Dancing with the Taliban

Today, the Pakistani nation stands confused and divided on the issue of dealing with the Taliban. The PM, despite a sizable divergence of views in his party, is determined to pursue the peace process through negotiations and most of the right wing religious parties, as well as, PTI are supporting his stance, while a reasonable segment of society, including liberal parties, are skeptical about the out-come. In their view, an all out military operation must be undertaken to quell Talibanization once and for all. Whatever modalities are adopted by the Government to deal with the Taliban, fact is that the latter have gained pre-eminence and all stake-holders are vying to dance with them fof pursuance of their agendas/strategies/objectives.

In given environment, Pakistan needs to adopt a deliberate and well thought-out strategy vis-à-vis Taliban, preferably based on consensus. Such a strategy must be based on; (1) Pakistan’s internal dynamics (2) A deep insight into the developing regional scenario (3) Interests, aims and objectives of various stake-holders and how their pursuance would impact Pakistan’s security in short and long terms.   

USA: USA’s objective of invading Afghanistan, all along, has been to gain and maintain foot-hold in Central Asia, an imperative to pursue their ‘containment of China’ strategy. Crimean crisis has added another dimension as some terming it as start of Cold War II. Thus, under all circumstances, they would continue to maintain their bases in Afghanistan and, by implication, require support of Islamic militants for a stable ‘pliant’ government in Afghanistan, as well as, to serve them as proxies in the long-term. That actually is the reason USA is pushing Pakistan since long to undertake operation in NWA so that they could then strike a better bargain with the depleted Haqqanis/Taliban.

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia’s intent to use Taliban as a counter-weight to Iranian influence is well known. For the purpose, unlike USA, they would need a strong Taliban entity to serve their objectives and hence, would prefer a negotiated settlement between Pakistan Government and TTP to obviate the chances of any military operation that may weaken Afghan Taliban’s war potential.

Iran: Though, there is a divergence of strategic and economic interests of Iran and Pakistan as gate-way to Central Asia and Iran played a major role in breeding instability in Afghanistan in the nineties to deny Pakistan access into Central Asian states, yet Pakistan must continue to seek better relations with Iran and under no circumstances the be seen as taking sides in the ongoing conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Doing so would be suicidal with grave ramifications.

Afghan Taliban: Afghan Taliban have valiantly fought for over twelve years to push the US/NATO forces out of Afghanistan in the hope to regain power which, in their perception, is their legitimate right. Sensing a kill due to planned draw-down of foreign forces from Afghanistan, they would not want any military confrontation with Pakistani forces and, therefore, must be exerting pressure on TTP for securing a negotiated settlement with the Pakistan Government, at least for the time being.

India: All along, India has been playing a dirty game in Afghanistan at the expense of US/NATO forces. While the latter were incurring heavy losses in terms of soldiers’ lives and hundreds of billions of US$, Indian RAW remained busy in making in-roads into Afghanistan to undertake covert operations to destabilize Pakistan. Unfortunately, CIA has also been/is collaborating with RAW in certain anti-Pakistan activities, for which a few factions of militants are also being used as proxies. Thus, we may not rule out possibility of attempts by them at de-railing the ongoing peace talks through a major terrorist incident. Failure of peace talks and launching of operation as a consequence by Pakistan military would serve their interests as certain militant factions may fall into their trap to be used against Pakistan, as hitherto.

TTP: Under the circumstances, TTP has little choice but to opt for negotiated settlement with Pakistan Government or face ‘annoyance’ of Afghan Taliban and Saudi Arabia, as well as, risk of being labeled as a proxy serving US interests.  

Pakistani masses: Tthrough the centuries, warriors from the North (Afghanistan and beyond) have been invading the fertile lands of the Punjab and further south on one pretext or another, mostly using religion as an instrument, ruled and ultimately merged with the society. Talibanization is another manifestation of the same phenomenon, the people are either staying indifferent or inadvertently becoming hostage to their ideology and would ultimately be inclined to dance with them, as always. The leadership is no different and hence the confusion on how to deal with TTP.

Pakistan Government: Notwithstanding, Nawaz Sharif’s ideological leanings, desire to become Amir-ul Momnin, faulty assumption that he would be able to use the wooed Taliban as a counter-weight to Army and ‘understanding’ with Saudi Royal family, Pakistan Government also has little space but to seek a negotiated settlement with TTP. The only factor to be kept in mind is that long-term durable peace with TTP can only be achieved by negotiating with them from a point of strength. As such, the Government must be prepared to undertake surgical strikes/covert operations to thwart attempts by anti-talk elements to derail the peace process or by TTP to exert pressure on the Government through terrorist activities for acceptance of their unjust demands.

Finally, any negotiated settlement would be short-lived if the Government does not have a well laid-out policy on how to absorb militants in the society, how to deal with the situation if they start to spread their brand of ideology through coercion and start targeting people of other sects.

Apparently, Government has little clue of how to tackle such post ‘negotiated settlement’ matters and it is on these grounds that people are skeptical about the ultimate out-come of Government’s strategy of dancing with the Taliban.

LOOMING THREAT TO PAKISTAN AND RESPONSE (June 2011)

On 2 May 2011, US Navy Seals sneaked into Pakistani territory in helicopters and launched a raid on one of the houses in Abbotabad where OBL was supposedly residing, killed him, took his body across to Afghanistan before the Pakistani forces could react and later dumped it in the sea in a dubious manner. While most of the Pakistanis felt betrayed and enraged by this display of unilateralism by the USA, for the latter it was a great occasion to celebrate as they not only snatched a prized trophy in the person of OBL but also provided with the long awaited opportunity to arm-twist Pakistan into ‘doing more’.  Pakistan’s leadership, stretched to the limit, has decided not to succumb to the pressure and accede to unjust US demands and, resultantly, relations between the two countries are, today, at the lowest ebb.   

Soon after the Abbotabad incident, Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) declared Pakistan as Enemy Number 1 and vowed to avenge OBL’s death. Since then, there has been a spate of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The number of terrorist attacks against NATO / US forces by the Afghani Taliban have also increased manifold, nullifying the perception that Osama’s demise would weaken Al Qaeda or Taliban. This surely is extremely frustrating for the US leadership who, instead of acknowledging their failures, has started to blame Pakistan Army and ISI for abetting the Haqqani Net Work. Thus, within a span of four months, the so-called allies in ‘war on terror’ are at logger’s head with each other. Whether incidental or planned, the synergy of events is astounding and the inevitable has started to happen, as in the late eighties, giving credence to the widely held perception in Pakistan that, owing to divergence of interests, USA cannot be trusted as a long term partner.

Thus, thanks to the faulty strategy followed hitherto and inability to perform on ground, Pakistan, today, faces a serious threat, both from within (the Taliban), as well as, external (USA-India Nexus, covertly supported by Israel). As both threats, which may manifest in different ways, are extremely detrimental to Pakistan and cannot be dealt with simultaneously, the leadership is faced with the dilemma to choose which must be tackled first, especially when strong indicators exist about involvement of hostile foreign intelligence agencies in breeding internal dissent (collusion of internal threat by a group of Taliban, and external threat posed by USA-India Nexus). Thus, to seek solutions, we need to clearly understand the dynamics of threats posed by the Taliban and the above mentioned Nexus, both singly and in collaboration, our capability to counter these threats and implications, thereof, in the shaped environment, whereby, Pakistan, today, is seen as a threat to world peace.

