Tread carefully on “ provincial autonomy”

16-03-2010

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

We do not know exactly what the Raza Rabbani Parliamentary Committee on subjects like Provincial Autonomy and such matters is proposing to introduce changes in the Constitution. Raza Rabbani is a respected person of generally balanced views. We may therefore not be correctly in the know of their recommendations except what has been leaked in the press. But it seems that a circle believes that drastic changes are being recommended in regard to the issue of Provincial Autonomy. The matter is so vital to the future of the Federation that we will still take up this point as is known to be under consideration in the Committee. We were bitten by an extremist view on the subject during the 70s which led to the break away of the former East Pakistan. We hope that the same phenomenon does not raise its head under one label or the other.

My fear is that the pendulum may swing in the opposite direction from the practice of a strong Center – if this word can be used in a colloquial sense if not in correct parlance. The normal apprehensions of a non-political citizen- that is one who is not contaminated by political power play syndrome in which what matters is just to play to the gallery, that is there is a myopic view of self interest tied to the political fortunes of the party- with the ease of Pakistan Na Khapey chanting opportunists, least bothered by the requirements of over all patriotic interests The first question that comes to the mind is. Is Mujibism of Six Points or its rehashed version being re-brewed in this Pakistan even? I may be wrong but general impression about our present day politicos and politicians is that their motto is any thing goes, “ in politics” they say every thing is possible. (pardon me, even making fool of one self or selling national interests for personal or party interest.) These days some party people would like to make provision in the Constitution to play their Provincial ethnicity card to pit themselves against the entity called the Federation of Pakistan. Making Provincial Autonomy a device of creating an impotent Federation of Pakistan can thus be placed in the Constitution itself. Making Federation depend on Provinces even for funds can be such a device.

I think if this is any proposal it will have disastrous effects on the future of Pakistan. It will be the beginning of repeat of the tragedy of Bangladesh again on a massive scale. Any ethnic politics would like to have the Federation at the mercy of its units. I had written along article in a national daily under the title “ National vs Regional loyalties” on January 2, 1989 in daily Dawn. One can say that ethnicity politics go together with Confederalism. Ethnicity had always destroyed Federalism. I might add that the great expert on International Law Oppenheim , in his authoritative book International Law has stated (Vol I, pp 164-66) “ “History has shown that Confederated States represent an organization which in the long run gives very little satisfaction . It is for this reason that that the three important states of our times—namely U.S, Germany and the Swiss Confederation- turned into federal states. At present there is no union of confederal states”

It need be said that the provincial identities are not “nations”. There is only one Nation in Pakistan. All else are ethnic, cultural or linguistic identities. Like in Great Britain the Scots, English, Welsh etc are not described as nations. The terminology nation was not used in non-Communist political systems in relation to its groups living in a federation. .The Communist theory is further premised on two pillars: (a) “that they are to be nationalist in form but socialist in content” that is in appearance nations but in context socialist. (b) That political system is to be based on one party rule and the dictatorship of the proletariat without these two elements the monolithic system was not sustainable.

Pakistan was not created as a Marxist State but on Muslim nationalism in which brotherhood is the soul of nationalism as against Marxism in which class contradictions and conflicts are the guiding principles of policy formation. In Pakistan nationalism, ethnic identities are treated as small streams which join the main stream. It should be made clear that as long as the assertions of localism and demands of provincial autonomy are consistent with an effective federation, they are not to be confused with regional nationalism. An effective federal Center does not mean ineffective provinces and effective provinces do not mean ineffective federal authority just as effective provinces do not mean ineffective local bodies.

While on the subject I might add that Yugoslavia became the latest example of a federation torn asunder by grant of the notion of maximum “autonomy” to each of the Six “Republics “ under the Third Constitution of Yugoslavia under Tito. I was Pak Ambassador to Yugoslavia, the late and lamented country, and witnessed its break down entirely because of the Tito given third Constitution (mentioned in my book Diplomats and Diplomacy: Story of an Era” Further I wrote in the Yugoslav “Review of International Affairs’- published from Belgrade title “ Failure of Yugoslav Confederation” how by creating units of the Federation which virtually became fully autonomous, the Yugoslavia that came into existence as a result of the Liberation struggle against 22 Nazi Divisions in WW-II came to an end.

That is an example of how to destroy or break a country through a Constitution that went berserk. Be warned that the question of autonomy can become a time bomb of destruction of a nation. This is not the occasion to go into details of that destructive Constitution. Tito had given that Constitution on the unstated assumption that while there was a head of state like Tito, the six “Republics” and two autonomous “provinces “will be governed by that acceptable leader. A constitution is nor drafted on a wishful assumption but on the possibility of all kinds of situations in future seen and unseen. This is where the Committee has to take into consideration when the Constitution is drafted on certain assumptions of the present scenario may not be in force at a future date.. If any body wants to read the article published n Belgrade in Review of International Affairs, its photocopy can be obtained from me. In brief, the experts concerned with this matter may be cautioned about giving in to a Mujibism or repeat the mistake of Tito’s Third Constitution. They should not play to gallery but should be prudent about the limits of both the Federation and the Provinces This should be their main concern. History and not petty politics should be their vision.

—The writer, one of the senior most retired Ambassadors of Pakistan Foreign Service is a PhD in Political Science.

Balochistan: Story of foreign intrigues

Is democracy only elections?

Lack of protocol lack of respect

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

In Pakistan Protocol is generally understood as observance of the rules of courtesy in government or State matters. Some think it as stuffiness. Pakistanis are generally likely to consider requirements of protocol as observing formalities. In a broad sense this is not too far the main reason why protocol is observed., but there is another meaning of it showing respect to the host that is his due and in state matters People in Pakistan generally do not fully realize that in state matters it becomes a barometer of a nation’s standing Lack of observance of protocol by foreigners or observance is a barometer of a nation’s standing in international community Lack of protocol by foreigners indicate lack of respect for Pakistan

The most glaring example was when after Japan/s surrender, General McArthur ordered that when the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito, calls on him at his headquarters he would not be recived on his arrival and brought straight to him. When Hirohito arrived in his room, McArthur did not stand up, made him sit down on a chair infront of him and putting his legs on the table put his shoes in the direction of the Emperor.

It may be stated that in the book “ Rusum Dar el Khilafa” by As-Saibi – or Protocols of the Khilafa’ and Kitab et Taj by El Jahiz, on Protocol in Abbaside era written a thousand years ago, lay down in minutest details the procedures for reception, etc, of foreign representatives and dignitaries .in the days of the Ommaiyades and Abbasides , which should disabuse of the notion that there were no formalities od protocol in early Muslim era. In fact lack of protocol, lack of decency and lack of respect. In matters of State its lack is an affront to the state.. While on the subject may I stress that the term VVIP protocol is verry much abused by media in Pakistan. Only the President and Prime Minister are counted as VVIP and by courtesy Chairman Senate and Speaker of National Assembly and nonen else. Media will be well advised not to abuse this term which has universdal acceptance.

The occasion to write this article arose on seeing photos of two visiting American personalities calling on Pakistani leading personalities. These were of the call made by US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Michele Flournoy on Pak Chief of General Staffs Committee , General Tariq Majid at the Jont Chiefs of Staffs Headquarter at Rawalpindi and the other of the call of former US Deputy Secretary of State on General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani at the GHQ.

