Amidst the rumours of army coups and the much talked about civil-military divide, the Supreme Court’s NRO verdict on 12 January has somewhat been lost in all the chaos, claims and counter-claims.  In my opinion the Supreme Court has issued a brave and balanced judgement against the corrupt (morally and financially) government of Zardari-Gilani.

A five member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa comprising of Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed deserve praise for acting to save the sanctity of the Suprem Court that has been reduced to a joke by the present government. I support the observations and judgement made by the respected judges as it is a final attempt by the Supreme Court to enforce the rule of law in Pakistan. The full judgement can be read here , however I am sharing some of the key points in the judgement as shared below:

ORDER

Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: This order may be read in continuation of the order passed by this Court on the last date of hearing, i.e. 03.01.2012.

3. The judgment in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265) had been passed by this Court way back on 16.12.2009 and in that judgment this Court had issued some very clear and specific directions to the Federal Government and others which were required by the Court to be implemented and executed immediately. Later on a review petition filed against that judgment was dismissed by this Court and orders were again issued to the Federal Government and others to carry out the directions of this Court without any further loss of time. However, various interim orders passed by this Court in the present and other proceedings bear ample testimony to the unfortunate fact that over the last about two years the Federal Government has demonstrated no interest in carrying out some of the directions of this Court. It is quite clear to us by now that the Federal Government and the National Accountability Bureau are not serious in the matter at all and those concerned are only interested in delaying and prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. On the last date of hearing it had been made clear to all concerned that they were being given the last and final opportunity till today and it appears that they have consciously decided to defy and disobey this Court. This Court has already shown a lot of grace and magnanimity in the matter and has demonstrated a lot of patience and restraint in this regard over the last about two years but in the present dismal and most unfortunate state of affairs the Court is left with no other option but to, as warned in categorical terms on the last date of hearing, take appropriate actions in order to uphold and maintain the dignity of this Court and to salvage and restore the delicately poised constitutional balance in accord with the norms of constitutional democracy. We are conscious that the actions we propose to take are quite unpleasant but maintaining the necessary constitutional poise and balance is a part of our duties, particularly when we have made an oath before Allah Almighty to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan” and to “in all circumstances ——-do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.

4. When the Objectives Resolution of 1949, made a substantive part of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by Article 2A thereof, mandates that “the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured” and when Article 37(d) of the Constitution stipulates it as a Principle of Policy that the State shall “ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice” the Constitution does not contemplate an “independent” judiciary whose decisions may be flouted with impunity or implementation of whose judgments may be left to the whims or caprice of an indifferent Executive. Likewise, when Article 189 of the Constitution gives the decisions of the Supreme Court “binding” effect and when Article 190 of the Constitution commands in no uncertain terms that “All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court” the Constitution does not envision an Executive professing only “respect” towards the decisions of the Supreme Court but at the same time derisively or disdainfully paying little or no heed to implementation or execution of such decisions. Obedience to the command of a court, and that too of the Apex Court of the country, is not a game of chess or a game of hide and seek. It is, of course, a serious business and governance of the State and maintaining the constitutional balance and equilibrium cannot be allowed to be held hostage to political tomfoolery or shenanigans.

Article 5 of the Constitution declares in most unambiguous terms that “(1) Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen. (2) Obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen ——- “

In a recent interview with Mr. Hamid Mir on Geo Television the Co-Chairperson of the major political party in the ruling coalition at the federal level, who also happens to be the President of Pakistan, has categorically stated that under his Co-Chairpersonship his political party has taken a political decision not to obey some part of the judgment handed down by this Court in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra). Even the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division have been harping on the same theme for quite some time on different occasions through speeches made on the floors of the National Assembly and the Senate and also through print and electronic media. Their conduct in the matter also goes a long way in confirming what they have been proclaiming. Such an attitude, approach and conduct prima facie shows that the Co-Chairperson of the said political party, the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division have allowed loyalty to a political party and its decisions to outweigh and outrun their loyalty to the State and their “inviolable obligation” to obey the Constitution and all its commands. We may unhesitatingly observe that in our country governed by a Constitution political loyalty cannot be accepted as stronger than loyalty to the State and dictates of a political master or party cannot be allowed to be put up as a defence to failure to obey the Constitution. The old sage Aristotle had once observed that “When laws do not rule, there is no Constitution”. Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court had observed in the case of Olmstead v. United States (227 U.S. 438, 485) that

“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

As already observed above, we the Judges of the Supreme Court have made an oath before Allah Almighty to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan” and, thus, it is our bounden duty to take appropriate action whenever we find that the Constitution is not being obeyed or its express commands are, wittingly or otherwise, being disregarded. Let nobody forget that in the not too distant past we stuck to our commitment to the Constitution and constitutionalism and were not shy of giving personal sacrifices for fulfillment of that commitment.

5. This brings us to the actions we may take against willful disobedience to and non-compliance of some parts of the judgment rendered and some of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra). This Court has inter alia the following options available with it in this regard:

Option No. 1: In such a case of a brazen and blatant failure or refusal of the Federal Government to obey and execute the relevant judgment and directions of this Court the buck stops at the office of the Chief Executive of the Federation, i.e. the Prime Minister. At the time of entering upon his exalted office the Prime Minister had made an oath that ” ——-I am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, ——-the Day of Judgment, and all the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah”. He had further sworn before Allah Almighty that “as Prime Minister of Pakistan, I will discharge my duties, and perform my functions, honestly, to the best of my ability, faithfully in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the law” and that “I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions”. While invoking the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful, and also seeking His help and guidance, the Prime Minister had also made an oath that “I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. It is evident that in his oath the Prime Minister had made an unambiguous commitment with Allah Almighty not only to conduct himself completely in accord with the commands and requirements of the Constitution, including those of Articles 2A, 37(d), 189 and 190 thereof, but also totally in sync with the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran. In the matter of making of oaths the Holy Quran has inter alia ordained as follows:

“And make not Allah’s name an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; For Allah is One who heareth and knoweth all things. Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heart; And He is oft-forgiving, most forbearing.” (S. II: 224-225)

“Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: ——-But keep to your oaths. Thus Allah makes clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.”

“And take not your oaths, to practise deception between yourselves, with the result that somebody’s foot may slip after it was firmly planted, and ye may have to taste the evil consequences of having hindered men from the path of Allah, and a mighty wrath descend on you.” (S. XVI: 94)

“They swear their strongest oaths by Allah that, if only thou wouldst command them, they would leave their homes. Say: Swear ye not; Obedience is more reasonable; Verily Allah is well acquainted with all ye do.” (S. XXIV: 53)

“God has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and God is your protector, and He is full of knowledge and wisdom.” (S. LXVI: 2)

“Heed not the type of despicable man, –ready with oaths”(S. LXVIII: 10)

According to clause (f) of Article 62(1) of the Constitution “A personshall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless ——-he is sagacious,righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law” (underlining has been supplied for emphasis). By virtue of Article 113 of the Constitution the same qualifications are also required for election to or being chosen as a member of a Provincial Assembly. In the above mentioned backdrop the apparent persistent, obstinate andcontumacious resistance, failure or refusal of the Chief Executive of the Federation, i.e. the Prime Minister to completely obey, carry out or execute the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra) reflects, at least prima facie, that he may not be an “honest” person on account of his not being honest to the oath of his office and seemingly he may not be an “ameen” due to his persistent betrayal of the trust reposed in him as a person responsible for preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and also on account of allowing his personal political interest to influence his official conduct and decisions. According to the Preamble to the Constitution

 ”sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust” and “the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people”.