As a premise, we need to acknowledge that (1)   Today, Pakistan faces a strategic decline in different spheres - political, military, economic- and the change can come only from within. (2)           The Pakistani leadership has exploited country’s negative potential ( ie Pakistan’s potential of instability, thereby, destabilization of the entire region) for quite some time and the world at large is now not willing to give further concessions on this account. (3)  Both USA and Pakistan have been playing double games with each other, using different Taliban groups, however, neither has benefited from the strategy followed hitherto. There is, thus, a need to revisit these strategies by both, more so, by the Pakistani leadership as failure on our part is more pronounced and the stakes are too high.(4) The Abbotabad incident and successful terrorist attacks by TPP have further compounded Pakistan’s problems as questions are being raised about her resolve, as well as, ability / capacity to tackle the multifarious challenges faced by the nation.(5)      The US leadership finds a commonality of interests with India for pursuance of their long term objectives in the region.(6)  After 11 September 2001, a new phenomenon has occurred in US politics i.e the incumbent President must show a substantive achievement for re-election. Bush attacked Iraq and diverted attention from ‘war on terror’ but won the elections (though Americans are still paying the price for the misadventure). President Obama may try to emulate his predecessor with Pakistan as the target country. However, this time the cost for the Americans in particular and the world at large would be beyond imagination.(7) By remaining in self-denial mode and sleeping over issues for years, the Pakistani nation, today, is on the death bed. To survive, we must put own house in order. But, if we must die, we still have a choice to die honourably and be counted in history, or die dishonourably, as we have lived as a nation.        

Threat Response  As highlighted earlier, because of the strategy hitherto followed, Pakistan, today, stands isolated internationally, weakened internally and faces serious threats to her existence, both from within (by Taliban), as well as, external (USA-India Nexus). While tackling both is beyond our capability and not an option, the policy makers have to decide which threat to be neutralized first. Logically, even this is not an option as to face external threat, a nation must be strong internally. As such, Pakistan must first deal with the threat from within (Talibanization and extremism) as once it is neutralized, external threat would automatically be marginalized. Manifestation of the threat, both internal and external, and suggested response, thereof, are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.

USA-India Nexus (Covertly Supported by Israel)      There is no denying the fact that a commonality of interest exists between the USA, India and Israel for achievement of their long term objectives in the region. While USA’s Declared Objective is to stabilize the region and ensure that no 9/11 like incidents are planned and executed from Pakistan or Afghanistan. However their Covert Objectives are to gain and maintain foot-hold in Central Asia, for which Pakistan must be brought to a level of a pliant state. US presence in the region is imperative to deny China access to Indian Ocean / mouth of Gulf, as well as, energy resources of Central Asia, encirclement of Iran, prevent this region from becoming a political bloc in the future comprising major countries including Iran, Pakistan, India, China and Russian Federation. This bloc, when ever formed, would become the most potent power to counter the USA as it would control the Indian Ocean, as well as, mouth of the Persian Gulf. This bloc, however, cannot be formed without Pakistan as she enjoys a pivotal location. As such, it’s a strategic compulsion for the USA Administration to maintain her control over Pakistan which may manifest as physical presence or control over Pakistan’s leadership or both. In the long term, they would like to gain control over Pakistan’s nuclear program.

India’s perceived objectives could be access to Central Asian markets and ultimately become a regional and super power for which Pakistan must be removed as a nuclear irritant / reduced to a pliant state and, secondly, gain complete control of Indian Ocean (by implication denying the same to China).

As far as Israel is concerned, at the time of her creation as a state, the Zionist leadership had rightly concluded that for such a small state it would be difficult to survive unless backed by a super power. As such, they heavily invested in USA in banking sector, communications and media/press. By doing so, they are now virtually in control of the US Administration who have no option but to look after Israel’s interests. Now, the Zionist elders see India as a future super power which could serve their interests, at least in the regional context, and are, as such, investing in her. Thus, to meet the prerequisites             for India to become a super power, as mentioned earlier, India and Israel find commonality of interests as far as weakening Pakistan is concerned, including her denuclearization.

Conclusions that can be drawn after analyzing the objectives of different stake holders could be (1) Commonality of interests between USA, India and Israel to reduce Pakistan to a pliant state, by implication a denuclearized Pakistan.      (2)       USA will maintain her presence in Central Asia, even if it means break up of Pakistan for ensuring availability of a corridor through Balochistan (pattern being rehearsed in Libya). Being their strategic partner, India can be given this role in Afghanistan, if presence of a large size US force becomes untenable. (3)       Geo-strategic location as gate-way to Central Asia and emergence as a nuclear Islamic state, have made Pakistan extremely vulnerable to power games of many stake holders,  with USA in the lead.(4)            As we learn from the dismemberment of erstwhile USSR, use of Low Intensity Conflict as an instrument is the best strategy to subdue a nuclear state. Today, Pakistan faces a similar situation and the way she is being bled internally, through effective covert operations conducted by hostile intelligence agencies, she would not even know when the threshold was reached and crossed. As such, if Pakistan is to survive, she must face this onslaught upfront and put own house in order.

Manifestation of Threat / Implementation of Strategies  For pursuance of USA’s objectives in the region, former US President Bush, under the influence of anti-Pakistan lobbies, in 2006 started to adopt a strategy for Pakistan replicating the one followed against the erstwhile USSR in the early nineties, whereby, the country was internally destabilized, made economically unviable and when the situation was ripe, she was asked to hand over all nuclear warheads deployed outside Russian Federation in Central Asia, against payment of negligible amount. For implementation of similar strategy against Pakistan, CIA-RAW-MOSSAD Nexus found commonality of interests with a group of Taliban – instability in Pakistan suited both for different reasons. While for the former, to achieve their strategic objectives in the region, Pakistan had to be destabilized to a level or even balkanized, and de-nuclearized. Instability in Pakistan suited Taliban / militants as, movements such as Talibanization gain strength in the environment of weakened central authority and thrive when there is lack of governance, deprivation, poverty and disillusionment in masses, which provide them with the opportunity of recruitment. Policy makers in USA, India and Israel were of the view that normalcy in Pakistan and Afghanistan could be achieved after achievement of their objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan. Since President Bush, started to play a double game, Pakistan responded in the similar manner.           Resultantly, as the ‘war on terror’ suffered in Iraq due to pursuance of conflicting       objectives by the USA, the history was repeated in our region also.