The lady calling on the Chairman JCSC Tariq Majid was in a very informal dress and in disheveled condition, which is in a word improperly dressed and too causal appearance . This is not done at least in the western countries. On making a formal call you are properly dressed and made up properly. Too causal appearance or dress is a sign of disrespect to the foreign VIP on whom one is paying the call. It is supposed to be a very formal matter and there casual dress or casual appearance in not the right thing to do. Lasies are generally were conscious of dress and appearance and to ignore this courtesy one owes to a personality she is visiting is not the thing generally done. It indicates we do not care for you, you are just being given this honour of a visit by me as a gracious act of mine. Of all the people, in the Services proper appearance and dress are things on which great emphasis is placed in all countries. Let me recall some thing like this that occurred somewhere in late 60s. Head of Military Assistance Group called on Major General Sahebzada Yaqub Khan then Chief of General Staff at the GHQ. He came to call on Yaqub Khan in a very causal dress, without tie and coat etc, or proper uniform. Brigadier Iftikhar A Rana was Director of Operations or something working under Gen. Yaqub He was a great friend of mine since the days of our postings in Ankara. He told me that Gen Yaqub tolerated the American caller but as soon as he lefgt Yaqub called Brig Rana and asked him to tell the American General that next time he comes to call on the CGS, the American should be properly dressed.

Formal calls for discussion of official matters are always made on the foreign personalities by their counterparts; and similarly high officisld receive foreign officials of equal rank for talks , or exchange of views, or social purposes of officials of equivalent status. In India one would never find a Dy Secretary of State or a Ministr on the President of India or the Prime Minister of India.. If every oreign official has to discuss official matters with the President and Prime Minister then why have ministers. Dispense them and save money and so many ministries, instead of having dummies called ministers and what not.

It is said of an ex-P M of Pakistan that in Indonesia he asked for a formal call on President of Indonesia. He was refused the privilege on the ground that he had no official status. Was it Shaukat Aziz or some one. He said he had been Prime Minister of Pakistan. He was not allowed the visit on Indonesian Prime Minister. Similar thing happened with me. A high level Minister who was leading Pak Delegation to some UN Committee wanted to call on the Yugoslav Prime Minister. He was not given the interview. When we nsisted I was told that I could call on the Prime Minister and take that Minister with me and could introduce him to the Prime Minister, since Ambassadors have the right to see the President and PM when they so desired.

If Ministers do not deal with their foreign counterparts they lose their standing. They are looked upon as supernumeries. In a personalized “democracy” this practice is quite prevalent. Small details are not insignificant in observing protocol with foreigners. Here are some cases that I know of . I was number two in Pak Embassy in Turkey, Mr Manzoor Qadir came on an official visit and was given audience by Turkish head of state General Gursel. He turned in his chappals and bush shirt to meet General Gursel. Mr S M Hassan was the Ambassador. He had to prevail on Mr Manzoor Qadir to get into a suit and wear shoes. Similarly Mr Ikramullah told us that when with Liaquat Ali Khan as Prime Minister and accompanied with Begum Raana Liaquat Ali Khan Liaquat was to pay a visit on the Shrine in Najaf Begum Liaquat insisted on going her rather western style dress or something. Mr Ikramullah pointed out that he should be covered from head to foot and wear. A chaddar. She would not listen. Then Laquat said “ Begum, Ikramullah is right go and change the dress. ZAB was so particular of correctness in proper dress that he asked explanation of an Ambassador why he received some important person without a tie when he was wearing a suit. I might digress from this subject and take up another matter that bothers any listener of ad nauseum claim of the ruling party of the great sacrifices they have paid to bring democracy and got power through elections.

They depict Pakistan ‘s democracy as their gift , as if whatever happened in the past was of no consequence. As for democracy, they forget that the only country in the world created by votes, referendums and confirmation of the voters’ choice by Provincial Assemblies is none other than Pakistan. Every inch of its territory was laid down by democratic choice.Sacrifices, all so-called sacrifices of the workers of that party pale into insignificance compared to the Indian Muslims for Pakistan- 7 million driven out of their ancestral homes, about 0ne million butchered by communal frenzy, 80,000 women abducted , children snatched from mothers’ laps and torn in two, breasts of women cut by sword, etc. Has any one given this much sacrifices for Pakistan.

I do consider late ZAB’s execution as the greatest injustice , a judicial murder, but that, sad as it was painful as it was, abominable as it was, need not be dragged into this controversy. The greatest sacrifices, the greatest pains suffered by any one for Pakistan were by none other than the “Muhajirs” I was one of them. It was to stop the massacre of Muslims in India, particularly in Delhi, that Gandhiji observed his fast until death, which infuriated the communalists in India so much that they assassinated him. We gave the biggest ever sacrifice for the homeland in the world history to establish a democratic country, but it was inherited by the waderas and now democracy is wadera-cracy masquerading as democracy.

—The writer retired as one of the highest ranking ambassadors of the Foreign Service of Pakistan.
 

And rupee disappeared on flying carpet ...

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

Today I am in a mood to narrate an believable story, the story of the flight of the Rupee on the flying carpet when there it went, there, now you can see it now no more; it almost disappeared from the sight. It has flown in the outer space and you cannot see it. I am sure you must have read the “One Thousand and One Night” stories in which strange things happened. Here I am telling a story of the Rupee, how it became so light that it continued to float till like a kite whose thread was cut the kite disappeared in the sky. Kite is a very light thing and once it is not controlled by the thread it is go went gone.

Let me begin with the stories of the fairyland in which the Rupee had its infancy. I am talking of my childhood. I am sure you have not heard of a thing called paisas and annas. You may find them in some museum of Mummyology where along with the old mummies, these ante-diluvian currency pieces are exhibited. One Rupee used to have in fact, not in theory like now, 16 Annas or 64 paisas. You might hear of them like you heard of dinosaurs. In the ancient days of Pakistan they continued to be in existence. In the 30s, the school fees in elementary classes used to be in annas, going to one Rupee to High School. Then in Inter when I went to Aligarh Muslim University, the premier Muslim University, my fee was Rs 6/ annas 4. or Rs 6 ¼ . Board and lodging in the University used to be Rs 11 or so. Our pocket money used to range from Rs 2 to Rs 5

In MA in 1947 the College tuition fee was Rs 16. As we needed no foreign exchange I got my first job as a lecturer in philosophy in Government College Hyderabad Sind at Rs 180 per month. The house was damn cheap, somewhere around Rs 20 in Herabad Hyderabad Sind, a posh locality.

Every thing was damn cheap, rents, food, fruits, clothes, I with bachelor teachers in the College lived very comfortably in the salary. Then I was tempted to try my hands on Provincial Civil Service Competition in 1950 to live a safe and sure life of a civil servant, starting as a Magistrate, a prestigious job promising to lead to higher echelons of the Service in Magistracy and Civil Service. The Maximum pay a PCS Officer could look to was Rs 1600 as a District Magistrate / Session Judge Till then I did not have anything to do with the foreign exchange parity of Rupee . Then I thought of appearing in the Central Superior Services at that young age of 23 in which those getting top positions in the Competition were to go to the Foreign Service or Civil Service of Pakistan. I was selected for the Foreign Service. From here Rupee parity with foreign currency was of interest to me, to us the Foreign Service officers. Incidentally PFS/CSP starting salary was the highest compared to all other services, Police, Audit Accounts, etc. Our pay was Rs 350 p.m. plus a special pay of Rs 150 per month or Rs 500 p.m. considered in those days a very handsome salary. On entering Service, we were sent to the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy as Probationers. Look at the continuous fall in the values of Pak Rupee Dollar was then Rs 3./30 or so. We were paid $ 150 or equivalent Rs 450. as “ stipend” . We lived in it very comfortably. When after British Foreign Office training course we were sent to France for learning French we were paid Rs. 140 as stipend (the board and lodging was paid by the Government direct to the land lady) In Paris those probationers who were in Paris would sit bin a Café on Champ d’Elise and enjoy our great luxury of a coffee cup, at French Franc 100 which was equal to One Rupee.