A chosen representative of the people deliberately violating such a sacred trust and disregarding his commitment in that regard with Allah Almighty may hardly qualify to be accepted as “ameen”. In the circumstances of this case mentioned above this Court has an option to record a finding in the above mentioned regards and it may hand down a declaration to that effect in terms of clause (f) of Article 62(1) of the Constitution which finding or declaration may have the effect of a permanent clog on the Prime Minister’s qualification for election to or being chosen as a member of Majlis­e-Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly. Somewhat similar oaths had also been made by the Co-Chairperson of the relevant political party before entering upon the office of the President of Pakistan and by the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division before entering upon the office of a Federal Minister and apparent breaches of their oaths may also entail the same consequences.

Option No. 2: Proceedings may be initiated against the Chief Executive of the Federation, i.e. the Prime Minister, the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division and the Federal Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division for committing contempt of this Court by persistently, obstinately and contumaciously resisting, failing or refusing to implement or execute in full the directions issued by this Court in its judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra). It may not be lost sight of that, apart from the other consequences, by virtue of the provisions of clauses (g) and (h) of Article 63(1) read with Article 113 of the Constitution a possible conviction on such a charge may entail a disqualification from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly for at least a period of five years.

Option No. 3: In exercise of its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution read with Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and all other enabling provisions this Court may appoint a Commission to execute the relevant parts of the judgment passed and directions issued in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra).

Option No. 4: Although in the present proceedings nobody has so far raised the issue pertaining to the protections contemplated by Article 248 of the Constitution yet if anybody likely to be affected by exercise of these options by this Court wishes to be heard on that question then an opportunity may be afforded to him in that respect before exercise of any of these options.

Option No. 5: It is a statutory duty of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to proceed against any person prima facie involved in misuse of authority while holding a public office. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 03.01.2012 this Court had directed the Chairman to attend to the matters of appointment of Mr. Adnan Khawaja as Managing Director of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) against merit and appointment/promotion of Mr. Ahmed Riaz Sheikh as Additional Director, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) at a time when both of them were convicted persons and to proceed against all those who were responsible for such appointments/promotion. The Chairman has also failed so far to initiate any action against Malik Muhammad Qayyum, former Attorney-General for Pakistan, in view of the direction issued in that regard in the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra), as modified in review to his extent. Today the Chairman has appeared before this Court in person and he has not only failed to advance any satisfactory explanation for his inaction in the above mentioned regards but has also manifested defiance towards this Court by categorically refusing to carry out the earlier directions issued by this Court qua proceeding in the matter of the above mentioned persons. Such inaction on his part in derogation of his statutory duty prima facie amounts to misconduct attracting the last part of section 6(b)(i) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 dealing with removal of the Chairman from his office. Apart from that we have gathered an impression that he has attempted to screen, shield and protect the relevant persons from criminal charges which may attract consequences in some criminal and other laws. In these circumstances appropriate recommendations or directions may be made or issued by this Court in such regards.

Option No. 6: The constitutional balance vis-à-vis trichotomy and separation of powers between the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive is very delicately poised and if in a given situation the Executive is bent upon defying a final judicial verdict and is ready to go to any limit in such defiance then instead of insisting upon the Executive to implement the judicial verdict and thereby running the risk of bringing down the constitutional structure itself this Court may exercise judicial restraint and leave the matter to the better judgment of the people of the country or their representatives in the Parliament to appropriately deal with the delinquent. After all the ultimate ownership of the Constitution and of its organs, institutions, mechanisms and processes rests with the people of the country and there may be situations where the people themselves may be better suited to force a recalcitrant to obey the Constitution. It may be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973:

“we, the people of Pakistan ——-Do hereby, through our representatives in the National Assembly, adopt, enact and give to ourselves, this Constitution”.

6. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan is hereby put on notice to address arguments before this Court on the next date of hearing, after obtaining instructions from those concerned, as to why any of the above mentioned options may not be exercised by us in these matters. It goes without saying that any person likely to be affected by exercise of the above mentioned options may appear before this Court on the next date of hearing and address this Court in the relevant regard so that he may not be able to complain in future that he had been condemned by this Court unheard. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan is directed to inform all such persons mentioned above about the passage of this order and also about the next date of hearing.

7. On account of constitutional importance of these matters the Honourable Chief Justice is requested to consider the desirability of hearing of these matters on the next date of hearing by a Larger Bench of this Court.

8. Adjourned to 16.01.2012 on which date the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, the Federal Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, the Chairman National Accountability Bureau and the learned Prosecutor-General Accountability shall appear before this Court in person.

Since the case is sub-judice and will be decided in the coming days and is expected to have major repurcussions on Pakistani politics, including possible action against Prime Minister Gilani, I wish to say it loud and clear that we must stand with the Supreme Court in its final judgement on the NRO case.

The rule of law must prevail for no-one must be allowed to be above the law. The Pakistan Army must stay away from any intrigues just in case the khaki kings are keen to rule once again. Be it a silent or a loud coup, martial law or an emergency, all such acts will be resisted by the people of Pakistan for the constitution must reign supreme.

May 2011’s B-side is all about the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the fall-out from it in Pakistan. Three articles try to bring some sense and perspective beginning with the much ridiculed article penned by President Zardari. The other articles have not been subject to ridicule and are written by Babar Sattar and Mohammed Hanif respectively. May 2011’s B-side contents include:

• Pakistan Did Its Part by ASIF ALI ZARDARI
• Time For Heads To Roll by BABAR SATTAR
• Osama Bin Laden Death: No Mourning Or Celebration In Pakistan by MOHAMMED HANIF

The first article is written by none other than the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.

Pakistan Did Its Part by President Asif Ali Zardari

Pakistan, perhaps the world’s greatest victim of terrorism, joins the other targets of al-Qaeda — the people of the United States, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria — in our satisfaction that the source of the greatest evil of the new millennium has been silenced, and his victims given justice. He was not anywhere we had anticipated he would be, but now he is gone.

Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operation, a decade of cooperation and partnership between the United States and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a continuing threat to the civilized world. And we in Pakistan take some satisfaction that our early assistance in identifying an al-Qaeda courier ultimately led to this day.

Let us be frank. Pakistan has paid an enormous price for its stand against terrorism. More of our soldiers have died than all of NATO’s casualties combined. Two thousand police officers, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians and a generation of social progress for our people have been lost. And for me, justice against bin Laden was not just political; it was also personal, as the terrorists murdered our greatest leader, the mother of my children. Twice he tried to assassinate my wife. In 1989 he poured $50 million into a no-confidence vote to topple her first government. She said that she was bin Laden’s worst nightmare — a democratically elected, progressive, moderate, pluralistic female leader. She was right, and she paid for it with her life.

Some in the U.S. press have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, or worse yet that we were disingenuous and actually protected the terrorists we claimed to be pursuing. Such baseless speculation may make exciting cable news, but it doesn’t reflect fact. Pakistan had as much reason to despise al-Qaeda as any nation. The war on terrorism is as much Pakistan’s war as as it is America’s. And though it may have started with bin Laden, the forces of modernity and moderation remain under serious threat.

My government endorses the words of President Obama and appreciates the credit he gave us Sunday night for the successful operation in Khyber Pakhtunkhawa. We also applaud and endorse the words of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that we must “press forward, bolstering our partnerships, strengthening our networks, investing in a positive vision of peace and progress, and relentlessly pursuing the murderers who target innocent people.” We have not yet won this war, but we now clearly can see the beginning of the end, and the kind of South and Central Asia that lies in our future.

Only hours after bin Laden’s death, the Taliban reacted by blaming the government of Pakistan and calling for retribution against its leaders, and specifically against me as the nation’s president. We will not be intimidated. Pakistan has never been and never will be the hotbed of fanaticism that is often described by the media.

Radical religious parties have never received more than 11 percent of the vote. Recent polls showed that 85 percent of our people are strongly opposed to al-Qaeda. In 2009, when the Taliban briefly took over the Swat Valley, it demonstrated to the people of Pakistan what our future would look like under its rule — repressive politics, religious fanaticism, bigotry and discrimination against girls and women, closing of schools and burning of books. Those few months did more to unite the people of Pakistan around our moderate vision of the future than anything else possibly could.