President Bush’s strategy might have suited Israelis but extremely detrimental for the region, even India, and the world at large as there were no            guarantees that Pakistan would regain stability after achievement of their objectives. As such, President Obama, after taking over, introduced a new strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan. For Pakistan, Obama’s strategy envisages a comparatively stable but economically dependent Pakistan. The long term objectives would be achieved by gaining control over Pakistan’s leadership through incentives and coercion i.e entice Pakistani leadership through incentives and simultaneously coerce them into submission by generating instability through use of a group of Taliban. Insurgency in Balochistan would also be fanned for the purpose, as well as, to keep other options open. A direct confrontation is also contemplated with Pakistan in case of failure of above strategy by shaping environment i.e generating internal destabilization and assisting separatist movement in Balochistan. Possibility of even getting a UN mandate for the purpose cannot be ruled out.

Similar strategy i.e ‘carrot and stick’ would also be applied in Afghanistan,       manifested in the shape of punitive strikes against the non-compromising Taliban leadership and incentives, such as monetary, share in government and deletion of their names from the list of terrorists maintained by the UN, for those willing to cooperate. The compromised ‘Group of Taliban’ would be used, in collaboration with India, for achievement of long term objectives against Pakistan and China, enabling USA to reduce their forces in the region.     

Obama was hopeful of successful of his strategy because of Pakistan’s economic dependence on USA and rampant corruption in political and bureaucratic hierarchy. However he failed to comprehend the possible implications of such a strategy. (1) As the success of Obama Strategy hinges on having a sold out and compromised leadership at the helm of affairs in Pakistan, such a leadership would mean more extremism, ultimately jeopardizing security of the entire region, as well as, the world at large. (2)            To maintain presence of US forces in Central Asia, simmering militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is imperative. Continuous state of instability, or lack of stability, has negative implications for both countries, as well as for the region. (3) Greater ingress by the Americans into Pakistan’s decision making hierarchy would impinge on her sovereignty having negative fallout. (4)     Since USA is aiming at long term presence in the region, peace would remain elusive and the region would continue to remain embroiled. 

Pursuance of Objectives by India  Though India remains central in Pakistan’s threat perception, yet she must remain cognizant of the ways the threat may manifest / is manifesting.  While India has embarked upon modernization of her Armed Forces with developments / inductions which are apparently Pakistan specific, especially with regard to her Army, use of military instrument by India for achievement of her objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan is not likely. She would continue to adopt indirect approach as hitherto in collaboration with her Allies - USA and Israel. The factors which substantiate this argument are (1)            In the obtaining environment, space for traditional application of military instrument is gradually shrinking and non-traditional security threats are taking centre stage.  (2)       Chances of a conventional war between two STABLE nuclear states are remote, biggest threats to any nuclear power is internal instability and unviable economic conditions eg dismemberment of former USSR. (3)   India is progressing at a fast pace, for her the stakes are too high to opt for a conventional war, especially when other viable options are available to undermine Pakistan. (4)       In any case, achievement of India’s perceived politico military aim i.e. “Military and economic degradation of Pakistan”, is neither in the interest of India nor the world at large. (5)            Failure to achieve her war objectives in case Indians opt for a conventional war, would be disastrous and may result into their break up. Why should India adopt such a course? (6)         India can and is achieving her war objectives through Low Intensity Conflict and the way she is bleeding Pakistan in collaboration with her allies, nuclear deterrence is becoming irrelevant. If it continues for an indefinite period, Pakistani leadership would not even know when threshold was reached and crossed - safest option for India. (7)         India is aspiring to become a super power and for power projection, greater investment is required in Air Force and Navy, while maintaining a comparatively smaller, but well equipped, Army. As such, Indian Army leadership is looking for justification to maintain a big Army by asserting that a conventional war is still possible with Pakistan and by exaggerating bogey of Chinese threat. While they look for relevance, Pakistan need not follow the suit. 

From the above it can be concluded that (1)        INTERNAL STABILITY and economic viability for Pakistan assume greater significance. (2)    India is unlikely to venture a conventional war with Pakistan, however, maintaining balance in the conventional plane, without entering into arms race, is imperative for Pakistan to keep the nuclear threshold at required level. (3)  Low Intensity Conflict emanating from Pakistan’s Western borders is extremely detrimental to her security as being effectively used by our adversary to achieve her war objectives. As such, Pakistan’s strategy must aim at neutralizing the above mentioned indirect threat at priority.

Pursuance of Objectives by Israel While remaining in the background, the Israelis would only provide indirect support to her allies - USA and India - through covert operations conducted by MOSSAD.

Response to USA-India Nexus                       Whatever strategies may be conceived by Pakistan’s adversaries (or so-called friends), any direct confrontation between Pakistan and USA-India Nexus would have serious ramifications for both. While in the short term the latter may achieve a major military victory, in the long term it would become their greatest disaster as the depleted Pakistan would be nibbled away by the Taliban. Even any attempt by the USA-India Nexus to denuclearize Pakistan would result into a strong backlash, paving way for the Taliban to make inroads into Pakistani public, an extremely dangerous proposition. If any lessons can be learnt from history, Indians must know the consequences of sharing borders with Taliban led Pakistan-Afghanistan. As such, Pakistani leadership is left with no option but to put own house in order and the USA – India Nexus with no other choice but to ensure Pakistan’s stability. Stakes are too high to consider otherwise. This being the only factor forming the basis for commonality of interest between the stake holders, Pakistan’s policy vis-à-vis USA-India Nexus must focus on (1).     Reduce economic dependence on USA by putting own house in order. (2)    Pakistan must recognize its geo-strategic importance as gate-way to Central Asia and deal with USA, accordingly. The situation can be exploited to Pakistan’s advantage. While USA is seeking Pakistan’s help for implementation of its exit strategy from Afghanistan (though they are likely to retain substantial forces), Pakistan must, in turn, seek guarantees that the future dispensation in Afghanistan is not inimical to Pakistan‘s interests.

Since trust deficit exists between Pakistan and USA due to double games played hitherto by both, it would be prudent to involve other international players or even UN to ensure sincerity of purpose. While as a responsible nation state, Pakistan must fulfill her international obligations by ensuring a halt to cross border actions by the Pakistani Tribals / ‘jehadis’, the US leadership must also reciprocate by allaying Pakistan’s under mentioned concerns  (1)        The USA strategy for the region must aim at seeking peace, and not anarchy, in the region. (Simmering militancy in Afghanistan may provide them with an excuse to maintain their presence in the country, but extremely detrimental for Pakistan). (2)    Though as a long term strategy, USA envisages a role for India in Afghanistan, at no cost such a proposition would be acceptable to Pakistan. As such, the USA must strike a balance in this regard. (While Pakistan must remain relevant to international community in the obtaining scenario, it has to also remain relevant to the Afghan people as an end state). (3)       Anti-Pakistan activities of CIA-RAW-MOSSAD nexus must be curtailed in the region as their actions to undermine Pakistan’s interests would be effectively countered at all cost. (For the purpose, Pakistan must provide sufficient proof).         (4)       Any support (both physical and moral) to dissident elements of Balochistan is unacceptable. Indian and Afghan leadership must be ‘persuaded’ not to involve in such activities. (5) It must be emphasized on USA Administration that the strategy to totally bank on India as a counterweight to China, may ultimately backfire as India has a record of changing loyalties for achievement of their perceived objectives. Even if, the USA Administration is seeking stabilization of the region, as vehemently proclaimed, they must know that India has always been a factor in destabilization, rather than stabilization, of the region. (Exposing India and breaking anti-Pakistan synergy between USA, India and Israel, is the best strategy to counter India’s indirect threat to Pakistan).  (6)            USA’s strategic interests in the region can only be achieved if meaningful strategic partnership is developed with Pakistan and this long term partnership can only be evolved through winning over the Pakistani people with tangible actions, and not by controlling / benefiting few leaders. In this regard, mere utterances or commitments would not suffice. Recognition of Pakistan as a nuclear state, meaningful role for solution of Kashmir dispute, acceptance of Pakistan’s role in any future       dispensation in Afghanistan and substantial economic assistance would go a long way in building required trust between the peoples of the two countries.