When I retired in 1987 from the Foreign Service my pay as Grade 22 Ambassador was Rs 6,500 plus Rs 1000 or Rs 7,5000 in all plus foreign allowance and other officially sanctioned perks of the office . On retirement I received a gratuity of about two and half lacs after 37 ½ years service. Now some favourite political appointees offfcials in the Government are appointed at a salary of three lacs per month. and in high academic posts and institutions it is normal for senior executives/professors of technical universities to get this much monthly pay. This is due to the demise of the Rupee, not that the purchasing power of this pay is too fancy compared to our times.

This is the account of purchasing power of the Rupee. In the Jung of 17 Feb 1997 the decline of the Rupee vs Dollar has been given as follows: Dollar in the days of 1997 Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto Rs 4.70; in 1977 Rs 9.90 / 1983 Zia ul Haq Rs 13.17; in Zia’s regime in 1987 Rs 17.17, / 1996 Benazir regime 40.36 ; 1997 Nawaz Sharuf Second term starting from 40.36 going to Rs 54. I remember that in 1972 as High Commissioner to Nigeria I imported Mercedes Benz from the factory CIF at Ls 1,100 or about Rs 9,900 and in 1984 iin Yugoslavia my BMW 3 series at around DM 7000 or about Rs 7000 ! Now in Pakistan I have no car.

I might add that at the end of Musharruf regime it was Rs 60 to a dollar Now in 2010 it is Rs 86 to a dollar or so. It is said that our foreign exchange reserves would reach the record high of S 20 billion and yet the slide of Rupee. Is it that big wigs are stocking their “hard earned” money and gains abroad Flight of capital is the reason? Let the matter rest here.
 

Just drifting along

10-02-2010

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

These days one question any ordinary Pakistani, the man in the street asks, any person he thinks is well informed “ What is in store for Pakistan, where it is going?” He asks it as if Pakistan is moving towards doom. Will we survive with this state of affairs? Seems to be upper most on their minds

I do not know whether this fear is fully justified. Picture is indeed disturbing. Pakistan is leaderless and no alternative leader is in sight. PPP has no national leader on the horizon. Leaders are not made over night. To be in a powerful chair does not mean the occupier is a leader. There are two types of persons: those who derives power from the chair they are occupying and those who give power to the chair. Churchill during the battle of Britain,, Q-i-A Jinnah leading Pakistan Movement , Mao leading the Red Revolution, , Tito the guerrilla leader fighting with a People’s Army against 20 Nazi Divisions , The “chair” drove power from them. .

At present PPP has leaders who derive power from the chair, by distributing favours, purchasing persons by bestowing high offices. The day they are not in the chairs, they would no longer have power .Cheque Book politics, Purchase of opposition with grant of offices. PPP leadership is just a “fixer” type power. They have no charismatic leader. This is why the two top chair holders in PPP “leadership” have a regiment of ministers and advisers. Surely they are not so clueless that they need advisers on so many matters. PPP Cabinet has perhaps the largest cabinet in the world. I do not know its equal in size , may be I am ignorant. I was reading Gamdhiji’d grand son’s book, “Understanding the Muslim Mind”. At page 262, he records that in their talks in 1946, Bholabhai Desai and Liquat Ali Khan had proposed a formula for Congress-League Coalition at the Center in Delhi In those days it was called Desai –Liaquat Pact . In Rajmohan’s words; “ The pact proposed that Desai be invited to form an interim government , consisting five of five each from the Congress and the League , and two to represent others.. For the Provinces too it envisaged Congress-League coalition “

Leaving aside why Q-i-A Jinnah did not accept this formula, the point is that undivided India could have a Cabinet of 12 ministers but a truncated Pakistan, one fifth of present day India, now under PPP have a largest cabinet in the world. This shows that the Cabinet is based on bribing allies with offices Not that they are needed. It is not a natural reflection of power in the country.

Zardari came to power on the wave of sympathy after the assassination of late Benazir. Pakistanis are very sentimental people and in that state they do unusual things. Even all the stories of having been 10% in the past were forgotten and forgiven. All political parties unanimously agreed to elect Zardari as President. There is an Arabic saying “death of the great made us great” that is we filled the vacuum by default not by merit.

As good luck had it there was no alternative leader at that time nor one is still in the field to challenge PPP leadership. Nawaz Sharif seems to have dealt himself out and gone into background.. The only other person of leadership stature is Imran Khan, the conscience keeper of the nation, Mr Clean, yet he is too honest and without support of money bags to succeed in this country. In Pakistan his honesty is his disqualification to be the top leader. He seems to be assigned the role of Nation’s Conscience keeper. Altaf has acquiesced in the role of a silent partner even in Karachi as was obvious from the recent turf war and a couple of days boycott of the Sindh Assembly. The health of the country has deteriorated ; economy is in shambles.. Common man is groaning under extraordinary inflation. Rupee is in danger of losing its power having reached its lowest parity with dollar and foreign currencies.

They complain that the present leadership has inherited problems from the Musharruf Era. But the value of the Rupee in his days was Rs 60 equal to one dollar Now in about two years it is Rs. 86.20 . Such sharp fall of the value of Rupee in “democracy” need to be explained. The. Finance Minister claims that our foreign exchange reserves would soon reach .$ 20 billion. Pray explain how with such great increase of F., E Reserves the Rupee is having a heart attack? May be some private TV channel will have a talk show on this extraordinary contradictory situation . When F..E. Reserves increase, local currency appreciates in value not depreciate.. Has this fact changed in the case of Pakistan..

Any political scientist will be unable to accept the claim that what we have in Pakistan today is “democracy”. No, we have Wadera- cracy. As Aristotle has said when democracy is healthy it is the rule of the people, when sick it becomes mobo-cracy or oligarchy. No one in his good senses will call our system “democracy”. It is wadera- cracy, oligarchy but not democracy. Elections are not the be all , end all of democracy; they are just the first step. Rule of law, good of the majority, not of one particular party, etc are other essential elements of democracy. If the elected lose the confidence of the ruled they bow out even before the so-called full term of office.. If they do something wrong they leave, like Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency on charges of Watergate scandal. Nobody in the US claimed that if Nixon was asked to leave during the currency of his mandate American democracy will be derailed. System is not an individual, it is the ethics of the legitimacy. Now, there is now an attempt to convert democracy into dynasty rule. The personality cult is aimed at creating a Bhutto dynasty. Late Benazir’s portrait is placed along with the Quid’s , of the same size as the Quid’s. Is this an indication to claim Benazir on the same footing as the Quid. Not so many roads, hospitals, air ports, and universities have been named after the Quiad as are after the late Benazir .Quaid cannot be equated with any Pakistani leader.

In the past , Democracy existed in the days of the fathers of nation, Quaid, Liaquat, Nazimuddin, we had a glimmer of democracy under ZAB , Nawaz Sharif. Incidentally it seems that Liaquat has been eliminated from national history records. He is not even mentioned. Has he been made a non-person in the style of Stalinism ? After these stalwarts we had corruption infested democracy . Now it is a strange brand of wadera- oligarchy, not democracy. There is no accountability of the corrupt.

The result is that Pakistan is today a a semi-independent country. Foreigners can show their thumbs to the law implementing agencies and nothing will happen to them. They can kidnap our nationals from our soil nothing will happen to them, they can indulge in any illegality they will go scot free, and some high up will have them released . When sovereignty of a country is so abridged we do not have democracy, we have a kind of semi independent status.

