|
By: Wazir Khan Marri,
Benazir Bhutto why did she risked returning back?
For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
The administration was relying on Benazir Bhutto's participation in elections to legitimate Musharraf's continued power as president.
Bhutto's political comeback was a long time in the works -- and uncertain for much of the past 18 months. In mid-2006, Bhutto and Musharraf started communicating through intermediaries about how they might cooperate. Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher was often an intermediary, traveling to Islamabad to speak with Musharraf and to Bhutto's homes in London and Dubai to meet with her.
Rice, who became engaged in the final stages of brokering a deal, meets Bhutto in Dubai and pledged that Washington would see the process through. A week later, on Oct. 18, Bhutto returned.
Ten weeks later, she was dead. Who killed her? We might never know?
“War on terror in Pakistan means” cat left to guard the meat
Even after Pakistan joined the global war on terrorism though very reluctantly, there was always doubt whether these agencies fully severed their connections to militant elements.
There could be almost as many motives as well, in a country with a murky nexus of intelligence agencies, dozens of Islamic militant outfits, hundreds of tribal clans and an army whose reach extends to every corner of Pakistani life.
"It is common knowledge that some of the intelligence agencies have maintained links with militant and sectarian groups, dating back to the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan,"
The leaders of Pakistan's three intelligence agencies are all current or retired members of the military, which has run the country for more than half its existence -- and has its own chequered history with the Bhutto family.
Mrs. Benazir Bhutto demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against the army chief, a damning attempt at destroying a professional army from within.
"A large number of ISI agents who are responsible for helping the Taliban and al Qaeda should be thrown in jail or killed. BB has recommended gradual sanctions on Pakistan similar to those imposed on Iran, e.g. slapping travel bans on Pakistani military officers and seizing Pakistani military assets abroad. If the army refuses to hold free and fair elections and does not hand over the rule to civilians’ administration.
She publically told many times I have been prime minister twice, and had not been able to accomplish very much because I did not have power over the most important institutions in Pakistan -- the ISI [intelligence agency], the military and the nuclear establishment.
Statements made by Bhutto which were critical of the role played by Dr AQ Khan in nuclear proliferation were also hyped by government media managers.
"Without controlling those, she couldn't pursue peace with India, go after extremists or transfer funds from the military to social programs.
Most Pakistanis are by instinct inclined to believe that the “agencies” did it. All political assassinations in Pakistan remain inexplicable since the truth about them has never been investigated or investigated but not made public.
There is no inconsistency between what Ms Bhutto said on October 18 after the assassination attempt on her life about remnants of the Zia regime gunning for her and what she said in Rawalpindi on December 27 about terrorists and extremists targeting her minutes before one of them succeeded in eliminating her.
Govt incompetence and possible involvement
Mr. Musharraf has scuttled the “conspiracy” to throw him out of power, in which at least the U.S. media played a crucial role.
Asad Durrani, a retired General, headed the notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) bureau during the 1990 elections when, he admits, ISI spent millions of dollars to prevent Bhutto being voted back into power. Now he believes the Army should step back.
Pakistani army never liked and trusted BB and Musharraf resisting a deal to drop corruption charges so she could return to Pakistan. He made no secret of his feelings.
In his 2006 autobiography "In the Line of Fire," Musharraf wrote that Bhutto had "twice been tried, been tested and failed, [and] had to be denied a third chance." She had not allowed her own party to become democratic, he alleged. "Benazir became her party's 'chairperson for life,' in the tradition of the old African dictators!"
Musharraf still detested her, and he came around reluctantly as he began to recognize this fall that his position was untenable. The Pakistani leader had two choices: Bhutto or former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf had overthrown in a 1999 military coup. "Musharraf took what he thought was the lesser of two evils,"
In the midst of all this, the government is foolishly trying to distort the facts surrounding Bhutto's killing by trying to shift the blame from its own incompetence and possible involvement.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that, since mid-November, some hardliner and extremist elements within the Musharraf camp have been saying Bhutto was pursuing an "American agenda" to "topple Pakistan's army" and get rid of the nukes - a conspiracy theory.
Two weeks before her death, Benazir Bhutto had distanced herself from a US-brokered power-sharing deal between her and President Pervez Musharraf.
According to veteran Post journalist Robert D. Novak, Ms Bhutto had sent a written complaint to a senior State Department official saying that her camp no longer viewed the backstage US move as a good-faith effort towards democracy.
Instead, it was seen as an attempt to preserve the politically endangered Mr. Musharraf as US President George W. Bush’s man in Islamabad, she wrote.
The report said that the unsuccessful Oct. 18 attempt on Ms Bhutto’s life followed Islamabad’s rejection of her requested security protection when she returned from eight years in exile. The Pakistani government vetoed FBI assistance in investigating the attack.
On Oct 26, Ms Bhutto sent an email to Mark Siegel, her friend and Washington spokesman, to be made public only in the event of her death.
“I would hold Musharraf responsible,” Ms Bhutto said in the message. “I have been made to feel insecure by his minions.” Mark Siegel neither her shooting on Dec 27 nor the attempt on her life Oct 18 bore the trademarks of Al Qaeda,” the report said, urging the US administration to send an FBI to probe the murder. Which Pakistani Govt rejected.
In an astonishing press conference, more than 24 hours after the killing, a government spokesman categorically claimed that Benazir Bhutto did not receive any bullets in her head or neck.
Govts stupid version, it was claimed, that in fact a result of a head injury sustained when she tried to lower herself into her jeep. Where as Mrs. Bhutto died as a result of a gunshot wound to the neck, combined with shrapnel from the explosion.
However, contradictions in official statements, as well as the behavior of police who hosed down the streets in Rawalpindi just an hour after Mrs. Bhutto was assassinated. Why was the arena washed and cleaned up rather than secured for any evidence gathering by the investigation team?
The state’s concern is to prevent Benazir from becoming a symbol of resistance against an oppressive army. If Benazir is remembered as the hero, Musharraf will likely be cast as the villain.
Military regime wants to divide and completely break of ppp the only strong party of the country to control and prolong their rule.
Many question no answers!!!
No explanation has been made available about why the letters written by Benazir Bhutto herself and her security chief were not given due attention and why no probe had taken place about them? Why were the jammers and security cordons asked for repeatedly by the PPP leader and her security personnel not provided? How was it possible for the man who fired from point blank range to reach so close? Why did his presence remain unnoticed? Why had the regime’s spokesman continued insisting that the death was not caused by a sniper’s bullet/s? Why was a post-mortem not carried out and permission for doing it sought from her spouse when it was not a legal requirement? Why no post-mortem was carried out on the others who were killed around the PPP leader’s vehicle?
Strange enough, it is Rawalpindi that has witnessed the end of three popular political leaders of Pakistan. The establishment could not stomach the popularity they enjoyed among the people. Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, despite their human failings, had wide popular support at home and were recognised and acknowledged as national leaders of Pakistan in the region as well as at the international level. The bureaucratic machinations could not erase their clout with the common people while they were considered to be an impediment in the fulfillment of the establishment’s craze for total political control.