A Comment on US Strategy in the Region          In the eighties, the then US Administration spent billions of US $ to oust Soviet forces from Afghanistan and now after spending over 450 billion US $ and suffering heavy loss of life, they have installed Northern Alliance in power who have remained the proxy of Iran-Russia-India for years. What guarantees the USA has that in future Indians would not collaborate with Russia and China to oust any US remnants from Afghanistan, if left, and may be the USA once again requires Taliban support to oust the Northern Alliance from power?  Unfortunately, Pakistan was US Ally in the eighties and now when reverse strategy is being applied, we are again allies on some commonality of interest which the majority of Pakistani people fail to comprehend, and resent. One is, however, perplexed by the naivety of the American public. Is there nobody to ask the leadership about the logic of paying a very heavy price to achieve something and then paying many times the spent cost to return the same. In fact, RAND Corporation has alluded to this concept when they say that every now and then, USA must go to war to boost economy. Same is necessitated because USA’s main industry is Defense Production based and for this industry to run, wars are imperative. As such, as long as this concept is there, necessitated by the US War Industry, their policy makers would continue to create threats and then wage wars to quell these so called threats. Thus, peace would remain elusive in the world unless the Americans diversify their industry.      

Tackling Threat from Taliban                     To correctly understand and deal with the threat posed by Taliban, we need to learn from the history which reveals that, through the centuries, warriors from the North (Afghanistan and beyond) have been invading the fertile lands of the Punjab and further south on one pretext or another, mostly using religion as an instrument, carried out plundering, ruled and ultimately merged with the society. Talibanization is another manifestation of the same phenomenon. Again, by using religion, they are spreading like a wild fire and the people of the region, as always, are becoming hostage to their ideology and would ultimately succumb, unless effective and all encompassing under mentioned counter measures are undertaken at a fast pace. (1)        Talibanization like movements take advantage of vacuum in leadership. Only a dynamic, sincere and bold leadership with vision and capability to deliver can check their onslaught. Due to fear of reprisal or lack of vision, the present political leadership is reluctant to effectively counter the Taliban. If Pakistan is to survive the onslaught from the North and the nation, as always, doomed to slavery under the Taliban, the political leadership must rise above pursuance of self agendas and prepare the nation to face the threat upfront.  (2)       A comprehensive strategy be formulated and implemented to improve literacy rate, achieve internal cohesion, stability and economic viability, the surest ways to counter internal / external threat. (3) Anarchy, disillusionment, poverty, illiteracy, general discontent and lack of governance provide environment for breeding and recruitment for extremist groups like Taliban. As such, to check Talibanization, misgivings of the masses must be removed and major emphasis be laid on education. Assistance by the international community for the purpose and its proper utilization would go a long way in achieving these objectives. (4)            To effectively counter TTP, they must be isolated from the other militant groups, especially Kashmiri Jehadi organizations, through well conceived covert operations, and from the other tribesmen by undertaking massive rebuilding and political measures. (5)         Hitherto, the media has played a very negative role by making heroes out of those bent upon undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty. Instead of painting a true picture and making people aware of the looming threat posed by the Taliban, most of the anchor persons / panelists either refrain from discussing them or try to justify their actions by putting blame on the policies of the government. This trend would, surely, lead to disaster as Talibanization can best be checked through AWARENESS. People must be educated, rather than agitated, about the threat for which electronic media can play an effective role. (6)    All avenues facilitating inroads for Taliban, such as some “Madrassas”, must be effectively checked and controlled. Lukewarm actions and display of indifference in this regard would be extremely detrimental to Pakistan’s security.

(7)       Taliban pose threat not only to Pakistan but also to the region and the world at large, and, as such, the international community must fully back Pakistan in countering the threat. Playing double games in this regard would be extremely counter-productive. (8)         Since Talibanization like movements adopt an indirect approach, military response is normally counter-productive. As such, military operation must only be undertaken against Taliban if absolutely warranted and that also after shaping required environment. Effective covert operations are the best solution, for which our intelligence agencies must be revamped and geared up to face the challenge upfront. If by compulsion, a military operation is required to be undertaken in a particular area, it must be conducted after fulfilling following prerequisites. (a)            The operation should be legitimized by the parliament unequivocally, taking full ownership. (b)      The operation should be out rightly supported by the masses in general, media, political leadership and, in our case, religious clergy also.

Army as a Major Player in Thwarting Internal and External Threats

Army is an institution which has intake from the middle class, lower middle class and the lowest middle class, it picks people from the roads, streets or even slums and irrespective of caste, creed, religion, sect or ethnicity, elevates these individuals from nothing to a level where they have everything - financial independence, status, honour, dignity and all that in one generation. In return, at the individual level, each individual in uniform is expected to perform and the nation at large, which has invested and continues to invest a lot in the Armed Forces, expects results.

Having high expectations, the nation was jolted by the intelligence, operational and security related failures as manifested in 2^nd and 22^nd May incidents, having serious ramifications for the country. As the ensuing developments indicate, the strategy supposedly being followed by the military has apparently back fired and the Armed Forces have failed (at least in perception) in what the media calls ‘performance audit’. And, on top of that, in the obtaining environment, the military leadership decided to take the back seat (for the time being), causing a paralysis in the political leadership and leaving a vacuum for other power centers to fill. Unfortunately, besides undermining each other, these aspirant power centers opted for the easiest way to climb the ladder i.e by undermining the Army. Thus, in the last two months, the  nation witnessed the worst kind of Army bashing, as never before.

