Thirst for Muslim blood
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
An ambassador cannot be myopic by confining himself to reporting mere
events stated in the press and ignoring the pointers to new moves. He
has to digs deeper to see what new move those facts represent.His
concern is dynamics of diplomacy. He is not a cataloguer of events and
who said what , but a perceiver of the dynamic of international
diplomacy. And if there was ever a very sinister move made against the
Muslims in the region it is these exercises Israel is making in
preparation for an attack on Iran’s Nuclear installations. After
American destruction of Iraq, this move is the second move of the same
nature, Its purpose is to destroy the next credible Muslim power in the
Middle East, in fact at present the only credible power in the Muslim
world. If it is destroyed, as they wish, the Muslim world would consist
of pliable dummies.
The American/Western targets have been destruction of powers of three
countries in the Muslim world who had some life left in them or backbone
in their peoples, after the Arabs compromised with Israel and abandoned
their policy of military containment of and confrontation with Israel.
These were/are Saddam’s Iraq, new (or post-Shah) Iran and N-Pakistan.
They intend to eat up the Muslim credible powers one by one, step by
step.. After a long time, Israel is being given the task for which it
was originally created, a proxy for US/West for military subjugation of
the Arabs, and to destroy the Muslim powers in the crescent. In this
respect Pakistan has been certainly included in the ambit of Israel’s
“responsibility”. This is why India and Israel are allies in an
encirclement of Pakistan and Mossad is involved in subversive activities
in the North and Kashmir. Our Anti-terrorist forces have caught Indian
Marhattas and Israeli commandos in Pakistan’s Northern territory in
their subversive missions. Thus the title of this article is not
sensational but realistic.
As we know the prelude to the attack on Iraq was the false propaganda
that Iraq has an inordinate number of Weapons of Mass Destruction
capable of hitting New York and US cities and had chemical and
biological weapons etc. All lies and false accusations as now is known.
But this propaganda was a step towards the war, knowing well that it was
an excuse for an attack on Iraq. This is American and Western tactics
that before they go for destruction of a country or a people they
unleash a propaganda war against that country next comes the military
operation. This pattern is being used in the case of preparing a war
psychosis against Iran, Ahmedinizad and Iran’s so-called nuclear threat.
The only difference is that Israel has been given the task of attacking
Iran, like Karzai was to be used as the first tool against Pakistan
recently. It was reported in the American press that one thousand
nuclear items were missing from American custody, who worry about the
terrorist getting access to “Pakistani N-assets” but cannot guard their
own nuclear material. Has US been negligent in guarding its own nuclear
assets or were they gifted to Israel ?.President Jimmy Carter had
earlier declared that Israel possesses 130 nuclear weapons which is
three times more than Pakistan’s. After the Camp David Accord Israel had
been trying to indulge in deception diplomacy of appearing in a lamb’s
skin. It found in Mahmoud Abbas a partner in this drama. People started
to believe this new phase of Israel so much so that President Musharruf
became the first Pakistani enamored of Israel. But its preparations now
to attack Iran have torn that façade it had built. Now the vampire has
come out in her true face. This is what Israel’s real face is which it
has been hiding so far, That Israel wishes a success in its mission is
one thing and can it do so is another?. El-Baradei has rightly said that
if Iran is attacked Middle East will become a ball of fire. He considers
Israeli intentions so patently illegal that he has threatened to resign
as Director General IAEA if Iran is attacked..
The question is what has encouraged this tiny little mosquito size
Israel it to take on a giant power which has the oil weapon at its
command too. Is it that Israel has succeeded in lulling Syria to be
isolated from Iran by agreeing to hand back the Occupied Golan Heights,
taken fron Syria in 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Israel had established
relations of some sort with many Arab States, that American/Israeli
assessment is that Arab rulers are more afraid of Iran than Israel, that
in their estimates the Shia Sunni divide in the Arab World is so sharp
that Sunni Arabs, the majority in the Middle East would be happy on
destruction of Iranian nuclear power, and that the Muslims are so down
and out and their rulers so much in American pocket that they will keep
quite on Israeli attack on Iran? In this connection the reported Iraqi
permission given to America to use its territory to attack “any country”
is deplorable coming at the time Israel is indulging in war preparations
against Iran , and certainly it means that US would wish to join to help
Israel should it get the slap on Iran adventure like it did in its
attack on Lebanon from Hizb Allah. It remains to be seen whether
American and Israeli assessment in this connection are too wishful.
First the Arab regimes should express their opposition to Israeli
preparations of attack on Iran in no uncertain terms by calling American
Ambassadors in their countries. If they do not stop the Israelis now the
Rulers will pitch themselves up against their masses. The concept of
oneness of Ummah might have died in the Rulers who consider it
“extremism” but it is the throb of the masses when the Muslims are in
trouble any where. It is only a secondary thing that Shias are a
significant political factor in entire Middle East from Turkey’s Eastern
provinces to Syria, Lebanon, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Gulf, Central Asia,
India, Pakistan. The Vampire’s thirst for Muslim blood here in this case
might cost her dearly than it did in Lebanon. American sea lanes in the
Gulf would certainly be threatened and there would be an increase in
suicide bombers on American installations and interests. Hell might lose
in the region.
This planning if postponed today will be a temporary lull. US/Israel are
bent upon conquest of the Middle East at any cost. Vampire has also lust
for Pakistani blood as it is already a nuclear power. It would be
recalled that on 28th May 1998 we had in the mid night called an Israeli
friend’s country’s envoy and told him that if Israel attacked Kahuta we
will bomb Tel Aviv. This desisted Israel from implementing its plans to
stop our nuclear explosions. If Israel does attack Iranian installations
we would have to revise our n-deterrence strategy. We would have to
expand its target, making our Nuclear capability beyond India and
including Israel as a target. Seymour Hersh said in a Conference in
Islamabad which I attended that only two nulear bombs can wipe Israel
out of existence Israel should understand that its 130 nuclear bombs
would not save it from Pakistan if it ever tried to attack Pakistan. We
have to not only condemn Israel plans but make it plain that we are
brother country of Iran and would not join any foolish advebture against
Israel and be ready to revise our Nuclear targets if Israel attacks
Iran.
|
|
 |
The roar of a hired mouse
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
There have been indiscriminate and cowardly killings of civilians and
Pak soldiers off and on in FATA area, Bajaur, South Waziristan and
tribal belt by NATO forces through missile attacks on civilian
populations on the baseless claims that there are Taliban bases where
these missile strikes were made. According to a columnist in a
prestigious Urdu daily there have been thirteen such attacks by US
forces in the last four years. Pakistan has several times warned the
aggressors to stop violating Pakistan sovereignty, The NATO Forces are
so incompetent that they have miserably failed in combating rag tag
Taleban , despite the fact that NATO forces are trained and equipped for
a Third World War but they have been found incompetent to face a
determined enemy in his own country. Talebans are far smaller in number
and much insignificant in fire power, but what gives them superiority is
the same old story of a guerrilla fighter versus occupation forces NATO
forces work on such laughable “intelligence” as discovering that Usama
Bin Laden is hiding in K-2, the second highest peak in the world. To
make their claim credible they should have announced the discovery that
Usama is hiding in a hols in Mount Everest. That would have been more
convincing! Now they first claimed that NATO forces would pursue him in
Pakistani territory.
Pakistan has been warning in no uncertain terms that it will not
tolerate any violation of its territory – But the violators of
sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan are now dreaming of making
incursions into Pakistan territory. As a prelude to their aggressive
designs, for last one week NATO have been almost daily striking missiles
on the Tribal territory every day and its air force has been flying in
tribal residential areas at low heights. They have been causing a number
of casualties of the civilians. The most serious incident occurred two
days ago when 37 Pakistanis were killed by NATO missiles in Mahmand area
which included 11 soldiers- among them was a major and a JCO something
like a Sergeant Major in NATO forces. These attacks have coincided with
the rising claims that NATO search forces will enter Pakistan and
destroy the so-called Taleban bases , despite clear warnings by Pakistan
that it will not allow anybody to violate its territory. Today Karzai
who is nobody except a puppet NATO forces of occupation in Afghanistan
had the cheek to declare that Afghan Forces would enter Pakistan
territory and kill the Taleban who are operating from there on
Afghanistan side. It is quite clear that poor Karzai cannot make such a
foolhardy statement on his own. He was asked by NATO occupation forces
to make this tall claim. One hopes that Karzai who had lived on
Pakistan’s territory for two decades when Afghnaistan was under Soviet
occupation would not be so rackless as to attempt such a dangerous
adventure. It is not a coincidence that when ever peace accords are
reached with Pakistani tribals and Talebans the Occupation forces and
their puppets try to sabotage them because they think that if peace is
established in Pakistani tribal areas, then the argument that militancy
is a danger to Pakistan also will fall to the ground, So now when they
see that these deals are being successful they came up with the
fantastic discoveries of Usama being in K2 and they threaten to send
NATO troops in Tribal areas despite Pakistan plainly saying No to such
marauding in its sovereign territory.
However, the important thing is that not only Foreign Office but even
the gentlemanly
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yusuf Raza Gilani has in no uncertain terms
warned that nobody will be allowed to violate Pak territory He said that
Pakistani forces are capable of defending our territory. Let us add to
it that our people and forces are capable of giving a bleeding nose to
any military adventure violating our territory, Karzai is ignoring the
dangerous consequences of such an adventure into Pakistan whose armed
forces are world class and tribal areas are quite capable of giving a
smashing response to any adventure against their freedom. Karzai should
understand that playing the game of foreign occupation forces in this
region cannot pay. If he wants to play with fire he will merely burn his
hands. One very serious repercussion of Karzai’s foolish adventure can
be that the public may demand that we disassociate with the war on
terror since if this is the respect the so-called Allies give to
Pakistan’s partnership with them that they treat Pakistan as a colony of
the NATO countries and not a sovereign country than it is better for
Pakistan to withdraw from such humiliating relationship. If countries
forming NATO have not learnt any lesson from the Iraqi adventure and
they want to get into worst debacle than Karzai can handle they are
sadly mistaken. Everybody knows that Karzai writ in limited to Kabul.