Musharraf’s interior ministry had released a transcript of a purported telephone conversation between Mehsud and a militant cleric in which, though Bhutto’s name was not mentioned, he appeared to congratulate him on the death, saying: “Fantastic job. Very brave boys, the ones who killed her.”
“The transcript was met with skepticism. Critics pointed out Mehsud had previously been working with the Pakistan military and ISI, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars per month and that if the country’s intelligence services could tape his conversations, they should be able to capture him.
US concerns and cocktail
Bhutto's assassination leaves Pakistan's future -- and Musharraf's -- in doubt, some experts said. "U.S. policy is in tatters
Since her return to Pakistan on Oct 18, Ms Bhutto sent several urgent pleas to the State Department, seeking US assistance for better protection.
The US reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that President Musharraf would not let anything happen to her.
For US Musharraf made sense because he had control over the three institutions that is ISI [intelligence agency], the military and the nuclear establishment that she never did.
The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," This was the one way to accomplish something and create a moderate center.
As part of the deal, Bhutto's party agreed not to protest against Musharraf's reelection in September to his third term. In return, Musharraf agreed to lift the corruption charges against Bhutto.
The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27, 2007 has created concerns for US intelligence officials, who see US policy toward Pakistan as being held hostage by President Pervez Musharraf and factions of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Three former US intelligence officials have told that not only is the gunman dead, he was likely the actual target of the suicide bomber. "He was killed, probably not knowing that the suicide bomber was there," said this source. "We don't know for sure if the two men arrived together. We do know that the assassin died in the explosion, and was probably meant to."
Several other US intelligence officials concur that the bomber was likely "inserted" to "clean up" evidence of the shooting, including eliminating the gunman.
“What options does US administration have? Under Musharraf, al Qaeda has grown. The tribal sheiks have also grown. It is a mess and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.”
Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, close ties to both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and funding from Saudi Arabia make Musharraf and his military dictatorship formidable.
The US role and ISI fears
Over a period of many decades, the US has destabilised one country or the other in furtherance of its own objectives. Now it appears it is Pakistan’s turn. According to reports, the US is considering giving its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) powers to launch covert actions in the hunt for alleged Al-Qaeda elements in the tribal areas of the country. The Pakistan military has reacted angrily to reports that US President George Bush is considering covert military operations in the country’s volatile tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
The New York Times has reported that under a proposal being discussed in Washington, CIA operatives based in Afghanistan would be able to call on direct military support for counter-terrorism operations in neighbouring Pakistan. Citing senior administration officials, the newspaper said the proposal called for giving CIA operatives powers to strike targets in Pakistan.
The new plan was reportedly discussed by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and national security aides in the wake of the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
When Pakistan was named by the US as its ally, some people got carried away, considering it a great honour.
But it should be remembered that a country like Pakistan can never by the ally of a superpower. It can at best be a vassal, an agent; it can never be an ally, because being an ally denotes some semblance of equality between the parties.
Opinion makers have been telling President Musharraf since a long time not to go too far in support of the US in its so-called war on terror, but to no avail. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Next step I believe is disintegration of Pakistan as many analysts suggested long time before.
ISI saw things as this is not about Musharraf anymore. This is about clipping the wings of a strong Pakistani military, denying space for China in Pakistan, squashing the ISI, stirring ethnic unrest, and neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear program. The first shot in this plan was fired in Pakistan’s Balochistan province in 2004. The last bullet will be toppling Musharraf, sidelining the military and installing a pliant government in Islamabad. Musharraf shares the blame for letting things come this far. But he is also punching holes in Washington’s game plan.
They had decided to take a page from the book of successful ‘color revolutions’ where western governments covertly used money, private media, student unions, NGOs and international pressure to stage coups, basically overthrowing individuals not fitting well with Washington’s agenda.
This recipe proved its success in former Yugoslavia, and more recently in Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Pakistan’s refusal to play ball with the United States on Afghanistan, China, and Dr. A.Q. Khan irks US silently they are looking for rose reevaluation trying to keep the country intact. Money pumped into the country to pay for organized dissent.
Willing activists assigned to mobilize and organize accessible social groups.
A campaign waged on Internet where tens of mailing lists and ‘news agencies’ have sprung up from nowhere, all demonizing Musharraf and the Pakistani military.
European- and American-funded Pakistani NGOs taking a temporary leave from their real jobs to work as a makeshift anti-government mobilization machine.
U.S. government agencies directly funding some private Pakistani television networks; the channels go into an open anti-government mode, cashing in on some manufactured and other real public grievances regarding inflation and corruption.
Some of Musharraf’s shady and corrupt political allies feed this campaign, hoping to stay in power under a weakened president.
Currently, students are being recruited and organized into a street movement,
Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in Islamabad.
The Americans are very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands. They have been kicked out of Uzbekistan last year, where they were maintaining bases. They are in trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran continues to be a mess for them and Russia and China are not making it any easier. Pakistan must be ‘secured’ at all costs.
U.S. would have accepted this if Musharraf behaved like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. But on many strategic issues, especially on nuclear issues, he has shown them defiance which they only expected from Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, which did not amuse Washington a bit.
Pakistan’s fears
The Pakistani military junta clearly saw the writing on the wall that USA in the final reckoning is a Christian power having the ultimate aim of denuclearising Pakistan and reducing the Islamic world to the status of a petty subsidiary menial vassal. Right or wrong, this was the Pakistani military junta's assessment about USA.
Already US General Abizaid has confirmed US intentions when he said that the war with Islamists may start a Third World War. The Third World War had however already started since 9/11.
Pashtun factor
When Pakistan at least outwardly sided with the USA in the aftermath of 9/11, it alienated a sizeable proportion of its Pashtun population. The Pashtuns are politically speaking the most significant ethnic group in Pakistan after the Punjabis. They have a sizeable representation in the armed forces and civil service ranging from 30 to 35 %. Politically they are the junior partners of Punjabis.
During the Soviet Afghan war one very significant political change took place in Afghanistan. The Pakistani intelligence agencies were successful in producing a divide between the official Mohammadzai lines of confrontation with Pakistan among the Pashtuns of Afghanistan. Pashtuns of Afghanistan thus started viewing Pakistan in a more positive light.
Moreover the Pashtun leadership was transformed and changed hands from a previously more dynastic one to a more ideological one with previously unknown characters in the lead rather than the traditional Durrani Pashtuns in the lead. Linguistically also the more dominant Pashtun leaders were now the chaste Pashto speaking Islamists rather than the traditional sophisticated and refined Persianised Durrani Pashtuns, who talked about Pashtunistan but could hardly speak Pashto.
Politically they are the junior partners of Punjabis. In various insurgencies in Pakistan starting from the Baloch insurgency of 1948 till the Sindh Insurgency of 1983 and the Karachi Insurgency of 1986-96 the Pashtuns have been solid partners of the Punjabis.
