Too much excitement, too soon (My article published in THE NEWS on 27 October 2012)

Verdict on Asghar Khan case has stirred storm in a tea cup. Apparently, PPP is sensing a kill, PML (N) is on the defensive and a few anchor-persons known for their anti-establishment stance, for different reasons, are considering it an opportunity to further their agenda. In my reckoning, there is too much excitement, too soon as little is going to come out of the decision which will only be used for gaining political mileage, resulting into greater acrimony among the political parties.

For many, it’s a landmark decision as for the first time in the history of this country, the former chiefs of the Army and ISI have been directly implicated for distributing public money amongst certain politicians. The missing link, however, is why did they do it? Had they some personal agenda or was it an institutional undertaking? If the amount was distributed among the anti-BB politicians, what were the reasons for stopping BB from reaching the corridors of power.

In this regard, Lieutenant General (R) Hamid Gul has often admitted that he was instrumental in making IJI and has been challenging the judiciary to summon him for explaining his reasons for doing so. The bench dealing with the Asghar Khan case did not summon him but in case of trial of the former chiefs of Army and ISI, I am sure Lieutenant General (R) Hamid Gul would be called as the first witness and, going by the confidence he displays, I am sure he would have many revelations to make, which may not only hurt PPP badly but also spoil its relations with the military establishment. So, to me, trial of the generals would do more harm than good for the country.

Another aspect of the verdict that may cause uncertainty is that while the confessions of those who distributed money were considered good enough to implicate them, their same testimony is not good enough to implicate those who took the money. If tomorrow it is not proved that the supposed receivers took the money, what would happen to those who admit distributing the money. It is just as if a person confesses to committing a murder but would we declare him a murderer if the victim is still alive.

The third aspect of the verdict relates to the president's political activities. In all likelihood, President Zardari is not going to shun his political activities, will continue to be the de-facto head and lead the party, especially in view of the forthcoming elections. As such, we may be heading for yet another tussle between the President and Judiciary.

Thus, I see fewer chances of any convictions, but greater polarization.

The timing of the announcement of short order is yet another aspect which, I feel, could have been deliberated. We know that these days a consensus was being developed successfully against the militants after the Malala incident and the verdict has totally diverted public attention, indirectly benefiting the militants. Could it have been delayed for a few days for a better cause?

The outcome also raises an important question; is it a pre-cursor to opening other such cases? Pakistan’s history is full of betrayals, treachery and unconstitutional undertakings by the military establishment, Judiciary and the politicians. As a practice, whenever the military took-over power, the Judiciary mostly validated the act and the politicians in the opposition welcomed it. Was not the last military take-over by Musharraf validated by Judiciary, with the present CJ as part of the bench, and BB supported the coup? He was even given unprecedented powers to amend the constitution by the court. Can the country, already in the doldrums, afford to dig all the previous such cases and punish the perpetrators?

Already, NRO case has wasted over four years with no meaningful outcome from public perspective, now we are embroiled in controversy over Asghar Khan case verdict and more cases are in the offing, starting with proceedings on the memo-gate commission.

While the judicial process may take its course, can we afford the polarization unnecessarily generated as an outcome of decisions, especially when already facing existential threat from militancy and extremism – a point for our Judiciary, politicians and anchor-persons to ponder? To put it simply; do we want to live in the past or ready to move on? 

Are we ready to fight or succumb to extremism (My article published in THE NEWS on 22 October 2012)

Pakistan, today, stands isolated internationally, weakened internally and faces a serious existential threat from militancy, brewed within, as well as, externally sponsored. Unfortunately, the nation seems to be divided on the issue; some feel that militancy must be ruthlessly rooted out from our society using all instruments at the disposal of the state while there are others who do not even consider it a threat and endorse extremism and militancy on one pretext or another. To understand the nature of this division and reasons for lack of will to deal with the issue of militancy, there is a need to dispassionately analyze the factors which have contributed to putting us in this quagmire.  Correct identification of the issue is imperative if we are to pursue any solutions.

I may start with the historical perspective. The history of our region reveals that, through centuries, Muslim warriors from the North (Afghanistan and beyond) have been invading the fertile lands of Punjab and further south on one pretext or another, often using religion as an instrument, ruled and ultimately merged with the society. The locals, instead of defending their motherland, mostly succumbed, merely because of the fact that they shared the same faith. Talibanization is another manifestation of the same phenomenon; some people construe it as Islam’s resurgence and gradually succumbing, as their ancestors.

Our ideological leaning is yet another factor; Pakistan was created on the basis of Two-Nation Theory, whereby religion was used as an instrument to achieve independence. Though the Quaid-e-Azam never meant Pakistan to be a theocratic state, the religious parties, soon after independence took to the streets and gave Pakistan an ideological orientation. No doubt, the ideology provided the new state with a strong base to exist, but since then, it has also provided the religious clergy with the leverage to use it for pursuance of their individual agendas.

This ideological orientation peaked during President Zia’s rule when he decided to serve as USA’s proxy and a deliberate decision was taken to recruit and train the ‘Jehadis’ for fighting in Afghanistan. He also wooed the religious parties to perpetuate his rule. Consequently, there was a mushroom growth of ‘Mujahideen’ groups, especially after their victory against the Soviet forces. The USA, after achieving her objective, left the region leaving Pakistan in the lurch and nothing was done to bring back diehard Mujahideen in the mainstream.

Government’s decision to join the coalition forces in WOT after 9/11 caused further division in the masses, aggravated by the fact that even as partners there was little convergence of interests between USA and Pakistan. As such, despite the fact that TTP’s certain undertakings are clearly against the state and they have taken ownership of thousands of Pakistanis killed, a considerable majority of the masses, especially those living in the rural areas and remain under the influence of religious clergy, consider their struggle as legitimate. Obviously, they do not differentiate between TTP and the Afghan Taliban, despite the divergence of their objectives – the former is pursuing take-over of the state of Pakistan while the later is fighting to oust the foreign forces from their motherland.

Unfortunately, owing to this mind-set of the masses or fear of reprisal, the political leadership is reluctant to take a firm stand against the militants and some even prefer to act as apologists. Resultantly, there is a lack of consensus – an imperative if we want to defeat militancy.

Extremism thrives in the environment of anarchy, disillusionment, poverty, illiteracy, general discontent, social injustice and lack of governance as these provide environment conducive for recruitment by militant groups. In Pakistan, we suffer from all such ailments and, as such, defeating extremism would remain a far-fetched dream unless the misgivings of the masses are removed through better governance.

Hitherto, barring Malala’s incident, the media has not played a defining role in making people aware of the looming threat posed by extremism. Most of the anchor persons / panelists either refrain from discussing the extremist militant groups or try to justify their actions by putting blame on the policies of the government. This trend would, surely, is a recipe for disaster. Extremism can best be checked through AWARENESS of the masses, for which electronic media can play an effective role.