Good luck of the rulers is that there is no alternative national leader to rectify the situation. None. There is a great scarcity of a credible national leader who can stop the rot.. Till someone in Pakistan eliminates the National Parliament stuffed with rich, like Peel had by his electoral reforms like mid nineteen century elections in Britain did wadera oligarchy will rule Pakistan

Why is then Pakistan still alive and kicking. Because the people of Pakistan are very much attached to the country. It is due to their strong commitment that Pakistan stands tall in the region, because of the pride in the people in their country, despite absence of leadership in the country.

Blackest day of so-called US justice

05-02-2010

Dr Samullah Koreshi

It was the blackest day for American “Justice” when a so-called Manhattan Jury in it sham trial “convicted” Dr Aafia Siddiqui on Wednesday on seven counts. The trial lacked credibility for any man of commonsense and with very little sense of reality. The frail, 37 year old Pakistani lady, weakened under 7 years of torture by American burly Marines, was framed in case of snatching an M4 rifle from a Marine and firing at him to kill him. There were no signs of the firing of the bullet . Instead she was fired in the abdomen by an American soldier.

The wound was there for others to see but no sign of her firing. It was a cock and bull story.

This “trial” showed that America has only political justice for Muslims and foreigners it wants to eliminate. As Bernard Shaw said the British create legal justification for all its acts. Nuremberg trial was one such trial. And yet they boast of Human Rights.

Really, since when the hefty Marine trained in all kinds of firearms, can be over powered by a frail lady half his size and weight. They used to say for unbelievable stories in US “go and tell it to the Marines” This time they told it to a so-called Court which believed the unbelievable. And if the Marines have really become so sissy that a frail untrained lady can snatch a rifle from a marine then one can understand why they are getting the beating from Taleban in Afghanistan and are planning to run out from there.

Dr Aafia Siddiqui had stood all kinds of torture for seven years at the hands of sadistic American guards and tormentors- kidnapped from Pakistan territory by an FBI alpha team to Afghanistan and from there whisked away to US. Of course the kidnapping of this innocent lady was a crime against Pakistan since no foreign country can kidnap a Pakistani citizen from its soil. US has become an adept disciple of Mossad who started the practice of kidnapping persons from foreign soil beginning with Eichmann and conducting blatantly criminal operations on foreign soils like at Entebbe Air Port.

The treatment given to Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Ph D in Chemistry from MIT for last eight years was an indication that she was to be sentenced through the formality of a trial. After all if US FBI had kidnapped her from Pakistan then she was prejudged as the one who should get a treatment like Chemical Ali did.

A Muslim scientist of high calibre has no right to be any where except in US jails or hang from a noose. Read the remarks of the US prosecutor:” Not only she have the motive and intent to harm the US , she had the know how to do it”.

A high calibre Muslim scientist is a target of American jungle law. But pity Pakistanis like Musharraf were selling Pakistanis to US FBI like the African tribal chiefs sold their tribesmen to slave traders arranging their raids on their own tribesmen at one time and get paid for arranging such hunts. Are we sure such Pakistani agents have gone with Musharraf or only he has gone and his tradition flourishes.

The insult to Pakistani noble lady cannot but elicit strong condemnation of American brutalities all over Pakistan. Let our sense of national pride not rest in peace.

London Conference

01-02-2010

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

THIS is not intended to be a summary of the main points of the event. It is an analysis of the diplomatic dynamics of this move in regard to its future course, what it can achieve, and the elements involved in the Afghanistan situation on whom the future course of this move depends.

But first I am inclined to think that Pakistan should wish that this new American/NATO policy succeed as it will be beneficial to Pakistan if it succeeds because the seeds of terrorism, extremism and instability were sown by American forward policy in this region, first Iraq and then Afghanistan. American presence has disturbed tranquillity on Pak-Afghan border, it had a destabilizing impact on Pakistan and if that was the case then the root cause of Pakistan’s turbulent North would be gone. Of course something that has come as its after effect will not disappear over night but it can be hoped that it will gradually die out. This is our stake in helping to find a mods vivendi between Taleban and the Afghan regime, even if it be Karzai regime.

First point to understand is that the London conference was a major policy shift of US/NATO countries – broadly Western world, in its/their Afghani policy, an acknowledgement of failure of their military means to create the Afghanistan they wanted to create. If I may use stronger words, as the shift will be viewed in Afgahan circles, it is an admission of failure of their military adventure to subdue Afghanistan and achieve success in the old Great Game in Central Asia. But they would like to put a fig leaf on their military failure. They would not like to be seen as kicked out by rag tag Afghan Taleban- mujahideen- as the Soviet Russian troops were, or the American troops from Viet Nam but if possible with some kind of a face saving mechanism. The 8 years militaristic adventure is now faced with a defeat, but the attempt through the London Conference was not to have been defeated by the Taleban or Mujahideen if this word is too difficult for a world power to swallow.

We will see below what course the search for a new formula for co-existence with the new Taleban-Afghan combination can possibly take. It would not be an easy task nor it can be reached in a hurry. The Taleban are not a defeated “foe” with whom terms of surrender of power can be made easy.

A positive fall out of this new policy/look towards Afghanistan is the acknowledgement of Pakistan’s key position in this region. The all sorts of conjugation of “Do more” for Pakistan to curb the menace on the border, we were fed up with in Bush’s era is replaced by acknowledging Pakistan’s centrality in the region. Invitation to General Kayani Pak COAS to conference of the NATO Military Chiefs was acceptance of the Pakistan Military’s role as one of the best armed forces in the world and of General Kayani as a capable Commander of that elite force. Of course the Military anywhere is the iron will of a nation. This changed assessment of the role of Pakistan military and the backing it enjoys in the country on this operation is a salute, if I may say so, to Pakistan. This is accepting a new assessment of Pakistan as a regional power, even in this down and out position, thanks to the fighting ability of our forces, much, much better than of the World Power American forces and NATO’s global fighting force.

This change was reflected in German Chancellor (Head of State) statement that no peace isd possible in Douth Asia without Pakistan’s cooperation., or words to that effect.

A major gain Pakistan had from the London Conference was that India has been excluded from the powers to have a role in Afghanistan. In a way it shows that Pakistan’s reservations on Indian activities through their posts in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s borders have been registered by the West, although they tried to push India’s membership in the powers in bringing the new order in Afghanistan.

A positive consequence of elimination of Indian active role in Afghanistan can be that if and if the new order in Afghanistan is established, then we can expect Indian machinations in Baluchistan through Afghanistan.

So far I have presented the maximum optimistic fall out from the new order in Afghanistan to come into being. This is an optimistic assessment of what Pakistan can expect if the region gets rid of American jingoistic, military occupation of Afghanistan. But it is easy said than done. The day when the reality dawns on America and its NATO adventurist allies will agree to forego their militaristic aims in this region is still not so near or so easy to bring into existence. It may be still far away if tricks are played or in the name of a policy of making up with the reality of Taleban an attempt is made to purchase loyalties of “moderates” and pit them against their main stream or cut their leaders then it is very doubtful if the new policy will succeed. The American attempt seems at this stage to play Talebans against Talebans and sow dissension in their ranks.. Already they have made that fallacious step by announcing that US will not negotiate with Mulla Umar. This makes the entire exercise futile. A defeated Taleban could have been dictated terms but here it is US which is the virtually defeated party and NASTO has eaten the humble pie. Not Taleban. This approach is unrealistic. If US/NATO wants to get out of Afghanistan, which it would do today or tomorrow and that like it exited from Viet Nam then they should revise their formula realistic.. They have seen the failure of military means and if they relied on bribe and buy policy, they should know that this is a game two can play. The Afghans might accept all the bribes and ignore them. A bribe is not counted among the Afghans as a bargain but a dirty practice to be ignored as having any binding forced of a deal.