While no sane person in Pakistan would oppose the idea of dilution of Army’s authority and status hitherto enjoyed. This dilution, however, should span over a period of time with the other power centers behaving in a manner that the process does not turn into or give impression of a clash of institutions. Such a state would be extremely detrimental to Pakistan’s security as the Army still is very relevant to the security of this country and if this institution is undermined, nothing would stand in the way of those bent upon undermining Pakistan. Thus, the ongoing process to degrade Army must be reversed, perceptions are needed to be changed and conspiracies in this regard are to be effectively responded as such, and not as individual events. The Army, notwithstanding its remarkable performance in Swat and South Waziristan, also needs to undertake certain measures to revive its diminishing image. (1)Improve performance, deliver and shun weaknesses that impinge on her abilities to do so (2) Ensure transparency in accountability for failings, both professional and moral.(3)Ensure smooth dilution of its status as the only center of gravity, but from higher moral grounds.(4) While in the obtaining environment, Pakistan must remain relevant to the international             community, the Army’s actions must be a manifestation of national aspirations. As such, the political leadership must take ownership and prepare public opinion before any military operation is launched against own people, or perceived to be own people, involved in militancy.(5) Perception that Armed Forces have gradually turned into a corporate entity also, must be allayed by taking practical remedial measures.(6) Besides performance on ground, fight on the intellectual plane is imperative to thwart the designs of conspirators, both internal and external, who are mostly using media as an instrument.

Conclusion To meet external threat, a country must be strong internally. An economically unviable, internally destabilized, religiously polarized and ethnically divided nation, led by inapt leadership can not meet the internal and external challenges faced by Pakistan today. We need to put own house in order for which each institution must play its due role, within their respective domains, instead of power games to undermine each other. Stakes are too high to play such games. 

While USA-India Nexus (covertly supported by Israel) may be considering neutralization of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as one of their long term objectives, materialization of Taliban related threat from within would surely provide them with the excuse to get UN mandate for achieving the same. Moreover, for threats, like the one posed by Taliban, nuclear deterrence becomes irrelevant, and, therefore, more dangerous. As such, the Pakistani leadership, while remaining cognizant of and taking effective safeguards against the threats posed by the external forces, must never have any ambiguity about tackling the internal threat first. If we can overcome the threat posed by Talibanization and become internally strong, the external threat would automatically recede with no weakness to be exploited and our nuclear deterrence intact. 

In pursuit of peace as underdogs? (My piece published in THE NEWS dated 22 Sep 2013)

Some call them an ideologically motivated lot, some consider them as a bunch of misguided people working on behest of hostile foreign agencies, then there are others who simply take them as terrorists, while the fact on ground today is that TTP has recently earned the status of a stake holder parallel to the Government of Pakistan.  Not only that, they are now on the driving seat and dictating terms with some of the political parties dancing to their tune and some vying to sleep with them, leaving the military leadership high and dry with nowhere to look for direction, meanwhile the people watch with indifference – spectre of state succumbing under coercion to a non-state militant entity.

Though TTP’s ascent to such enviable position could be attributed to our perpetual failings at government and institutional levels, yet the happenings in the last few months give a clear indication of how the TTP is following a well thought-out strategy to extract maximum from the government which has been forced to take the back seat, react to evolving situations and now seems to be pursuing peace as underdogs.   

It all started with influencing the outcome of May 2013 elections by TTP to ensure that those political parties reached the corridors of power which could easily be ‘persuaded’ through the instrument of coercion or otherwise. By and large, they achieved that objective.

In the next phase, while the people were anticipating a sigh of relief with change of government, TTP unleashed unabated spate of major terrorist incidents during first sixty days of the new government to shatter the will of the political leadership as part of the envisaged plan.

Apparently, the strategy adopted by the TTP paid off, a manifestation of which we saw in buckling down of the PM to threats against execution of the convicted terrorists. The TTP reciprocated by a sudden ending of terrorist acts directed against the civilians and government installations, barring military targets, indicating some sort of covert deal, as a follow up of which APC was held which recommended ‘unconditional talks with the people of FATA’.

Amid such environment of reciprocity, TTP has not only intensified attacks on military targets but have vowed to continue the same. Again, a well thought-out undertaking to create a wedge between the political leadership and military establishment, as they know that latter’s hands would remain tied-up due to government’s resolve not to let any terrorist incident, and response thereof, derail the peace process being pursued through negotiations.  

While no sane person would question the need to achieve peace through dialogue, one may raise questions regarding the efficacy of such an undertaking in environment, whereby, the government has been forced into falling on its knees, to what extent the government can give-in to TTP’s demands and who would guarantee peace even after the TTP takes away major share of the cake on the negotiation table?

Notwithstanding above, as the stage is being set for talks with the TTP, the government can least afford any further miscalculations. They should have known that negotiations with TTP would only yield results if undertaken from a point of strength and since they have already missed the bus, the only way they can redeem is to build consensus, show resolve and develop a clear cut thought process on how to tackle the issue of terrorism, including use of military option, should the envisaged talks with TTP fail. Moreover, the government should not accede to any pre-conditions by TTP or the negotiations would start and end with nothing in the platter for government.

The political leadership also needs to shun the misplaced contention that war with TTP for years has achieved no results. The fact is that we as a nation have never fought any war with TTP, though clean-up operations were conducted here and there by the Army, wherein, it succeeded in evicting them but there were fewer casualties as most of them moved to other areas to regroup later. TTP was by and large perceived to comprise our own people and dealt with accordingly, at times Army paying a very heavy cost in terms of soldiers’ lives. If the political leadership, fully backed by the nation, decides to root-out terrorism through the use of all instruments, including force, environment may not remain so cozy for those operating against Pakistan’s interests.

Linked with above, there is a need to develop a clear understanding of the nature of threat Pakistan faces today. For last so many years, we have remained embroiled in the controversies of good and bad Taliban and, as such, were never clear and still undecided on how to deal with those who directly or indirectly threaten Pakistan’s existence. While we may not challenge the legitimacy of struggle by the Afghan Taliban to oust the foreign forces from their land, we should also not ascribe to the idea that they are our assets or that Afghanistan provides us strategic depth. Pakistan is a nuclear power and its strategic depth lies in internal stability and economic viability. As such, any entity or non-state actor which strives for Pakistan’s instability must be taken as enemy number 1 and promptly taken to task.

The political leadership must also have a clear understanding of the nature of war being waged these days, whereby, it has become a creeping phenomenon with use of militancy as one of its manifestations. It must remain cognizant of the fact the some factions of TTP may be playing in the hands of our adversaries and would endeavour to stall the peace process, objective being to continue to bleed Pakistan. In such environment, the government should not only include military establishment as a stake-holder in the negotiations but also give due weightage to their view-point. It is also imperative because ultimately it is the troops on ground that would mainly face the consequences of any failings on the part of government at the negotiation table. 

Introduction to my individual research paper, the one I had submitted while attending NDC in yrs 2003-2004, peak of Musharraf’s rule:

1.            At its creation on 14 August 1947, Pakistan comprised the territories of Balochistan, the NWFP, Sindh, some parts of Punjab and East Bengal. Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pushtuns and Baluchis represented distinct nationalities or ethnic groups in Pakistan who have had their distinct history, culture, language, traditions, customs and traditional homeland territories, and even ethno-national movements originating prior to the independence. Pakistan, as it emerged with manifest diversity, was a state-nation and not a nation-state. While propounding his well-known Two-Nation Theory, the Quaid-e-Azam was not unaware of the sectarian feuds and ethno-national cleavages among the Muslims of the areas that constituted Pakistan. He mainly aimed at securing a homeland state for the Muslims of the Indian Sub-continent within or outside free India to safeguard them against political and economic domination by the Hindus and proceeded on the assumption that the state would level down ethnic, linguistic and other differences in due course of time. For such a diverse society, it was imperative to have very well developed institutionalized systems, including political, and sincere competent leadership.