When Pakistani military junta sided with USA in 2001 and launched the Waziristan operation in 2003-6 , it lost all the credibility in Pashtuns that it had earned in 54 years since Pakistan was created in 1947. The Punjabi dominated army was visibly upset. Without Pashtuns Pakistan's integrity was in danger.
With Balochistan already in revolt and the Sindhis feeling deprived the Punjabis could not afford to lose the Pashtuns. Pakistani army believes letting army fight with Pashtuns the US is trying to break Pakistan.
Islamic extremist and US foreign policy
From 19th century, when trends ancestral to modern Muslim fundamentalism first arose first British and then U.S. imperialism saw Islamist extremism as a helpful force for suppressing secular nationalism and Marxism.
British (and subsequently U.S.) imperialism had no problem in allying itself with the house of Saud in Arabia with its fanatical Wahhabist bulwark. In the Saudi-Wahhabist takeover of Arabia, tens of thousands of non-Wahhabi Muslims were massacred. This may have bothered a few British imperial paladins, but not many, for they had spotted the oil.
The British allied with other retrograde forces in the Middle East, such as the Nazi-praising Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was put into his position by the British and with whom they collaborated in spite of his having supported Hitler fascism during the war. And they had no problems with the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood of Hassan Al-Banna in Egypt and beyond, for the Brotherhood served as a force to attack and suppress communism and Nasserite nationalism.
Another interesting subject we see how major Western banking interests, as well as wealthy landowning and merchant sectors in the Muslim countries, found in Islamist extremism a useful ideological and organizing tool to promote their own interests.
In Iran, British and U.S. imperialism helped finance Shiite fundamentalism, which played a role in the overthrow of the secular liberal Prime Minister Mossadegh and the restoration of the Shah in 1953.
In 1979, Jimmy Carters national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, conceived of the idea of fomenting an Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan with the goal of drawing the USSR into an unwinnable conflict.
This was a highly? Successful Piece of dirty work, involving Pakistani intelligence, Saudi and U.S. money, and a collection of some of the most brutal thugs gathered under the banner of religion since the Christian Crusades. That this led to phenomena like the Taliban and al-Qaida did not originally bother imperialist leaders, as somebody else’s ox was being gored. Brzezinski was bragging about the success of this bloodthirsty strategy practically until the moment when the airliners hit the twin towers.
That Osama bin Laden and some others have turned against their original imperialist masters should not confuse us as to the game that is really being played. The mere existence of groups like al-Qaida is of inestimable ideological value to Bush and Blair.
Today imperialism finds itself in something of a dilemma: Its credibility requires that it promote democracy and free elections rhetorically. However, having helped to crush the secular left in places like Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, while busy with their orange revolutions in post soviet states it faces the prospect of more deeply entrenched, right-wing Islamist governments there.
President Bush has just repeated his foggy-brained assertion that somehow al-Qaida and? Communism are the same Western governments had a significant hand in creating and supporting Islamist extremism, precisely to repress communism and other secular left-wing movements like Baloch struggle and many other around the world throughout 19th century and beyond.
Radical Islamic militant aim is to have a safe haven in Pakistan from where they can carry out an agenda of radical Islam.
"Their action plan is to eliminate leaders and strike at targets which could deeply hurt state institutions. "Their long-term plan is to destabilise Pakistan, as that would give them space to move around."
Her repeated pronouncements that she was going to eliminate Islamic extremism from the country convinced the fanatics that she had to be physically removed.
Another worrying thing is how American officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Mrs. Benazir Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also knew that their actions are inviting potential assassins to target Mrs. Bhutto.
BB started to say that the biggest threat to Pakistan lay in religious extremism and terrorism, a clear allusion to the Al Qaeda network that was trying to lay down roots in Pakistan’s tribal areas as part of its global strategy after Iraq to reclaim Afghanistan and make Pakistan a base area for Islamic revolution.
Shortly before she returned to Pakistan, Daily Times reported a statement by Baitullah Mehsud, an Al Qaeda-Taliban warlord based in Waziristan, saying that he had trained “hundreds of suicide bombers” and was determined to kill Benazir Bhutto because she was an American agent.
Hours before her death, Benazir Bhutto met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was visiting Islamabad.
Benazir Bhutto: "I explained to President Karzai that the Pakistan People's Party hoped to win the elections and form the government and we look forward to working very closely with Afghanistan.
You know there are two types of madrassas. One is the traditional madrassas, which teaches Islamic teachings and which are very good and which are very noble and on the other hand there are these training institutes that brainwash young children and turn them into warriors and fighters for no cause- for creating anarchy and chaos but they pose as madrassas which they're not, unfortunately every military regimes has been supporting madrassas which counter Islamic teachings.
Benazir promised US and Afghan Govt that she will allow the NATO to take action inside Pakistani territories against Al Qaeda-Taliban.
Many analysts including myself think that there can be no progress in Afghanistan till Pakistan-side militants tackled.
Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders operate “outside the country”. The war on terror “should know no borders”.
Some analysts say the US and NATO won’t make lasting progress in Afghanistan unless the militants’ ability to command and control the insurgency from across the border is tackled.
Terrorism is like a spring. It is better to go to the main source than to fight the water’s flow.
Why is the world scared of Pakistan?
When voices in the West arose about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons the world was now compelled to weigh the authority of President Pervez Musharraf and his government against the political and strategic dominance of Al Qaeda and found the former wanting. The depth of incompetence on the part of the government passed the threshold of third world tolerance and doubts began to surface about the penetration of the state machinery by extremist elements who thought like Al Qaeda. On October 18, when the PPP leader Ms Benazir Bhutto was attacked in Karachi for the first time, she was convinced that it was an “inside” job. However if there was any suspicion in anyone’s mind about the role of the state in the suicide-bombing it was deepened further when she was finally killed on December 27. Facts leaking out of the investigation point again and again to a facilitating hand inside the state structure.
No one in Pakistan was apparently safe from the suicide attacks organised by Al Qaeda. It even turned out that personnel of the intelligence agencies were not secure either. Then contingents of army commandos were attacked and killed in their secured cantonments.
Just before the assassination, an Al Qaeda asset named Rashid Rauf — a British national involved in plans of terrorism in the UK and connected to Jaish-e Muhammad in Pakistan — was taken from police custody and helped to vanish in the no-go territory of the Tribal Areas that have virtually been annexed by Al Qaeda and its Taliban followers. It was clear once again that this was an “inside job”. The question now arises: how big is the number of those inside the state apparatus who owe allegiance to Al Qaeda or hate the United States enough to place the country’s nuclear assets in the hands of those they regard as the most legitimate “Islamic response” to the policies of the US?
After Bhutto assassination The Economist took a fresh look at Pakistan and called it “the most dangerous place” in the world.
Leave alone the world, even no Pakistani believes the government when it says it is not involved in the mischief of the Taliban in Afghanistan. At the least, many believe that Islamabad may not know what the “rogue” elements within the state machinery are doing on the ground. Names are being named of “retired” agency officers, located in Peshawar and Quetta, who are running another covert war that plays directly into the hands of Al Qaeda. Taliban warriors who enter Pakistan for “rest and recreation” and for treatment of wounds can reach medical facilities as far away from the Durand Line as Karachi, wondering why Pakistan, whose intelligence agencies are knowledgeable about them, does nothing to capture them. The conclusion drawn by the West is that they could be a part of Al Qaeda’s war.