As far as Pakistan is concerned it would have to adopt the same policy of negotiating with the Taleban which US would with Afghan Taleban.

By indicating a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, by 2011 latest, one can deduct that Americans have some other worry to which they want to attend sooner than possible, and if this is not an incorrect assumption than it seems they are now worried about the Sea Lanes of Suez being threatened with Somali pirates on one side the Yemeni “Al-Quaida” on the other bank, which can be a greater direct danger to the trade routes for the west.

The two Taleban, Afghan and Pakistani have different targets. Afghan are pure and simple anti-colonial occupation of their country and are thus on the same footing as Tito, Ho Chi Minh and Mao were. But Pakistani Taleban are on the killing spree of Muslims and their own fellow citizens. Afghan Taleban have expressed disagreement with Pakistani Taleban on this point. Yet the two are each other’s protection in a way. This means that we cannot have different polices towards our Taleban and Afghan Taleban. They are so intimately connected with each other that we cannot have two different approaches towards them. Our Taleban are as much part of our national scene as Afghan Taleban Afghan national scene. No peace in Afghanistan is possible without the two Taleban pacified. We would have to start talks with our Taleban if the new order has to come in Afghanistan. You cannot have one policy towards one Taleban and another for our Taleban.

Nonetheless, if Americans leave Afghanistan alone, IF, and revise their formula for satisfying Taleban, which the current one is not, but a formula for creating dissension, Divide and Rule formula, of use of aid for purchase of cheap leaders that has succeeded in other countries then I am afraid the blanket will cling to them and no peace is possible in Afghanistan.

Gates visit created more misunderstanding

25-01-2010

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

It was intended to write a detailed analysis of Robert Gates, American Defence Secretary’s statement in India which was repeated in Pakistan . This is no longer necessary after Talat commented on it in his TV program last night. Normally Talat is brilliant in giving analysis of international developments but last night , on Friday Jan 22 he out performed himself as his was a very perceptive analysis of what Gates’ statement meant to Pakistan .His commentary was in contrast to a certain defence analyist’s on a TV channel one day earlier on Gates statement in India. Nonetheless, Gates offensive statement cannot be ignored in this column as well.

It is most unusual for a foreign minister on a visit to that country to speak on behalf of his host. The host has a tongue and he also could say what the occasion required. However, as if speaking on behalf of India- most Gates warned Pakistan that if an incident like Mumbai happened again India may react against Pakistan. He praised India’s mature and restrain response in not reacting to the Mumbai incident earlier that is had India attacked Pakistan even in the first case US would have understood . This can be easily seen as saying to India that what you did first you should not do if such a terrorist act recurs, and that US will understand if India attacked Pakistan in retaliation. He asked Pakistan not to let its territory be used for attacks on other countries. This is how any diplomat of some experience would interpret Gates statement. As any diplomat knows the meaning of statement is not included in a few homilies which come in any diplomatic statement but what may be considered as the “punch line” All other ifs and buts before are mere additives.

Now as Talat pointed out how many countries including US and Germany not been used by terrorists as launching pads of their activities, even in 9’11 twin tower attack, etc. It has been made clear today that Pakistan cannot guarantee that some unknown terrorists use Pakistani soil for launching terrorist attacks. It is as impossible for Pakistan to stop such attacks as for US, UK, Germany, Egypt etc

Was Gates statement made to underline a fact that despite Pakistan fighting American ignited war in this region on Pak-Afghan border , suffering a loss of around $ 11 billion US is more allied to India than cares for Pakistan part in the war on terrorism. . This statement underlined India-US strategic alliance even against Pakistan. How, need be explained: America’s total identification with India over even Pakistan.

Saying that Gates had been misunderstood is an unacceptable alibi. As the Defenec Minister of a global power, Gates cannot be counted as not being a very seasoned policy maker who knows very well what he speaks and what his words mean. It is normal excuse of such leaders to take refuge under such excuses as to have been misunderstood.

Confessing that Blackwater exists in Pakistan only confirmed what Pakistanis know and every observant Islamite knows . It is only a confirmation of what is an open secret except to the Interior Minister and agencies. Any Pakistani can take any one wanting to knop where the Blackwater live in Islamabad can take the enquirer to F 6 and now E 7 and point out the mysterious houses which have been taken up by Blackwaters. The barbed wires, the sand bags in front of the houses , the road blocks around them. Ahow that the house is meant for some mysterious gangs. Their presence in Kahuts’s environs, etc are common knowledge and experience. Government spokesmen should not try to be more loyal than the king. Gates says that US has no intentions against Pakistan’s Nuclear assets or capability itself. Just the same day with Halbrooke present British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made the well know statement against Pak nuclear assets testifying at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is real risk in Nuclear Pakistan risks slipping into radical hands. What Britain says reflects American policy, if not today tomorrow. One is surprised on Miliband’s statement. How a tiny minority of mountains of the north can take over the most enlightened Muslims of a hard core of scientists, economists , highly educated men and women of Pakistan thrown out from the country’s seat of power and social leadership . Miliband should know better the hold of the Pakistan’s modernized minority elite second to none, any where in the world, retaining nation’s leadership in all fields. It will be a mistake to underestimate their importance.

This is the time to say that we take note of Gates’ statement that Taleban in Afghanistan are part of their national scene and the US / NATO intend to talk to them- or negotiate a peace deal. We can say then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Our Taliban are part of pour national scene. Yes we are at war with them at present but we are not happy on killing our own people although it is necessary for our own security. We too should emulate American approach to Taliban and hold talks with them. Army is quite right that for the next one year they intend to consolidate their gains in South Waziristan and not to extend the war to North Waziristan. The Army had done much, much better in the war against Taliban than the mighty NATO and world power US’ forces. We have no financial to carry on such an expensive operation.. With Indians threatening our Southern borders we have to reduce our commitment on the Northern borders. Now that Gates have asked the Indians to go after Pakistan, with his clearance to India to attack Pakistan, we must be prepared to meet the external threat than concentrating on internal insecurity

This is where Gates visit has made us question the wisdom of remaining committed to extending the theater of war against the Taliban in our tribal areas. His statement in India were made when some Pakistani circles were planning a people-to-people peace offensive. He has made those who were planning such a public campaign would find their job difficult.

Before closing this column it might be said that there have been three types of American visitors to Pakistan. The routine contact persons like Halbrooke who come with a ready made plan to which Pakistan must comply, they come to sell the plans and thus convey orders; the other are high powered like Gates who create more misunderstandings than harmony and Hillary Clinton, who at least have a n attitude of persons of good will, and try to learn what is the public opinion . They have their own agenda but at least they create a good impression of friendly understanding or an attempt to understand what Pakistanis want and why, even if they have their own mandate. The less there are such visits as Gates the better.

“Aman ki Asha”

18-01-2010

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

This kite flying, under the name of Aman ki Asha , has received attention which shows that it has caused much interest particularly among the writers and intellectuals . The question to ask by those of us who know the fate of such pious hopes in the past is whether there is any possibility of this laudable initiative succeeding? Majority in Pakistan will be happy if it does but can we expect the Indians to reciprocate. This is another matter I wonder!