One wonders from where he got the courage to take on Pakistan.
This raises the question: Was he hoodwinking Pakistan Foreign Minsiter,
Shah Mahmoud Qureshi , when he recently visited Kabul on a friendly
visit and returned quite satisfied with his talks there. For he did not
fulminate in his presence. There is another mystery in this sordid
affair. American press says that Pakistan was informed of these raids.
Who is this “Pakistan” Where is the duality, when the honorable Yusuf
Raza Gilani has in no uncertain terms warned against this violation of
our territory. ( I am using the words honorable for Yusuf Raza Gilani
because so far he has not used equivocal words in his statements and
seems to be a different kind of politician in the PPP lot.) or Is there
another “Pakistan” who? Is it the Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, or
president Musharruf? Mukhtar too has been quite a softie in this affair.
Any how we have entered a zone credibility gap with the so-called
“allies” in the war on terror or may be the end of the road if the naked
aggression on Pakistan is committed. It is necessary that this threat of
a naked aggression is discussed in the National Assembly.
|
Madrassah education in India
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
The Institute of Strategic Studies had invited an Indian lecturer, Dr
Mehdi, to speak on the Madressa Education in India. The gentleman is a
lecturer in English at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi., I wanted to hear Dr
Mehdi as I started my earliest education in 1933 from Jamia.. Dr Zakir
Hussain was its Chancellor of Jamia in those days and just to keep
himself in touch with the budding generation, he used to teach us one
period in English grammar. Dr Zakir Hussain was a great name as a beacon
of sacrifice in anti-colonial struggle against the British Raj. After
independence he became the President of India. Madrassas have been the
backbone of Muslim education in India. Their hallowed names are
enshrined in cultural history of Indian Muslims. Many of them were trend
setter in Muslim society. The traditional Muslim society and its culture
bore the stamps of these Madressas.
Jamia- its full name is “ Jamia Millia Islamia” or Islamic National
University was to be an Islamic school but “national” or supportive of
the nationalist movement led by the All India Congress – Gandhiji and
Nehru - and an academy of both modern and Islamic studies. We had Arabic
language, of which books were brought from Cairo. Learning the Holy
Quran, in Arabic with its meaning and Hadith in Arabic from elementary
classes was compulsory. We were required to wear national dress, with
Gandhi cap. . Jamia’s mission was to produce a new generation to carry
the freedom struggle (against the British Raj) and to serve the country.
We were taught handicrafts, like carpentry, book binding, carpet
weaving, and cultivation in the fields. We were supposed to sell the
vegetable, grown by us on the small plots in the school grounds, sitting
on the ground outside the school. The idea was that to work for freedom
struggle one must stand on one’s own feet in all circumstances and not
depend on jobs or government service. It was founded by Congressite
Muslims like Dr Ansari- ( who took the Medical Mission to Turkey (
1912-1913) during the Balkan War – after breaking away from the Aligarh
University. They branded Aligarh University as a “toady” organization –
supportive of British Raj- and set up Jamia in Aligarh and then
transferred it to Delhi. ( Dr Mehdi replied to me on a question that
Jamia broke away from Aligarh on the question of support to Pakistan,
which was not correct as the break took place around 1920 or two decades
before Pakistan Demand was made ). Jamia as such was a unique madrassa,
but madressa it was. However, it can be likened to Plato’s Academy in
its spirit of independence. This is what took me to hear Dr Mehdi.
He gave a fairly good lecture within the very narrow confines of his
choosing He confined himself to Deoband, the most orthodox Seminary, if
one can borrow the word from Western terminology-.There are a few
archetype among the Indian Madressa, of them the two most well known are
Deoband and Naqwa. Both are “seminaries” Deoband is Wahabi tradition
strictly orthodox, and in a way rejects mysticism . Wahabi creed was the
great puritanic revivalism , and can be described as a sect among the
Sunnis in broad terms. In Pakistan Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI is a
Deobandi. The other archetype was Nadwa which represents the main
stream, Sunni liberal tradition madressa. Interestingly Deoband is known
in Pakistan’s history as the group which supported Gandhiji and the
Congress and criticized the Quaid-e-Azam as toady and British “agent”.
We in the Muslim students leadership faced their propaganda against the
demand for Pakistan and the Quaid. As against this, Nadwa supported
Pakistan movement.
While speaking of Deoband and its current leaders the Speaker did not
mention that Deoband was pro-Congress and pro-Gandhiji, during the
Pakistan struggle . Its leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmed Madani was the head
of Jamiat ul Uleme-i- Hind. Iqbal had written two short poems
criticizing him. Dr Mehdi’s lecture was to dispel the well known Western
concerns or fears that Indian madressas are “ jihad factories” and
perhaps used Deoband as a model to show that Indian madressas are not
terrorist breeding grounds. He emphasized that it has only recently
passed a resolution denouncing terrorism as prohibited in Islam, that
there are hardly any foreign students in Deoband, that it had been
financed by the Saudis in the past but seldom now, that Nadwa had been
visited by Saudi envoys, and curriculum of Deband is outdated, that most
of the students he interviewed do not want madressa education but want
to learn English, that they go to these madressas because they have no
other alternative. But he admitted that minus these madressas the poor
segment of society would be deprived of any education.
It is surprising that Mehdi, who was perhaps a Shia, made no mention of
the Shia madressas in Lakhnaw, a famous and great center of Shia
learning, as I remember at one time Imam Khomeni had his religious
education as a Youngman. In Bengal, in Bihar, in Kashmir, and so many
places exist and have existed madressas for long time, of which Dr Mehdi
made no mention of them or their problems.
This was a highly selective presentation of madressas in India, because
from the south to the North, from East to the West where ever there are
sizeable Muslim communities there have been madressas from hundreds of
years and Deoband pattern is only one of them. Madressas in Occupied
Kashmir were not even mentioned in his talk by the speaker and existed
much before the ones in Pakistan were established. These madressas are
mostly in mosques and low paid teachers teach the students what ever
they can. He made no suggestion how to obtain funds for madressas to
modernize their facilities. Indian Muslims are very poor although there
are some very rich persons also in the community. The question was like
someone complaining that bread was not available and in reply suggest
why do’nt they not eat cakes. Regarding the speakers implied criticism
of financing of the madressas by foreign Muslim, while being apologetic
about it, he omitted to mention how much financial assistance the
Christian missionary schools receive from the Pope, Western countries,
charities and governments. Without such aid, no Christian missionary
school would exist. Because much of this aid is given for conversion of
locals for political purposes it is resented in India. But when any
Muslim Government gives financial aid to Madressas, which has been given
from decades in the past, western countries raise objections on such
donations.
In the end, the point worth pondering on is whether the current
Islamophobia is a byproduct of the “9/11” events or it has existed all
along but was kept dormant as a second priority till confrontation with
Communism was over . I would in this connection quote some excerpts from
a book, The Indian Musalmans” by WW Hunter once upon a time an English
ICS officer then serving in East Bengal : “ I have tried to bring out in
clear relief the past history and the present requirements of
persistently belligerent class- of a class whom successive Governments
have declared to be a source of permanent danger to the Indian Empire”.
The Publisher, Prof Bimal Pershad adds: the book was written as an
apology to the question mooted out by Lord Mayo: “ Are the Indian
Musalmans bound by their religion to rebel against the Queen”- and Queen
here meant Queen Victoria. Mayo was Viceroy of India from 1869-72. The
book was first published in 1871 and last in 1876 and reprinted by Rupa
& Co, , New Delhi in 2002 .
It seems that this task has now been taken up by another global power,
147 years later. The main suspect counted as permanent danger are again
the Muslims of the Subcontinent. Perhaps the task was postponed while
USSR was chosen as the immediate danger . In the end I should say that
it is most frustrating that in such seminars the question-answer session
is highly controlled and experts and scholars are not allowed to pursue
a question with the speaker a little more than just limiting to raising
a question and then not get elaboration of the answer. If the scholars
and experts are to be equated with run of the mill generalists it is not
worth it for them to attend such seminars.
|
The unwelcome intrusion
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
The news is that Negroponte is again coming to Pakistan. His visits are
not like those of diplomats of other countries. They normally have a
friendly purpose, either to renew acquaintance with leaders of the
country or to exchange views on matters of mutual interests or concerns.
The frequency of Negroponte’s visits have acquired the aura of a boss
coming on an inspection tour of his domain. This is what makes his
visits offensive, and undiplomatic; their frequency , their purpose and
the arrogance of his visitation are most unwelcome. because of pocking
of his nose in Pakistan’s internal affairs, and violation of code of
diplomatic conduct.It is not known from the announcement that the dates
and the purpose of his visit has been approved in advance by our
Government or he has the liberty to arrive in Pakistan without
ascertaining the suitability of dates. This impression is formed by an
earlier visit in which he arrived and said the visit could not be put
off to another date because the program had already been made. This
taking for granted attitude is very mystifying because no foreign
diplomat arrives to meet officials of another government without prior
agreement of the dates, subject to mutual convenience.
According to the press, he is coming to (a) hold talks with on one side
with the government top echelon, namely, president Musharruf , Yusuf
Raza Gilani and others , on top party level with Asif Zardari & Nawaz
Sharif (b) to discuss a host of issues including re-instatement of the
deposed judges , political and economic situation in the country – with
a view to bridge the gap between president Musharruf and the new
government. (c) express US concern on the peace talks with the militants
in the tribal belt as US does not approve of them.