A freely elected democratic government, with the support and mandate of the people, working with democracies all over the world, is determined to build a viable, economic prosperous Pakistan that is a model to the entire Islamic world on what can be accomplished in giving hope to our people and opportunity to our children. We can become everything that al-Qaeda and the Taliban most fear — a vision of a modern Islamic future. Our people, our government, our military, our intelligence agencies are very much united. Some abroad insist that this is not the case, but they are wrong. Pakistanis are united.

Together, our nations have suffered and sacrificed. We have fought bravely and with passion and commitment. Ultimately we will prevail. For, in the words of my martyred wife Benazir Bhutto, “truth, justice and the forces of history are on our side.”

Published in The Washington Post

WASIM VIEW- Before commenting on the 734-worded article I wish to recall a tweet on Twitter that asked of President Zardari’s above article which asked ‘was that Washington Post article an address to the nation by our President? #justwondering’. The question and hash tag although humorous are in fact an indictment of out President with the tweet doing justice to the feelings of the ordinary Pakistani who has been left bewildered and betrayed by their grinning President in a time of national crisis.

Readers will know that President Zardari has yet to move his lips in public and emit a sound on the May 2 operation that killed Bin Laden, save for penning an article on it. That said President Zardari’s article (or should I say Husain Haqqani’s article) is lucid and loud, the latter a quality he has lacked throughout his presidency and the former a quality he has in bucket loads.

The article seek to remind the Americans of Pakistan’s record on the so-called war on terror and charts Pakistan’s sacrifices. However I do take issue with the President Zardari when he wrote that he endorsed the words of Obama and Clinton vis a vis the 2nd of May, one must assume he also supported the actions that gave meaning to those very words and resulted in a unilateral and illegal attack on Pakistani soil.

In a defining moment for Pakistan, at a time of crisis President Zardari has personally been left found wanting. His article achieves nothing, even today he has not uttered a word about the US action in Abbottabad to his people in their language be it in Urdu, Balochi, Sindhi, Pashto or Punjabi. Such an act is unforgivable and nothing short of scandalous.

Even the PPP apologists and jiyalas will find it hard to defend their silent leader who has been rendered speechless after the 2nd of May. The PPP and President cannot blame anyone for their own failings in this regard, unless he wishes to blame Kayani and co for slashing his tongue, rendering him speechless. If the truth be told, Kayani could not even manage that feat for post 2nd May the khaki kings have been left disgraced, diminished and degraded and dethroned.

The second article is the best article ever featured on any B-side and is written by a brilliant Pakistani mind, Babar Sattar.

Time For Heads To Roll by Babar Sattar

Our military and intelligence agencies stand indicted for being complicit with terror groups and our best defence seems to be to plead incompetence.

Osama’s refuge in the shadows of the Pakistan Military Academy Kakul and his killing without the knowledge or permission of Pakistani authorities have not only raised piercing questions about the country’s willingness to function as a responsible state but also cast fundamental doubts on the ability of our national security apparatus to protect Pakistan against foreign intervention.

An ISPR release after Thursday’s corps commanders’ conference that broke the security establishment’s silence on the Osama operation is mostly gibberish.

While admitting “shortcomings in developing intelligence” on Osama’s presence in Pakistan, it goes on to blow the ISI’s trumpet for extraordinary achievement all around. The commanders feel betrayed by the CIA for not telling the ISI where Bin Laden was hiding.

The release doesn’t say why the military failed to detect foreign choppers and troops in our territory for an hour and 40 minutes. The air chief has now chimed in: the radars were working perfectly but enough of them are just not located on the western border. Did no one ever think we needed radar and air cover in the drone-infested part of Pakistan that has been an active war zone for a decade?

Can the-dog-ate-my-homework routine pacify a nation worried sick about having penetrable defences, no response readiness and being on the way to be branded a rogue? An inquiry into the facts of the Osama operation to determine the causes of the intelligence failure will not be sufficient.

We need to rationally approach the concept of sovereignty together with state responsibility to understand why the world views us suspiciously. We need a thorough re-examination of our existing national security doctrine to determine whether it is promoting or jeopardising our security. We need disclosure on the scope of our military relationship with the US and if the latter has been afforded air bases and the permission to house troops or intelligence operatives within Pakistan.

We need to root the power and authority of the ISI within statutory law, provide for internal checks and performance audit, and subject the agency to effective parliamentary scrutiny. And we need to do away with our policy of deliberate hypocrisy reflected in our refusal to clearly articulate our security and foreign policy goals, especially vis-à-vis the future of Afghanistan.

This is keeping the jihadi project alive, confusing and polarising the nation and drawing a wedge between Pakistan and the world. But this won’t happen unless the responsibility for failing to detect Osama’s presence in Pakistan as well as the US military operation is ascribed to those in charge of national security.

It is unlikely that Osama was being hosted by Pakistan as a matter of policy. Shielding Afghan Taliban leaders or India-focused militant leaders, however misconceived, is still understandable as part of a warped strategy to promote our defined strategic interests. Hosting Bin Laden or other Al Qaeda leaders isn’t.

Further, the assumption that our military and the ISI must have known of Osama’s presence in Abbottabad is the product of a narrative that projects our national security establishment as extremely capable, effective and omnipresent. This narrative has been conjured up by the national security establishment itself and mercilessly fed to the nation.

The masses buy into it for lack of an alternative narrative and a misplaced sense of nationalism. The political class and the media buy into it because they remain subjects of the ISI’s intrusive gaze, being followed, wiretapped, photographed, interrogated, cajoled and coerced. But hard facts do not back this narrative. Without distorting history can one honestly applaud our military high command’s performance in any war? Have our military and its intelligence network succeeded in confronting the security threat emanating from within?

If the ISI and the MI are epitomes of excellence, what accounts for their inability to prevent terrorists from blowing up themselves, our soldiers, policemen, intelligence outfits and innocent civilians across Pakistan at will? What can possibly explain the ease with which a handful of terrorists broke into the GHQ, killed senior military officers and held others hostage for hours? Pakistan has lost more civilians and soldiers to terror since 9/11 than all other countries of the world put together.

Does this sacrifice not highlight the failure of our national security strategy?

Some days ago, army chief Gen Kayani declared that national honour shall not be traded for prosperity. A week before that he had boasted that we had broken the backbone of the militants. Air chief Rao Qamar Suleman had declared that the air force is capable of shooting down US Predator aircraft if asked to. The US Navy Seals then carried out a complex military operation in the heart of Pakistan with choppers and boots on the ground and all, and the air force and army slept right through it?

In a functional democracy, these gentlemen would be sacked after such a debacle. Unfortunately, national security related decisions in Pakistan fall within the exclusive domain of the military, which jealously guards its turf. But responsibility must accompany such power. And the responsibility for erosion of our international credibility and increased threat to security personnel and citizens from terror networks nestled within Pakistan rests squarely on the military’s shoulder.

Be it a rise in suicide bombing and terror incidents within Pakistan, an increase in US drone strikes in our territory, the Mumbai attacks or the Osama operation, the threat to Pakistan’s interests for being perceived as a pad for terrorist activity and to its citizens as targets of terror has proliferated under Gen Kayani’s watch. Is it not time for Gen Kayani to call it quits and take along with him the DG ISI and the air chief? Shouldn’t these heads roll to account for failing to do their jobs?

With them in the driving seat it might neither be possible to hold a transparent inquiry into the security breaches that led to the Osama operation and its execution without Pakistan’s knowledge nor engage in a rethink of our perverse national security mindset. Can we shed some baggage and create room for untainted faces and ideas?

The concept of sovereignty assumes control over the territory a state claims. We cannot continue to shirk responsibility for the men, material and money transiting in and out of Pakistan and simultaneously wail at the disregard for our sovereignty. It is time to publicly articulate our legitimate security interests linked to the future of Afghanistan and develop a regional consensus around it, instead of vying for the whole hog.