What the outside world is saying is not that Pakistan’s nuclear assets could be “stolen”; they say that they could fall into the wrong hands if there is a “transition of control” in Pakistan through some kind of “Islamist takeover”. The world thinks it is witnessing Pakistan’s fast falling into the control or orbit of elements who will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against their large variety of enemies. The reference here is not to the “security systems” mounted around the nuclear programme, but to those who have charge of it. If the world was scared of Pakistan a month ago without Pakistanis believing it, today it finds resonance with many Pakistanis who are increasingly scared of living in Pakistan.
BB’s death Consequences and aftermath
The resultant chaos has shaken the state's foundations and federation, Unless Pakistani Punjabi controlled army tries to heal the present loss of a Sindhi leader and gives Baloch people their genuine rights and move with some urgency, the country could plunge into a state of utter darkness. The destruction of the Pakistani state and the unraveling of its society would produce a political tsunami that would touch many shores.
In addition to her following in rural Sindh, which remains under the domination of a small number of very large landlords that include the extended Bhutto family, her following also included the poor and the near-poor of Pakistan. This was the constituency her father had relied upon to build his remarkable political career. His promise of “bread, clothing and housing” not only contributed to his success in the polls of 1970, it has also continued to resonate long after his death.
That he accomplished little for the poor when he was in office did not diminish their affection for him. His failure was attributed to the power of the elites who continued to dominate the country’s political life and prevented him and his party from implementing the programme that had brought them to power.
With her assassination, Pakistan has lost much of its hope for a liberal, moderate and progressive society that she wanted to create.
Now Pakistan has been deprived of an outstanding charismatic leader with support in every nook and corner of the country. In a society divided along ethnic, religious and sectarian lines, and facing frequent outbursts of violence, Bhutto was a unifying force. Having a broad constituency of support in all provinces of the country, she was one of the few truly national leaders with mass following. In her tragic murder, Pakistan has lost a critical link among the federating units, diverse social groups and polarised political factions.
Amid nationwide anger over the killing of the Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and a widespread belief that the country's military or intelligence may have been involved, the population is turning against the Army for the first time.
Feelings are running so high that officers have been advised not to venture into the bazaar in uniform for fear of reprisals.
Economic consequences
Deadly riots triggered by the Benazir’s assassination caused more than a billion dollars in damage and left hundreds of shops, banks and businesses smouldering in ruin.
The violence, which claimed at least 58 lives and injured many more across the country, has since simmered down.
People in areas of Balochistan have been forced to migrate on account of the shortage of the staple grain. Wheat has also become a scarce commodity in Sindh. In NWFP thousands standing in queues for hours every day have to return empty handed.
Does Pakistan have any other role other than being as US political play ground?
From its Cold War role as a bulwark against the irreligious, evil empire of the Soviet Union to its status as a major non-NATO ally in the post-9/11 war on terrorism, Pakistan has flaunted its various religious credentials. Vacillating from jihad to enlightened moderation, Pakistan’s ruling civil and military elite has unscrupulously employed religion as a means to gain domestic and international legitimacy.
The United States has been directly involved in this process of Islamization and militarization of Pakistan.
Washington has been an active accomplice. During the Cold War, the United States helped to grow religious extremism in Pakistan. And now during the post-September 11 era, the United States is again ignoring democracy in favor of an unstable combination of military authoritarianism and presumably moderate Islam.
This growing army of extremists in Pakistan fought the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad alongside the Arabs and Afghans and then served the cause of jihads from India to Bosnia to Chechnya. The next generation of the same mujahideen groups is now the main protagonist in America’s war on terrorism.
What the world community must fear more the Musharraf dictatorship is its alternative, a civil war and violence in a country with 160 million which possess both WMD and terrorists.
Repeated martial laws and military interference in politics is the leading cause behind Pakistan's failure to develop democratic institutions and a culture of accountability. An "insecurity" complex inspired the country's military to meddle in regional conflicts and pursue a secretive "foreign policy", for which the country is paying through its nose today.
For instance, the aftermath of the western-sponsored and supported "jihad" in Afghanistan in the 1980s is still haunting the region, as well as the rest of the world.
Innumerable acts of violence creating choreographed instability in the country, abrupt dismissals of various governments and assassinations of many political and military leaders remain uninvestigated, or unresolved and shrouded in mystery.
First, dictators rarely spare any effort at eliminating possible threats to their regimes, regardless of who gets hurt, even their country and its people.
Second, Musharraf may have deemed it necessary to send a message of defiance to the West
for having urged him to allow Bhutto to return to Pakistan. The United States and England virtually forced him to allow Bhutto to challenge him for power by running for election.
Third, [pro-Musharraf] religious terrorists or [Musharraf] agents from outside Pakistan may have been involved in the assassination.
The cause of terrorism in Pakistan is mainly poverty, lack of education, unemployment, almost every past successive government’s wrong policies and a feeling of deprivation and despondency among people. If people are well - educated, employed and earn a decent living, then they would never be indoctrinated and reject the extremist masterminds. The reason that we find most terrorists from our tribal areas or small towns is because of lack of educational facilities there. Most people in those areas are unemployed and have nothing to do; as a result, they are easy targets and vulnerable to be indoctrinated in the hands of forces of evil.
Benazir’s death exposes regional rivalries
Soon after the killing of BB Chairman of a Sindh nationalist party says they ‘will stay in Pakistan if made equal partner in state affairs.
When vast crowds paid their last respects to Benazir Bhutto before her burial, angry mourners from her native Sindh province chanted separatist slogans, “We don’t want to be part of Pakistan!”
Benazir’s violent death in the heart of Punjab province has laid bare bitter regional rivalries in the country.
Many among the ethnically distinct peoples in Pakistan’s three minority provinces harbour deep resentment toward the most populous province of Punjab, which dominates the government, military and allocation of federal resources.
Aside from bubbling tensions in Sindh, Pakistan is grappling with outright separatist rebellion in the deserts and mountains of Balochistan, as well as escalating militancy in the NWFP near Afghanistan.
A break up of the federation may be likely, when Benazir’s slaying touched a particularly raw nerve, as she was the third Pakistani prime minister from Sindh to have died a violent death. All three died in Rawalpindi, the garrison city of the Punjabi-dominated army - a fact not lost on the thousands who gathered for Benazir’s funeral at her ancestral home, where she was buried beside her father. Benazir herself had also claimed elements of the Punjabi-dominated ruling party were seeking to kill her.
Benazir’s death on December 27 sparked the worst unrest in Pakistan in years most of it focused in Sindh where ethnic nationalists have been calling for more power since the rule of military dictator General Zia ul-Haq, under whose rule Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was convicted and killed.
Equal partner: “We will only stay in Pakistan which must be a democratic, secular Pakistan where we are an equal partner in state affairs,” said Qader Magsi, chairman of the Sindhi Nationalist Party.