It would however seem that the main purpose of his visit are three :to
put pressure on the Top Leadership not to remove president Musharruf,
not to reinstate the Chief Justice, and not to go for peace talks with
the tribal militants. This would show that he is not coming for exchange
of views on foreign policy with Pak officials but to put American
pressure on the top leadership to accept American line in our policies,
internal and external both. The Americans have prepared the ground well
for Negroponte mission by issuing statements on the great danger that
the tribals will pose to US and “indeed world peace”. They have indulged
in hyperboles on the so-called “great threat” the militants in the
tribal areas are allegedly pose to US including launching another 9/11
like attack on US. General David Petrraeus , nominated to head the US
Central Command based in the Gulf has gone to the extent of saying the
next 9/11 type would come from FATA, and earlier a US intelligence
assessment also indulging in a fairy tale of this kind, along with
American off again and on again raids on peaceful Pakistani citizens
killing children and women are calculated to blackmail Pakistan With the
NATO braves sitting in Afghanistan using weapons of mass destruction
minus nuclear bomb, to talk of such future is to create an unjustified
scare, Pakistan has its own approach how to eliminate militancy and
violence in FATA through dialogue, but to no small measure calming down
the situation would depend on American policies in Afghanistan and
stopping air attacks on FATA. We are interested in peaceful tribal area
in our own interest and we have a national policy on the issue.
It is astonishing that an officer of the level of Foreign Secretary,
which Negroponte is, takes it for granted that he will have meetings
with the President, Prime Minister and top political party leaders. Were
he to try to have such meetings in India he would not get any one except
his counterpart in India’s External Affairs Ministry. Of course in a
Banana Republic or a small African state even a country director of the
State Department would can have talks with the President or Prime
Minister. The level at which the top leaders of a foreign government are
dealt with by any outside power shows what is the respect (or lack of
respect) for a country It is only in Pakistan that an Assistant
Secretary of State equivalent to a Director General in our Foreign
Office is considered a high ranking American official. It is necessary
that these equivalents are known to those who are not familiar with
them. Diplomatically correct thing to do for Negroponte would be to have
a meeting only with Salman Bashir, the new Foreign Secretary and not
beyond..
Were in good old days any foreign dignitary to discuss any internal or
domestic issue like re-instatement of the deposed judges, he would have
been told that this matter is entirely out of scope of foreign
inspection, or open to discussion, as it would be an interference in
internal affairs. The other matter according to the press reports, which
are as reliable as one can get as an outsider, Negroponte also wants to
offer his wisdom in settling the current issue regarding the President’s
exit now being demanded by the Ruling parties. This is the limit a
foreign power can cross in being an uninvited meddler in internal
affairs. The topics on which he wishes to talk to the leadership are not
only the ones in which US is involved but highly sensitive issues in the
public in this country.. US does not like that Justice Iftikhar took up
the cases of missing Pakistani persons because some of them have been
abducted to Gontanamo Bay , or taken to American secret jails in
Afghanistan or Europe. The future of president Musharruf might be of
great interest to US foreign policy nonetheless it is a matter for new
democratic leadership to decide, as indicated by Asif Zardari, and not
for U.S...
Interference of this nature as Negroponte’s mission only complicates our
problems and damage Pakistan’s cooperation in curbing militancy and
violence called terrorism by US. Terrorism is borne out of occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq by foreign forces and the colossal damage this
occupation has inflicted on the occupied countries. Solution lies in
taking a balanced view in which two sides are responsible for terrorism.
Anyway we have our own solution for our own people and areas to
eliminate the present horrible situation in the region. We are doing
what we can to pacify our tribal belt and we know better than foreigners
how we can achieve the results. We need not be preached by foreigners
how to pacify our own areas. War has not solved any problem, dialogue
and negotiations have and we are trying that.
It would better if foreigners develop an understanding of local psyche
and ethos. Like the new military attaché to US Embassy in Islamabad on
cancellation of General Hood’s appointment as Military Attache in
Pakistan that “ Washington hopes that the gesture “ of canceling the
appointment of Hood “ will be recognized in Pakistan as a sign of US
willingness to accommodate Muslim sentiments on religious grounds”
Wonderful. Instead of understanding the extent of mistake to nominate
Hood of disrepute in the Muslim World he feels we should recognize the
“gesture”. In any case as the new military attaché would be knowing a
receiving government has an absolute right not to accept any one as a
diplomat or a member of a diplomatic mission without assigning any
reason. The US had no choice but to cancel Hood’s appointment. It was
not a gesture of good will on the part of US but understanding the
mistake of nominating Hood to Pakistan which US rectified. This shows
how US officials have no idea of Muslim reactions....
Is it arrogance of power or real ignorance that the Americans make wrong
moves?
Carnage in the Pink city
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
I was pained to read of the heinous, barbaric and shocking incident of
terrorism in the pink city as Jaipur is affectionately called by its
inhabitants, proud inheritors of a glorious history extending over
centuries and centuries. It has pained me and we hang our heads in
shame, if some Muslim organisation was involved in this act. My thoughts
go back to 1947 when His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur went round the
city in his jeep with a machine gun in his hand announcing that if any
one stoke Hindu-Muslim riots he will shoot down them down personally .
The Rajputs of Rajesthan are a unique Indian people. They are staunch
practicing Hindus- in modern term “fundamentalist Hindus- yet not
terrorists or fond of violence for the sake of violence. They have a
code of chivalry and honour and only on battle fields or on matters of
honour have they used open warfare, not hidden attacks. In this respect
they are to be distinguished from the Jats. As the Rajputs claim only
Rajputs of Rajasthan had this code.
Even otherwise, there has been a long tradition of generous treatment by
Rajput Rulers towards their Muslim subjects. The history goes back to
the days of Akbar the Great (1556-1605) and there after consistently the
Rajputs had been generous towards Muslims. Jaipur has been very peaceful
all along and this was not the way some bad Muslims have returned the
good deeds of Rajputs of Rajasthan towards Muslims, particularly the
Rulers of Jaipur
Let me count some facts about the Muslim-Rajput relations of the olden
days. The fourth Mughal Emperor of India, Jehangir (1605-1627) was born
of the Rajput Princess of Jaipur, Jodha Bai whom Akbar allowed to have a
mandir in the Agra Fort. The fifth Mughal Emperor, Shah Jehan (
1627-1656) succeeded to the throne after a war of succession with his
brothers because the Rajputs sided with him, particularly of Jaipur
because of the Rajput blood in him. The Second Mughal King Humayun, when
he was engaged in quelling a rebellion in Bihar, on receiving an appeal
of a Rajput Queen who had put a rakhi on Humayun’s wrist , to come to
her aid against some rival Rajput Ruler, abandoned his war on the rebels
and went to the aid of his Rajput ‘sister’ and in the process eventually
he lost his Kingdom and sought long refuge in Iran till he returned to
India to regain his kingdom. As is known the custom is that once a woman
puts a rakhi on a man’s wrist he becomes her brother. The last Great
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s Chief Commander of the Mughal Army was Rai
Raja Jaswant Singh of Jaipur. Aurangzeb ruled India from 1656 to 1707 (
and for the first time over almost the entire Subcontinent, as big as
the British ruled).
I should now come to modern times. During the 1947 carnage of Muslims in
India the Rajput rulers, as a general rule there might have been
exceptions, looked after their Muslim subjects’ safety as a sacred duty
, a trust and were conscious of the link of the Ruler and the Ruled
which in our ancient system was described as the Rulers being Mai baap
or father and mother of the subjects, or responsible for their safety
and rights as a mother and father would be of their children. This again
was a tradition of this area .
This was more so of the big Rajput states , which were almost like
Kingdoms, like Bikanir, but particularly Jaipur. While the East Punjab
Sikh States and of Jats from Rajasthan were enjoying the spree of
massacre of Muslims, loot and kidnapping of women, in Rajasthan it was a
different story. I was told by husband of my wife’s sister, Nawab of
Rampur, who remained an MP of Lok Sabha in India for decades, till his
death, and was a friend of the Jaipur Princely family, that in 1947 when
there were some indications of communal riots in Jaipur, the Maharaja
went round the city in his open jeep with a machine gun in his hand
announcing that if any Hindu Muslim riots took place in his state he
will personally shoot the people with this gun. “After all, I am a
ruler, and I give death sentence. I can execute the mischief makers
myself”.
Similarly, Maharaja of Bikanir, had the Muslim population of my father
in law’s state , Loharu, under the protection of his army, in his State
Railways, Bikanir State Railway, till Pakistan’s border who moved over
to Bahawalpur, since the Rulers of Loharu and Bahawalpur had traditional
friendships. Even Nawab sahib, Nawab Aminuddin Ahmed Khan, sought
temporary refuge in Bahawapur till situation returned to a kind of
normalcy in India. Then he returned to his native land. He said that is
where are the graves of my ancestors. After he signed accession of
Loharu State to India, in area about Singapore, he left Loharu for
Jaipur and settled there. Its population was overwhelmingly Jat Hindus.
He said he could not live as an ordinary person in a place, where he had
been the Ruling Prince. He moved to Jaipur as Maharaja of Jaipur was his
friend and settled there. Loharus had long historic friendship with the
neighbouring Rajput states, Jaipur, Bikanir, Alwar, etc. After my
marriage on posting to Delhi, I was taken by my wife to Jaipur for the
customary visit. Nawab Saheb was then 44 years old.
It was there that I learnt of the noble manners and code of the Rajputs
of Rajasthan.It is there I witnessed the Rajput’s relations with
Muslims. The various Rajput ruling families gave customary dinners and
hosted me and my wife like we were from their own family .And this was
in 1955 when Pak-India relations were strained. It was the Rajput code
of respecting family traditional relations between families that HH
Maharaja of Bikaneir, Karni Singh, on his visit to Tokyo as leader of
Indian Olympic Team in 1965- himself a champion of pigeon shooting in
the Olympic with her Highness called on the daughter of the Nawab, my
wife that is, and had a dinner for which we had to find some expert
vegetarian cook since they were strictly vegetarian, and then HH
Maharaja of Kotah and Her Highness called on us in Tokyo because Nawab
Saheb had mentioned that his daughter was in Tokyo. This visits took
place when I was Counsellor in Pakistan Embassy in 1965 few months
before India Pak War 1965 . Family relations were counted as above
politics by these Rajput Rulers. Similarly Natwar Singh India’s Foreign
Minister, when he visited Belgrade, called on us because the Nawab Saheb
had traditional relations with Alwar State.