2.            The Lahore Resolution formed the basis for creation of Pakistan as a federal state, wherein, the people of its federating units, with diverse ethnicity and culture, could practice their religion with freedom, follow their traditions / culture and, above all, have equal opportunity of economic well-being. Over 56 years of Pakistan’s history, however, presents a different story, marked by excessive centralization / authoritarian rules, wide economic disparity and religious polarization.

3.            Barring few exceptions, the political scene has been dominated by opportunist politicians, unenlightened clergy, ambitious bureaucrats and autocratic military rulers. This has given rise to political, socio-economical and religious polarization in the country. Though, then perceived as a requirement, the Quaid-e Azam, by permitting himself to be elected the President of the Constituent Assembly, while simultaneously holding the office of the Governor General, concentrated both legislative and executive powers, not in one body but in one individual. He unfortunately could not live long to set the system on the right track and, the nation, since then, has witnessed a pattern, whereby, quest for power has remained the name of the game in Pakistan’s polity, with adverse ramifications for the country. The military rules, spread over slightly less than half of Pakistan’s history, did provide temporary relief but left behind greater ills, the greatest being internal disharmony. Failure of the political leadership to deliver and successive military take-overs, thus, set in a climate of political uncertainty and eroded national cohesion, a must for a federal state.

4.            Another emerging major threat to Pakistan’s internal security is the religious polarization, often manifested in the shape of sectarianism and, more recently, as terrorism. To analyze the problem in its true perspective, it is essential to clearly define the purpose of creation of Pakistan. There is also a need to determine whether Pakistan is a nation-state or is it an ideological Islamic state, based on the concept of Islamic nationalism or is there any co-relationship between the two concepts in the context of creation of Pakistan. Historically, Pakistan was created to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslims from Hindu domination. The Quaid never visualized it as a theocratic state and wanted Pakistan to be a modern, progressive Islamic state. It was in the Objectives Resolution of 1949 that Pakistan was given an ideological identity. While, in essence, it provided, a very formidable base to the newly created state, it also provided clergy with the leverage to interpret Islam for their vested interests. Its manifestation was amplified during President Zia-Ul- Haq’s regime, gained impetus during the “Jihad” in Afghanistan and IHK and now Pakistan is faced with a situation where religious extremism and terrorism is not only threatening its internal cohesion but also adversely affecting its image in the comity of nations.               

5.            Pakistan’s challenge of tackling its adverse global image, though initially the result of handling the entire question of links to terrorism and militancy, must eventually depend on how far the country successfully tackles the multi-dimensional  dilemmas  within. A state which is continuously locked in one stream of political disorder after another cannot hope to embark upon long term stability. Likewise, a state which remains in the midst of recurring bouts of uncertainty, cannot expect to oversee economic progress and social restructuring of the kind which is long overdue.

6.            President Musharraf’s three years rule and the present government, functioning under his direct supervision, have taken certain measures to bring the country out of the quagmire and address issues related to internal disharmony and religious extremism, yet a lot is required to be done in this regard.

Extracts from the remaining paper:-

1.         Military Rules.           Pakistan has remained plagued by political uncertainty, mainly caused by intermittent take-overs by the Army. Army’s rule is also looked upon with apprehension by the three smaller provinces. It has always been construed by them as rule by the Punjabis, and resented. This perception alone has adversely affected national cohesion. Some of the other major adverse ramifications include retarding the growth of democracy, weakening of the political system, causing constitutional problems and hindering the development of the institutions. To illustrate, main highlights of different military regimes are given below in a very brief form:-

a.            Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s Rule

                          (1)          Abrogated 1956 Constitution.

  (2)          Promulgated the 1962 Constitution, proclaiming Presidential form of government. This was not acceptable to the masses in general who also resented the Basic Democracy System introduced by him to perpetuate his rule.

   (3)          Era witnessed tremendous economic growth and industrialization, yet unequal distribution of wealth ultimately brought people on to the streets. He eventually abdicated.

    b.        General Yahya’s Martial Law.    Held free and fair elections, however, failed to ensure transfer of power to the political leadership. Resultantly, the country was dismembered and erstwhile East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971.

    c.        General Zia’s Regime

(1)          General Zia’s rule is characterized by the legacy of the dictatorial policies when floggings of political foes and critics blatantly remained the crudest enforcement tool in the hands of military dominated state.

(2)          Overthrow of Bhutto, his hanging and ruthless suppression of Movement for Restoration of Democracy completely alienated the people of Sindh.

(3)          Though his leadership contributed in forcing the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan, yet the nation is still facing the aftermath of his policies to woo the clergy. ‘Kalashnikov Culture’ and ‘Jehadi Culture’, emanated during his tenure and still haunt the Pakistani society.             

   d.      President Musharraf’s Rule.       Though President General Musharraf’s rule has    many achievements to its credit, yet tragically, Pakistan’s politics remain confronted with an almost dead end, and the hope of a young democracy maturing with time and experience remains an  uncertain prospect.

Waning hope for change

Unprecedented turn-over in the May 2013 elections, emergence of PML (N) as the largest party, Mian Nawaz Sharif’s decisions to respect PTI’s mandate in KPK, nomination of Dr Abdul Malik, a nationalist, as CM Balochistan and smooth formation of the governments at the centre and the provinces were welcomed by the masses in general as a good omen for change.

After less than four weeks of incumbent government, the euphoria has faded and hopes for the envisaged change are waning away. Though at this stage it is too early to comment on government’s performance, one may analyse its actions / decisions from the perspective of the direction in which it is likely to proceed. That be the gauge, things do not auger well as government has already discredited itself because of certain decisions / actions, or lack thereof, and unless correction course is applied, things are likely to get worse, turning into total failure.

To start with, there are big question marks on the conduct of elections, especially in Punjab, and, as such, legitimacy of the incumbent government. Despite assurances that government would look into the charges of massive rigging, no follow-up action has been taken.

In an environment where other provinces have certain reservations about Punjab, one fails to comprehend the logic behind taking more than 80% cabinet ministers from this province, especially when most of the key appointments including PM, NA speaker, COAS and CJ (though he holds Balochistan domicile) are also from Punjab.   

Though the government had short time and little fiscal space, yet it could have done better while preparing the budget. Instead of milking the wealthy and providing relief to the poor, government chose to rely on indirect taxation, directly affecting all and sundry, irrespective of their income. The budget is rightly being termed as ‘anti-poor, anti-people’.

Contrary to expectations, there has been upsurge in terrorist related activities with the government demonstrating total lack of will and ability to deal with the situation. The Interior Minister, as if still in opposition, seems to be more interested in undermining the agencies, rather than taking responsibility and condemning those who own the terrorist acts.