These days there is a lot of talk about military operation in North Waziristan. In this regard, my submission is that if extremism and militancy could be defeated by military operations alone, the world’s most powerful countries, NATO / USA, would have achieved success in Afghanistan. The fact is that even after 11 years of commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom and spending over US$500 billion, they have so far failed to defeat the Taliban. As such, it is my considered opinion that any military operation in North Waziristan would be counter-productive. Instead, effective covert operations would pay greater dividends if launched after identifying different militant groups – ideologically motivated, foreign sponsored or criminals - and then dealing with them, accordingly.

If by compulsion, a military operation is required to be undertaken in a particular area against anti-Pakistan elements, foreign sponsored militants and criminals, it must be conducted after shaping the right environment, a domain of the political leadership. The steps deemed necessary are; (1) The operation should be legitimized by the parliament unequivocally, taking full ownership (2) It must be out rightly supported by the masses in general, media, the political leadership and, most importantly, the religious clergy (3) Massive rebuilding and political measures be undertaken in FATA to isolate the militant groups from the other tribesmen (4) Under no circumstances impression be created that the operation is being conducted on behest of USA or on her dictation.

To conclude, we can only fight extremism if we, somehow, break the shackles of our misplaced ideological leaning, develop consensus, improve governance and demonstrate the will as a nation to tackle this threat upfront. The big question; Are we up to it or, as always, embracing to succumb?  

Operation Enduring Freedom - USA’s attack on Taliban a venture in futility (My article published in THE NEWS on 7 October 2012)

On 7 October 2001, the US forces unleashed Operation Enduring Freedom (earlier called Infinite Justice) and attacked the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan with support of former Northern Alliance. Mazar-i-Sharif was captured on 9 November 2001, followed by control of most of northern Afghanistan, and Kabul fell on 13 November after the Taliban unexpectedly fled the city.

Though, apparently, a spectacular early tactical success, yet even after eleven years of initiation of this war, any semblance of victory seems far-fetched. Having suffered over 2000 casualties (official figure) and incurring expenditure of approximately US $ 500 billion, the USA continues to face the consequences of venturing into a country known as the graveyard of empires.  With no acceptable end to the war is in sight, operation ‘enduring freedom’ is turning into ‘enduring humiliation’ for the only super power.

On the 12^th anniversary of USA’s attack on Afghanistan, it would be worthwhile to briefly carry out an appraisal of this undertaking, where they went wrong and what course must be adopted to get out of the imbroglio.

To seek the reasons for USA’s failure in Afghanistan, we may start with the moral justification, or lack of it, for initiation of war; Use of military instrument for achievement of objectives must be the last resort when other options fail. The US policy makers, however, initiated the war in Afghanistan despite the fact that Taliban were showing flexibility and even covertly offered Bin Laden’s trial, provided evidence was provided against him. As such, right from the start, this war is seen as a manifestation of USA’s unilateralism and morally unjustified.

USA’s unilateralism was also manifested in the stance, “either you are with us or against us”. Though, as a result, countries joined the coalition, yet their troops, especially from NATO, lack motivation to fight in Afghanistan as they remain suspicious of the cause and USA’s intent. On the other hand, the Afghan Taliban are ideologically motivated, willing to die for their cause and their struggle is not ‘time barred’.

When a war is planned, the strategists must be clear as to the objectives to be achieved and in what time-frame. However, in the ongoing Afghan war, USA is either not clear or changing or has all along deceived the world about its real objectives. The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom included the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of Al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Had the coalition forces confined to achievement of these objectives, they might have been successful. However, USA, under the garb of WOT, started to pursue their long term objectives in the region, which envisage gaining and maintaining control of Central Asia for; (1) Containment of China (2) Encirclement of Iran (3) Preventing this region from becoming a formidable political bloc in the future (4) Posing a threat to Pakistan’s nuclear program. This obviously was neither acceptable to Pakistan nor other regional countries, barring India and, as such, the counter moves started. The fact that the US policy makers have chosen to rely on the Northern Alliance, a former proxy of Russia-Iran-India Nexus, to achieve the above objectives, has further compounded USA’s problems.

Attack on Iraq was yet another strategic mistake and a major diversion from USA’s stated objectives of WOT being waged in Afghanistan. It provided Taliban the much needed respite to regroup and counter attack.

While Pakistan was earnestly cooperating with the USA, despite a very heavy cost, the latter, under the influence of certain anti-Pakistan lobbies, started to play a double game by adopting a strategy which envisaged destabilization of Pakistan for forcing her leadership into submission, especially on nuclear issue (replicating erstwhile USSR model). While, for the purpose, CIA-RAW Nexus found commonality of interests with a group of militants, Pakistan countered by wooing other groups and resultantly, the WOT suffered.

Amidst this mistrust, USA’s attempt to prematurely side-line Pakistan and give India pre-eminence in the end-game was yet another wrong move, a manifestation of their long-term intent. It was also a miscalculation on their part to depend on India for taking over responsibilities in Afghanistan. Indians obviously refused to oblige, and for the right reasons. With India’s reluctance and suspicious Pakistan, the contours of end-game are gradually diminishing and USA seems to be lost.

Another major reason for USA’s failure in Afghanistan is the internal strife between the State Department and the Pentagon / CIA. Apparently, while the State Department is pursuing Obama’s policies, the Pentagon / CIA are pursuing their independent agenda, serving certain strong lobbies. Resultantly, USA committed two strategic mistakes - the surge by inducting 30000 additional troops under Pentagon's pressure and announcement of time-lines for the draw-down. Taliban neither provide any worthwhile target nor have time constraints. Consequently, the US troops are now withdrawing without any semblance of victory and little to show for their misadventure and the cost paid.

As the things stand today, the NATO countries are getting wary of this protracted war, India just wants to reap any benefits that may accrue and hesitant to share the responsibility, there is complete distrust between USA, Pakistan and Afghanistan, China and Russia have gradually started to assert in the region, Taliban are sensing victory and USA does not know what to do next.

In the obtaining scenario, the USA Administration may opt for further military escalation spilling into Pakistan, as pursued by Leon Panetta on behest of certain strong lobbies in USA, or the political reconciliation. Adoption of former course, however, would have grave ramifications for USA in the long run.

Thus, the best course for USA Administration would be to factor in the limitations and adopt a more pragmatic approach based on political reconciliation between all stake holders, road to the success of which passes through Pakistan. The sooner they sit across the table with Pakistan to sort out the irking problems, better would be for both the countries and the region. Mutual trust for such an undertaking is imperative.

A nation on self destruction mode – to what end (By Tahir Ali)

These days the Muslim Ummah is outraged by the blasphemous movie prepared by an American and are agitating against this gruesome act. Pakistan is no exception. In fact, we as a nation have always topped the list of those who react violently to such provocations and, in the process, attempt to destroy our own country. Is this the right way to demonstrate our love for the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), would the perpetrators of such a heinous act be brought to justice by our violence and what could be the implications of the course we choose to adopt, are the questions we need to ponder. Debate on the subject, both in the press and electronic media, must aim at educating, rather than agitating, the masses.