Nawab Sahib won many elections from the constituency in Jaipur where
Muslim meo community was predominant and became a Minister in Rajasthan
Governmnet and subsequently Governor of Himachal State and later of
Punjab. On his death the Falgs of three Indian states, Himachal,
Rajasthan, Punjab were flown at half mast. His son Nawabzada Imafduddin
Ahmed succeeed him as a Member of Rajya Sabha (Indian Senate) and
Rajasthan Assembly. His daughter, Noor Banu Begum, Begum of Rampur is a
Member of Lok Sabha from Rampur., a Muslim majority area in UP.
I am thus well aware of the problems of the Indian Muslims. Rajasthan is
not Gujerat. It is just its opposite. My mind goes back to 1947 when His
Highness Maharaja of Jaipur went round the city in his jeep with a
machine gun in his hand warning that if any one stoke Hindu-Muslim riots
he will shoot down those persons personally . Why this noble act
returned with terrorism, if Muslims were behind it. Why compound
problems of Muslims in India by such senseless terrorism. Those who
indulge in such terrorism in such places as Rajasthan are enemies of
tranquility for Muslims. They will sow new enmity between Muslims and
Hindus. Rajasthan is exactly opposite of Mody’s Gujrat.
UNSC seat for India?
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
When first time in a newspaper I read Barrister Sultan’s generous
statement offering UN SC Permanent Seat to India linking it to a
“resolution” of Kashmir dispute I wondered whether he had been misquoted
but when I read him repeating this strange proposal and read it in a
prestigious newspaper I thought he is ignorant what are its implications
and how unrealistic his expectations. This is the most meaningless
statement based on an immature approach. I do not understand on what
authority from, Pakistan or the Muslim World he made this offer.
Pakistan has never entertained any such bizarre idea as to swap UNSC
Permanent Seat to India conditioned to “the resolution” of Kashmir
dispute whatever this “resolution” means. He was reported to have said
that “ his party in Britain proposed to submit to the Ruling Labour
Party Convention scheduled for September”. Mr. Sultan is a former Prime
Minister of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government.
He is reported to have said that we are collecting signatures of all
British Kashmiris on such a petition to submit such a petition to the
Convention.
I am sorry to say that if Barrister Sultan feels that he has struck on a
brilliant idea to solve Kashmir dispute and it would make him a historic
personality by discovering a wonderful give and take he is mistaken.
This is an amateurish idea.
Briefly it means a nebulous “resolution of Kashmir Dispute in exchange
for making Pakistan a State under India security umbrella and abandoning
the demand for a Muslim seat among the Permanent Members of UNSC, making
Indian role in UN decisive for the Muslim World also.
Following is an analysis of this proposal. He has not clarified what
that “resolution” of the Kashmir dispute he wants? He has left it
ambiguous which means the “resolution” is to be decided in negotiations.
We are back to square one:. Negotiate with India a nebulous
“resolution”. To any diplomat it means Sultan’s willingness to give up
the question of the “ future of entire Kashmir territory” is dropped in
exchange for some sort of compromise with India. India says Kashmir is
atot ang of India or inalienable part of India. Then what “out of box”
solution of Kashmir is Sultan visualizing?
Actually India’s insistence that Kashmir is atot ang of India if looked
upon closely is a declaration that India has military muscles to keep
Kashmir in its possession and Pakistan cannot challenge Indian
occupation on the battle field. This implies that if ever this atot ang
is to be disputed the only effective way to do will be militarily, and
dare you! Pakistan knows the military implications of India’s claim that
Kashmir is atot ang.
No “resolution” of Kashmir dispute is possible through talks except
legalizing status quo. International climate is against Muslim Pakistan.
No realist can deny that Western powers would never like any Muslim
country, far less Pakistan to be stronger militarily, which would be the
result of Kashmir or major part of Kashmir coming to Pakistan.
US-India-Israel is an unstated combination against Muslim powers in the
region from Arab World to Asia. Moreover, West is creating a military
encirclement of China in which it automatic assumes that India is US’
partner in military containment of China. It would support India’s hold
over Kashmir adjacent to China’s vitals. This is why no a demand has
been made that Kashmir dispute be redefined away from its traditional
parameters, which is that Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim and /or it is
left over part of the Division of British Empire in the Subcontinent.
The demand that we get away from this logic is intended to make India’s
hold over Kashmir legitimate by removing from the dispute the question
of the will of the people or decide the dispute by referring to
ascertaining the will of the people.
Entertaining any hope that India will ever agree to any solution to
change the borders of Kashmir with Pakistan or agree to an independent
Kashmir is unrealistic simply because India is sitting comfortably,
Pakistan cannot alter the situation by power, international-that is,
Westrn powers- are in fvour of Indian status quo in Kashmir.
Now comes the point who authorized Barrister Sultan to offer India UNSC
permanent seat ? It assumes that Pakistabn will sponsor Indian
candidature to UNSC. This is not in line with either Pakistan’s stand on
India’s UNSC seat – which wants no additions to the existing number of
UN SC members but only reforms in the UNSC which will take away the
monopoly of veto with the UBSC Permanent Members - nor with OIC stand or
of such countries as Egypt which want representation of a Muslim seat
among Permnent UNSC members. So Barrister Sultan’s offer is in conflict
with OIC and Pakistan’s position.
What Barrister Sultan is offering to India is to be the Super Regional
Power with Pakistan acknowledging India’s hegemony and denying the
Muslim world a voice in the UNSC. In terms of civilizations, Muslim
civilization will be an appendage of Hindu/ Indian Civilization. Has
Sultan this authority to write off Muslim claim to be in the power
Directorate in the UN.
This is therefore not only an unrealistic plan but the Western powers
can interpret it in its broader implications that there is a group among
Kashmiris which is willing to support India hegemony over not only
Pakistan but the Muslim world. Thus this kite flying can do tremendous
harm to Pakistan and the Muslim World. This is quite normal when
amutures try their hands on matters connected with international
security. It would be better for those who do not understand
international games stay out of meddling in them.
Of course it is quite obvious that the short lived hope resulting from
the last elections has faded ay and we are back to square one, in the US
clientage , people have started to assume that since we are a
subservient power, what difference would it make if we accept Indian
hegemony.
I thought the implications of this statement should be presented lest
they had been ignored.
Coming to international themes engaging the people, I do not understand
why when the mass demonstrations are led against Danish and Dutch
blasphemy, the people do not demand “Boycott” of goods of these two
countries through out the Muslim world. This is in their hands and it is
an easy self help This is the best weapon in international relations. No
government decision is required that people stop buying Danish and Dutch
goods. Breaking diplomatic relations can be a short term measure and
that too not very effective. Arabs broke diplomatic relations with US in
1967 Arab-Israeli War, and after the Camp David Accord but they were
short lived. The most effective retaliation is economic boycott and
boycott of Dutch and Danish goods throughout the Muslim world. The
Blasphemers and their supporters would keel down if this boycott is
real. Please boycott them, this does not require any Government
decision. Peoples’ decision is far more effective. This was Gandhian
weapon against the British. Do what you can do yourself.
What a pity the question of release of our ambassador to Kabul from the
kidnappers has been put in the limbo. Had it been even a small American
vice counsel kidnapped the entire Pakistan Government machinery would
have moved for obtaining his release. Here it is a miserable civilian
Pakistani diplomat case, what does it matter? Is this the attitude!
Dawn of a new era?
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
The 28th March, 2008, was a red letter day in Pakistan’s history. It
seemed a dream had come true, democracy has returned at last, even
though much remains to be done to make the country independent. Had
democracy not come any thing could have been possible in the country.
People were sick and tired of the abyss in which Pakistan was going and
feared that it was the becoming of a nasty turmoil, but thank goodness
it brought a half way democratic revolution. through the elections of
20th February. True, the election gave a kind of hung Parliament but the
two major parties who opposed each other in the past have joined hands
to struggle for replanting democracy in the country so that there are no
more military adventurers’ coup d’etats in future
Let us first count the blessings. March 28th became a historic event
with the two glorious firsts ever, electing a dignified lady, Fahmida
Mirza, as the first ever lady Speaker of the Assembly, symbolizing the
best of Pakistani culture. She became the first Muslim women to be the
Speaker of a National Assembly. The second first in Pakistan’s history
was the election of Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani as the consensus Prime
Minister by the House. another suave, another dignified person, a man of
balanced views who seems determined to implement them.
Whatever be the reason why every party agreed to vote unanimously for
these two top appointments, yet this action can be construed as a
stratagem to make any resort by the incumbent President to snap Art
58(2) b impossible when the entire Assembly had reposed unconditional
confidence in the Prime Minister and the Speaker. Furthermore the
declared attitude of the Opposition in the House to be like in UK a
“faithful opposition of Her Majesty” is a good omen in this regard.
Much of Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani’s speech laying down the
objectives for his first hundred days in the Office were very much
appreciated. He spoke calmly and convincingly. His body language
indicated that he is a determined man who means what he says. The three
issues on which the Coalition allies have won the elections, supremacy
of the Parliament will be ensured, all decisions shall be made in the
Parliament, judiciary’s independence will be ensured, judges will be
restored, Constitution will be supreme, , Constitution will be
respected, were included in the Election promises. Gilani said that all
illegal actions from 3rd Novemebr will be annulled.
He also disbanded the NAB. NAB had in fact become an instrument of
victimization of politicians of opposition on alleged cases of
corruption.
Main emphasis of his speech was on economic issues such as.unemployment,
projects for generation of more electricity , controlling government
expenditure beginning with 40% cut on PM’s official household
expenditure, building small dams, houses for low income wage earners
including government employees, provision of public transports , health
and educational facilities, etc. He declared restoration of trade unions
and student unions, grant of powers to the provinces and virtual
decentralization of power in the federation. The one omission in his
policy speech was to abolish the Nazim system which has come much under
criticism as the source of abuse of political clout for political
purposes and a new source of corruption , not only abuse of power. In
the envisaged reforms he stood for abolition of Frontier Crimes
Regulations.
It was a novel experience for the viewers to watch the reaction of the
Party leaders in the National Assembly. No invectives were used in even
criticizing the Prime Minister. The mood was to create harmony rather
than controversies. It was a pleasure to hear the Opposition repeating
that they intended to cooperate with the Government in the interest of
the country’s welfare and not to indulge in criticism for the sake of
criticism.