It is time to completely liquidate the jihadi project and cleanse our state machinery of those who believe in its virtue. And it is time to shun the delusions of grandeur and conspiracy that prevent us from realising our potential as a responsible and industrious nation.

Published in Dawn

WASIM VIEW- I agree with every word and heads must roll.

Babar Sattar’s article is the best article I have read post Osama and is so spot on, that it needs no commentary from me given that I agree with every word he has written. Sattar is right to call for the heads of Kayani, Pasha and Suleman, and I echo such a call; however I feel he must add to his call the names of Messrs Zardari and Gilani who are also responsible for our present ills.

The final article is written by the respected Pakistani author, Mohammed Hanif.

Osama Bin Laden Death: No Mourning Or Celebration In Pakistan by Mohammed Hanif

There were no celebrations. And there was no mourning. It didn’t occur to anyone to make an Obama effigy; no American flags were burnt. There were no heated debates about whether Osama was a martyr or not. The buses that were set ablaze in Karachi had nothing to do with the high drama in Abbotabad. The crowd in front of Karachi Press Club was a group of private bank employees wanting their jobs back. The little group at the gates of the electricity company offices was demanding nothing more than some good, clean electricity.

A hunger strike camp with young men’s posters was part of a campaign to recover young men who have nothing at to do with al-Qaida.

In fact, the reaction to the killing of Bin Laden was so subdued that a colleague noted that there weren’t even any text messages in circulation with conspiracy theories and inevitable jokes about Osama’s wives.

Pakistanis are not in denial. Just busy. They are busy fighting a hundred little battles that don’t involve US Navy Seals or helicopter crashes or Arab tycoons. These battles are as vicious as any that you have seen in the last 10 years but they don’t make good TV. How do you create high drama out of millions of industrial labourers being laid off because there is no electricity? How do you sex up the banal fact that every tenth child in the world who never sees the inside of a schoolroom is a Pakistani child?

So it fell to our TV pundits to prove that we were also part of this global soap opera. They raged against yet another invasion of our much-molested sovereignty. They demanded transparency from America. They wanted footage. How many hours of rolling news you can spin out of a single, bullet-riddled mugshot?

In the real world an educationist and chronic optimist tried to fantasise. “So the party is over,” he enthused. “Americans will go home. Our boys will ask their jihadi boys to pack up, surely?”

Someone reminded him. “Have you been to a party lately, sir? Nobody goes home.”

Pakistan’s security establishment, of course, went into a sulky silence, and wasn’t around to reassure us. Were they protecting Osama bin Laden? Or were they so hopelessly inefficient that they couldn’t track the world’s most recognisable face when he was camped out practically at the edge of the Pakistan army’s most famous parade ground? As they are answerable only to their mistrusting partners and permanent paymasters in Washington, they didn’t feel like obliging us with any information.

But anyone who has lived through Pakistan’s three military dictatorships sponsored by Washington can tell you there is no need to be such a reductionist. Why can’t Pakistan’s security establishment do both? Why can’t they shelter him and then forget about the fact that they were sheltering him? Or why can’t they shelter him and then shop him at a later stage?

Pakistan’s army is often accused, mostly by their best friends in Washington, of double-dealing and fighting on both sides of this war. In its long role as rent-an-army to the US, it has been accused of becoming a mafia, a secretive clan and a corporation, all at the same time. But what does it feel like to live under this bloody delusion? It’s like watching a person whose one hand is hacking away at his other hand. There is blood, there are cries of pain, and there is the obvious sound of one hand hacking away at the other. The person keeps looking around trying to figure out, who is doing this to me? Military operations and house-to-house searches to look for the hidden hand end up where they started.

On Tuesday afternoon an official from the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency) did come up with a frank but not very reassuring explanation about that house in Abbottabad. It was embarrassing, he told the BBC World Service. And then went on to reminisce about their past victories, duly acknowledged and celebrated by their Washington counterparts. “We are good but not gods,” he said. What he really should have said is that we are gods, but not good.

Published in The Guardian

WASIM VIEW- In choosing to include Mohammed Hanif’s article in this B-side I wished to move beyond Osama and remind myself and readers of the daily struggles of the ordinary Pakistani. Such struggles are obviously not sexy and so do not make good copy or headline news in Pakistan and elsewhere but they represent the harsh realities of Pakistan and its people as described by Hanif’s excellent article.

Hanif’s criticisms of the Pakistani army and the ISI are deserved and in particular I agree with his choice of words in describing the army as a rent-an-army for the US. After PNS Mehran and Abbottabad before it, Pakistan’s armed forces have clearly lost their mojo, for it stands today supremely humiliated before the world. As a proud Pakistani that hurts for the armed forces remains the guarantor of Pakistan’s defence.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating so goes the common catchphrase. This will indeed be the case for Pakistan’s parliament and her civilian and military leadership after their recent unanimous resolution regulating Pakistan-US relations post Osama and Abbottabad.

Personally I welcome the unanimous resolution passed by the joint sitting of the Parliament that lasted over 10 hours and hope that the much-celebrated Parliament will stand tall and give meaning to its words which are cheap on their own and share the resolution verbatim with readers via the Associated Press of Pakistan below:

“After an in-depth discussion, including presentations made on the relevant issues by the Director General, Inter-Services Intelligence, Director General (Military Operations) and Deputy Chief of Air Staff (Operations), the Joint Session of Parliament resolved as under:

1. Condemned the US unilateral action in Abbottabad, which constitutes a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
2. Strongly asserted that unilateral actions, such as those conducted by the US forces in Abbottabad, as well as the continued drone attacks on the territory of Pakistan, are not only unacceptable but also constitute violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and humanitarian norms and such drone attacks must be stopped forthwith, failing which the Government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps including withdrawal of transit facility allowed to NATO/ISAF forces.
3. Expressed its deep distress on the campaign to malign Pakistan, launched by certain quarters in other countries without appreciating Pakistan’s determined efforts and immense sacrifices in combating terror and the fact that more than thirty thousand Pakistani innocent men, women and children and more than five thousand security and armed forces personnel had lost their lives, that is more than any other single country, in the fight against terror and the blowback emanating from actions of the NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan;
4. Called upon the Government to ensure that the principles of an independent foreign policy must be grounded in strict adherence to the principles of policy, as stated in Article 40 of the Constitution, the UN Charter, observance of international law and respect for the free will and aspirations of sovereign states and their peoples.
5. Further called upon the Government to re-visit and review its terms of engagement with the United States, with a view to ensuring that Pakistan’s national interests are fully respected and accommodated in pursuit of policies for countering terrorism and achieving reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan.
6. Affirmed the importance of international cooperation for eliminating international terrorism, which can only be carried forward on the basis of a true partnership approach, based on equality, mutual respect and mutual trust.
7. Affirmed also full confidence in the defence forces of Pakistan in safeguarding Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and in overcoming any challenge to security, with the full support of the people and Government of Pakistan.
8. Reaffirmed the Resolution passed by the Joint Sitting of the Parliament on National Security held on 22 October 2008 and the detailed recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security in April 2009.

The passing of the above resolution carries with it the power of Pakistan’s parliament and her power elite in khakis and in suits. Thus the real test will centre on how Pakistan can give meaning to the words above by ensuring to take one example that no drone attacks are allowed.

The Dattakhel drone attack over the weekend has not escaped my attention and neither has the response (read lack therof) of the Pakistani power elite. The pathetic and apathetic response has disappointed me greatly for the fanfare around the resolution indicated that this was a watershed moment for Pakistan-US relations.

That said I will refrain from final judgement and give the elected leadership of Pakistan and the much celebrated Parliament some time to give meaning to those words for actions must match the words. The taste of the Pakistani pudding is indeed in the eating and this will be test too for this resolution for it carries the will of the people.