Secessionist sentiments remain strongest in neighbouring Balochistan, Pakistan’s biggest and poorest province, where the army is deployed to fight ethnic rebels who often attack energy infrastructure - much of the natural gas piped into homes in Punjab originates here.
Baloch Position:
Baloch leaders believe, that world community is completely unaware of Baloch history; they blame the Americans, Europeans’ who blame all secular struggles and all resistance movements as terrorism.
Khair Baksh Marri: We have two parties to this conflict. The first party is weak, illiterate, backward and poor. On the other side of the divide, we have the most powerful people of the world – America, the West and their stooges.
The question is who is damaging whose interests? The prices of everything in the international market are decided by the powerful. It is not the weak who are making the decisions. And when the weak make some feeble movement, call them twitches in the dying throes, you call them terrorists.
When the British were leaving Indian subcontinent they had made elaborate plans to safeguard their interests long after their departure. They had to identify the people and individuals who would be useful in such an arrangement. So they sort of created a fort, a citadel to watch their interests in the form of Pakistan. They broke the large and powerful India so that the socialist minded Indian leadership of those days does not pose any threat to their interests hence they carved out the Islamic republic of Pakistan from India.
We, the simple Baloch, were yoked to this scheme. The Baloch people had treaties with the British, which defined their relationship with the British Empire, and these treaties were categorically different from those contracted with other states of India. Only the British treaty with Nepal could be considered somewhat close to the one between the Baloch and the British. According to those treaties, the Baloch
were supposed to regain their freedom after the departure of the British. When the Baloch were asked, they opted for freedom. Even the British recognized their right to freedom after the end of the Raj.
However, the British realized later that the Baloch were too simple and backward to properly safeguard British interests. And there was growing support for Soviet Union both among Baloch leadership and public which the British took as threat to their interests so it was decided to annex Balochistan to Pakistan by force. Kalat remained independent for some time, before it was forcibly annexed by Pakistan. And that resulted in a war immediately after the departure of the British.
First Baloch war for independent was started soon after annexation by Pakistan in 1948 by Agha Abdul Karim, younger brother of the Khan of Kalat, refused to accept the annexation of Kalat and went into the mountains for armed resistance. Both houses of the parliament of Kalat had decided, by an overwhelming majority, to remain independent. However, Pakistan decided to violate that decision. Then Agha Abdul Karim was brought back after some promises. He was given amnesty with an oath upon the Quran. Even that oath was not honoured. When he was returning from the mountains, he was captured on the way and imprisoned. Then came the Nawab Nauroz Khan took the arms and resisted. In sixty Mr Sher Mohammad Marri fought till he was replaced by Mir Hazar Khan Marri in 1970. These were all different rounds of a continuous struggle.
The people of Balochistan never conceded defeat. Now, the current insurgency is the fifth round of this struggle. The main reason for that is the unnatural federation among disparate peoples.
The British believed and I would say believed correctly, that Punjab is an obedient land. Maybe Punjab's attitude had a historical context. Invaders from the north had subjugated Punjab for too long and far too frequently. So the British decided to train the people of Punjab as their assistants and heirs. Once we understood that situation after the events of 1948, Baloch decided to struggle for their rights. And that struggle continues to this day. As a result we are called terrorists, wild beasts and enemy of Islam and Pakistan.
I want to ask who defines international standards. Who creates the world order? Who forms international public opinion? America and her satellites decide the price of petrol and the fate of nations. And whosoever dares disagree is a terrorist or rouge state. Human beings need to think as to who is the real terrorist: the one who kills or the one who defends his right to life, the one who cons or the one who resists being conned?
It is not predetermined that a superpower is civilized and peace loving by definition. Who invented and dropped the atom bomb before any other nation had an atom bomb? That is quite akin to the parable of the lion distributing the bounty. The phrase "lion's share" does not refer to a fair and just distribution of resources. America is the lion of the international community and then she has quite a coterie of hired servants, stooges and cronies. America has colonies all over the world apart from vast interests in technology, science and research. Whoever resists America is being labelled as a terrorist.
The British are trying to be more loyal than the king and have listed the Baloch insurgency as terrorism. By what standards is the Baloch insurgent a terrorist? Is the Baloch resistance fighter trying to capture anybody's land? He is just asking for his right to equality, dignity and his legitimate entitlement to his resources.
Clearly, the Balochistan question became complicated at the very outset. And then gas was discovered at Sui (Dera Bugti) in 1952. Sui gas was used in every part of Pakistan except Balochistan, in households as well as factories. Even now, Sui gas is not available to all parts of Balochistan. Similarly, Balochistan has a vast range of mineral resources including oil, copper and gold. The Saindak Copper-Gold Project in Balochistan has become operational and further exploration is underway. An Australian company is working in Balochistan. Gwadar port is being constructed. Mega projects are being planned. How much share do the people of Balochistan have in the discovery and development of these resources?
Baloch fear extinction. Especially after the demise of the USSR, the newly emerging states, with their so-called parliamentary regimes, have accepted the American influence somewhat beyond any acceptable limit. So the possibility of exploiting their resources is on the cards and the most likely route to that is through Gwadar. On the one hand, we do not have any expectations from parliamentary democracy. We know what happened with the erstwhile East Pakistan. On the other hand, we fear that imperial powers may exploit our resources as well as our geo-strategic location. We have a viable coastal asset and we do have the resources but we do not have time. We fear that we may become extinct in 25 years. Our identity will be wiped out. We have no option but to fight for our survival.
Balochistan, perched on the Gulf, has a crucial geo-strategic position. Balochistan also has oil reserves and mineral resources.
America's interest in oil and mineral resources is quite well known. The powerful are envisaging they will determine the future of the weak. This is the century of the white US imperialism and their stooges. Baloch are somehow hopeful that China, Russia and India can join hands at some point in future to change the current power equation. For the Baloch, this is a battle for survival. The outcome cannot be determined as yet. But Baloch traditionally hoped and waited for help from Great Russia which still persists in our mind and thoughts
Sardar Attauallah Mengal: chief of the Balochistan National Party, alleged the rebels were motivated by torture and abduction of young men by government forces.
“Balochistan has been made a colony of Punjab and Baloch will never accept living in Pakistan as a colony,” said Mengal, a former chief minister of the province. “Punjab will have to give rights to Balochistan and other provinces on the basis of equality if they have to live in Pakistan. Any other status lesser than that is not acceptable.”
If Balochistan is given control over its resources and the province is allowed to participate in national affairs, and the province is given representation in the establishment and foreign services, this conflict might see an end.
Ethnic Pashtuns who live in areas bordering Afghanistan where they are the majority - mostly in the volatile northwest - also said the political balance must shift.
Pakistan cannot run the way they are running the federation: that Pakistan is Punjab and Punjab is Pakistan. Still, few citizens even in the three minority provinces want outright separation from Pakistan. Memories of the country’s last painful division are still fresh.