Controversial appointments; (1) Appointment of Dr Musadik Malik as  Special Assistant to PM on power and energy (as per information available on internet, he is basically a pharmacist specializing in treatment of erectile dysfunction) (2) Appointment of Najam Sethi as acting chairman of PCB, prompting people to wonder whether his appointment is a reward for the role he played, or failed to play, in the outcome of elections in Punjab, fraught with rigging charges at massive scale (3) Appointment of Captain (Retired) Shujaat Azeem as Advisor to PM on Aviation Affairs, a clear cut case of conflict of interest as he is also CEO of Royal Airport Service, which provides ground handling facility to airlines (unless resigned recently).

Relief in load shedding still remains an illusion.

Circular debt; Logically, the government should have first enquired into charges of bloated operational expenses, over invoicing and kickbacks, scrutinized contracts, carried out audit and then settled the circular debt, especially payment to the IPPs, after necessary bargaining. Instead, it has decided to clear Rs 326 billion of circular debt by 30 June 2013, a decision which is raising many doubts, especially when Mian Mansha, PM’s close friend and owner of a number of IPPs, is one of the members of task force which has recommended this course. Isn’t it a case of conflict of interest? Similarly, the lawyer who has been representing IPPs in their case vs the government has been appointed Attorney General of Pakistan. Seems the government, as well as the opposition, very conveniently, chose to pay no heed to the news item published in THE NEWS dated 14^th June 2013 under heading ‘Auditor General finds Rs 290 billion scam of oil companies’.

Motor vehicles amnesty scheme; Notwithstanding contradictory verdicts by IHC and LHC on legality of this scheme, as per FBR statement 50,901 non-duty paid vehicles have been legalized, generating record revenue of Rs15.837 billion (THE NEWS dated 20^th June 2013). Taking this figure as correct, the average collection per vehicle comes to slightly over Rs 300000/-. With the number of luxury cars that we see on roads after the introduction of this scheme, the figure seems peanuts and needs enquiring into. The government, however, is mum over the issue.

Criminal silence of opposition on dubious payment of circular debt and failure of the government to enquire into details of the motor vehicle amnesty scheme, indicates some sort of understanding between the government and opposition, Charter of Democracy turning into Charter of Mutual Corruption with Impunity.

In this backdrop, Musharraf’s trial has suddenly taken a centre stage, leaving people guessing about the timings, motive and the reason as to why he being tried for 3 November 2007 act but not for toppling Mian Nawaz Sharif’s previous government on 12 October 1999.

While commencement of Musharraf’s trial proceedings has surely caused public’s distraction from certain major issues, the PM is adamant that initiation of proceedings to try Musharraf is in compliance with the SC’s decision, which is factually incorrect. Firstly, invoking Article 6 of the constitution is government’s prerogative and the SC cannot direct the government in this regard and, secondly, if the PM is so concerned about implementing SC verdicts, he should first take action on SC’s decision on Asghar Khan Case, which is binding on him. Similarly, SC is also showing partiality by asking the government to intimate its intent to try Musharraf as per Article 6, where it has no jurisdiction, while ignoring the Asghar Khan Case in which action on its decision is pending.

As such, neither the PM nor Judiciary should be selective in dispensation of justice. If Musharraf is to be tried under Article 6, the PM cannot just order his trial for act committed on 3 November 2007. It is also incumbent upon him to initiate proceedings against Musharraf under Article 6 for his act of 12 October 1999 and ensure that all those who abetted his action are brought to justice, in line with the 18^th Amendment.

No matter what the outcome of Musharraf’s ongoing trials, the facts are; (1) He committed unconstitutional acts on 12 October 1999 and 3 November 2007, in which he was abetted by many (2) Baitullah Mehsud group was responsible for BB’s murder (3) Nawab Akbar Bugti committed suicide by blowing the cave he was in, taking down some Army officers with him (4) It is also a fact that Musharraf is not being tried under Article 6 for toppling Mian Nawaz Sharif’s previous government on 12 October 1999 because the incumbent CJ was part of the bench which indemnified Musharraf’s act, took oath on PCO, was ultimately benefitted by doing so by his elevation to CJ’s appointment and, thus, is an abetter.

I may also clarify that contrary to general perception that Musharraf served US interests and that the latter is trying to save him, the fact is that the top US leaders are covertly, and the mid-tier leadership / think tank are overtly, blaming Musharraf / Pakistan Army / ISI for their failure in Afghanistan. As such, in their perspective, Musharraf must be punished and Pakistan Army / ISI must be undermined, a manifestation of which we are seeing these days, some of us behaving more loyal than the king in this regard. 

In nut shell, justice must be seen as done in Musharraf’s cases, as failing to do so would have grave ramifications. Moreover, using Musharraf’s cases for causing distraction from other issues or settling scores or undermining Army as an institution would be a folly on the part of the government, as the stakes are too high.

People have great expectations from Mian Nawaz Sharif. Accordingly, he must set his priorities right and concentrate on alleviating the misgivings of the masses, rather than losing direction by succumbing to the hawks in his cabinet, parties with vested interests and Judiciary. 

After elections 2013, time to move on (My article published in THE NEWS dated 17 May 2013)

 

ISLAMABAD: Notwithstanding rigging charges and sit-ins here and there, Elections 2013 are over and the Pakistani nation has all the reasons to rejoice on two counts; firstly, the people defied threats by terrorists and came out in large numbers to vote and, secondly, the results indicate establishment of a stable government in the centre, defying most of the analysts who were of the opinion that there would be a split mandate, hung parliament and weak government, vulnerable to intrigues by different stake-holders.

Though leaders of the main political parties have accepted the mandate and are all set to form governments in the centre and provinces, yet barring PML(N) most are alleging rigging in elections and making demands which might sabotage the entire electoral process. Imran Khan has already demanded verification of thumb impressions in certain NA seats by Nadra. If carried out, given our political culture, discrepancies would be there and results may lead to a chain reaction, most demanding verification of thumb impressions in their respective constituencies. Such an undertaking would surely undermine the entire electoral process, letting down the masses and diminishing their hope in democracy.

Can we afford time to go through the ordeal and derail the process, especially when regional and international environment favour a stable Pakistan, is a question which our political leadership must ponder, especially when no substantial change in the outcome of elections is anticipated, if we survive the undertaking.

We all know that ISAF / US forces are to complete draw-down of their forces from Afghanistan by end year 2014 and most of their weapons / equipment worth billions of US dollars would have to pass through Pakistan. For its smooth passage, two pre-requisites must be ensured; Firstly, a stable Pakistan and, secondly, governments in the centre and KPK by political parties who could interact with Taliban for causing least interruptions in the move back. As such, for the international community, especially USA, the out-come of elections is a dream come true with NS in the centre and PTI in KPK, both for whom Taliban have soft corner. In this backdrop, we are likely to see substantial international support to keep Pakistan stable, at least till end year 2014, and a patient hearing by USA to demands, such as, not to use drones unilaterally.

Thus, despite the fact that in the last five years the PPP-lead coalition has played havoc with the country and put economy in shambles, NS government is likely to get a head-start due to regional environment and international support, thereof. Though he may have to take certain hard decisions to put economy back on track and, on the political front, deal with Zardari, playing the ‘Sindh Card’ and majority in Senate to retain presidency, yet support of international players would be readily forthcoming.