Let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that no true Muslim would hesitate to give his life for preserving the sanctity of our Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). We love him more than any of our worldly wants. It is how this love may manifest, needs to be debated. What we are doing these days by coming out on the streets and destroying whatever comes in the way, is the easiest but surely not the right way to demonstrate our love for the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), the best of human beings. To me, though difficult but the most appropriate way would be to emulate his personality, not by rituals but in essence, and follow his teachings to the core. Are we as a nation or as individuals doing that? The answer is in the negative and that is the reason powers that be are paying little heed to the violent demonstrations, construing them as acts committed for venting out of personal frustrations.

Unfortunately, our greatest problem as a nation is our hypocrisy and selective application of religion, as it suits our personal agendas. To quote an example, Allah Almighty says in the Quran, “And make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including sinews of war, to strike terror into the hearts of enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides them whom you know not but Allah does know”. That be the commandment, it must be clear to us that we as a nation won’t be able to assert unless we are strong enough to do so, both as a Pakistani and as part of ‘Islamic Ummah’. Are our day to day undertakings and present behaviour directed at strengthening the country? In this regard, I may also give the example of the Jews who, though a few million, have become so strong that they can enforce on the West whatever they want.  

There are mainly two types of leaders. First category is of those who play on public perception to elevate themselves. They, at best, are mediocre leaders and ultimately are of no consequence. While the other category comprises leaders who come up with their own vision, steer the nation towards the right direction and make a difference in the long run. Unfortunately, we only have leaders of the first category. In the obtaining scenario also, they are exploiting the public sentiment for fulfilment of personal agendas, oblivious of the consequences and implications of such adventurism.

We also need to understand that the religious clergy thrive in the environment of lack of governance, lawlessness, poverty, deprivation, and disillusionment. Handing over the platform to them at this stage for leading the masses, albeit agitated, is a sure recipe for disaster. Since, we refuse to learn any lessons from the past, let me remind the nation and our leaders that ongoing agitation is presenting spectre of the PNA movement in the late seventies, which culminated into takeover by Zia, the consequences of which we are suffering till today. Do we want the history to repeat itself?

Our violent reactions in the past to blasphemous acts perpetrated in the Western countries have hardly stopped them from repeating such acts, but in the process they have found out one of our major vulnerabilities. Now, they can initiate instability in Pakistan at will, whenever they want. We may not rule out the possibility of use of this vulnerability by the USA in future to station a large number of their marines in Islamabad, after the expansion of their embassy into virtually a base, and Karachi where construction of a large consulate building is already in progress.

As the indicators are, our violent agitation and destruction of own infrastructure is unlikely to affect the maker of the blasphemous video, his sponsors or the country where the act has been committed. In fact, as we have turned ourselves into a nation on auto self-destruction mode, the perpetrators have achieved their objective. If nothing else, they have reinforced the perception in the Western world that we are an intolerant and extremist nation.

As such, while we may continue to peacefully demonstrate our outrage, the long term solution lies in gaining strength as a ‘Muslim Ummah’ and adhering to Islamic tenets - the only way to ensure respect for sentiments of the Muslims by others.  

No more Holy Cows (My article published in The NEWS on 14th September 2012)

At last, the Court Martial proceedings in NLC case are about to commence against three retired General officers who have been reinstated for the purpose. Though all agree that the case be brought to its logical conclusion, the development has received mixed response about the adopted course. Some critics continue to cause aspersions on the way the case is being handled, have apprehensions about the outcome and are demanding that the case be investigated by concerned civil agencies. The majority of people, however, have appreciated the step and consider it a good omen for the country’s future. To these people, it’s a new beginning – no more holy cows.

I tend to be with the latter group as the country can no more afford to nurture holy cows, may they be from any premier institution. Same is necessitated because in the last few years, military establishment’s status as a centre of gravity has diluted and the Judiciary, media and the political elite have also emerged as major power centres, are individually vying to take the centre-stage and, as such, any preferential treatment to a single one would up-set the entire equilibrium, disturbing the delicate balance. To elaborate my viewpoint, I have briefly discussed each in the succeeding paragraphs.

In Pakistan’s peculiar environment, the military establishment still remains a major entity and people place a lot of hope in this institution. It must continue to perform, deliver and hold ruthless accountability for failings, both professional and moral. Only then its leadership would be able to meet the expectations of the masses and wield influence, directly or indirectly, on those bent upon undermining the country’s institutions. Same is also imperative to counter the ongoing unprecedented propaganda unleashed against the military establishment by parties with vested interests, using a segment of anchor-persons / journalists. In nutshell, military must stand tall on moral and professional grounds. Commencement of Court Martial proceedings in NLC case would surely enhance its image, though a lot would depend on the out-come.

As we flash back the unprecedented movement for restoration of the CJ, speeches of the eminent lawyers, promises and the generated hope, one thought that all our worries would be over with the onset of ‘independent judiciary’. Unfortunately, this was not to be. In spite of the fact that the Judiciary, under the leadership of the incumbent CJ, gave some land-mark decisions, the people continue to suffer due to lack of governance, and justice. As a result, disillusionment is slowly setting in, a manifestation of which can be seen in the recent comments by Asma Jehangir, Kurd, Aitzaz Ahsen, etc, the stalwarts of independent judiciary movement. In my view, greatest damage has been done by the way Arsalan Iftikhar’s case, perceived to be a holy cow, has been handled by the judiciary and, connected with it, unchecked media campaign by PPP jialas. If judiciary is to regain its ascendency, an imperative for the country to survive, justice must be seen as done in Arsalan Iftikhar’s case.

Media, in the last few years, has emerged as a major power centre to reckon with and has many laurels to its credit. However, as compared to the other power centres which are institutionalized, the media remains rudder-less and consequently, a few anchor-persons have become holy cows who feel that they are beyond the institutions, the government and even the state. They have gained mastery over twisting facts in pursuance of self-conceived or externally motivated agendas for certain personal gains. Just to quote a few examples of a self-righteous anchor-person; he urged General Musharraf to take action on Lal Masjid in front of other colleagues and once the operation was undertaken, became its greatest critic. On memo-gate, he openly sided with Haqqani and condemned Mansoor Ijaz, for reasons known to many, but after the findings of the judicial commission, never bothered to admit that he was wrong. He is the main exponent of Army / ISI bashing campaign, commencement of which unfortunately coincided with the US-Pakistan Army stand-off in the aftermath of 2^nd May 2011 and Salala incidents. Any keen observer would note discrepancies in his arguments but he still thrives, has become the holiest of all cows, and untouchable. Probably, President Zardari, the grand master, is the only one who knows the art to tame such anchor-persons. For others who choose to pursue principled journalism, self-accountability, where required, is the best course to adopt. A strict code of conduct would surely be in order to prevent misuse of this powerful instrument.