The three best speeches not only for their eloquence but also substance,
made on the floor of the Assembly were by leader of the Opposition ( yet
to be officially so designated) Faisal saleh Hyat – not reputed to be
generally a conciliatory speaker, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, and Iqbal
Ahsan.
Yet the Prime Minister did not come upto the expectations from him in
regard to some important matters. It seems that his Party’s stance had
been affected by the meetings between the American dignitaries, State
Department senior officials and Congressmen on the one hand and Party
leaders on the other.. This was obvious from the formulation and stand
the Prime Minister took on the issue of War on Terror. Earlier it was
indicated that the manner in which the War on Terror is viewed as
American war and not Pakistani affair the issue will be decided by the
Parliament. Earlier the emphasis was on use of dialogue with the
militants to give up terrorism and not on the “war” as such. The earlier
approach was to eliminate the militancy through talks and dialogue and
not on “War”.
It was learnt that there was criticism of Zardari’s meeting with
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher. It was correctly counted
as infra dig for the top party leader to sit in a conference with such a
medium level American diplomat ( equivalent of our Directors General in
the Foreign Office) The explanation given by the duo, Negropointe and
Boucher that the visit was planned well before the elections results,
and although advised to postpone it, since they had fixed dates of their
visit to Pakistan, it could not be postponed - is a very lame excuse,
because one does not visit the other side unless the dates of the visit
are agreed to mutual satisfaction. Giving such a lame excuse and
accepting it is a record event in diplomatic history. Thus the desire to
have an independent foreign policy under the new regime seems to have
been compromised. We want elimination of terrorism and extremism but not
by measuring its success by counting the dead bodies of our Tribal
people. Indeed some measured use of force might be inevitable but it
should be subsidiary to dialogue and talks. In this regard Asfandyar
Wali has the right approach. Nobody is in favour of militancy, acts of
terrorism but its elimination is to be done through mutual negotiations.
After all if Americans had to open peace talks with General Giap of Viet
Nam and the British with Irish terrorists why Pakistan cannot do similar
thing with its own tribals.
But the smug feeling that the old order has bid farewell was rudely
shaken with the incident of throwing out Justice Ramday’s luggage from
Judges House No 15 in the Judges Colony the same day the Prime Minister
had declared in his Policy Speech in the House to restore the suspended
judges according to the Murree Declaration which meant in a month’s
time. If this was to be the day one of those 30 days, the incident took
place just when the count down was to begin. Was it coincidental? Was it
a show of force against that count down? Is this a challenge of the old
Order to the new !
There are some administrative actions like appointment of some as
Adviser, and Ambassadors-at-large are open to criticism. Only very
seasoned diplomats are appointed as ambassador at large if at all. The
first ever ambassador at large was Averil Harrimon, an expert on Soviet
relations when US had decided to engage USSR in a dialogue to end the
Cold War. Well, we have been resorting to imports of our high officials,
Moin Qureshi, Shaukat Aziz, and so on. This is obnoxious and we have
seen the results of such imports.
Yet one can say Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has made a good beginning and
seems to have the right approach on national policies and national
reconciliation. Some adjustments might be needed here and there. Yet one
would wish him success in the interest of future of Pakistan’s
democracy. At least he is the right man on the top spot.
Elimination of
terrorism
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
Four events have made “terrorism” a matter of grave national concern ,
viz., 18th October 07 Karachi Blast on Late Benazir Bhutto’s welcome
procession , 27th December 07 her assassination at Liaquat Bagh, mob
attacks in Sindh which coincided with her burial at Nau Dero, Blast at
Karachi SITE, suicide attack on the Police at Lahore. These blasts took
place well inside Pakistan as distinct from the militants conflict in
Tribal Area. Those activities resulted from the American war on
terrorism and a direct outcome of US /NATO operations in Afghanistan in
which every day they kill a number of Afghans “suspected of being
Taliban. ” We have two distinct manifestations of the problem.
Nonetheless the root of both is in Afghanistan . .
Whether it is accepted that this resulted from the Lal Masjid military
operations or not- as a cause and effect sequence, it cannot be denied
that the flames of terrorism reached inside Pakistan after the Lal
Masjid military operations.
Now we have the tribal belt militancy versus Pak military. This is a
very serious matter This is making Pakistan a mini Iraq, even worst
because the target is our own military, our own people vs our own
people. This is what is condemnable in the strongest terms. A military
action on one’s own people should normally not an indefinite operation
as it can have serious repercussions particularly in a federation. A
national army’s power are its own nationals. Older people would remember
65 war. It was a national war and entire nation was at the back of the
Armed Forces.
So the objective of the military operations in the Tribal Areas cannot
be an indefinite war till success is achieved, and success means what:
it cannot mean conquest of our own people. To Americans it is of little
interest whether Pakistan is badly dented in killing the Tribals. To
them Pakistan’s repercussions are of no consequences. We can agree with
the objective of elimination of terrorism but with what means is for us
to decide as we have great stake in the welfare of our own people
whether in the Tribals belt or well inside Pakistan. We have to keep in
view that they are Pakistanis as they have to keep in view that the
Pakistani soldiers are as much Pakistanis as they. The State is
concerned with both alike.
One does not conquer one’s own people; it cannot be total elimination of
the opposite side, therefore it would not be described as a war but a
limited operation, the aim is to be elimination of militancy, not an
indefinite war till the other side has been eliminated. Tribal area is
our sword arm, and it should be alienated beyond a point. Every
operation rebounds into a reaction. So, this suggests a limited
objective. Whether it is a Pathan militant who is killed or our jawan
both are Pakistanis, and we have a situation of Pakistani killing
Pakistani which should not continue. Our objective is not victory at any
cost but elimination of militancy and pacification of tribal area, where
peace prevails.
How to achieve this objective is the test of wisdom of our leadership,
and our people. It is quite clear that the American idea of taking on
the tribals themselves will compound the problem many fold. Then first
of all the Tribals would go for a real war and have no inhibition of
going as far as they can against Pakistan itself..
Secondly, with what face the Americans want to engage themselves in war
against the Tribals. The US and NATO forces are a total failure in their
objectives against Afghans and Iraqis. Total failures, despite the
greatest fire power in the hands of the Western forces. They have been
virtually beaten hollow in both the places .How can a failure in a
similar endeavor boast of undertaking another endeavor from one of the
world’s best forces? With what face. Can a D grade student offer his
services to an A grade student to succeed in its task. Kindly US and
Western Forces you have been beaten hollow in these two places and even
after killing one million Iraqis and a large number of “ Afghan
suspected of being Taleban “ not sure that they were Talebans, you want
to try your hands on our side. Have a sense of reality about what your
inordinate power cannot achieve in these Muslim areas. We cannot let
anybody jolt the foundations of Pakistan. You show that you can do your
declared job and decide when you should walk out from there , not wind
up in Iraq and dig heals in Pakistan, which will be worst than what they
have so far had in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem in the Tribal area
will automatically come under control once Afghanistan is pacified ..
Show that you can chew what you have bitten in Iraq and Afghanistan.
before casting eyes on Pakistan.. I would not like to call your braves
incompetent soldiers but surely you need to do your own job well before
you want to mess up in Pakistan. A failure like you should not boast of
success in a place where Pakistan’s best troops have to be very
cautious. This besides the other reasons, of sovereignty of Pakistan, .
Coming to what Pakistan should do to revise its policy to convert the
operations from the war on terrorism to elimination of terrorism and
pacification of our tribal areas, it is suggested that talks be held
with the tribal leaders to reach a negotiated settlement of the present
situation with tact and local wisdom. A Think Tank should be set up
under the chairmanship of the last Pakhtun Governor of NWFP who hails
from the tribal area with suitable Islamic scholars and leaders to
prevail on the Tribal leaders to give up the terrorism and even if a way
is to be found to close the chapter of Lal Masjid killings and pacify
tribal areas. Governor Oarakzai was respected by the tribals to quite
some extent and in such negotiations it is necessary that that the
interlocutor is persona grata to the other side. It may seem to be too
simplified but I would like to remind that when Churchill asked his
advisers to open the Second Front in the WWII he merely showed them with
a pencil that it should be through as direct route as possible and
illustrated it by a pencil, “as straight as this” The religious leaders/
scholars should be as much from Pakhtuns as possible, but scholars like
Dr Khamdi, Dr Mahmood Ahmed Ghazi, Dr S M Zaman, who can convince by
quoting ahadis and the Holy Quran on prohibition to kill innocent
Muslims, unjustified suicide bombing etc. Only a scholar can interact
with Mullas and not a laymen or Army Officer. The words spoken by a
credible person carry conviction. This persuasion should continue till
actions from both sides are stopped.
On this occasion I would like to express my great shock on the most
disgusting insulting abominable treatment given by American immigration
to an angel of a man like Abdul Sattar Edhi. This shows how deep is the
hatred in the hearts of American officials against Muslims that a person
who should be known to any person connected with Muslim world who Edhi
is. So this is an example of “tolerance” “liberalism” preached by us
that any sign of a devout Muslim a beard and that a long beard and
simple Pakistani dress scares them. Preacher heal thyself and stop
talking of liberalism and tolerance. Fie on such bigoted American
“Christians” Kindly do enlighten me what else it was. By insulting Edhi
you have insulted the loftiest values of humanity.
Indian Naval Chief on
Gwadar
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
Recently the Indian Navy Chief made a statement claiming that this port
will be able to block the Gulf to India by closing the Straits of Hormuz
. I am surprised that the Navy Chief of the second largest blue water
navy in the Indian Ocean can make such a statement for it refelects
badly on his caliber and understanding of the power equations in the
Gulf for Gwadar is situated in its vicinity.