The realties: The Baloch of Pakistan and Iran are fighting for their freedom from Pakistan and Iran. The Baloch are oppressed and fighting the battle of their existence and right of self determination. The Baloch are also human being and must be treated as human being but they have no human rights and being treated as slaves in these two countries. The international community, The UN, The EU, The US, and The Russians, The Indians and other powers and forums must concentrate on Baloch issues and support them politically, morally and financially.
The Human Rights abuses in Balochistan and against Baloch people are very much deliberate and planned with the purpose of frightening them into submission and making them accept the domination of the establishment.
The policy of unbridled oppression and repression has always been implemented with a vengeance in Balochistan. Compounding the repression and exploitation is the wilful neglect of the Baloch since forceful division and annexation to Pakistan.
The Baloch need to be masters of their own fate to contribute to world peace and development because under the sixty years that they have spent under the yoke of Pakistani colonists they have not only suffered immeasurably as a nation and a people but have not been able to contribute to world history which they are quite capable of making significant contributions because of their secular politics and democratic traditions of their much maligned tribal system.
The Baloch demand their historical, economic, cultural and political rights so that the benefits which their land provides are for them and not for those who have always exploited religion for their ulterior motives. The Baloch have bravely resisted the ever increasing violations of their rights and they will continue to do so till a Baloch lives.
Baloch have no friends in the world as history has proved it, time and again, the great myth that India will rescue Baloch remains as myth, Infact Indians were never interested to Baloch and Balochistan but they always hypocritically used Baloch card to threaten Pakistan with their own problems in Jammu and Kashmir.
Baloch must use moderate policies to come up with balanced approach in looking for international friends in contest of their geopolitical interests as we know countries do not have permanent friends but they have permanent interests. Keeping these facts in mind Baloch must not treat China or any other country as threat but first make sure that they are the master of their own house than invite guests.
But facts remains fact that Indian and Pakistanis are made of same DNA and are not trust worthy another myth much circulated among Baloch during last century that Russia will let Baloch free is another unjustified myth Baloch must look for western help that including Arab street and all freedom loving people and organizations.
Baloch believe three factors that had a particularly profound impact on the course and denouement of the Baloch movement in Pakistan. They are:”
1. Essentially weak nature of the movement because of bad coordination, communication of the different Baloch parties groups and tribal bigwigs.
2. Efficacy of the strategies pursued by the central leadership due to their internal disputes and disunity
3. And the lack of meaningful outside support for Baluch insurgency they lack funds and international political support.
Will Musharraf hold elections?
They have either to rig the elections massively, using all the muscle power and government patronage at their disposal even if leads to large scale violence or get them postponed on any pretext whatsoever for a sufficiently long time for the present environment to change. With the world keenly watching the way elections are being held, mass rigging cannot go unnoticed. Further, while it might not difficult to manipulate the results in a handful of constituencies, malpractices on a countrywide level present difficulties that are not easy to surmount.
Will the government then postpone the elections? It can use the crisis caused by shortages of essentials like flour, power, gas and LPG as an excuse. Coming as it does at this crucial moment Govts warning to politicians makes one think that even a high profile killing could be employed as an excuse to postpone the elections.
Pakistan’s crumbling federalism (Sana Baloch)
Ms Bhutto and Nawab Bugti's assassination prolong detention of many Baloch and other political leaders, military operation; disappearances of thousands Sindhi and Baloch political activists and intimidation and harassment of political representatives of smaller provinces have raised many concerns on issue of political co-existence. Where an ethnic group is holding enormous control of civil-military power and employing unpopular policies against the underprivileged provinces by use of overt and covert force.
Internationally Pakistan lacks a soft political image, but internal situation is fragmented and disturbing. In early years Pakistan's failure to establish a workable federal system resulted in breakup of the country in 1971. Once again Islamabad's failure to realize the growing dissatisfaction in the provinces is gradually heading towards a disaster.
The political system in Pakistan is on the verge of a collapse. The unpopular and widely rejected decisions and methods used by Islamabad against minority provinces have played a key role in deteriorating federal-provincial relations. National minorities and powerless provinces are totally voiceless in the system. Ethnic anxiety is on the rise in many parts of the country. Constitutional guarantees have been set-aside by mere executive orders to favour and support a particular class and an ethnic group.
Federalism as a political system has many sensitivities where authority, sovereignty and power are shared constitutionally between sub-units and a centre. The challenges to the stability of the system depend on institutions not in individuals.
Increasingly federal government has grown beyond its constitutional bounds; national minorities have been systematically excluded from policy making and governance. The regime also took a number of controversial decisions unilaterally. The Pakistan army was sent to Balochistan to suppress Baloch demands of political empowerment. Junta also failed to finalise the mandatory National Finance Commission Award to fairly distribute the financial resources among the federating units.
On the other hand the growing strength of the militants, many of whom now express support for Al Qaeda’s global jihad, presents a grave threat to Pakistan’s security, as well as NATO efforts to push back the Taliban in Afghanistan. American officials have begun to weigh more robust covert operations to go after Al Qaeda in the lawless border areas because they are so concerned that the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to do so.
The unusual disclosures regarding Pakistan’s leading military intelligence agency the ISI emerged in interviews last month with former senior Pakistani intelligence officials to one Pakistani news paper. The disclosures confirm some of the worst fears, and suspicions, of American and Western military officials and diplomats.
The interviews, a rare glimpse inside a notoriously secretive and opaque agency, offered a string of other troubling insights likely to refocus attention on the ISI’s role as Pakistan moves toward elections on Feb. 18 and a battle for control of the government looms:
One former senior Pakistani intelligence official, as well as other people close to the agency, acknowledged that the ISI led the effort to manipulate Pakistan’s last national election in 2002, and offered to drop corruption cases against candidates who would back President Pervez Musharraf.
The two former high-ranking intelligence officials acknowledged that after Sept. 11, 2001, when President Musharraf publicly allied Pakistan with the Bush administration, the ISI could not rein in the militants it had nurtured for decades as a proxy force to exert pressure on India and Afghanistan
Another former senior intelligence official said dozens of ISI officers who trained militants had come to sympathize with their cause and had had to be expelled from the agency. He said three purges had taken place since the late 1980s and included the removal of three ISI directors suspected of being sympathetic to the militants.
In the 1990s, the ISI supported the militants as a proxy force to contest Indian-controlled Kashmir, the border territory that India and Pakistan both claim, and to gain a controlling influence in neighboring Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States supported militants, too, funneling billions of dollars to Islamic fighters battling Soviet forces in Afghanistan through the ISI, vastly increasing the agency’s size and power.
Musharraf’s three crises
Talking to six top editors in Rawalpindi, President Musharraf linked the current “turbulent” times to “three crises facing Pakistan”:
1) The crisis of the transition to democracy,
2) The crisis of the war against terrorism and extremism and
3) The crisis of the economy if the first two crises could not be contained and resolved.
He expressed fear about the rejection of the February 18 elections on charges of rigging if the results didn’t conform to the expectations of the key opposition players, and was pessimistic about any coalition government working efficiently after the polls inevitably produce a hung parliament.
