage tag army of refugees would throw a Super Power out of Afghanistan.
The coining of the word “Jihad” for Afghan Resistance against Soviet occupation of their country was a CIA operation. As stated in my book “ It can be said that the gift of armed Jihad and the klashnikov culture are the outcome of American game in Afghanistan. They planted the crop which now they call “terrorism” … and now when their crop bore fruits, they blame others for their own deeds,” ( pp 332).

Method in their madness

Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi

These days with unending intermittent American press in particular and Eurpean press in unison continues to carry on propaganda against Pakistan that its nuclear assets are unsafe and if the political crisis deepens they may fall in the hands of the “terrorists” which can cause much destruction to the US and the West. An expert from American Think Tank has suggested that US should take possession of Pak Nuclear assets before they fall into the hands of Al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization and transport them to Mexico.
A diplomatic analysis does not get involved with the words of various statements. It should see what is the purpose of those statements behind the veil of words. Some statements indicate new moves. It is quite clear that, pardon my words, it is such a silly idea that Pakistani responsibles be so foolish that they would not know that nuclear assets are national assets, that there is an international responsibility in safeguarding them and ensuring that they do not go into the hands of any “unauthorized” persons. For this elementary knowledge they need American spoon feeding. How silly!
This mischievous flight of fantasy has been fully refuted as an impossibility by the Foreign Office Spokesman Mohammad Sadiq, because the N-assets are well guarded and their location is practically unknown to anyone, except two or thee persons. Naturally, in an official statement one does not reply back and has to be guarded in language, but mine is not an official statement and I have the liberty- when justified- to call a spade a spade .The persons who spin mischief are not stupid people but knaves, and therefore one would like to ask what is the method in their madness? Briefly, it is Islam-phobia or obsession with the plans to continuously keep an anti “Islamic- bomb” propaganda alive, like the Pharaoh who wanted to kill every child lest among them is born Moses. US think tank and planners continue to see a terrorist with a nuclear bomb. That is why Bush acts childishly against “Iran’s bomb” and now Americans have started to talk rubbish against Pakistan’s nuclear bombs.
In this connection two points may be made. First US intelligence is so conjectural particular about Pakistan that the map of Chaghi produced by them was totally wrong. They do not bother about correctness of the information because its purpose is not to produce correct facts but to indulge in maligning Pakistan. They are kept so safe that except two three persons nobody knows where they are stored and how many are where. The persons who are authorized to know their whereabouts are heavily protected by Pak security so that nobody cab capture those persons to extract information in this fregard from them.
Timed with this calumny about Pakistan has surfaced a news item that US has asked North Korea to give exact and complete information about its links with Pakistan in the past about obtaining technology of enriching uranium. Assistant Secretary of State ( like a Director General in our Foreign Office) Christopher Hull said we have proofs that North Korea had obtained enrichment technology from Pakistan . Selig Harrison has come out with the claim that the key to remove dead lock in US-North Korea talks over N- program is in Pakistan. This statement has come after a decade after this allegation was made about Pakistan, Incidentally Pakistan is no signatory to NPT like US and India and Israel . It was under no restraint to cooperate with any State in regard to technology like US had siged an agreement with India and supplies all technological assistance to Israel clandestinely as also all western powers do.
It need be pointed that the timing of both these statements is intended to reinforce the idea that Pakistan is an irresponsible state because so Americans feel only they can be responsible and none else. All others are like the Red Indians or savages from the Amazon forests and unaware of knowing what is good for them. We need the ignoramus of America to teach us the elements of prudence and international responsibility, whereas the fact is that we can teach the Yankees some facts of life. In Pakistan we have such highest caliber persons in each job which are as good as any in the world. Proof is that we produced nuclear capability entirely ourselves without any body’s help and that too via nuclear enrichment rather than the difficult route of plutonium enrichment.
Now if the terrorists steal nuclear capability or n-bombs they will first attempt it from US itself , which will logistically simplify many of their problems of smuggling from thousands of miles away. If they really did explode the twin towers in New York, from Tora Bora caves, with high speed computers, plans most sophisticated operation from the most primitive place according to the US claim, then why can they not steal the nuclear bomb from US itself . Alternatively, the other safer place for them to steal the bomb would be Israel surrounded by Arabs, a tiny little state The safeguards Pakistan has put on its nuclear assets are full proof and not known even to the US agencies.
The other diplomatic topic worth commenting was the Annapolis Conference organized by Bush to put Abbas to do a command performance of hand shaking with Israel’s Olmert before the world media under the brilliant lights of TV and media reports covering the occasion. Over 40 countries were invited to witness how Abbas had become a dutiful American. Our own Foreign Secretary went to be present on the occasion to add to the numbers to the US called media parade. The conference was a meaningless exercise with only one purpose. Bush sort of said to the world Behold under my command the dutiful Abbas appears before the world to do what Palestinians had so far avoided.
This was merely to show how subservient Abbas has become to the US. Normally such large scale jamborees are held on an occasion of some outstanding achievment. Had a peace agreement been made creating Palestinian State it might have been justified but just to show the two appearing in a meaningless exercise of hand shaking is no achievement worth celebrating by a jamboree. It was like putting the horse before the cart. This is now the standing and wisdom of Palestinians. Such submission to foreign powers leads to surrenders without any return. Some people have a very funny notion of diplomacy of bowing to the more powerful. Churchill said “ in defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity. Being flexible without an returns is no diplomacy. Had Abbas –Olmert meeting arranged by Bush with out this jamboree it would have been a different matter but not when the Palestinian State was not being created the Annapolis show implied that now Palestinians have been subdued and would walk the way Bush would ask them to. Look at the arrogance of Israel, while this sweet nonsense was being lauded in Annapolis by the 40 plus witnesses to Palestinian surrender, Israel was killing Hamas in Gaza. He swallowed the Israeli acts of murder and destruction with “good grace” In diplomacy the meaning and implications of each move should be taken into calculations after due deliberation.

HURMAT GROUP

Zahid Malik
President & Editor-in-Chief

Editor Foreign Affairs:	Abdul Sattar
Editor:	Faisal Zahid Malik Phone: 021-2211777, 2631102
Executive Editor:	Gauhar Zahid Malik Phone: 051-2852028
GM Marketing:	Ferozuddin Khan Phone: 0300 918 5669 Email: mktg@pakobserver.net

Ali Akbar House G-8 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan
Phone: +92 (051) 2853818, 2852027-8, Fax: +92 (051) 2262258
Email: observer@pakobserver.net

Karachi

Lahore

Peshawar

FAISAL ZAHID MALIK
Editor

Phone: 021-2211777, 2631102
Fax: 021-2626902
Email: obskhi@pakobserver.net

KHALID BUTT
Resident Editor

Phone: 042-7593341, 7566702
Fax: 042-6300043
Email: obslhr@pakobserver.net

TARIQ SAEED
Resident Editor
Phone: 091-2592766
Fax: 2591705
Mobile: 0321-9001476
Email:tariqobserve@brain.net.pk

Quetta	Muzaffarabad
GHULAM TAHIR Resident Editor Phone:081-2829238-40 Fax: 081-2829072 Mobile: 0333-7944760	HAMEED SHAHEEN Resident Editor Mobile: 0332-5313879 Email: abdulhameedshaheen@yahoo.com

Web Design by AITS Global | Out Source Web Design