The Admiral of mightiest fleet in the Indian Ocean, second to American
Sixth Fleet in this area has expressed his concern that Pakistan would
be able to block the Gulf to Indian Navy by blocking the Gulf to Indian
Navy. Astonishingly he sees in building of Gwadar a military offensive
intention. This means he had not read his news papers for several years
in the past and his general knowledge is antediluvian. This is not what
a Commander of a major military force , Navy, should be. It seems
therefore first to correct the mistakes in his statement and then to see
his motives in making such a cock and bull version of building of Gwadar
Port.
First let me recapitulate what has been appearing in the press for at
least two decades about the necessity for Pakistan to build the second
deep sea port. .
The search for locating Pakistan’s second port started long long ago.
Karachi as the only Pakistani port was found to be unsatisfactory for
handling of foreign cargo ships, and at times caused congestion at the
port making foreign ships stay in the harbour for long time. Foreign
Shipping companies started showing impatience on long waits. In fact it
annoyed them so much that major shipping lines started to avoid Karachi
Port. If not to curtail their services to Pakistan So Pakistan was
engaged I the exercise to determine where the second port should be
First consideration was given to having Pasni as the second port but for
a number of reason it was found unsuitable. It was to near Karachi and
that would not benefit Baluchistan but Sindh. So search continued and
Gwadar was considered the best place for it. Having a major port in
Baluchistan’s pivotal position was necessary for Baluchistan’s economic
development particularly it makes it in the vicinity of the hub of trade
and commerce which Dubai and Abu Dhabi have become. Pakistan has much
trade and economic interest in the Gulf, not since it became a rich area
but from long time in the past. There are great economic advantages in
having a second port in Gwadar as any economist would readily agree. Now
in Pakistan, development of development of Baluchistan is being given
high priority. After the Sandak Copper Mines project when it is
developed Baluchistan would need a port readily avaialble to it.
There was another reason for having the second port so far away from
Karachi. Our experience of the wars with India had shown that Pakistan’s
sea lanes were dominated by Indian Navy which had effective control of
the Sea around Karachi and Indian Navy had virtually blockaded Karachi
and denied any excess to its importa and exports and Pakistan Navy was
bottled up in Karachi port and thus was at the mercy of Indian Navy.
Karachi was vulnerable to Indian blockade . If Karachi is so paralyzed
by Indian Navy entire Pakistan can be a hostage to India. Thus Gwadar is
not a port for offence but for protection and defence where Pak Navy can
have a sanctuary in case of need.
Now to come to the question can Pakistan Navy clsoe the Gulf of Hormuz
to Indian Navy or any other Navy . It is the funniest idea which can be
a fantasy but not reality. Major shipment of oil, is it 60% of world
production passes through this route. Blocking it would threaten world
supplies and affect the interest of Super and major powers. US Fleet is
essentially for this purpose in the Gulf and has the most effective
presence in it. Can any body in his good senses imagine that Pakistan
Navy, one of the smallest Navies in Asia can undertake the task of
blocking ther Gulf of Hormuz. Funny.
Now India is the largest deep sea navy in nAsia secind only to the US
Sixth Fleet. Jane’s Defence Journal counts Indian Navy far beyond its
defence and in fact for power projection to obtain benefits of power
without using it. It has its sphewre of influence from Malaccas to Aden
or on entire Indian Ocean an objective even Pannikar has visualized as
its ambit of influence . Indian Navy is an offensive fleet with plans
for nuclear submarines to be obtained from Russia if not already
obtained. It isa three fleet Navy at Bombay, Cochin, Vizgpattam and a
Naval Base at Nicobar, 80 miles from Sumatra of Indonesia. It plans to
have nuclear submarines at Nicobar. What do all therse plans mean.
Indian Navy is for spreading India’s suzerainty over Indian Ocean
littoral states. Pakistan’s is a modest Navy several timesw less than
India’s may be Indian Navy is ten times greater than Pakistan’s when
viewed in the context of it Army and Air Force being greater than the
armies of all ASEAN states put together and more, that is Indonesia plus
Malaysia plus Singapore plus Maynmar plus Philippines plus Thailand plus
Burma plus Bangla Desh plus Sri Lanka plus Pakistan. And add to this
nuclear warheads and missiles and what not . Who is an offensive
military power in our region or in Asia?
Pakistan’s entire defence set-up is for defensive purposes and its
nuclear capability is only for deterrence purposes. In fact had India
not gone for nuclear bomb Pakistan would not have gone for its nuclear
capability. It exercised restraint in 1974 but then in 1998 India.
compelled Pakistan to worry about it becoming a hostage in India’s hands
with all gigantic militarist paraphernalia. No we have no offensive
plans.
Since Indian Navy Chief cannot be such a simpleton as not to know all
these facts what is the method in his ,,,?
Bush casts his net on Arabs
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
At the fag end of his term, every ruler, whether dictator or
democratically elected worries how history will record his era,
successful or unsuccessful. Bush has much to worry about his performance
for he is considered as the most aggressive President America produced
and who shed immense blood, in Arab Iraq and Muslim Afghanistan. Now he
wants to white wash his blood stains in Arab world, particularly as he
is itching for a war on Iran.. No American President has earned so much
hatred in the Muslim world as Bush. His eight days trip to the Arab
world was aimed at casting his net on the Arab countries ostensibly to
obtain their support for his peace plan between the Jews of Israel and
Arabs of Palestine, since now even the Americans agree that Palestine
Problem is the key to tranquility in the Middle East. His father started
the process of eliminating military threat to Israel through his Gulf
War. The project was intended to eliminate the only Arab military power
and tall Arab leader who was not willing to surrender to US on Israel
problem. Since that war US had added one more objective to its
objectives in this region, military supremacy of Israel plus American
occupation or control of the oil belt. Now Iraq has been conquered,
Saddam eliminated, in Palestine, Palestinians are sharply divided
between Fatah and Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas friendly to Israel’s Olmert and
hostile to Hamas and towing American line , there is no powerful Arab
leader with backbone to face Israel and have Arab masses support, Saddam
eliminated , Arab masses leaderless, Bush must have thought time
propitious for a “peace effort” to solve the Palestinian problem. So he
wants to launch his Camp David II Peace Plan..
But this was not the only objective Bush wanted to achieve by his visit.
He had another objective viz., to drum up anti-Iranian feelings among
the Arabs and convince them to counter the “threat” from Iran. He used
strongest invectives against Iran in his pronouncements in Arab
countries. “Iran was the greatest threat to world peace”, Bush said, it
is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world. Now having cowed
down all Arab leaders in the Middle East he finds Iran as still
retaining its independence, pursuing nuclear program and Ahmedinejad as
a leader of different type than the pliable Arabs. He has a backbone.
Another reason why US is against Ahmedinjad is that now in the Muslim
world the only leader who stands on his feet, because his people are
with him, is he. All others are in US pocket, have no democratic support
of the people. He has. The lone tall poppy is to be cut down, in
American thinking.
This drumming up anti-Iran propaganda had a sinister purpose of bigger
nature than just drumming up support for American anti-Iran policy. It
was to divide Arabs and non Arabs in the Muslim world. Some Americans in
their think tanks have sold the idea that the ancient Arab and Ajam
division can be used even now to weaken Muslim feeling for Ummah which
is counted by US as a grave threat to its interests in the Muslim world.
Thus the net Bush has cast is far more wider than just finding a
solution of the Palestine Problem It is also to destroy the idea or
feeling of brotherhood among multi-racial ummah. According to the press
such a study was prepared by the Rand Corporation. He first started his
mission with a meeting with Israelis- Olmert- and then came to see his
new most obedient client Mahmoud Abbas. He visited Jordan, Kuwait,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. The only place where he found a
ready listener was in Egypt where the aging Husni Mubarak fervently
backed Bush’s Middle East program and said he will work hand in hand
with the United States and “other nations” for an Israeli-Palestinian
peace plan. At other places, except with Mahmoud Abbas, he did not find
such enthusiastic support. In Saudi Arabia where he tried to play on the
so-called Arab-Ajam rivalry and painted Iran’s nuclear program as a
threat to the Arabs also he did not find Saudis gullible to accept his
exhortations about Iran , “The threat to the world peace”. Of course no
Arab country asked him or reminded him that largest nuclear arsenal in
the world is owned by the US which it uses as a card to blackmail the
third world to fall in line with US policies and Israel has 70 nuclear
bombs which it can use to destroy entire Middle East.
Any way, no country of Bush’s visitation pointed out that Israel
continues to kill a number of Arab Palestinians on one pretext or the
other and so creates doubts about its credentials for peace. Even after
any so-called peace initiatives Israel shows its true colour of being a
blood thirsty power which makes it akin to Bush. With massive killings
in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere Bush makes a meek face when he
talks of peace plans. The Wolf of the little Red Riding hood that he is.
Anyway, while no Arab country seems to have boght Bush’s plan to stand
against Iran, it is necessary to warn the Arabs that if they teamed up
against Iran they will be guilty of dividing the Ummah, if one believes
in it, into Arabs and non-Arabs for which history would not forgive them
and it might in fact punished them for this sin. I am not being
emotional. Do they remember what happened when the Arabs teamed up
against Ottoman Caliphate and sided with Lawrence of Arabia, they got
the Balfour Declaration in the package which founded Israel . Arabism in
lieu of Balfour Declaration equal to Israel. Was the gift of Lawrence of
Arabia to Arabs . Now Bush would give them msame kind of gift if the
fell for his Iran Arab divide scheme.
Let me on this occasion recall what Grand Mufti of Palestine remarked to
me on this subject in Beirut during the time I was Pakistani Ambassador
there. He said Pakistan made the mistake of not finding a solution of
Bangali’s demand within Pakistan and caused the birth of Bangla Desh.
Similarly the Arabs made the mistake of “Bangla Desh” when they broke
Caliphate. They could have converted it into a Common wealth of Muslim
nations” Well this is now a closed chapter but the lesson is not to be
forgotten.
Ummah is not a sentimental concept but a collective political security
system. While no one preaches closing doors on mutual beneficial
cooperation with any country, in the East or West, this should not be
done at the expense of omitting lessons history had given only in the
recent past. Selling once independence should be avoided. There is a
news that UAE is giving a base to France. There had been Resolutions of
OIC against giving bases to freign powers, once the Arabs were very
vociferous againt military pacts and granting bases to foreign powers.