Messrs Zardari, Gilani and Kayani must act in unison and give meaning to the words of the resolution, otherwise they will fail Pakistan and prove to the nation that Pakistan’s parliament and democracy are impotent and nothing but a talking shop and that her army is nothing even with a nuclear bomb except for a paper tiger and that too with no teeth.

Seen on the back of a rickshaw in Lahore: ‘Horn na bajao: Pak fauj so rahi hai’

For Sale: Obsolete #Pakistan army radar; can’t detect US ‘copters but can receive Star Plus; only Rs. 999″

I know my next door neighbour’s name. #BetterIntelThanTheISI ( Twitter hash tag)

Gen Kayani: Any Indian misadventure will be swiftly dealt with.. umm u expect a helicopter to crash and wake u up each time

The jokes shared above are being circulated online and in SMS messages across Pakistan and are a slap in the face for Pakistan’s leaders who have been left looking incompetent, impotent and irrelevant after Bin Laden’s killing. In particular, the Pakistan army leadership has come in for much deserved criticism for it has been revealed to one and all as nothing short of a joke under the so-called stellar leadership of General Kayani.

It saddens me to write that Pakistan is sneered at and has become world enemy number one and become ‘Despise-Stan’ after the killing of Bin Laden. Never before has Pakistan been so hated and humiliated before the world with its civilian and military leadership looking supremely incompetent and impotent. I will go further and say that the Osama situation is the biggest failure of Pakistan’s leadership and foreign policy and the biggest debacle of our army and intelligence agencies since 1971.

The reaction by the civilian and military leadership since has been apathetic and pathetic and tall claims by the kings in khakis and in suits have disappointed me and the nation. Thus as a Pakistani I demand that President Zardari, as the commander-in-chief and leader of the ruling party takes responsibility for the whole debacle and goes home. At the same time, Prime Minister Gilani should punish and sack the heads of the army and the ISI, General Kayani and General Pasha respectively. Last but not least the President should sack goofball Gilani as Prime Minister and all four buffoons must walk into the sunset and let Pakistan be.

As Wikileaks proved, the President and Prime Minister allowed the US the right to kill the Pakistani people via drone attacks and that on its own is more than enough excuse to send both gentlemen home. As the President, Asif Ali Zardari is on paper at least the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and so must take responsibility for its successes and superb failure in protecting Pakistan on the 2nd of May.

I feel no need to explain why General Kayani and Pasha should be sacked for the jokes at the start of the post say it all. I do wish to remind readers of the work of khaki king Kayani who was the DG ISI as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan rose to the fore, moreover on his watch the Swat Taliban took over the valley of Swat and Malakand. The subsequent military operations under Kayani as army chief in Swat and FATA were necessary and the product of his own failures as the ISI chief.

Looking forward, the only solution for the Pakistani people must be to become one and unite to resist US imperialism in the country. The nation cannot keep its silence for if it does it should prepare for even darker days given that Pakistan’s leaders in khakis and in suits have prostituted themselves for power, privilege. arms and cash.

The Pakistani people must understand that the US and other outsiders can and will exploit our internal weaknesses and obviously serve only their interests, thus Pakistan must put our own home in order.

The test case for Pakistan and our Pakistaniat must be the drone attacks, for the day that a drone attack in Waziristan hurts all Pakistanis equally from Bajaur Agency to Bahawalpur and beyond, on that day Pakistan can move forward. I for one hope that day is near and that the Pakistani people wake up and move the street peacefully to save Pakistan.

March 2011′s B-side is set to be a depressing read. Depressing for its main focus is on Pakistan-US relations vis a vis the Raymond Davis issue and looks at both sides of what is now a useless and redundant debate with two articles by luminaries no less than Christopher Hitchens and the President of Pakistan himself. The second key focus for the B-side is equally distressing via an article by the author Mohammed Hanif who looks at the rising intolerance in Pakistan. March 2011′s B-side contents are:

• As Pakistan Battles Extremism, It Needs Allies Patience and Help by ASIF ALI ZARDARI
• Our Man in Pakistan by CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
• Silence Has Become The Mother of All Blasphemies by MOHAMMED HANIF

One must begin the Pakistan-US relations debate, first and foremost with the views of the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.

As Pakistan Battles Extremism, It Needs Allies Patience And Help by Asif Ali Zardari

Just days before her assassination, my wife, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto, wrote presciently of the war within Islam and the potential for a clash between Islam and the West: “There is an internal tension within Muslim society. The failure to resolve that tension peacefully and rationally threatens to degenerate into a collision course of values spilling into a clash between Islam and the West. It is finding a solution to this internal debate within Islam – about democracy, about human rights, about the role of women in society, about respect for other religions and cultures, about technology and modernity – that shall shape future relations between Islam and the West.”

Two months ago my friend Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was cut down for standing up against religious intolerance and against those who would use debate about our laws to divide our people. On Tuesday, another leading member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Shahbaz Bhatti, the minister for minority affairs and the only Christian in our cabinet, was murdered by extremists tied to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

These assassinations painfully reinforce my wife’s words and serve as a warning that the battle between extremism and moderation in Pakistan affects the success of the civilized world’s confrontation with the terrorist menace.

A small but increasingly belligerent minority is intent on undoing the very principles of tolerance upon which our nation was founded in 1947; principles by which Pakistan’s founder, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, lived and died; and principles that are repeated over and over in the Koran. The extremists who murdered my wife and friends are the same who blew up the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad and who have blown up girls’ schools in the Swat Valley.

We will not be intimidated, nor will we retreat. Such acts will not deter the government from our calibrated and consistent efforts to eliminate extremism and terrorism. It is not only the future of Pakistan that is at stake but peace in our region and possibly the world.

Our nation is pressed by overlapping threats. We have lost more soldiers in the war against terrorism than all of NATO combined. We have lost 10 times the number of civilians who died on Sept. 11, 2001. Two thousand police officers have been killed. Our economic growth was stifled by the priorities of past dictatorial regimes that unfortunately were supported by the West. The worst floods in our history put millions out of their homes. The religious fanaticism behind our assassinations is a tinderbox poised to explode across Pakistan. The embers are fanned by the opportunism of those who seek advantages in domestic politics by violently polarizing society.

We in Pakistan know our challenges and seek the trust and confidence of our international allies, who sometimes lose patience and pile pressure on those of us who are already on the front lines of what is undeniably a long war. Our concern that we avoid steps that inadvertently help the fanatics is misinterpreted abroad as inaction or even cowardice. Instead of understanding the perilous situation in which we find ourselves, some well-meaning critics tend to forget the distinction between courage and foolhardiness. We are fighting terrorists for the soul of Pakistan and have paid a heavy price. Our desire to confront and deal with the menace in a manner that is effective in our context should not become the basis for questioning our commitment or ignoring our sacrifices.

If Pakistan and the United States are to work together against terrorism, we must avoid political incidents that could further inflame tensions and provide extremists or opportunists with a pretext for destabilizing our fledgling democracy. The Raymond Davis incident in Lahore, which directly resulted in the deaths of three Pakistani men and the suicide of a Pakistani woman, is a prime example of the unanticipated consequences of problematic behavior. We need not go into the legal, moral and political intricacies of this case. Suffice it to say that the actions of Davis and others like him inflame passions in our country and undermine respect and support for the United States among our people. We are committed to peaceful adjudication of the Davis case in accordance with the law. But it is in no one’s interest to allow this matter to be manipulated and exploited to weaken the government of Pakistan and damage further the U.S. image in our country.

Similarly counterproductive are threats to apply sanctions to Pakistan over the Davis affair by cutting off Kerry-Lugar development funds that were designed to build infrastructure, strengthen education and create jobs. It is a threat, written out of the playbook of America’s enemies, whose only result will be to undermine U.S. strategic interests in South and Central Asia. In an incendiary environment, hot rhetoric and dysfunctional warnings can start fires that will be difficult to extinguish.