And finally the political leadership, whose lack of commitment to ‘accountability’ can be gauged from their inability to achieve consensus on the new accountability bill. Resultantly, in spite of vibrant media and pro-active judiciary, corruption in the government machinery is rampant, destroying the national economy like a termite. With investigation agencies under their fold, the top political elite have become holy cows who cannot be touched.

To sum up, things cannot continue the way they are. If this trend is to be reversed, the majority of masses must stop considering corruption as a ‘non-issue’ and holy cows must remain no more in political elite, judiciary, military establishment and the media – all must be treated equally as per law of the land.

Military operation in North Waziristan? ( My article published in the NEWS on 5 Sep 2012)

Leon Panetta’s disclosure, for reasons best known to him, that Pakistan Army was planning an operation in Waziristan, followed by General Kayani’s 14 August speech in which he, probably for the first time, openly acknowledged that ‘war on terror’ is also Pakistan’s war, has stirred debate on likely military operation in North Waziristan and its implications thereof. After going through various articles on the subject, one gets the impression that only the military establishment is responsible for the present mess and it is time to redeem. While this argument may carry some weight, the issue is much more complicated for easy understanding.

Let me first start with the public perception which emanates from the belief that Pakistan is ‘an ideological state’ and since the Islamic concept of nationalism advocates the concept of ‘ummah’, majority of the masses, especially in the rural areas, who remain under the influence of religious clergy, consider Taliban’s struggle as legitimate. They fail to comprehend as to why ‘Mujahideen’ of yester years are now called ‘terrorists’. To date, neither the media nor the politicians have picked up the courage to change this mind-set and educate the masses.

Despite being a pluralist organization, the intake in military comes from the same background, Islam is still a major motivation and soldiers need to be convinced that the operations they undertake against their own people, or perceived to be such, are justified.

In such environment, General Kayani’s remarks on 14 August that ‘war on terror is also our war’ must be appreciated as a bold step, setting right direction for the Army, if not for the nation. However, these remarks in no way imply that the military would undertake operation in North Waziristan on USA’s dictation. In my view, certain considerations would dictate whether the operation should be undertaken or not and if the decision is in affirmative, certain pre-requisites must be met before embarking on this venture.

Considerations; (1) Is the Pakistani public in favor of such an operation? (2) In spite of the general perception in Pakistan that foreign forces are presently occupying Afghanistan, the worldwide view is that they are UN mandated and supported by a legitimate Afghan government. That be the case, are local militants within their right to undertake terrorist activities in Afghanistan? (3) If the local Taliban do not accept Pakistan Government’s writ and go across to Afghanistan to hit the NATO/Afghan forces, how should the Pakistan Government respond to any counter action by them? Should we put our country at stake for those who do not even accept government’s writ? (4) A friendly and stable Afghanistan is surely in Pakistan’s interest. This being the objective, are the local militants part of the solution or part of the problem? (5) Notwithstanding emotional outbursts which some of our leaders display, is the nation prepared to face the consequences of local militants’ continued declared interference into the internal affairs of Afghanistan? If not, how to stop them? (6) Negative international perception about Pakistan with regard to ongoing militancy. (7) And finally, internal fall out of any such operation and its ramifications.

If as a conclusion to above considerations, an operation is deemed necessary, the same be undertaken after meeting certain pre-requisites, especially in view of our past experiences. While considering the external factor, we must never forget that in the eighties, Pakistan fought along-side USA and together we were instrumental in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. After achieving their objectives, however, USA left us in the lurch to face the consequences. Similarly, not very long time back, our forces undertook operations in Swat and South Waziristan and since the border on Afghan side was not sealed, the terrorists not only went across but since then are conducting terrorist activities against Pakistan, with impunity, from their safe-havens in Afghanistan, if not under the patronage of NATO/Afghan forces but certainly from areas presently controlled by them.  

In this backdrop, it would be natural for the Pakistani leadership to be apprehensive about USA’s intent behind compelling us to undertake operation in North Waziristan. We must never preclude the possibility that the USA only wants us to attack the militants so that the weakened militants could be pressurized by them into negotiations for extracting a better deal, which may not be in Pakistan’s best interests. Besides, the backlash, if also sponsored by hostile intelligence agencies, would be crippling for Pakistan. As such, Pakistan Army must not undertake this operation unless the border across is sealed by ISAF/US forces and guarantees are given that the retreating militants would not be given safe passage to be used against Pakistan in the future. Also, Pakistan must be included as a party in any future negotiations, overt or covert, with the Taliban.  

Internally, the experience shows that successful military operations in Swat and South Waziristan were not backed by the required political process for seeking permanent solution. The Army still is deployed and committed in these areas. As such, any future military operation must be preceded by shaping of environment for which the political leadership must take full ownership and media should be effectively used to educate the masses. Well planned covert operations must be undertaken to isolate the militants from the locals, though a difficult proposition till the time locals carry the impression that militants are waging ‘jihad’ against foreign forces in Afghanistan. Speedy rehabilitation and initiation of political process after successful military operation are imperatives for a permanent solution, which must be planned in advance. The political leadership must also be fully prepared to deal with any internal fall out of such an operation.

And finally, in the prevailing regional environment, sincerity of purpose is of prime essence. Both Pakistan and USA must learn from the past mistakes, recognize the threat in its larger context, formulate a comprehensive threat response and then appropriately deal with the rogue elements. Double games by USA or Pakistan or both have neither served their interests in the past nor they would in the future – threat is too grave to play around.

The untouchable

Call it a coincidence, but messing with an untouchable in Pakistan has become an omen for governments to fall. Musharraf had to abdicate the presidency for challenging his dubious progression in life from becoming a doctor, induction in the Health Department, re-designation into FIA and elevations, thereof.

The same untouchable now owns a business of Rs 900 million, amassed in less than five years. Recently, he was accused of accepting millions as bribes from a real-estate tycoon, who happens to be close to the government circles - perhaps a wrong move.

As the media started to discuss the allegations, the CJ took suo-moto action by forming a bench of three judges, including him-self. This action was taken on the plea that the accusations on the untouchable were a conspiracy and image of judiciary was at stake, despite the fact that there was no complainant, no defendant, not even FIR. Thanks to legal advice by many, the CJ delinked himself from the case. The remaining bench hurriedly passed on the bucket to the AG and ruled that on the basis of the business tycoon’s written statement in the court “reputation of judiciary stood cleared”, completely ignoring what he had said in the press conference the same day. No sooner the two member bench got rid of the case, the entire episode was again termed as a ‘conspiracy’ against the judiciary, for which someone must pay a heavy price. 