Significantly, he conceded that, in theory, if Al Qaeda ever managed to defeat the Pakistan Army militarily, or if the Talibanised elements succeeded in contesting and winning the elections in Pakistan, then the nuclear programme could be hijacked.
Pakistan’s Iranian shadow
In 1978, Iran’s liberals were bent on removing the Shah by any means. Instead of creating an atmosphere conducive to an Iranian Gandhi, they unwittingly helped usher into power Ayatollah Khomeini and a theocratic regime less tolerant than the one they helped unseat
As the future of both Pakistan and its president, Pervez Musharraf, wallow in uncertainty in the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, parallels are being drawn to the 1979 fall of the Shah and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Once again, a “pro-American” autocrat seems to be rapidly losing his grip on power, with his US ally only half-heartedly standing by him. The liberal elite and intelligentsia rail against the dictator, confident that their country is primed for secular democracy.
Washington's Pakistan Debacle
What we do know with considerable certainty is that Pakistan will have another round of phony elections on February 18th that will perpetuate General Musharraf's oppressive rule and continue the nuclear power's inexorable slide into violence and chaos. Unfortunately, what is also increasingly clear is that the vast majority of the Pakistani people now blame the United States for their unhappy predicament. Even more unfortunately, they have a point.
Six and a half years after the administration's costly marriage-of-convenience with the Islamabad dictator and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Bush Administration stubbornly continues to maintain the fiction that both of these premises are correct.
It is based on the false twin premise that Musharraf and the military are genuinely interested in assisting America in the war on terror and in restoring democracy in Pakistan.
If President Musharraf has not been the perfect democrat, perhaps he has more than made up for that by being America's key "strategic ally in the war on terror," as President Bush himself has repeatedly told us.
Let us look at the record US failures Pakistani gains
Virtually the only tangible help Pakistan has provided to US since the fall of the Taliban is arresting and handing over to the U.S. an estimated 600 al Qaeda members, the vast majority of them small fry. Given the $11 billion or more we have given the good general as recompense, this works out to about $18 million per al Qaeda small fry. (US)
Despite solemn promises, Pakistan has neither closed down the numerous terrorist groups and Jihadist training camps operating on its territory nor even made an honest effort to do it. According to a new report by the Pakistani Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) in Peshawar, virtually all terrorist organizations that were ostensibly banned by Islamabad in 2002 and 2003 and many new ones continue to operate with impunity.
Aided and abetted by Islamist governments in the Northwest Frontier Province and Balochistan and a never-ending supply of young zealots mass-produced by thousands of radical madrassas tolerated by the regime, the Jihadists are "Talibanizing" vast stretches of the country and turning it into a breeding ground for home-grown and foreign terrorists alike.
While six years ago only a small part of the tribal territories bordering Afghanistan was under extremist control, today much of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are no longer under the writ of Pakistan law and terrorist mayhem and chaos is spreading further and further outside of them.
With large numbers of Taliban supporters and terrorists effectively controlling the Afghan border and providing key logistic and training support for the reinvigorated Taliban with complete impunity, US ability to prevail in Afghanistan can no longer be taken for granted.
The undisputable bottom line is that more than six years after Washington allied itself with the Pakistani dictator, the nuclear armed state is beset by the kind of intractable conflict, violence and extremism that may lead to its undoing.
Radical elements already completely dominate the Muslim establishment in Great Britain, for instance, where only 6% of the imams speak English, according to a recent study.
Pakistan-based Deobandi, Ahle-Hadith and Jamiat-e-Islami extremist networks and clerics are increasingly active in radicalizing Muslim communities abroad, including the United States. There are now numerous Deobandi "Darul Uloom" madrassas in North America, whose curriculum is indistinguishable from that of the hate factories in Pakistan.
The US hunting dogs
Tyrants use physical force (military-police) and positional power against the will of the people. Neither history nor a profound understanding of national chaos and its political solutions are relevant to tyrants. Tyrants wish to prevail under all circumstances and in all conditions. Loss of human life and carnage is considered a natural constituent of the political process. Power and the pursuit of power is the fundamental nucleus of the political ideology that drives the tyrant’s thrusts towards omnipotent imposition of political will over an entire nation.
After 9/11 just one telephone call paralyzed all the nervous system of Pakistani tyrant in an absolute disregard of the historical high moral claims and implicit cultural commitment demanded of the Head of State, the General instantly capitulated and gave away every bit of national pride as well as national sovereignty simply because of a telephone call from General Colin Powell. Think about the enormity of such a national surrender by the Pakistani leader.
However, it is not surprising because that is precisely what the successive military dictators have been doing in Pakistan all along – and exactly for these reasons, the US love dictator in third world country who abandons their national interests merely to remain in power.
George W. Bush, and Tony Blair, the two of them symbolize the camaraderie of tyrants. Acting with vicious intents and senseless brutality, the two Western leaders have caused an unprecedented “holocaust” in Iraq and Afghanistan. An estimated 1.5 million civilians have been killed in these two countries and an entire civilization has been decimated.
Benazir was murdered, at army head quarters, Wazistan and Balochistan are blood-soaked, judges are under house arrest, the constitution has been repeatedly violated, and the Pakistani army is at war with its own citizens Mr. Bush has only one word Mr. Mush is doing great job.
Pakistani army
This is a country where the military claims 60% of the budget and gets pensions five times the size of civilian ones and where retired and active duty officers control not only all government institutions, but directly own large parts of the economy, from construction, banks and airlines to hotels, shopping malls and farm land. The Pakistani military, as a recent book (Military Inc. by Ayesha Siddiqa, Pluto Press) has argued persuasively, is in fact a huge, unscrupulous and corrupt holding company dominating the economy and operating for the benefit of the officer caste at the expense of civil society and the market.
In itself this wasn't particularly unusual. With 620,000 soldiers, Pakistan boasts the world's seventh-largest standing army, but its senior officers long ago realised the perks to be gained from commercial ventures. Since independence in 1947, the army has steadily intertwined itself into Pakistan's economy: so much so that it's hard to tell where the military stops and any semblance of free-market capitalism begins. Other countries have armies, but Pakistan's army has a country.
To protect its monopolistic power the military has had to do two things: suppress secular politics and civil society, and portray itself as the indispensable guardian of the nation by conjuring up existential threats by aggressive enemies such as India and the West. And in this, the military establishment has always found a reliable ally and willing accomplice in radical Islam.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that it was a military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, who Islamized Pakistani society from the top down beginning in the 1970s, and that it was the military which set up both the Taliban and the numerous Pakistani terrorists groups in business for use as proxies. Or, the fact that Pakistani military intelligence (ISI) has always been used and continues to be used as a political police against secular and democratic forces.
The problem is that in playing the Islamist card, the Pakistani military has been gradually penetrated and Islamized itself to the point where it is no longer clear that is immune to an Islamist takeover. And the longer it stays in power the less immune it is likely to be.