There was wisdom in that opposition to bases and miliutary alliances.
One should keep that principle in mind. France wants base in UAE against
whom? Ofcourse in this case France is an ally of USA in the Gulf area,
agau=inst whom. The lesson to be drawn from the Lawrence of Arabia
Divide Muslims policy should be kept in view by Muslims in all their
dealings with foreign powers particularly Western Powers. Lawrence of
Arabia in first world war divided Arabs from Ottoman Empire and broke
Khilafat
Hariri’s UN trial &
Benazir’s case
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
PPP has demanded that UN should investigate (or determine) who
assassinated Benazir Bhutto? It will be agreed to that results of an
inquiry by Pakistani police and investigation agencies may not be
accepted as reliable for reasons which need not be stated. Our police
and intelligence agencies are under the influence of their top bosses.
Now Scotland Yard is busy investigating the cause of her death. British
Government’s offer of their services was accepted by our Government.
While Scotland Yard is, as a columnist has described it , a legendary
institution, known for its expertise, even after its inquiry is finished
further two steps would have to be undertaken ,viz., to identify the
murders and to try them. These two steps are beyond the competence of
the Scotland Yard.
Her’s was a political assassination and not just a simple case of
murder. If some high Pakistanis are involved in the murder , Scotland
Yard cannot interrogate them. Next step is trial of those persons, and
if they are highly placed one cannot expect Pakistani courts to be
impartial as judiciary’s independence has become controversial. Had the
pre-Nov 3 Judiciary been on the Bench, there would have been no question
of any outside agency being asked to judge the evidence the Scotland
Yard would present.
If by any chance the old Judiciary is reinstated after the elections
there would not be any need to have a Special international Commission
or tribunal to try those accused of Benazir’s assassination. In the
absence of an independent judiciary, the best course would be to have a
UN Special Commission appointed to undertake the trial of the murderers
of Benazir.
The only precedent for such a trial is Rafik Hariri’s murder. The UN
tribunal was appointed to investigate a purely local nature of murder
almost in similar circumstances as of a former Prime Minister of Lebanon
Rafik Hariri who was assassinated on 14th February 2005 in Beirut. Rafik
Hariri was Prime Minister of Lebanon. from 1992 to 1995. Looking at
Hariri’s murder we find basic similarity in the two cases.
I knew Rafik Hariri during my five years ambassadorship to Lebanon. He
was then just coming into notice as an up and coming businessman of
Saida as President of its Chamber of Commerce. At that time he was a
pleasant young man of about 30 years born in 1944 into a modest family.
He essentially remained a businessman: He became one of the richest
businessman said to worth about $ 2 billion, in collaboration with the
Saudis. His main achievement was to bring peace to devastated Lebanon as
its Prime Minister, made it stand on its own feet, and re-establish
harmony between Christians and Muslims. in the factionally divided
country into Muslims and the Christians and further subdivided into
Sunni, Shia, and Druzes among the Muslims; and Maronite, Greek Orthodox,
Catholics and Armenians among the Christians. For the Lebanese his
achievement was to unify the Civil War devastated Lebanon
After acknowledging all his achievements, it may be said that while he
was a popular national leader of Lebanon , Hariri did not have an
international stature. He was loved by a majority of the Lebanese but
his standing was limited to Lebanon or at most to the Levant but not
beyond. Thus there was no comparison between Rafik Hariri and Benazir
Bhutto, not because Pakistan is greater in area than Lebanon but because
Benazir was a leader of international standing. Thus if Hariri’s murder
can be investigated by the UN Benazir’s deserves UN investigation and
trial more than Hariri’s. .
However, the circumstances of his assassination were very similar to
that of Benazir. He died on February 14th, when a car bomb exploded
killing him and his 25 companions at Beirut’s main square the Memorial
of the Martyrs. Both were political assassinations. Both were allegedly
murdered as a result of political rivalries. It was alleged that Rafik
Hariri was murdered by the Syrian ‘mukhabarat’ or intelligence agency ,
and in the case of Benazir there are two versions, that she was murdered
by Taliban, according to Musharraf but according to her supporters , by
the persons named by Benazir in her letter to President Musharruf and to
some foreign friends. But no foreign power or element was named by
Benazir as her would be murderers.
This is an important detail. In the case of Rafik Hariri, Syria, a
foreign power, member of the UN was accused of Hariri’s murder. This
made it necessary that before the UN could take up consideration of
Hariri’s murder case, Lebanese Government had to sponsor it in the UN.
Perhaps, this requirement is not necessary in PPP’s case for UN
Commission because it does not involve accusing any Member State of the
UN. There is no such complication in Benazir’s case..
I cannot speak on this detail authoritatively, that is, Does UN require
or does it not that Pakistan Government itself present the case to the
UN, before it can take it up in the Security Council?
Amongst the seniors of the Foreign Service the most competent persons
who can give sound advice is Iqbal Akhund , my batch mate in the Foreign
Service, who had been Benazir Foreign Minister after his retirement. The
UN could have been inhibited from taking Hariri’s case as it involved a
complaint against a UN member State, Syria. This case was taken up
during Koffi Annan’s Secretary Generalship, who had some pretensions of
being a Third Wordler, as a Ghanaian., and therefore would have liked a
proper procedure to be observed where the matter was to became an
inter-state dispute. This is not the case in asking UN to appoint a
Special Commission to investigate all aspects of Benazir’s murder..
There was a political objective in going to the UN on Hariri’s
murder..Certain circles in Lebanon were of the view that the Syrians had
killed Hariri,. The Maronites Christians are not well disposed to Syria.
Whereas Muslims are pro-Syria. US is hostile to Syria and was interested
in pinning Hariri murder to Syrian High Command. US was backing the
“Lebanese” move for the UN Enquiry. In this background, Koffi Annan must
have thought that this request for the UN Commission to inquire into
Hariri murder must be sponsored officially.
This is where PPP’s demand for a UN investigation is not politically
motivated against any foreign power, and thus have cleaner motives than
the Hariri UN inquiry had..
Pakistan Government would do well to sponsor the PPP demand in the UN.
It would show that Government too is interested in an objective inquiry
into Benazir’s murder. However, it would be better if the UN Commission
is headed by Judges of the International Court of Justice. Nonetheless
it should be understood that matters in the UN proceed with snail pace.
No timely action is or can be expected from the UN It might get bogged
down in procedures as is has happened with Hariri case which is no where
its end as yet. Nonetheless if the PPP forms the Government after
February elections they can pursue the matter at the UN vigorously.
Benazir’s
assassination enquiry
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
Benazir’s assassination was no ordinary event. Its importance is obvious
from the Global grief and condemnation expressed by the top leaders in
the World, press in all countries, even political parties on this
death.. In Pakistan itself the three days mourning declared by the
Government, flying of the National Flag at half mast, thronging by
millions to Noudero, her home town, the wave of anger which caused
billions of dollars damage to public and private property which indicate
the magnitude of the public anger and grief over her death. It was
counted as a national loss, and the murder and death itself as equal to
the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime minister of
Pakistan. Who assassinated her and why are the questions which will
haunt Pakistan’s national history. At all times in future the coming
generations will ask this question if not resolved now, and draw their
own conclusions since there would be no censure then. This question
might be raised even by anti Pakistan federation forces if no credible
Enquiry is held now.
An inquiry above suspicion , by an organization of impeccable
credentials of objectivity is a must in this case. Who killed Liaquat
and who engineered the air crash which killed Zia have remained unsolved
mysteries.The hazards of not having a credible inquiry will haunt us for
long times to come.
Having said that, it is clear that it was a political murder. Who cold
have done it: international terrorism, Al Quaida or Taleban as claimed
by the Government or by her political rivals upset on her sweeping
popularity as believed by PPP and PML-N , and Zardari has used a strong
word to describe the political rivals. This accusation itself speaks
much about why our own security agencies and police investigation teams
cannot be described as “impartial” investigators. It is generally
believed that it is not so much a matter of lack of professionlism as of
lack of impartiality in high profile cases which makes our own
investigation teams not as credible as foreign or international
investigation teams and of course lack of highest standard equipment
required for a very delicate investigation.
People in this connection point out the changing versions of the
official spokesmen on the cause of death of Benazir. It is not the
question of blame game or conspiracy theories as PJ Mir or ARY TV
claimed, but of changing stands and doubts about the authencity of the
statements.
It is in a way good that the British offer of the services of Scotland
Yard team have been accepted to examine the evidence and to look at the
facts on the ground relating to Benazir’s assassination. Of course
Scotland Yard is a very reliable professional institution as against CIA
which is part of US psychological warfare and is involved in political
game plans, which so far as I know is not the case about Scotland Yard.
It has the reputation of high integrity too and one hopes that they will
retain that reputation in regard to this inquiry too.
We do not know what are the terms of their inquiry. One would assume
that they are limited to examining the technical matters and not to go
to the following: cross examining the suspects who could have committed
the crime and not obtaining the views of the aggrieved party which is
PPP high command and specifically Zardari and Bhutto’s Chief Security
Officer, Malik. Or to cross examining the persons they name as the prime
suspect . Nor they can try them for the crime.
From here is indicated the need of a UN Commission to proceed further.
Scotland Yard cannot for example ask leaders of political parties to
come before them and be cross- examined and charge sheet them if need be
. This can be done only by a UN Commission on the pattern of UN
Commission on Hariri Murder case. There is great similarity between the
two cases in fat more in the case of Benazir’s political elimination.
Hariri was a minor stature leader compared to Benazir. He too was out of
office when murdered, and he was said to have been murdered by a foreign
power. Here the Government says that Al-Quaida was involved in her
murder The UN SC has authorized war on him and thus the suspect of the
crime in government view is also some one after whom UNSC is moving .
Actually the UN Resolution which authorized the Hariri Commission has to
be examined by the competent international law experts. However, the
main common factor in Hariri case and Benazir case is the fact that it
was an enquiry into the causes of murder of a former Prime Minister ,
Benazir had been Prime Minister of Pakistan twice, Hariri’s murder
affected security and stability of a country and here too it is the same
case, etc. Ofcourse no two cases can be identical but one has to see the
main common factors or features of the two cases. It would be found that
the main features of Hariri Case are more present in the case of
Benazir’s assassination.