On 19 June 2012, a three bench court disqualified PM Gilani in the contempt case with effect from 26 April 2012, notwithstanding the fact that in the initial judgement on 26 April 2012, the seven member bench had not specifically mentioned about the PM’s disqualification and Speaker’s ruling on the subject, being a constitutional matter, required detailed deliberations. On the other hand, the untouchable’s case is still moving at a snail’s pace by using well known tactics common in our judicial system. The investigations have been taken back from NAB and assigned to a one-man commission – former IG Sohaib Suddle. Why just a one-man’s commission and why Suddle, is anybody’s guess.  

In a country like Pakistan with rampant corruption and diminishing rule of law, judicial activism may be necessary but it must never turn into judicial dictatorship, though a possibility. After all, CJ has a cabinet of SC judges, just like Army Chief’s Corps commanders, has lower judicial hierarchy to support him just as military chain of command, and black coats just as soldiers with only one exception that the latter cannot beat policemen, media persons and judges with impunity. In that sense, CJ in Pakistan is much more powerful than the COAS, and, as such, temptation to be the ‘boss’ and call the shots is natural, at least through indirect control over the executive composed of politicians who falter frequently and remain prone to judicial scrutiny. Such inclinations, however, must be curbed as authority without responsibility is a sure recipe for disaster.  

May be, Gilani’s ouster was justified but can the country sustain frequent sacking of the governments? We as a nation must be clear that interventions by the President or the military establishment (as was the case earlier) or by Judiciary (this time) have never served / would not serve the cause of democracy. The country has suffered a lot due to direct and indirect rule by the military and now that it has decided to stay clear, any attempts by the judiciary to fill the vacuum would be disastrous and may ultimately lead to Pakistan’s Balkanization. 

Judiciary has shown enough muscle but if it still feels that it must immortalize itself, same can be done by earnestly investigating the untouchable’s dubious progression, instead of passing on the bucket, find out details of how he amassed Rs 900 million (or so) worth of business, what do his tax returns show about the source of income, did he receive alleged financial favours from the real-estate tycoon and if found guilty, try him with the speed with which the former PM was disposed off by the three member bench – shortest way for the Judiciary to reach the highest pedestal of moral ascendency. 

Is there a method to ongoing madness?

Commenting on the show cause notice issued to the incumbent PM in NRO case, a prominent lawyer and human rights activist termed the decision “the beginning of an end to the democratic process”. While she has a right to her opinion, in my view, there is absolutely no threat to democracy through an unconstitutional act by the military establishment but, surely, the federation is threatened by inaptness, self-serving and ego-centric approach of the political elite, perceived lack of neutrality on the part of Judiciary and rising extremism and disillusionment among the masses. Are the stake holders oblivious of the consequences of the prevailing madness or there is a method behind it, is a question agitating each Pakistani’s mind.

To start with the ruling elite; having failed in every sphere of governance, destroying institutions and bringing the country to the brink of economic disaster, they surely need ‘excuses and reasons’ for their failures, besides pursuing political martyrdom before the next elections. Stand-off with Judiciary is serving both these purposes. As such, there is a method behind the on-going tussle with the Judiciary, though self-serving at the peril of the masses as the PPP leadership knows that writing the letter to the Swiss authorities would be of no consequence and they may ultimately oblige before instalment of interim government.

To the contrary, Judiciary has allowed it-self to be entrapped by the PPP leadership. With each passing day, it is losing grounds against the PPP’s onslaught through effective use of media. Lack of will on the part of Judiciary to take on the PPP stalwarts who are blatantly portraying the CJ of being biased against their party has started to take its toll. People at large are loudly whispering as to why contempt proceedings have been initiated against Malik Riaz but not against many others who are overtly involved in contempt of the CJ.  Arsalan Iftikhar’s case, and it’s mishandling, has further tarnished Judiciary’s image which, despite apparent aggressive posturing, is now clearly playing on the back foot.

Frustrated and disillusioned by PPP’s miss-governance, it was natural for the nation to pin high hopes in PTI and PML (N) for providing alternate leadership. Their hopes, however, have been dashed because of the on-going tussle between the two parties. It’s a shame to watch on TV the top leaders of both these parties levelling allegations and counter-allegations against each other, presenting spectre of self-serving pygmies. Both Imran Khan and NS know that ‘a divided opposition is a dead opposition’, yet they are continuing to fight against each other and one finds no method in their madness.

No doubt, in the last few years, media has emerged as a major power centre to reckon with. However, its pre-eminence has also become a vulnerability exposing it to powerful predators vying to tame and fix the upright. Resultantly, the recent infighting, graft charges and lack of objectivity on the part of certain anchors is beginning to damage media’s credibility and lending it prone to manipulation - a bad omen for the nation.

One fails to understand the method, or lack of it, behind the madness of the masses in general. They would curse and abuse a particular leader for five years but vote for him in return for a trivial gain or due to family compulsion. This phenomenon is exploited by the inapt politicians who fail to deliver after reaching the corridors of power, yet are confident to be re-elected. Zardari’s recent pronouncement that he would form the next governments in all the provinces is a manifestation of this mind-set – the people willingly lent themselves to be taken for a ride.    

And finally the military establishment whose image reached its lowest ebb in the aftermath of 2^nd May 2011 incident. Since then, the khakis’ leadership has played its cards well by reacting strongly to NATO’s attack on Salala Post, making a point where required and displaying flexibility on comparative non-issues. Resultantly, the military establishment has regained relevance, both internally and vis-a-vis USA, which is once again inclined to deal directly with its leadership. Zardari, politically smart as he is, has been more than obliging in this regard.

As for the USA, period up to year 2014 is extremely important due to planned withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan and its implications thereof. They would surely prefer the present dispensation to continue, with or without elections, as amongst our top political leadership, Zardari has the ‘political acumen and sagacity’ to ‘understand’ their ‘requirements’ and oblige.

Thus, irrespective of the damage the ongoing ‘madness’ is causing to the federation, Zardari is gaining ascendency each passing day as his ‘methods’ are beginning to yield results in the shape of diminishing Judiciary, divided opposition, a tamed chunk of media and ‘satisfied’ military establishment. In the obtaining internal environment and masses which remain prone to manipulation, we are likely to have a PPP led coalition government with Zardari as our President in the next term also. For how long this country can sustain such a dispensation, is anybody’s guess.

For my prediction to be proven wrong, the opposition must end its infighting and get united, Judiciary must be seen as delivering prompt justice, the media must break the shackles and regain its true independence for unbiased coverage and the masses must make a commitment not to sell cheaply and get exploited in the future. Can all this be achieved? I very much doubt.

Agenda behind the ‘contempt’ and ‘dual nationality’ bills (my article published in The News on 11 July 2012)

Independent Judiciary is the essence of democracy and the Constitution is very clear about certain restrictions on the Pakistani citizens having ‘dual nationality’, and for good reasons. Why, then, the government is bent upon undermining the Judiciary by introducing the contempt bill and seeking amendment in the relevant article to permit holding of public offices by the ‘dual nationality’ holders? To get an answer, we need to understand the bigger picture. 