Published in The Washington Post

WASIM VIEW- President Asif Ali Zardari is not a man I am fond of to say the least. Like his person his article (or should I say his ghost writer’s article as all know that the President is not the most lucid in prose) is prone to bluster and half-truths.

In the article the President is right to state that ‘a belligerent minority is intent on undoing the very principles of tolerance upon which our nation was founded in 1947 but he must be having a laugh at the expense of the nation when he wrote after the killings of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti  that ’we will not be intimidated, nor will we retreat. Such acts will not deter the government from our calibrated and consistent efforts to eliminate extremism and terrorism’. 

Sadly for the President the Pakistani people can see through him for they have experienced the PPP government and its words and (lack of) deeds. Indeed Pakistani  citizens can only but dream of a calibrated response from the PPP-led government on any issue let alone on an issue as important as fighting extremism and terrorism. The Zardari-Gilani double-act could not even spell the word calibrate let alone give meaning to it for theirs is a government bereft of ideas and governance lacking any coherent policy on all issues save for their mantra on reconciliation.

The rest of the article looks at Pakistan-US relations after the killing spree of Raymond Davis. Thanks to Wikileaks President (we-are-here-because of you) Zardari’s affection for America was made known to all and in the article the President is guilty of painting a rosy picture as his government prides itself as a vital US ally.  In truth he and his government were given a slap in the face when America threatened to withdraw the Kerry-Lugar funding  (funding I despise by the way) unless Davis was released.

Furthermore the Raymond Davis episode proves that the PPP’s has failed in foreign policy too irrespective of its tall claims from former foreign minister Qureshi whilst in office including the much-celebrated Pakistan-US strategic dialogue which when push came to shove counted for nothing. Instead the transanctional and master-slave nature of Pakistan-US relations reigned supreme, and that is a damning indictment on the President and the Gilani government.

The second article also looks at Pakistan-US relations as per the Raymond Davis issue and is written by the one and only, Christopher Hitchens.

Our Man in Pakistan by Christopher Hitchens

In April 2001, a Pakistani diplomat—the first secretary of the Pakistani Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal, as a matter of fact—was found by the Nepalese police to be stashing a large cache of sophisticated high explosives in his home. Muhammad Arshad Cheema invoked diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution and, after a short interval, was sent home.

In October 1985, after the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean, an act of open piracy that culminated in the rolling of a disabled man, Leon Klinghoffer, from the vessel’s deck into the sea, the organizer of the “operation” was apprehended and taken into custody by the Italian police. But Abu Abbas was not inconvenienced for long. He was released when he was found to be carrying a diplomatic passport—an Iraqi diplomatic passport as it happened, though he was by nationality a Palestinian and had never been accredited to any overseas mission.

In April 1984, during a demonstration by anti-Qaddafi protesters outside the Libyan Embassy in London, a fusillade of shots fired from inside the embassy struck 12 people. One of them, a police officer named Yvonne Fletcher, was killed. So grave was the incident that it led to the breaking of diplomatic relations between London and Tripoli and to a series of negotiations that only ended when Libya agreed to accept “general responsibility.” But the entire staff of the Libyan Embassy was allowed to return home without let or hindrance.

These cases were far more murky and gruesome, and involved much more serious breaches of local and international law, than the decision of Raymond A. Davis to use deadly force against men he believed to be his assailants in Lahore, Pakistan. Additional murk has resulted from inter-agency incompetence on the part of the United States, which has given discrepant accounts of his no-doubt discrepant job descriptions “in-country.” But this does not in the least alter the main element of the case, which is that Davis is “our diplomat,” in the president’s own words and that the Pakistani authorities have no right either to detain him or to put him on trial.

Even if he were accredited to a country like Portugal or Poland, it would make no difference whether or not Davis was a member of the “special forces,” a CIA agent, or a man working under contract. Nor would it matter whether or not he was using his own name. Even in the case of a deliberate breach of local law, he would be repatriated before it was decided whether or not, or how, to proceed against him. But Pakistan is not a “normal” country. It is a failed and rogue state, where Davis would have had to know that his assailants might very well be working for the forces of law and order. There would be no need for him to be carrying arms if it were not notorious that the Pakistani army and police are the patrons of the Taliban and in league with various criminal and fundamentalist gangs.

A similar observation holds true when the grotesque idea of trying him in a Punjabi court is mooted. This is a country where senior lawyers offered their services for free to the boastful jihadist murderer who had just slain Punjab’s governor Salman Taseer in broad daylight, and where grinning police officers oversee hysterical demonstrations calling for Davis to be hanged (never mind the trial). Prison conditions in Pakistan are of a kind to make Abu Ghraib look trivial: sarcastic letters in the Pakistani newspapers mockingly stress the fact that a shortish stay in such a jail would be near enough to a death sentence anyway.

Not to mince words, then, Davis is a hostage. In addition to the usual sense of the word, he is a hostage to the Pakistani authorities who dare not—even if they wish—make an enemy either of the Islamist mobs or the uniformed para-state run by the intelligence services. He is also a hostage to the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. government to call things by their right names. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made the correct noises about the relevant international statutes governing immunity, and their envoy Sen. John Kerry (who should never have been sent unless notified in advance that he would return with the prisoner) has even spoken of putting Davis on trial in the United States, which in ordinary circumstances might seem a little premature. But they all talk as if Pakistan were a country of law, and they all talk as if Pakistan were not a client state. Its client status, indeed, is what leads so many Pakistanis to detest America, without whose largesse and indulgence it would long ago have faced collapse. Thus to the final irony: We are denied leverage by the fact of the very influence for which we are hated.

This sick relationship with Pakistan, which plays a continuous and undisguised double-cross on us in Afghanistan, will probably have to be terminated at some point. But in the meantime, it will have to be made very clear to the rulers of that country that if they want to keep Raymond Davis in prison, they will have to manage without our subsidies. He may be a bad test of an important principle, but it is still the important principle that is being tested, and we have no more right to compromise on the principle of diplomatic immunity than the Pakistanis have to violate it.

Published in Slate

WASIM VIEW- Christopher Hitchens article is the work of a diseased mind. That said Hitchens is forgiven as he battles with cancer that has ravaged his body and mind it seems given that he has shown none of his intellectual prowess in the article above. Hitchens is a poor shadow of himself, and a man lost as he writes on the Raymond Davis killing spree.

Hitchens begins by referring to legal precedent in trying to hide behind the assumed niceties of diplomati immunity in defending the actions of Raymond Davis. Hitchens spectacularly fails in that endeavour given that the release of Davis for blood money proves that for the US and Pakistan too, Davis was never a diplomat.

Hitchens hypocritical and hollow use of diplomatic immunity carries with it a stench given as it involves the selective application of the rule of law and international treaties only when it suits US interests. By virtue of his argument, Hitchens and his beloved US  argue can rip up the international consensus and law on civilian nuclear deals as was allowed for the Indian nuclear deal and continue their illegal drone attacks in Pakistan for American can, however the rest of the world including Pakistan must bow to a minor legal instrument such as the Vienna Convention even when it does not apply to Raymond Davis.

The remainder of the article is full of bile not least when Hitchens calls Pakistan a rogue state and savagely attacks the prison conditions in Pakistan as being worse than Abu Gharib. Hitchens also suffers from delusions of grandeur when he boasts that  Sen. John Kerry should have only agreed to visit Pakistan on the guarantee that Raymond Davis would return with him, such are the expectations of the slave state of Pakistan according to Hitchens.

The final article is written by the Pakistani author, Mohammed Hanif and it is well worth a read.

Silence Has Become The Mother of All Blasphemies by Mohammed Hanif

Two months ago, after Governor Salmaan Taseer’s murder and the jubilant support for the policeman who killed him, religious scholars in Pakistan told us that since common people don’t know enough about religion they should leave it to those who do – basically anyone with a beard.