My doubts about the initiative succeeding are not based on any ill wishes against this initiative. I do not wish it to fail. I am a Delhi-Agra wala who still has very fond memories of the place where I grew up, went to the famous educational institutions, and I loved to walk in Jamia Masjid and monuments of Muslim history’s glory. The enchanting sight of Taj Mahal in Agra from our ancestral house is still fresh in my mind despite the fact that it is now over sixty years old. The Urdu Bazar around Jamia Masjid Delhi was my haunt as a student, just as book markets in Cairo and Beirut were where I passed much of my leisure time during my Ambassadorship in Egypt and Lebanon. Although I worked for Pakistan Movement in the students’ leadership days, when Pakistan came into existence, I had no intention of leaving my ancestral place but I had no alternative but to become homeless when our houses were looted, Muslims were being massacred and we had to become refugees. This is just to underline that I do not want to be misunderstood as if I am opposed to turning a new leaf of good neighbourliness with India if not of friendship. Time seems to be against a success of peaceniks of Pakistan . India does not know even the world “solution” for “the dispute” where Kashmir is concerned. It has added to the list of disputes one more cause of tension, blocking waters to Pakistan in contravention of the Sind River Tass Agreement- which Hali in his column in The Pakistan Observer called “stealing Pakistan’s waters”, and is heavily involved with the so-called Taleban in the Frontier, insurgency in Balochistan and seems to have suffer from an arrogance of power thinking that it has such inordinate superiority over Pakistan in conventional weapons that no one can challenge its status quo and it can continue to remain obdurant in talks with Pakistan for finding a solution of these disputes.

In India therefore peace or aman means acceptance of status quo by Pakistan on all its disputes with India. Forget about them and agree to have ‘friendship’ on Indian terms will be their response to Aman ki Asha. . As the saying is among the Hindus “we have learnt only lala lala and not dada dada or to give. ( la is the first alphabet in the spelling of lena or taking and da in Dena or giving) .

Even then many Indians want Pakistan to accept Indian hegemony and accept a position of a subordinate. This is just not possible. If history teaches any lesson it is that Muslims having been rulers in India for long centuries it is not in Muslim psyche to accept a subordinate position.. This has been the meaning of 18 pages of Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi’s book “Understanding Muslim Mind” published in 1987 by Penguin India ) As I may say it was this search for parity or equality that we went for nuclear option after India achieved it and made Pakistan strategically on India’s mercy. Honourable friendship between India and Pakistan is possible only on the basis of equality not as subordination. It would be very good if wew live as friends, but on what terms?

Even then except Vajpayee no Indian leader was sincere in attempting to make Pakistan and Pakistanis friends of India in reality. Unfortunately Kargil adventure sabotaged it. All others had paid lip service to the cause of having peace with Pakistan. Unless the hot issues are settled no aman is in sight between the two powers of South Asia.. Even Vajpayee who seemed to want peace between two countries sincerely did not indicate that he was willing to accept a solution of Kashmir dispute and Agra talks failed..

It is doubtful that that there is any enthusiasm in Indian public as such about Aman ki Asha . While we were talking of Aman ki Asha , General Kapoor made the intiative ‘Aman ki Faqta or fired his first salvo by his extremely bellicose and imperialist declaration of flexing his muscles on Pakistan. Who speaks for Indian official opinion, Kapoor or Amita Bachan? I would make the same observation here that Talat Hussdain did in his TV program only two days ago. “Are there peaceniks in India?” that we have expectations of reciprocity from Indian public opinion. ? General Durrani tried to claim that there are but frankly I do not know what was his justification for this blief. I think the General was imagining and producing the polite conversations he and similar to him have had with Indians in drawing rooms. To take drawing room conversations as real professions of friendship is quite naïve. We hard eyed diplomats do not get mislead by expressions of pleasantries and do not count them as as hard facts. Look at Manmohan Singh how he somersaulted on return from Sharm el Shaikh to India. And Manmohan Singh made his statements in Sharm el Shaikh not in a polite talk in a drawing room but in public.

We had a mirage of bonehomie from India during Musharruf’s visit to Agra. Red Carpet rolled out for Musharruf’s welcome in India and the anti-climax on his departure.For Pakistan. When I was a Second Secretary in our Mission in India in 1956 I witnessed Raja Ghazanfer Ali Khan’s peacenik mission in India during the time he was Pak High Commissioner to India. This is what I had written in my book “Diplomats & Diplomacy- Story of an Era” about Raja Saheb’s failed initiative of making India our friend. The quotation follows:

“ I was posted to India, when the extreme hostility between the peoples on both sides of the border had started to melt with Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan’s cricket diplomacy . There have been many such experiments , this was the first one. During the match between the Indian and Pakistani teams Hindus and Sikhs were allowed to come freely to Lahore, given a rousing welcome, free food at restaurants and shops refused to accept payments for their purchases in the typical style of warm generosity of the Lahorites. A successful attempt was made to turn a new leaf in India- Pakistan relations. It proved to be one of those delusions in which we have indulged quite a few times “subsequently. ( page 52) I may remind readers that Raja Saheb had been a stalwart of Indian Congress He was genuinely committed to friendship between Hindus and Muslims. It was no gimmickery. But he must have known in his heart of hearts that it would take many , many Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan to achieve his objective

Incidentally in recent days there has been deterioration in relations with India. Communication links like telephone calls are not possible now. I am saying this while acknowledging the fact that Hindu and Muslim civilizations are two great systems and had interacted for co-existence for centuries borrowing much from each other Just to talk of Muslim contribution to Hindu vales and social system. Dress, much of the Indian food, dress, allowing Hindu women the right of divorce, permitting widows marriages, women getting right of inheritance from paremts property are Muslim gifts to Hindu society just as sanctity of marriage, liberal values for vwomen etc are Hindu societies gifts to Muslim system etc.

No body will be happier than I if I am proved wrong in my view that the present initiative will meet the same fate Raja Saheb’s cricket diplomacy did. I pray that I am proved wrong. Future will unfold facts still in the womb of history.

Karachi massacre – purpose?

08-01-2010

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

My computer was ‘sick’ all these days. So I am late in writing on this horrific Karachi incident. I will skip all the details which are common knowledge now. The main concerns here are what did the culprits aim to achieve by this heinous carnage. Strongest words are insufficient to condemn this despicable abominable crime committed on the sacred Ashura Day, Our main interest now is to identify the people who could have been responsible for this carnage. Were they foreigners or local parties?

It would be most naïve to describe this incident as “a sectarian explosion”. If deaths from both sides had occurred around the procession area and the losses were mourners accompanying the procession and the weapons used in the clash were rudimentary at the most automatic arms then it could have been counted as a sectarian incident In that case arson would not have spread to a wide area. The key element in a sectarian explosion would have been its spontaneity. Hence it has to be ruled out that it was a sectarian clash.

Second surmise is that it was a looters’ spree using Ashura Procession a cover up for the thievery. This surmise is ruled out by the number of shops burnt down, the material used gaseous and cutters to break open the shops, for looting and arson. The organisation which implemented the operation has all the hallmarks of a very trained organised team whose main intention was not to run away with the loot but much, much more. There was a “method in this madness”.

It was not a sectarian flare up the incident was so timed that it could look like a sectarian flare up. It was too well organised and spread on much wider area, with sophisticated chemicals, using cutters, which spread much beyond the place of procession to be counted as a sectarian clash. Only it was timed so that it could be construed as a sectarian clash to achieve a purpose which the Rand Corporation in its study suggested to be American Policy Planner in Iraq to “Exploit Shia-Sunni differences in the Muslim world” Now Iraq has replaced Pakistan in US War in this region.

It could have been planned to make Shia-Sunni cut each other’s throats in Karachi/ Urdu Speaking areas. In that case one could suspect Black Water or its proxies such as Saffron Water, Dead Sea Water as the organisers of this incident? This is nothing more than a surmise.

The other explanation is to look for the perpetrator inside the country, a conspiracy to destroy Karachi’s primacy as a political factor which draws power from Karachi’s prosperity.

It does not seem that, despite their claim, Taliban were the culprits in this act of terrorism. The means used in this operation are quite distinctly those of a highly trained group which were far more organised than the acts of Taliban in Frontier or Punjab. Technical support was far superior to those witnessed in most hobbile incidents of terrorism in Frontier or Punjab and it was not ignited with a suicide bomber, but remote control bomb blast.