In my article titled, ‘colonization of a new kind’, Published in The NEWS on 4^th January 2012, I had tried to throw light on USA’s strategy to convert Pakistan into a ‘pliant’ state, an imperative for fulfilment of their ‘grand design’ in the region. To pursue this objective the strategy being adopted is to control Pakistan by controlling its leadership, through implementation of a well thought-out plan, whereby;  (1) Pakistani politicians willing to support the US agenda in the region would be ‘assisted’ to reach the corridors of power (2) Ingress would be made in major institutions by cultivating ‘local assets’, thereby, establishing a network to ‘elevate and protect’ those who comply and ‘marginalize’ those not falling in line (3) Alternate leadership would be prepared to ensure friendly change, if situation so demanded (4) Rampant corruption, economic dependence on USA and negative internal dynamics of Pakistan would serve as tools to support the strategy.

NRO was thus brokered by USA to pave the way for return and ascent to power of ‘leaders’, willing to dance to their tune. Having placed at the required positions, they were to achieve total control over institutions that may hinder pursuance of long-term US objectives. The major institutions to be tamed included the Parliament, military establishment and the Judiciary.

Thus, in pursuance of this agenda, the Parliament has been successfully converted into a ‘rubber-stamp body’ through enactment of 18^th Amendment, whereby, a party head has become so strong that he can even unseat a sitting PM of his party and if he is also the President, enjoying immunity, as is the case these days, the system can be termed anything but democracy. Unfortunately, the main opposition party also became a party to this undemocratic clause while pursuing their own selfish agendas. Now, the USA by just controlling 4-5 party-heads, can control the entire policy-making of Pakistan. One can imagine the consequences if these leaders also choose to become US citizens after passage of proposed bill on ‘dual nationality’.

After achieving control over the parliament, the guns were directed towards the military establishment to undermine the institution, to gain control over them and curtail their ability to breed ‘strategic defiance’ to the USA’s ‘grand design’ in the region. While the dilution of Army’s status as a centre of gravity is a good omen in a democratic dispensation, the conspiracy to undermine this institution would prove to be extremely detrimental for the country as the Army is, and must remain, relevant to Pakistan’s security. By securing dual nationality, the perpetrators conspiring against the military establishment would be able to pursue their agenda with greater freedom of action.

With the parliament marginalized and military establishment taking the back seat, the US backed Pakistani leadership hoped to get a free hand to pursue the given agenda but for pro-active judiciary which has emerged as a major irritant for the ruling elite, and  its patrons. Hence, the ‘contempt’ and ‘dual-nationality’ bills, which are aimed at becoming all powerful ‘untouchables’ so that the given foreign agenda could be pursued with impunity.

While it is expected that the Judiciary would thwart any attempt to undermine its independence, the ‘dual nationality’ bill, if passed, would have serious implications for Pakistan. Already, under the garb of constructing new embassy at Islamabad close to the Presidency and PM’s Secretariat and a consulate at Karachi, the US is in the process of developing bases in Pakistan. With the enactment of the proposed bill, we would probably one day have ruling elite with US passports, virtually running the country from the US base at Islamabad and taking decisions under US dictation, which may not be in our national interest   – colonization of a new kind.

As such, in my view, all those parliamentarians who support the ‘dual nationality’ bill would be responsible for placing the country under a de-facto foreign rule.  

An opportunity lost (Has the opportunity to reach the real conspiracy been lost?( My article published in THE NEWS on 17 June 2012)

A week back, the nation was dumbfounded, and shocked, by the revelation of family-gate and related developments. As per the story, Malik Riaz, a real-estate tycoon, facing numerous cases in the courts of law, had spent a considerable amount to entice Arsalan Iftikhar and the latter, somehow, fell into the trap and enjoyed a life-style not commensurate with his position.  While the politicians preferred to shy away, the Media, as usual, came in the forefront to present differing viewpoints on the issue, some terming it as a conspiracy against the Judiciary while the others felt that there was meat in the ‘story’.

The anxiety was turned into hope when CJ, in an unprecedented move, took a suo moto action on what may be ascribed as ‘hearsay’. People thought that not only speedy justice would be provided in whatever transpired between Malik Riaz and Arsalan Iftikhar but also those involved in the conspiracy, if any, would be exposed. As the proceedings progressed, people also hoped that in the process all those who had been financially benefited or bribed by Malik Riaz for gaining certain advantages would also be exposed. Unfortunately, this was not to be.

To start with, in this case there was no complainant, no defendant, not even an FIR, yet the CJ took suo moto action. May be, in his perception, the action was justified as judiciary’s image was at stake. The bench has, however, now ruled that “reputation of judiciary stood cleared” just by Malik Riaz’s statement, notwithstanding what Malik Riaz said in the press conference, in an interview on TV and the fact that a number of black coats are out on the streets to show solidarity with the CJ. It seems that the bench has hurriedly drawn this conclusion to pass on the bucket as it did not want to tackle the major issues stemming from this case – allegations on Arsalan, conspiracy to tarnish judiciary’s image and exposure of Malik Riaz’s beneficiaries. 

It is now a matter of record that within a span of few years, Arsalan Iftikhar’s business, whatever it is, has expanded at unprecedented pace. The allegations by Malik Riaz are also substantiated by written documents (though not of entire amount). However, the case has been handed over to the government for further investigations which itself is facing numerous charges and prone to blackmail and compromise. The trust reposed in the government investigation agencies in this case is, to say the least, intriguing.

All indicators are that Malik Riaz could not have done it alone and, complicity of the government, due to numerous reasons, could not be ruled out. Now that the case has been handed over to the AG, part of the government, any possibility of investigation into a conspiracy to tarnish the image of judiciary has been closed. 

Besides, being very close to the ruling elite, a manifestation of which we saw in the protocol given to him, it is unlikely that Malik Riaz would be probed about those obliged by him with bribes and other benefits.

As such, by referring the case to AG, the matter is practically closed or, should we say, hushed up, especially with regard to conspiracy and Malik Riaz’s beneficiaries. Judiciary has lost an opportunity to consolidate their hard-won independence. Probably the price, this time, was too high, higher than those who sacrificed their lives during the struggle for independence of judiciary.  

Hidden hands behind the Pak-US stand-off? (my article published in THE NEWS on 7 June 2012)

These days, barring PM’s gimmicks related to contempt case, ‘Pak-US relations’ is the most discussed topic in the electronic and print media, with quite a number of journalists and anchorpersons blaming the military establishment for the ongoing stand-off with USA. Though in a democratic dispensation everybody has the right to express his or her views freely, yet we must remain cognizant of the fact that wrong assumptions, and conclusions drawn thereof, may mislead those assigned to formulate policies.