Everyone thought it made a cruel kind of sense. So everyone decided to shut up: the Pakistan Peoples party (PPP) government because it wanted to cling to power, liberals in the media because they didn’t want to be the next Taseer. The move to amend the blasphemy law was shelved.

It was an unprecedented victory for Pakistan’s mullah minority. They had told a very noisy and diverse people to shut up and they heard back nothing but silence. After Pakistan’s only Christian federal minister, Shahbaz Bhatti – the bravest man in Islamabad – was murdered on Tuesday, they were back on TV, this time condemning the killing, claiming it was a conspiracy against them, against Islam and against Pakistan. The same folk who had celebrated one murder and told us how not to get murdered were wallowing in self pity.

In a very short span of time, Pakistan’s mullahs and muftis have managed to blur the line between what God says and what they say. The blasphemy law debate was about how to prosecute people who have committed blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad and the Qur’an. Since repeating a blasphemy, even if it is to prove the crime in a court of law, is blasphemous, no Pakistani has a clear idea what constitutes blasphemy. Taseer had called the blasphemy law “a black law” and was declared a blasphemer. The line between maligning the Holy Prophet and questioning a law made by a bunch of mullahs was done away with. What would come next?

During the last two months sar tan se juda (off with their heads) has become as familiar a slogan as all the corporate songs about the Cricket World Cup. Banners appeared all over Karachi and Islamabad last week demanding death for a Pakistani writer. The only problem is that nobody quite knows what she has written. Her last book came out more than eight years ago and, if it wasn’t so scary, it would be ironic that it is called Blasphemy. It was a potboiler set mostly in religious and spiritual leaders’ bedrooms. The banners condemning her say that not only she has insulted the prophet, she has insulted religious scholars.

So now disagreeing with anyone who has a beard and armed bodyguards can get you killed. The PPP government has tried to appease this lot by silencing the one-and-a-half liberal voices it had. What it didn’t realise is that you can’t really appease people who insist their word is God’s word, their honour as sacred as the Holy Prophet’s. In Pakistan, silence is the mother of all blasphemies. Most Pakistanis are committing that blasphemy and being punished for it.

Published in The Guardian

WASIM VIEW- Hanif’s article is concerned with the rising intolerance in Pakistan, a concern I share and have written about here and here. Hanif has penned an excellent article on the issue and like me bemoans the fact that in the face of deadly fundamentalism, the Pakistani state is silent to the hijacking of Islam and Pakistan.

Hanif’s article looks at the ongoing blasphemy (non)-debate in the context of Shahbaz Bhatti’s brutal killing and sends a warning to the state of Pakistan and its people when he warns that continued state impotence will bring only tears for us all. Hanif is especially write to point out that the Pakistani state ‘can’t really appease people who insist their word is God’s word, and that their honour is as sacred as the Holy Prophet’s. Corollary; the mad mullahs must be confronted and stopped from hijacking the faith of peace.

Hanif is an author and clearly has a way with words as proved in his final sentence that summarises where Pakistan stands today. Hanif is right to say that silence is the mother of all blasphemies and that most Pakistanis are committing that blasphemy and being punished for it’. One can only but hope the silent majority and the state both awake from their deep slumber and let us pray for Pakistan’s sake that they do so very soon.

The Birmingham bash did not pass off without incident and included a substantial  public demonstration against his UK visit.  However by the end of the day, the  event and the Zardari speech were overshadowed by the alleged shoe attack on the President. It seems that President Zardari was the recipient of a ‘shoecide attack’ from an elderly man in the audience who has yet to be named, however more information is set to come forward in the coming days.

As an demonstrator at the Zardari rally I do wish to inform OP readers of the now infamous Zardari Birmingham bash and it particular the anti-Zardari demonstration. As is usual for Pakistani politics, the demonstration included some catchy slogans and chants. Indeed the anti-Zardari messages were numerous and humourous and included many examples of ‘Pinglish’ as readers will decipher from the below photos that I took:

The best slogan was of course the first one that made reference to Zardari’s indifference to the plight of ordinary Pakistanis which drew parallels with the Munna Bhai character of Bollywood fame.

In terms of the demonstration it was a cross party event with Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf in the ascendancy whilst civil society activists were aplenty. The police security cordon was tight and prevented the demonstrators from reaching the President and thankfully the demonstrators adhered to it. The following photos show some of the demonstrators and the security cordon as shown below:

That said the PPP supporters were out in force and were plenty in number and passionate as ever as shown below:

On a seperate note it was encouraging to see that the Pakistani Christian community had also arrived at the demonstration and they too bought their own viewpoints to the event in particular on the blasphemy law, as the photos show below:

All in all, the demonstration was peaceful and as polite as it could be given the strength in feeling amongst the British Pakistani community against the Zardari tour of Europe whilst Pakistan’s people remain under water.  With the now infamous shoe attack, President Zardari’s Birmingham bash is sure to be etched in the collective Pakistani memory bank for a long time that is for sure.

Source: Daily Times

The grins and smiles above sicken me and say it all.

Legend has it that the Emperor of Rome, Nero fiddled whilst Rome burnt. Today another emperor of sorts is following in his footsteps. The Pakistani ‘Nero’ is President Zardari who is fiddling whilst Pakistan drowns.

With over 1400 deaths so far and 3 million Pakistanis affected by the floods many made homeless and facing possibly death and disease in the coming days, the President of Pakistan has left his people in distress and not cancelled planned visits to France and Britain.

Instead the Zardari family is on tour, a vacation and holiday of sorts as shown in the photo above which shows Bilawal Zardari and Asifa Zardari accompanying the President on his official visits to France.

President Zardari has rightly been criticised  for leaving Pakistan at a such crucial time. Instead of unifying the nation and leading relief efforts personally, the President has swanned off to a foreign jaunt it seems as reported in the Nation newspaper today, as shown below:

Meanwhile the analysts have termed this tour of the Pakistani head of the state, as more to the interest of the Zardaris, than for the sake of Pakistani people. Introducing the Zardari children to the president of the strongest EU countries is, in fact, a move to bring these young people in the field of politics, they said, adding that the president was doing all this at the expense of national exchequer collected from poor people’s earning. The President is also scheduled to visit his father Hakim Ali Zardari who lives in a big villa in the suburbs of Paris, for which the President has hired a helicopter…. After his official schedule, Zardari was to make a brief private visit to Normandy in northern France where his family owns a holiday home.

It is clear that Pakistan is drowning as President Zardari fiddles in France and soon in Britain too.

It is poetic justice that today the President himself has been forced to shut up after his failed judicial coup. The President has been forced to shut up and silent is the Presidency for the time being, or at least till the next crisis given his judicial coup of recent days has failed miserably. 

As is now routine during the Zardari presidency, President Zardari first blunders amidst much bravado and grandstanding, yet when faced with opposition the President backs down in supersonic speed. And so the shut up call the President issued in a public speech has come back to haunt him as today the President is forced to bite his lip.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan acted with good intention in seeking to defuse the crisis even though some brother judges did not agree with his meeting with the Prime Minister at PM House. The Chief Justice has shown that the judiciary is not partisan by consulting with the PM on the appointment of judges at PM House. Indeed learned jurists have criticised the meeting for going against the Judicial Code of Conduct and I would agree normally that it is not conducive for the head of the judiciary and the executive to meet. 

PM Gilani did well too in saving the day as per his usual flip-flops that raised the political temperature in one day, only for a retraction thanks to the counsel of the great Aitzaz Ahsan culminating in a now legendary dinner meeting in the Supreme Court. A weak President Zardari is left even weaker and it is hoped that the President will learn from the episode, I fear he will not. 