In fact a UN enquiry would be helpful to those who are being blamed for
Benazir’s assassination because once exonerated by a UN Commission
history’s mouth would be shut against them and nobody should be able to
point a finger against them if their claim of innocence is true.
In UN the trial of Serbian leaders on some what similar charges was
conducted by International Court of Justice. Instead of presenting to a
Commission perhaps the Scotland Yard findings can be presented to a
tribunal of International Court of Justice. But apparently the persons
concerned are too high powered to be cross examined by Scotland Yard
Team. Nor it can have such jurisdiction.
It seemed that having a UN Commission look into this murder would still
be required even after a Scotland Yard inquiry. It is too high powered
matter to be enuired into by Scotland Yard team. A UN Commission can put
all rumour factories and blame game to rest for ever. This assassination
is a case in which History is also a party. It is beyond national
jurisdiction. The UN Commission Enquiry will or should not imply that
any one or the other party is responsible for her murder till proved
otherwise.
Postpone elections to
early March
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
Just when it seemed that democratic process was getting steam , and
elections were only a few days ahead, happened the heinous crime of
sniffing the life from the blooming flower of democracy Benazir Bhutto
at the killing fields of Liaquat Bagh on 27th December 07 – a date which
will be long remembered as one of the blackest days in the history of
Pakistan.. Benazir Bhutto had just finished her moving oration to a
large admiring crowd of PPP workers and got out and boarded her
transport packed with her most trusted party big wigs, she was made
target of some bomb blast and shooting from a gun . Taken to the nearby
hospital, she expired in no time, perhaps on way to the hospital . The
assassination raised two questions: Who assassinated her, and what would
happen to the elections?
The momentum of electioneering was suddenly brought to a halt. It was
obvious that when one of the top leaders fell, the process had to come
to a halt. The country was in a gloom, as never before. There were
protests, killings and arson through out the country, some where, less
some where intense. This article is written on the second day of her
assassination, practically the entire country is in the mourning. There
is shutter down in the country’s bazars and total lock up. Grief has
over powered the country. Naturally, no electioneering is possible nor
the election date of 8th January 08 can be adhered to. The main
proponents for retaining the election schedule were foreign powers, US
President Bush and UK Prime Minister Brown. Surprisingly politicians of
long experience and production of votes and elections. This was
surprising coming from them and incorrect as far as fixing dates for the
elections was concerned which surely is not their concern. While one can
understand to some extent their interest in democracy abroad and in
Pakistan too, but not in fixing the dates of the elections. This is a
matter for the political parties under the present tragic circumstances
which obviously need refixation of the dates of the elections for
undeniable reasons. Perhaps in keeping with the wishes of foreign
leaders the Caretaker Prime Minister cum Chairman of the Senate
Mohammedmian Soomro said that the election date was still on .
A number of reasons make fixing another date for the elections
absolutely necessary. PPP is now faced with the question of electing a
new leader which would not be possible within a few days because of
emotional block in imaging the party without Benazir for its emotionally
shocked jiyalas, The shock of Benazir’s killing was too intense to allow
a peaceful vote so soon after the greatest trauma the Party has
experienced after ZAB’s death.
As far as the Opposition parties are concerned they have now to decide
whether to boycott the elections or participate in it, because they have
considered Benazir’s assassination, rightly or wrongly, as an act of a
kind of unfair practice of eliminating the star political name from
PPP’s vote magnates. Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif too were eliminated
but by disqualification as a voter. Nonetheless, they are still there to
lead their party and ask for votes for their nominees whereas Benazir is
gone.
Early March, as soon around 8th March 08 as possible would be suitable
because PPP would be observing forty days mourning period for Benazir
which takes up the whole of February, so it does not disturb their
mourning period and it cannot be postponed too much lest the
electioneering momentum has to start from scratch. This will give an
opportunity to induct a new EC, remove the local governments and
establish credible machinery for free and fair elections. Moreover,
March is associated with Pakistan Resolution, establishment of the
Republic in Pakistan and it has comfortable weather too.
In no case should the present disturbed situation be allowed to
re-impose emergency or any extra-judicial measure is taken or
alternative to elections contrived.. It would be best to avoid street
confrontation with the opposition which can create complications in
Pakistan’s fragile situation. Political means for reconciliation by
doing away during the interim period with obnoxious measures like
controlling the media or gagging it, or of some obnoxious amendments to
the Constitution should create an amiable political environment .
It would be best for the opposition when they have the public opinion in
their favour not to start street agitations as an alternative to the
elections. Such a step would be harmful to the country in its present
weak condition as regards national cohesion. Instead matters which
bother the country like bringing the Constitution to the original
Constitution of 1973, reinstatement of the Superior Court judges should
be sought throught two third majority. This is possible if the regime
does not adopt a confrontationist attitude towards the new emerging
realities. Same should be done by the Opposition that is it too should
not go for a confrontationist posture.
It should be acknowledged that the olden days of authoritarianism are
now gone, not only in world elsewhere but even in Pakistan. The spirit
of age is also reflected in Nepal and Thailand, where in one case an old
kingdom is being abolished by the Parliament and in another Military
regime is faced with accepting the same person through the elections
whom they had toppled in a Coup d’etat . Even Thailand which at one time
was jokingly mentioned as a country with four political parties, Army,
Navy, Air Force and the Police has ceased to be the same old Thailand.
In Indonesia the old doctrine of “dua funcsioni” or the Armed Forces
having two functions the civil and military has been abandoned.
Pakistan is a contradiction of being a country of very advanced people
with outdated concepts in some respect. It is not a backward country nor
of backward people who are learning what are the values of modern
civilization. We have been backward because our state institutions were
not manned by the professionals but administrators . How so ever good
they may be in giving good administrations but the technical and
professional institutions require experts from those very fields .
Imagine how dormant our universities are in contributing to advancement
of knowledge and professional discoveries. The energies of the nation
once they are liberated will make Pakistan what it was in the Sixties,
Seventies and even in early eighties when ever professionals were headig
their line of works.
Pakistan needs new infusion of leadership through the Elections, who are
people’s representatives. In the past because first elections were
avoided or they were not free and fair we reached the present state of
Wadera Shahi which must go and be replaced by elections.
Aristotle has said that while the individuals might not be wise, yet
their multitude in its collective wisdom knows best what is the best for
it more than the wisest individual.
Desist from foolish
adventure
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
It is not possible to ignore US aggressive intentions on our tribal
areas as revealed in the statements of Robert Gates, US Secretary of
Defence, and Admiral Michael Mullun , Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff
at the House Armed Services Committee on ‘Stability and Security in
Afghanistan’ on 12 December 2007. Gates said, “United States can act
‘unilaterally’to strike at terrorists hiding inside Pakistan tribal
areas, but has no plans to send troops inside the country. He further
said that “ US would first like to see if we can get the Pakistanis to
take it on”.
The two American military bosses have obviously a topsy-turvey view of
the situation in Afghanistan. They do not realize two basic truths about
their operations in Afghanistan. First, they have miserably failed in
their war in Afghanistan, and instead of facing facts they are trying to
find an alibi for their failure in Pakistan’s tribal areas. . They do
not understand the simple truth that the Pakhtuns in Afghanistan are
intimately linked with Pakhtuns on Pakistan’s tribal belt. If
Afghanistan is peaceful, peace will prevail in Pakistan’s tribal belt.
Had American NATO forces not failed in their operations, there would
have been no problem in Pak tribal belt. The responsibility for unrest
in tribal belt is directly on American-NATO forces who should do “more
on their own side” rather than blame Pakistan.
Who has greater fire power US-NATO forces or Pak military. The
repercussions of what happens in the so-called NATO-American war on
terror affects our tribal belt and Northern areas immediately. The
entire turmoil on our northern belt is a direct outcome of that war in
Afghanistan’s side just as “terrorism” in this area is a direct outcome
of US “Jihad” in Afghanistan in the eighties. One cannot be sure what
are the real intentions of the Western presence in Afghanistan for the
war is going to cause us much problems as long as they are there. One
cannot unfathom whether the war on terrorism is a label under which are
some long range plans for the great game in Central Asia or what.? There
are many contradictions in the NATO-US claims of success in Afghanistan
over the Taleban, desapite their daily claims of killing scores of
‘suspected talebans, and the statements that the NATO forces are
insufficient to combat the Taleban . Currently a NATO meeting is being
held in Edinburgh considering the demand that more troops be sent to
Afghanistan. For long time now we have ben hearing daily claims of
NATO’s success in killing umpteen number of Taleban suspect, and now has
come reports of NATO forces taking “the last strong-hold of the Talebans
in Musa Kala in Helmand Province.
How condescending to say that when Pak forces “fail” then they will
strike on the tribal areas. They talk as if they have scored successes
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But at the csame time they say that it will
take them five years at least to achieve their targets in Afghanistan.
So knowing that they have failed in Afghanistan, they claim that in
Pakistan they can perform better than the local forces which know the
area better than the US-NATO joint forces would ever know.
Leaving this boasting aside, this is highly foolish idea to strike on
tribal areas as if it can achieve the results they imagine they can
achieve. It is foolish because instead of eliminating the revolt there
it will enhance it. The tribals will then make the US forces their
target and US would be pitted against a formidable enemy. Instead of
reducing the resistance , this action if undertaken , would enlarge the
theatre of war, looking at its possible implications.
They must come to the accept the hard fact that when finding a military
solution becomes difficult, dialogue with “the enemy” becomes
inevitable, as happened in Viet Nam. Afghanistan is in fact America’s
new Viet Nam. If they want to touch another hornets’ nest then they can
try and see what happens. Let me recall that Speaker of British House of
Commons once ruled that the word ‘foolish’ is not unparlaimentary
language, in a debate between the British Government and the
Opposition.. Besides the reaction in the tribal belt on American strikes
in t |