That is exactly what happened when the PCNS, and later the political leadership, sat down to deliberate on future Pak-US relations. Influenced by ‘ideas’ of some of our ‘brains’ who thought it was time to exploit USA’s apparent weaknesses in Afghanistan, they failed to factor-in two important aspects while presenting their demands to the USA; Pakistan’s vulnerabilities and, more importantly, USA’s internal dynamics emanating from ongoing tussle between the two power centres – White House vs the Pentagon / CIA, with profound impact during the election year. Besides, our policy makers also failed to present a unanimous viewpoint on major issues related to Pak-US relations and wasted time on point scoring, a luxury we could ill afford at this critical juncture. The demands, based on wrong conclusions and assumptions were obviously not met and, hence the stand-off.

While our vulnerabilities are well known, in this write-up I will briefly dwell upon USA’s internal dissentions on strategy for Afghanistan, how they are affecting Pak-US relations and what course may be adopted to safeguard our national interests.

President Obama, in keeping with popular slogan during his last election campaign, has already given his exit plan for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. While the State Department is vigorously pursuing this objective, the Pentagon and CIA seem to be following their own agenda, envisaging long-term presence of US forces in the region. In this pursuit, they are not only being supported by the Republicans but also the strong lobbies which exercise profound influence on US policy making. Following lent credence to such a conclusion.    

Though President Obama was not inclined, yet was ‘persuaded’ by Pentagon for induction of 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. US military strategists should have known that even after this surge, they would not achieve any worthwhile victory for the simple reason that Taliban do not provide any tangible targets. Why, then, the surge? The only plausible answer is that all along Pentagon nurtured the intentions to provoke Pakistan, having tangible targets, neutralization of which may provide the US military with some semblance of victory.

Attack on Salala Post, as such, was a well planned operation designed to escalate tensions with Pakistan for ensuring long-term deployment of US forces in Afghanistan. By doing so, US military would continue to receive enhanced allocations of over US$100 bn annually and Leon Panetta would secure the patronage of lobbies which are seeking to undermine Pakistan and consider President Obama as an impediment in pursuance of their designs. Panetta has developed political ambitions after successful Operation Geronimo, considers Hillary Clinton as a rival in political arena and seeking to gain edge over her.

Besides attack on Salala Post, other indicators also suggest that Pentagon and CIA, on behest of certain lobbies, are ensuring failure of Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. While the State Department is endeavouring to bring the Haqqani Network on the negotiation table with Pakistan’s help, they are continuously acting as a spoiler by conducting drone attacks and demanding that Pakistani forces should undertake operations against the Haqqanis.

Then, while the US State Department showed inclination of rendering an apology on Salala incident, it was the military leadership who firmly dispelled any such option.

Recently, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta gave a statement that charges of US$5000 per container, supposedly demanded by Pakistan, were not acceptable, notwithstanding the fact all told the container charges at this rate would come to slightly over US$ 1 bn annually, nothing compared to over US$100 bn which USA spends for maintaining forces in Afghanistan. Should such a negligible amount be of any consequence if Pentagon was sincere in implementation of President Obama’s exit plan?

Thus, contrary to the perception being developed by some journalists and anchorpersons that GHQ is responsible for the stand-off with USA, actually it’s the Pentagon, supported by CIA, which is acting as a spoiler and dictating terms on Obama and the State Department about strategy to be followed vis-a-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That be the case, if President Obama is sincere in defusing tensions with Pakistan and implement his exit plan, he must recognize the problems within, muster up the courage to rein-in the military / CIA and let the State Department deal with the contentious issues. In short, he must start to assert.

As for the Pakistani leadership, they must have clear understanding of the evolving situation, wash-off misplaced notion of relevance and shun arrogance, emanating from ignorance, to ensure formulation and implementation of a viable strategy vis-a-vis USA. National interest rather than seeking a few hundred US dollars should be the guiding principle, as the latter would mean nothing for a country which loses Rs 5bn daily due to corruption as per DG NAB’s recent statement.

In this regard, despite many hiccups, I see a commonality of interest between President Obama, Pakistan and the Taliban on a singular agenda point – withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. To ensure sincerity of purpose by all stake holders, Pakistan may even undertake a diplomatic initiative involving international powers, stakeholders and UN to seek commitments from USA on implementation of its exit plan.

At our end, all needed support must be provided  for ensuring smooth withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, may it be opening of GLOC and convincing Taliban / Haqqanis to negotiate with USA, as any hindrance, actual or perceived, would tantamount to serving the cause of Pentagon, CIA, and anti-Pakistan lobbies. If they are bent upon pursuing a confrontationist course against Pakistan, why must we fall into their trap and provide them with the excuse.  

Even if no assurances are provided by USA about implementation of their exit plan, I see no sense in getting on the left side of extra regional forces which are likely to remain in our immediate neighbourhood for some time to come, as long as the red lines are clear to both the sides.

Damage done (My article published in THE NEWS on 19 May 2012)

At last, despite many hiccups, the Judicial commission assigned to probe the memo-gate is about to finalize its findings. While the outcome of the investigations are not known, apparently, as a consequence to the probe, nobody would be tried for treason, endangering with country’s nuclear arsenal and for acts inimical to country’s sovereignty or conspiracy to undermine Pakistan’s security establishment. Now, at this stage, it is of little consequence whether Haqqani acted alone or was able to convince his Pakistani ‘boss’ for undertaking such a venture, how Mansoor Ijaz was involved and worked on whose behest, as the objectives set by the perpetrators stand achieved and Haqqani is in USA, free and probably living a luxurious life – an American ‘Hero’.

It is, however, important to understand as to what actually happened and in what way the memo-gate has damaged Pakistan. To ascertain, we must first be clear about the objectives of different stake-holders.                   

The USA; There is nothing more its Administration would want but to convert Pakistan into a pliant state, see her nuclear program rolled-back and the government must accede to their dictates for fulfilment of long-term agenda in the region. It finds Pakistan’s military establishment a hurdle in achievement of these objectives and, therefore, would do anything to undermine them. The ‘memo’, irrespective of who prepared it, offered just that in a platter. Logically, the USA Administration should have grabbed the opportunity as it was presented. However, they did not and waited for the right time to strike in pursuance of a bigger agenda.     

The Government; anybody who is familiar with Pakistan’s polity understands that each democratic government must nurture the desire to rein-in the military establishment. Though this legitimate desire can easily be fulfilled by achieving moral ascendancy through performance in accordance with the given mandate, yet from day one, the present government is striving to develop a commonality of interests with the USA Administration to achieve this objective. President Zardari’s initial statements inimical to Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence, attempts to place ISI under Ministry of Interior, the offer of sending DG ISI to India after Mumbai attacks, contents of Kerry-Lugar Bill (in a way similar to the ‘memo’), attempts to permit Indian ingress into Afghanistan through Afghan Transit Trade, grant of MFN status to India, and so on, are manifestations of government’s desire to align itself with USA’s line of thinking.