With the establishment, NS will have to tread a cautious line, absorb what all is happening on Western Front and then take decisions as head of executive and not with a mind-set of an opposition leader. He must bear in mind that Pakistanis have paid a very heavy price in pursuit of a strategy, whereby, the foreign forces are now withdrawing from Afghanistan, with India nowhere to be seen in the end-game. He must also remain cognizant of the fact that 2nd tier US leadership and think tank are openly blaming Pakistan Army / ISI for their defeat in Afghanistan. Such a stance has repercussions for Pakistan, though there is not much they can do at a stage when they require Pakistan Army’s support to ensure smooth draw down of their forces.

As for PPP, they lost miserably not because the Taliban did not let them campaign but because of their poor performance. They failed to deliver and suffered, as simple as that. It’s time for them to carry out appraisal of their performance in last five years, take corrective measures and perform in Sindh. The analogy that ‘elections are won by money and not performance’ has backfired now and will in future. If they must re-enter Pakistan’s political arena, performance would be the key.

Though PTI could have secured a few more seats, in my view, the position it has attained is a blessing in disguise. Firstly, some of Imran Khan’s policies are unrealistic and during campaigning, he had made promises as per public perceptions which he could not possibly fulfil at the central government level e.g withdrawal of forces from FATA and Baluchistan, shooting down of drones, education policy, election of SHO by villagers, etc. He had declared that he would not ally with anybody to form the government but already we see that he is making a coalition government, conceding important ministries, such as education and finance, to JI. So, in fact, IK has been saved from a lot of embarrassment getting fewer seats than his expectations. Now he will get time to mature his policies in KPK and may be next few years he is in a position to form government in the centre.

Thus, Elections 2013 is best news for everybody, barring elements who want to destabilize the country and do not see democracy taking its roots. The regional and international environments also present a unique opportunity to our political leadership to take the country out of the present predicament. It’s time for them to display political maturity and grasp the given opportunities, instead of wasting further time in sit-ins / elections related issues, which must be left for the ECP to deal. It’s time to move on.

Can Pakistan rise to face the politics of terror? (My piece published in THE NEWS dated 4th May 2013)

The nation these days is witnessing worst kind of terrorism in Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan, with the former ruling coalition partners comprising PPPP, MQM and ANP facing the brunt. Why this surge in terror related activities and to achieve what objective, is the question agitating everybody’s mind.

Some are of the view that TTP denounces democracy and the spate of terrorist attacks is aimed at derailing the democratic process, some feel that they are only targeting liberal parties to benefit the right and far right parties while there are people who smell a conspiracy to postpone the elections.

To me the bigger question is; Can our political leadership rise above their petty agendas to save Pakistan or are we, as a nation, destined to oblivion?

Before we seek to find an answer to above questions, I may reflect on 2008 elections during which militancy was also used as an instrument to influence the outcome, especially in Punjab. It started with Benazir’s assassination and, thereafter, we witnessed an unprecedented surge in terrorist related activities in Punjab and such environments were created that people yearned for peace.

PML-N sold the theme and, rightly or wrongly, convinced the masses that with change of the government, there would be an end to terrorism. Resultantly, they won the elections in Punjab. Thus, firstly, surge in terrorism before elections is not a new phenomenon and, secondly, this surge has a clear-cut objective.

Notwithstanding the fact that TTP takes responsibility for most of the acts of terrorism, the militants can be divided into two main groups - ideologically motivated, mostly funded by our friends in the Middle East and the other group sponsored by CIA (with RAW as their collaborators).

However, irrespective of their leanings, both these groups are pursuing agendas detrimental to Pakistan’s interests - while the ideologically motivated are trying to enforce their brand of Islam, denounce democratic dispensation and carry a soft corner for the far right, at least for the time being, the CIA-RAW sponsored militants are being used to breed instability in Pakistan in pursuit of differing objectives.

Unfortunately, these days both the groups are active in spreading terrorism for different reasons and hence the surge. I will start with the ideological group.

Historically, Saudi Arabia has been funding religious parties and certain militant organisations to enhance their sphere of influence in Pakistan. These religious parties, however, always disappointed them due to their dismal performance in elections. The Saudis got a major breakthrough when, during exile, the Sharifs stayed as their guests and developed a very intimate understanding. They now consider the Sharif family as ‘friends’ who could serve their interests in Pakistan. Zardari’s overt tilt towards Iran has further strengthened this bondage.

Thus, with perceived victory for Sharifs, the ideological group is unlikely to sabotage the elections, though they may facilitate the outcome by discouraging the liberal parties to campaign.

The other external stakeholder is the USA which is supposed to complete draw-down of forces from Afghanistan by the end 2014. Being a critical period, their preference would be the re-instatement of the PPPP-MQM-ANP coalition (the liberal group) which has served their interests well in the last five years. A technocrats’ government with ingress of their sponsored individuals would also be acceptable but, surely, they would not want a dispensation which creates hurdles in execution of their perceived plans for the region. As such, with PPPP trailing behind, postponement of elections and installation of a technocrats’ government with Zardari continuing as President would be their first preference. Failing which, in a post-election scenario, a weak, but friendly, coalition government would be acceptable. Even if that is also not possible, their effort would be to derail the process of smooth transition of power so that a favourable technocrats’ government could be installed.

Thus, the CIA-sponsored terrorists would aim at creating environment whereby, either the elections are postponed or if held, there is no smooth transition of power.

Realising the gravity of the situation, the COAS and the CJ have categorically stated that under no circumstances elections would be postponed. Though PPPP, ANP and MQM leadership still retain the option to sabotage the electoral process by boycotting the elections, it would be a wrong move as not much is lost if they correctly access the future political scenario. This time, ANP is likely to get sympathy vote and with rural Sindh’s vote bank divided, MQM may emerge as a leading party in Sindh. Other than these parties, Tahirul Qadri types may also make attempts to sabotage the elections by staging sit-ins. Such elements must be ruthlessly checked, onus of which lies on the CJ/caretaker government.

Pakistan’s ordeal would not be over even after the elections, as three distinct groups are likely to emerge in the political arena – PML-N and coalition partners, PPPP and coalition partner and PTI. Unfortunately, none of these distinct groups would be in a position to form the government independently. Imran Khan has already announced that he would not join any other party to form the government, leaving the other two groups to join hands, a rare possibility. As such, smooth transition of power may become exceedingly difficult, a situation which can be exploited by parties with vested interests to pursue their agendas.

In the obtaining scenario, unless sense prevails and the political leadership displays the kind of maturity required to take the country out of present quagmire, peace and stability in Pakistan would remain a farfetched dream, the terrorists would keep on flourishing with substantial inflows of money from their foreign sponsors and the establishment would continue to create enough space for itself to call the shots.

Can our political leadership deliver in such testing times, shun their individual agendas and take the country out of brewing turmoil, because if they fail, we as a nation are destined to oblivion.