This could mean that Black Water and its associates were mixed up with some internal parties.

It is for a high level Enquiry to discover the real perpetrators. Nothing can be said with certainty at this stage it is merely a guess with no firm indication who is to be named as the culprit.

One thing should be said here: While all over the country the police had faced the onslaught of terrorists with remarkable attachment to their duties even to the extent of sacrificing their lives, this was not the case with Karachi Police, but the parties which failed to rise up to the task were our security and intelligence. Surely incidents like big scale terrorism take after quite a few weeks’ planning. These are not undertaken on the spur of the moment. Where were then our intelligence when Karachi attacks were being planned by terrorists? This failure of security and intelligence has been common in our being taken by surprise when they occurred, be it in Frontier, Punjab or this massacre in Karachi.

What was the purpose of this carnage:

The main features of this operation are well planned long before the day it was executed, use of chemicals and iron cutters. The damage it did was like the damage done by a mini nuclear bomb, without the use of a mini nuclear bomb itself.

The operation was aimed at destroying the hub of Pakistan’s commerce, to do colossal damage to Karachi itself. It was anti-Karachi, anti-Pak economy, not a sectarian or looters operation.

We should understand that terrorist attacks are engineered not solely by Taliban but also by foreign operatives like Black Water, Raw, Mossad, and even internal groups.

We in the media can make guesses in such cases of terrorism but the real task is that of security and intelligence to examine the logical enquiries. The Government has to take courage in both hands and name the real culprits.

There is a definite big strategy in the case of foreign powers to create a new power structure in the region which aims at making Pakistan another Afghanistan, weak and wobbly with India as a super regional power in which scheme to cut Pakistan cut to size is important. As an ancient mariner of the rough sea of diplomacy, this much seems to me the new world order they are trying to chizzle out. Our policy makers should be courageous enough to point their finger in the right direction. We should acknowledge that our security and intelligence have performed poorly in preventing the terrorist acts. In Karachi the Police also is much to be blamed.

‘Beggars can’t be choosers’!

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

19-10-2009

Those who support that Pakistan swallow the bitter pill of the Kerry-Lugar Bill as she has no choice and since “beggars can’t be choosers”. It is claimed that (a) Pakistan cannot survive without aid, (b) all previous regimes since Pakistan’s independence have taken strings attached American aid, (c) and all regimes, without exception had sacrificed Pakistan’s sovereignty in accepting the aid.

These claims are all hyperboles and falsification of facts. I have sat in our delegations in quite a few negotiations on aid or had viewed them from the Foreign Office from earliest days of aid, in the fifties, to my retirement about thirty seven years thereafter.. The argument that the aid Kerry-Logar Bill is offering us is a necessity for our economic health is ridiculous. The real worth of the amount of the so-called aid under the Bill will be very insignificant percentage compared to the size of our economy as explained below: Of $ 1.5 billion aid annually, 45% will meet the cost of American “supervisors” who will audit the aid, that is we will be paying for the Americans from our “pocket”. Pakistan will receive only about $ 850 million. The deduction of about $ 700 million is like hitting your head with your own shoe as is the Urdu idiom or “ tumhara jota or tumhara ser.”.

But beside this, the value of the dollar has shrunk progressively over the years. Some economist will be a better judge to determine the equivalence of the value of $ 850 million say in the days of Ayub Era. Has it shrunk 10 to 8 times of the dollar of 1960s? I should think so. If there are people who believe that Pakistan has such a small economy that this little amount can make Pakistan’s economy sink or swim, it is a hyperbole. This is not such a great amount even for the richest Pakistanis. As was reported some months ago in the press Mr. Zardari has $ 1.2 billion and next a close second is Nawaz Sharif. Other big guns like Mansha added to this list would have more than the two big wigs. If Pakistanis assets or bank balances abroad are brought to Pakistan the amount may will be a more than $ 7 billion or the ‘aid’ US intends to give Pakistan in next five years. Pakistan economy is larger than $ 1.5 billion or $ 850 million . Let our pro-Kerry Logar Bill lobby not over state the size of the Aid this bill offers.

May be my arithmetic is wrong but it is most doubtful that if Pakistan does not get this aid, it will sink or be in great economic difficulties. The value of Pak currency in its internal purchasing power is not reflected in its foreign exchange equivalent. So that colorful statement that the average income of a Pakistani is two dollars a day does not reflect the real local purchasing power of the Rupee. But it is not possible to effect any change in the betterment of common man because there is a partnership of the foreign capitalists, industrialists and arms industry with Pakistani filthy rich who are also the political masters in Pakistan. So the aid will go for budget support and hardly to betterment of standard of living of common man.

But leaving this point out as to how much wealth Pakistani rich have stacked abroad, the fact remains that such a small amount as $ 100 million in real value in terms of Ayub Era is not the amount without which Pakistan can swim or sink. It is necessary that we stop begging for aid from foreign countries. Quite a bit of the amount the American Kerry Logger Bill is offering can be found by the Government by controlling its extravagance by economizing on lavish expenditures. There can be no two opinions that the present PPP-coalition Government is the greatest spendthrift in Pakistan’s history. It spends ten where in the past any Government had spent one Rupee. Easily cuts in absolutely unnecessary expenditure following Indian example in government expenditure can give huge savings. Just half a dozen of experienced bureaucrats can effect huge savings by applying the old standards of frugality in government which were observed once upon a time.

But besides this, the value of dollar has shrunk progressively over the years. Some economist will be a better judge in determining the equivalence of the value of $ 8200 million say in the days of Ayub Era. Has it shrunk 10 to 8 times of the dollar of 1960s. It will be about $ 800 million ? No more. But leaving this point out as to how much wealth Pakistani rich have stacked abroad, the fact remains that such a small amount as $ 100 million in real value in terms of Ayub Era cannot make Pakistan swim or sink. As regards calling Pakistan a beggar who has no choice but to beg, let us remember that a beggar is forced to extend his hand for charity as he cannot live without it. Pakistan has never been so down and out that it was forced to live on foreign charity. Pakistan did not beg for aid at any time in its history. Nor the beggar and the charity giver negotiate the terms of charity. First to put the “aid” in correct perspective the so-called aid is a long term loan, returned with interest and there is a bargain in it between the donor and the its recipient. There is a give and take at least where the loan is given to such major countries as Pakistan. Originally, in the 50s the Western Powers began giving aid to the Third World countries as an instrument of their foreign policy to buy the good will of the Underdeveloped World in their competition with the Soviet Bloc. In the case of Pakistan as a strategically located country America offered Military aid and economic inducements to win Pakistan on its side since Pakistan was the leader of the Muslim world .

One of the biggest lies told in this regard is about Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. He never went to US to get aid and never asked for aid. They should educate about Liaquat’s US visit by reading “Pakistan: The Heart of Asia” a collection of Liaquat’s speeches in US in May 1950, published by Harvard University Press in 1951 At the end of his tour, Liaquat speaking at MIT –on 26th May, 1950, said: “ With monotonous reiteration during my days in America I have appealed for international cooperation. Some may have thought that I was asking for charity. I do not ask for charity. I only ask for the help of the most experienced countries of the world to put our own men to work and to make our own resources yield their wealth. “( p110). Incidentally when Liaquat made this statement I was a student in Boston and Liaquat came straight from MIT to our Fletcher School to have lunch in us in our dinning hall We were proud to hear him say I am not asking for your charity.