The military establishment; since Pakistan’s inception, the military establishment has been playing a role, directly or indirectly, in the formulation of important policies, strategies thereof, and enjoyed USA’s support. For the last few years, however, the USA finds the military establishment as an impediment to their agenda in the region and inclined to deal with the civilian leadership, whom they find more ‘responsive’. Amid such mistrust between the US leadership and military establishment, the 2^nd May 2011 incident served as the last nail in the coffin. Coupled with that, because of its perceived failure on ground, the military establishment started to lose relevance at a fast pace, making way for the other power centres, especially the government, to fill the vacuum and assert. 

Thus, while an understanding already existed between the PPP leadership and their US counterparts to undermine Pakistan’s military establishment, 2^nd May incident provided an opportunity to go for the kill. The PPP leadership, however, to USA’s dismay, continued to show reluctance to comply and take drastic steps against the military establishment, fearing it may backfire as happened in 1999.

Hence, the ‘memo’, which apparently sought US guarantees against the military establishment, but, as the indicators suggest, was actually meant to trap President Zardari into submission. Known for his slippery character, full of ambition and ‘intellect’, Haqqani probably played a double game on behalf of the Americans to achieve that.

The contents of the ‘memo’ were purposely leaked out to put Zardari under pressure and as he was substantially cornered, especially after Admiral Mike Mullen’s admission about the existence of ‘memo’, the Americans jumped in to get the best deal. While it is clear that Zardari was assured ‘protection’ and support in memo-gate investigations, as evident from his body language after return from ‘treatment’ abroad, what has been promised in return is anybody’s guess.

As a result of the ‘understanding’ reached, the nation witnessed complete complicity between USA and Pakistan Government in memo-gate probe. Admiral Mike Mullen completely downplayed the ‘memo’ as something insignificant, notwithstanding the fact that his well known parting testimony to the Congressional Committee was based on the ‘admissions’ contained in the ‘memo’.

Then, James Jones submitted a self-contradictory affidavit in support of Haqqani ( for details read my comments published in the NEWS POST on 22 December 2011) and later declined to face the commission as he knew that he could never stand his ground. Besides, US senators, media and, most significantly, Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst, advisor to four US Presidents and a known Jewish lobbyist, have been very active in Haqqani’s support. The State Department went out of the way and adopted a threatening posture, even causing aspersions on Pakistan’s Judiciary, against all norms of diplomacy. In nutshell, the USA Administration came out strongly to back the Pakistan Government, especially Haqqani, on ‘memo-gate’. How the ‘Pakistani rescue apparatus’ was set into motion to save Haqqani, and the government, is in itself a long story to dwell upon.

Why this complicity and in return for what, is a question which must haunt every patriot Pakistani, especially the military establishment. One thing is, however, clear – the Americans now enjoy a much greater grip on our ruling hierarchy. Thus to me, memo-gate has already done the damage.

A hidden agenda (My article published in the NEWS on 1st May)

Before the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971, a few paid heed to those warning of impending disaster, on 15^th December 1971 the nation thought, and made to believe, that everything was fine and under control, on 16^th more than half the country was gone and on 17^th majority of us behaved if nothing serious had happened. This is the dilemma of our nation which chooses to stay in oblivion. Should this remain the case? I do not think so and, as such, would not hesitate to dilate on the issue of proposed Saraiki Province, covering an angle which may seem farfetched to many of us.   

After completing more than four years of their prescribed five years tenure, suddenly the PPP leadership has raised the ante on the proposed Saraiki Province on grounds that the people there are facing deprivation, notwithstanding the fact that in this period the PM has spent hundreds of billions of rupees in just Multan, his city, and not on alleviating the misgivings of the Saraiki people. What then is the hidden agenda behind this demand?

Though apparently the move is a political ploy in view of the forthcoming elections, yet a critical analysis of past events would reveal that demand for a Saraiki Province is continuation of a systematic process to break and weaken the present Punjab Province as part of a larger agenda of our ruling ‘DUO’, as well as, of those outside powers, which are even envisaging Pakistan’s balkanization. Unfortunately some of the other political parties, including Punjab based, are conniving with the PPP in pursuance of this agenda with little understanding of its implications.

The process of weakening Punjab started by denying it gas and electricity, essentially required to run its industry, which is now at brink of disaster.

Secondly, Government’s lack of meaningful response to construction of new hydroelectric power projects, dams and proposed link canals by India on the rivers feeding Punjab would ultimately deny it the required water resources, seriously affecting its agricultural output also. After creation of proposed Saraiki Province, especially if it is extended up to Mianwali in the North, the Indus River will also be delinked from the remaining Punjab. 

Thirdly, Punjab may one day act as a conduit of Indo-Afghan trade via Wagah, a source of income. That also is being taken care of by planned opening of Sulaimanke route which would probably be linked with the Indus Highway through the proposed Saraiki Province to KP, Afghanistan and beyond.

Punjab would, thus, virtually be rendered as an impotent entity without industry, depleted agricultural output and meagre other sources of income, totally dependent on others to survive –  A price Punjab must pay for having a sold out leadership, always seeking personal interests. Undermining of Punjab would also fulfil the agenda of those foreign powers who feel that even after Pakistan’s balkanization, the Punjab, in its present configuration, with nuclear weapons and strong Army, would remain a threat to their interests.

Will undermining Punjab and creation of Saraiki Province complete the agenda? I do not think so. Though farfetched, we must not rule out the possibility that the duo, the President and PM, may even be thinking in terms of unification of present Sindh and proposed Saraiki Province in any future dispensation. Following lent credence to such a thought process;   

Politically, the people of Saraiki speaking areas are more akin to the rural Sindh – feudalism, monopoly of land owning and subservient masses. It would be easier for the PPP to buy off important families or coerce them into submission (as was done in Bhutto era through land reforms). Culturally also, people of most of the areas included in the proposed Saraiki Province are closer to rural Sindh than Central Punjab.

With no industrial base and very little natural resources, the proposed Saraiki Province will have meagre sources of income in the shape of agricultural output and will be dependent on other provinces, especially Sindh, for their basic needs. Having control over the Indus River, the Saraiki Province will gain importance for Sindh which, in return, can provide energy and transit facilities.

Thus, cultural cohesion and economic dependence would provide strong basis for future unification of Sindh and Saraiki Province as one entity. With Saraiki leaders like Gilani, who believe in loyalty to ‘Masters’ and even their graves, rather than the motherland, nobody should have a doubt as to who would occupy the driving seat. The numerical differential between the Urdu speaking of urban Sindh and rural Sindh, along with Saraiki areas, would enhance further - Zardari & Co in total control with marginalized MQM.

The above may seem a figment of imagination, however, a possibility. If it materializes, Zardari may be regarded by nationalist Sindhis as the ‘Quaid’ who revived greater Sindh, but in history he would surely go down as “Pakistan’s Gorbachev”.  To the contrary, he can become a true leader of over 180 million Pakistanis by delivering as per aspirations of the people, rather than opting for dirty politics. Choice still remains with him.

For the other mainstream political parties, there is no other option left but to shun their differences, rise above their self seeking agendas and get united to thwart the designs of those bent upon undermining Pakistan.