A retired Pakistani General Faiz Ali Chishti who opposes Pervez Musharraf said he would "not be surprised" if Musharraf had engineered terror attacks to manipulate his image in the West.
"Musharraf is an intellectually dishonest person. He is a clever ruler, who makes the U.S. and the West believe that they can only effectively deal with 'Al-Qaeda' as long as he is in power," I will not be surprised if this clever ruler is behind all suicide attacks," Musharraf is in league with the U.S. and the West for the sake of his own survival.
Pakistan at cross roads of choice of direction
Pakistan is at cross roads of direction with a highly corrupt military junta and a bunch of crook politicians in alliance with this junta. Elections of 2007 may decide which direction this state will take. For many decades it would remain a strategic threat for USA and the USA would have to bear with it because it has no strategy or if it has one US strategic freedom of manoeuvre would become more and more constricted with China, Russia and India gaining greater strength in the years to come. India will rival China as a power in the next two decades.
Afghanistan the escape goat
The Afghan War was not war of Afghans against Afghans but a combination of Super Powers and Regional Powers backing local Afghan factions to achieve their selfish political ends. The first phase saw USSR backing its PDPA subsidiaries and USA backing the so called Mujahideen with Pakistan and Iran as regional players backing various factions of so called Mujahideen. This face lasted from 1978 to 1992.
The second phase saw a relative withdrawal of USA and another series of Proxy Wars with Russia, Iran and India generally backing some groups and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and possibly China backing some other groups. This phase lasted from 1992 till 2001.
The third phase which continues saw entry of USA and its NATO allies and camp followers physically occupying Afghanistan and opposed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Hizb e Islami with non State actors backing them, while Pakistan pursuing a double game strategy of being US ally as well as having a ulterior strategy of secret relationship with the anti US forces.
9/11 was the start of an undeclared Third World War which has no fixed battlefields and is non linear. It can see an attack in New York and in Madrid or in Tokyo. It has no centre of gravity.
The two most affected countries in this war are Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both are under threat of destabilisation and possible Balkanisation by non State actors.
The ongoing Afghan war has known and hidden actors. The known actors are Pakistan, India, Iran, USA and its allies. The hidden actors could be Russia, China and Russian Central Asian satellites.
For the opponents of USA Afghanistan and Iraq are two great strategic opportunities to bleed USA and its allies white.
Russia has been reasserting its muscle in Central Asian Republics. USA was thus booted out of Uzbekistan only recently. China is strategically dominant in Pakistan with the Gwadar Port possibly becoming an important Chinese naval base in the near future. Both China and Russia would not like to see USA dominating their soft underbelly.
China is strategically dominant in Pakistan with the Baloch Gwadar Port possibly becoming an important Chinese naval base in the near future. Both China and Russia would not like to see USA dominating their soft underbelly.
Afghanistan is the Casablanca of all Intelligence agencies of the world.
Who is financing the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other anti US forces remains a big mystery. Since all this happens very secretly it is difficult to identify all the actors. If the Taliban's are Pakistan's proxy, whose proxy is Pakistan?
Is Iran alone in the arena against USA or has it got secret backers?
Is it total serenity or calm before the storm? If ISI and CIA are the major intelligence actors in Afghanistan, what is the role of the Russian FSB, Iran's Itlaat and India's RAW?
What is Israel's role and what is the Chinese factor? Is the Russian FSB alone or is it using its Central Asian Satellite republics diplomats in the intelligence game in Afghanistan?
In Intelligence wars it is the rule to take everyone as a bastard till he proves to be otherwise.
The US strategy seems to be to acquire air bases in Afghanistan which can enable to have strategic freedom of manoeuvre in any future contingency, rather than relying on Pakistan for air bases. Thus the emergence of Bagram and Kandahar.
This US strategic interest is in clash with the regional powers in neighbourhood of Afghanistan i. e China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and even India in the long run. Pakistan is only tip of the iceberg of opponents of US presence in Afghanistan.
The centre of gravity of the trouble in Afghanistan is not in Helmand but in the neighbouring countries. The infamous proxy war started in 1978 continues and various regional powers continue to patronise their proxies like India and Pakistan fight their proxy war in Afghanistan. Tragically Afghanistan has remained a scene of Indo Pak conflict right from 1947. Both the countries have their proxy groups in Afghanistan.
Possible solutions to Pakistan’s ill fate
Pakistan is land of unfortunate people where justice and pleasant life is guaranteed only for Army generals and feudal land lords, sometimes Baloch wrongly accuse Punjabis as their enemy which in fact is wrong perception Majorities of Punjabis suffers the same fate as all Pakistanis including majority Baloch. Feudalism is the basic curse on Pakistan.
Pakistan is 60 years old now and politically still there where was in the 1950s. China got its independent in 1949 (two years later than Pakistan) and is a world super power. A tiny Jewish state of Israel got its independent from the British and is the strongest economical and advanced military power in the entire Middle East.
Pakistan's neighbor India is also rising as a world super power. On the contrary Pakistani just has been using empty slogans on every anniversary of their independent day.
Even though the Pakistan was founded on the basis of two-nation theory, but actually the founding fathers (particularly Mohammad Ali Jinnah) wanted the Pakistan flourish as a secular democratic state. Evidently, Mr. Jinnah himself was a British educated modern secular person, and absolutely was not a very religious person like his most of other fellows were!
Unfortunately, Pakistan's real problems continuously and deliberately have been ignored by the selfish politicians from the get go i.e. Feudalism, Monopoly and unjustified super capitalism (unfair share of national wealth), Ethnic and Religious/Sectarian discrimination/bigotry, Officer-Shahi, Poverty, Mass Level Corruption/Bribery in every governmental department, Dishonesty, Jealousy, Rage, Animosity/Grudge, Maliciousness, Lack of Patriotism/Nationalism, Lack of Social Justice etc. Today’s Pakistan rank one of the top ten (10) grossly corrupt countries in the world. Over 90% Pakistanis have inborn error of dishonesty one way or the other regardless of their regular prayers in the mosques or annual fasting in Ramadan.
A vast majority are just simply hypocrites. Whether there is a parliamentary system or presidential system in Pakistan; just changing the faces periodically will not help unless the "entire old system" is changed drastically. I am pro-democracy person; however, like millions of others I strongly feel that in order to save Pakistan from further instability and disintegration the following points must be implemented.
There is no plausible alternative to restoring democratic politics in Pakistan,
To expect that Musharraf and the military would on their own accord choose democracy or seriously consider moving against the Islamists is to expect them to act against their own institutional interests.
1. Rebuilding of Pakistani civil society and restoring secular government and the rule of law is the only promising way to deal successfully with the Islamist threat.
2. Musharraf must be forced to resign and a new neutral caretaker government appointed.
3. The constitution must then be fully restored
4. Basic rights guaranteed
5. An independent judiciary
6. An impartial election commission installed prior to internationally supervised elections
7. All political prisoners released
8. Stop Military operation in Balochistan
9. Treat all provinces equal
10. Truth, honesty, justice, freedom, equality, and faith in one God (not Taliban version) must be taught in Pakistani schools
|