During US tour Liaquat was tempted to recognize Israel in lieu of aid. They said Pakistan is a new country it needs military and economic assistance. If he recognized Israel, they will give military and economic aid. Liaquat replied “ Gentlemen, my soul is not for sale” ( see page 242of my Book “Diplomats and Diplomacy” quoting Mr Ikramullah who was in Liaquat ‘s two persons delegation to US ). Pakistan did not go for any aid till 1953/54. Even thereafter thre have been long periods Pakistan had no American Aid, sanctions on Ayub Khan’s regime, five years of ZAB rule, Nawaz Sharif’s first term of PM ship, and during long years American sanctions remained in force, etc.

But even with American aid, Pakistan never toed the American policy where it was against its vision or interests, e.g., recognized China when US hostility was at its height, sponsored China for UN seat, did not send forces to Korea War, supported Arab causes in UN, did not recognize Israel, went for its Nuclear option despite Pressler’s Amendment, etc, etc. Even in the case of Bara Bed Base, Pakistan cancelled the facility given to American just by a simple letter to US Government after USSR strongly protested on it. I sat with Foreign Minister Sharifuddin Pirzada when on return from a visit to Ayub Khan he dictated the letter to US withdrawing this facility. This is why US applied sanctions on Pakistan many times. Pakistan took aid as a bargain for facilities given to US , not as a charity. Only when Pakistani rulers were put in power through American kindness they lost this negotiating power. Pakistan has never been a beggar otherwise.

We crossed American policy aims on China, Palestine Cause, solidarity with Arabs, refusal to count Arabism as a threat to the region, military planning against Nasser, Nuclear program for Pakistan, refusal to accept Indian hegemony, and many other issues in the UN. It might be added that upto ‘70s aid was “project aid” –that is given for a specific project, like construction of Mangla Dam, Tarbela Dam, etc, It became “budget support” later in late 70s or so. In Project Aid, donor countries were benefiting by selling machinery at their own price, under tied aid- items should be bought in the donor country without calling for tenders. Such purchases were about 30% above world market price .

President Ghulam Ishaq Khan told me at a dinner at my house- when he was still President- of his altercation with some American emissary in Islamabad that when the American boasted to him that Pakistan should be thankful to America for giving the aid, he ( GIK) replied” Let us take a paper and pen and write down the balance sheet of what US gave to Pakistan and what in return US got from Pakistan in return. and see who benefited more from whom? I had asked GIK what had happened at his meeting with the American because the Press had reported it a few days back that the American was quite rude with the President. GIK confirmed that there was an altercation on this matter. Let us recall Ayub’s visit to Washington in 1962. He had strongly differed with Kennedy (JFK) when he asked Ayub to support India against China in India-China War in 1962 Ayub refused and on return he turned towards “independent Foreign Policy” and Pakistan became a leader of the Afro-Asian Movement. Pakistan never till long agreed to toe American dictates till recently because they were put n the chair by the Americans. Those who do not know history of US aid to Pakistan and when and why US applied sanctions, exaggerate the influence of American aid or our dependence on it.

Proving the allegation false that all regimes “since last sixty two years” have been beggars and sacrificed Pakistan’s sovereignty the biggest lie of history requires a full article and is to be treated separately. Let us take the wildest claims that Pakistan cannot survive without aid, and that if we are deprived of the $ 1.5 billion aid the Bill offers on its conditions it will seriously affect Pakistan’s economy; we cannot do without it. Pakistan did not go for aid till 1954 under Ghulam Mohammed, Bogra, Iskander Mirza trio. The total aid upto 1971 for West Pakistan was $ 6 ½ billion when $ was Rs 5 or about.

Mourning Niaz A Naik

Dr Samiullah Koreshi

NIAZ was my batch mate in the PFS. We both entered the Foreign Service through the first Pakistan CSS Competitive Examinations in 1949, and both were allotted PFS. We both went for our training to the US same time, he to Washington I to Boston and then to Paris together for learning French. We were young then as the age limit for the CSS Competitive Examination then was 21 to 24. Our association was therefore from the early youth. We both retired the same year. It was a long camaraderie. To mourn for a colleague of such long association is a very sad occasion. It brings to mind images of the dead colleague from early days till retirement. The days in London in training at British Foreign Office, at Café Allies on Champs Elise in Paris, drinking coffee. With such long association, in work and leisure, we knew each other well. I developed admiration for his friendly nature. Ours being the first generation of Foreign Service naturally we were pioneers in diplomacy, for no one had any idea what was diplomacy and what Foreign Service did. Our generation was the first regular foreign service diplomats of Pakistan. Others were ICS officers who thought Foreign Office is another bureaucratic organization. The first Foreign Service Reorgaization Scheme was drafted by me under Mr Ikramullah’s directions. It had input from all PFS Officers. This was the contribution of the pioneers of the Service to Pakistan’s diplomacy.

He was a conscientious officer, very hard working which any body who deals with the UN affairs has to be. It is a very specialized work in which one has to know all the UN resolutions, attitude of powers towards them, and of course the UN Charter. As a bachelor he had all the time to devote himself to work. He was an untiring officer who was always committed to the work. Work was his duty as much as hobby. He was essentially a worker and an expert in his own field, for him work had become his worship.

I should first mention Niaz’s qualities of heart and his human side. He was a peaceful person who avoided getting into arguments or taking tiffs with any person colleague in work or otherwise. He was very circumspect in talk and avoided backbiting or ridiculing a colleague. It came to me as a great surprise and indeed as a shock that he was allegedly murdered, his dead body was found with broken ribs apparently by violence of some attackers and injuries inflicted on his head. A peaceful man like Niaz could not have personal enemies. But as he was living alone in the house some thieves could have committed robbery. Some time ago I had heard that he was quite sick, but he lived alone as he never married and therefore had none to take care of him in sickness.. He was single by choice not for any other reason. So was his elder brother Ijaz Naik.a very competent CSP officer who rose to be a Federal Secretary. Niaz was a sweet natured person, who would never talk loudly or insultingly with any other not even his juniors in the place of work.

In service he had many coveted postings, including High Commissioner to India but his specialty was United Nations Affairs as he had two postings in the UN missions, at Geneva and in New York He was Director General UN when I was Director Research at the Foreign Office in 1967- 1969.Having had two posts as Pak Representative to UN and Heading UN Branch at the Foreign Office, Niaz was obviously an expert in the three main topics of our time at that time, Kashmir dispute, nuclear weapons and the N P T which were burning topics at the UN then. In fact he and Shahi worked on the Draft NPT before it was tabled at the UN in Geneva. At that time Pakistan was in the major league in the UN and had the opportunity to have a hand in drafting the NPT. And Pakistan’s earliest attitude towards NPT was formulated by Shahi – Niaz Naik. It was these two who proposed the formulation “ if there will be a sixth nuclear power, there would be a sixth and seventh and so on so forth “, meaning thereby that if India went Nuclear Pakistan would go nuclear too and may be other follow heir example. They thought that this formulation put the UN on notice that if India went Nuclear Pakistan would go nuclear too and that others may follow suit. They also suggested along with Dr Ishrat Usmani then Chairman PAEC that after approving he CTBT with this addition we need not sign the NPT unless India signed. I sat on the small committee chaired by Foreign Minister Arshad Hussain which gave the final approval to this formulation and stand on NPT. Niaz attended it as DG UN.

Niaz’s great contribution and in fact thankless achievement came as the Foreign Secretary and later as the back door negotiator with India. This was a very difficult task which only a man of his quite nature, even tempered, and ability to find inexhaustible alternatives with an obdurate opposite number could do. Whether he achieved any thing n these talks is not known, but that he would have left no stone unturned to find some meeting ground can be safely said.

A silent fighter of diplomatic battles and selfless worker, he has left his mark on the country’s diplomacy. May his soul rest in peace in paradise.

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.