Pictures are said to say a thousand words, as they clearly do above. President Zardari is in dire of a prayer after the events of February 13. The sacrificial black lambs that are legendary in the confines of the Presidency, will be needed aplenty to ward off the evil and the folly of the President’s actions in his failed attempt to force the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The President in his infinite wisdom has decided to force the elevation of Justice Khawaja Sharif to the Supreme Court and Justice Saqib Nisar as the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. The decision goes against the wishes of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and more importantly the Constitution in particular Article 177.  The Supreme Court acted in an Special Bench with the legal position made clear by the short order as  published on the Supreme Court website. The short is is shared below and reads as follows:

Constitution Petitions No.2, 3 & 4 of 2010

ORDER

Today two notifications, one relating to the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the other with regard to the appointment of Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Senior Puisne Judge of the Lahore High Court as Acting Chief Justice of that Court have been issued by the Government of Pakistan, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division under the signatures of Malik Hakam Khan, Draftsman/Additional Secretary.

The said notifications read as under: – “No.F.2(1)/2010-A.II.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 177 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the President is pleased to appoint Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan with immediate effect.

No.F.1(2)/2009-A.II.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 196 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the President is pleased to appoint Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Judge, Lahore High Court as Acting Chief Justice of the said High Court with effect from the date of the notification of the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

2. The Additional Registrar, who appeared on Court’s call, informed the Court that a news was telecast in the electronic media regarding the aforesaid notifications and it was also in the news that Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar would be administered oath by tomorrow morning (Sunday), which necessitated the hearing of this case as an urgent one and this Bench was constituted.

Since it was an important matter, the Additional Registrar was directed to issue notice to the learned Attorney General including through telephone and we retired for a while until we were informed about the service of the notice upon the learned Attorney General. After some time we were informed by the Court Associate that the Additional Registrar, after informing the learned Attorney General through telephone about the hearing of the case had come to the Court, so we re-assembled.

3. The Additional Registrar, in his report stated that he informed the learned Attorney General for Pakistan through telephone who told him (Additional Registrar) that he was in Karachi at the moment and that the last scheduled flight from Karachi to Islamabad had already departed at 7:00 p.m., he expressed his inability to appear before the Court. Since the matter was of urgent nature, as stated earlier, steps would be required to be taken by the Governor of the Punjab to administer oath to Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court by tomorrow morning, hearing could not be postponed without passing an appropriate interim order.

4. Article 177 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Additional Registrar stated that according to the record of this Court no consultation had taken place by the President with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan regarding the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court as Judge of the Supreme Court. In the light of the statement of Additional Registrar and also the note submitted by him and placed on the file of Constitution Petitions No.2,3 and 4 of 2010 relating to the same/almost the same matter, already pending before this Court in which notices had been issued and a larger Bench constituted for 18-2-2010, the notification of the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif as a Judge of the Supreme Court, prima facie, appears to have been issued in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly, Article 177, hence the same is suspended subject to notice to the Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division, the Attorney General for Pakistan and the learned Advocate General Punjab. Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif shall continue to perform his duties as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court until further orders of this Court. No steps to administer oath to him will be taken.

5. In view of the suspension of notification No.F.2(1)2010-A.II. dated 13.2.2010 regarding the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif as a Judge of the Supreme Court, the office of Chief Justice of Lahore High Court will not fall vacant, therefore, the second notification No.F.1(2)/2009-A.II of even date regarding the appointment of Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court cannot be acted upon. Therefore, the same too is suspended. In consequence, Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar will also continue to perform his duties as a Judge of the Lahore High Court until further orders. Resultantly, no steps including administering of oath to Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as Acting Chief Justice of Lahore High Court shall be taken by the concerned functionaries.

6. The Draftsman/Additional Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, under whose signatures the aforesaid notifications have been issued, is directed to appear in Court on 18.02.2010, the date already fixed in the titled cases. The Registrar of the Lahore High Court shall also appear on the said date.

Crisis after crisis, it does seems that the nation of Pakistan can never sleep easy. President Zardari would do well to pull back from the brink by pondering and reflecting on his actions of today. The present trichotomy of powers debate needs not be repeated here so long as all institutions keep to their prescribed roles as afforded to them by the constitution. The simple fact is that Parliament must make laws that govern Pakistan as per the constitution, the executive must govern Pakistan as per the constitution and the judiciary must provide justice and interpret the constitution as per the constitution.

The government has defended its actions on the basis of acting as per the constitution and as per the now famed ‘Al-Jihad Trust or Judges case’ of 1996. The charge against the judiciary is a serious one accusing it of being partisan and applying judicial precedents as per its whims. However the government forgets conveniently in my opinion, that it is the sole perogative of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to change its mind as the constitution is a living document, relevant for all times.

Furthermore the government is well aware that the  right to set judicial precedent and set aside judicial precedent is exclusive to the judiciary. The disgraced doctrine of necessity of Justice Munir enjoys its position in judicial precedent to this day and was followed bu judges decades after the judgement. Today that judicial precedent is set aside by Justice Ifthikhar and his brother judges and that too is judicial precedent and so  thus the point is made.

The mala fide intentions of the Zardari-Gilani tag team in their pathetic attempt of a judicial coup are laid bare when we retrace the actions of the same government before the NRO judgement and even further back in the heydays of the Dog(gar) court. The out of turn appointments numbering in double figures to the high courts and Supreme Court under Dog(gar) were sanctioned by the President and Prime Minister. However today the same esteemed gentlemen cry fowl at the so-called out of turn appointment of one Justice Saqib Nisar to the Supreme Court even though the same gentleman have accepted all other recommendations of the Chief Justice before February 13.  Clearly the NRO judgement has hurt the otherwise genteel Messrs Zardari and Gilani, hence their about turn.

The lesson for the smiling President must be that the constitution is supreme and that Pakistan will rise and fall only on this count. It is high time the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari acts on this count and this count alone.

Secondly December’s B-side post is special in that this December, four articles are analysed instead of the normal trio of three. Thirdly the authors of the articles are household names for many a reason and include both the former and current President of Pakistan. December’s B-side contents include:

• How To Mend Fences With Pakistan by ASIF ALI ZARDARI
• The Afghanistan-Pakistan Solution by PERVEZ MUSHARRAF
• A Troop Surge Can Only Magnify The Crime Against Afghanistan by MALALAI JOYA
• Kissinger’s Fantasy is Obama’s Reality by PANKAJ MISHRA

The first article is written by the current President of Pakistan and is a must read especially for the critics of the man that is Asif Ali Zardari.

How To Mend Fences With Pakistan by Asif Ali Zardari

NOW that President Obama has recommitted the United States to stand with Pakistan and Afghanistan in our common fight against terrorism, extremism and fanaticism, it would be useful for Americans and Pakistanis to consider what has brought us to this point — and what the conflict’s true endgame must be.

Despite the noise created by an often hyperactive press in Pakistan (an essential and preferable alternative to the censorship that prevailed during my country’s military dictatorships), and the doubts expressed in America, Pakistan’s democratically elected government is unambiguously on the right path toward establishing a moderate and modern nation.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and I are working closely with our national assembly and our military and intelligence agencies to defeat the Taliban insurgency and the Qaeda-backed campaign of terrorism. Simultaneously, we are pursuing policies that will re-establish Pakistan as a vibrant economic market and finally address the long-neglected weaknesses in our education, health, agriculture and energy sectors. This isn’t just rhetoric — it is an active policy with new budget priorities and a reoriented national mindset.

Over the last weeks I have moved forcefully to re-establish the traditional powers of the presidency as defined in the parliamentary model on which our Constitution is based. Our Constitution was distorted and perverted by military dictators who usurped the legal powers of Parliament. In accordance with the manifesto of the Pakistan Peoples Party, I am working toward strengthening the separation of powers of the presidency from those of the prime minister. Recently, I voluntarily handed back the chairmanship of the National Command Authority that exercises control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Contrary to some of the commentary on the subject, this is not a sign of weakness, but rather a demonstration of the vitality of Pakistani democracy.

As President Obama has noted, Pakistan’s military has courageously executed important actions in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan against terrorists who threaten all of us. Pakistan has paid an enormous price in blood and treasure. But this is a price we are willing to pay. Every day across our land, cowards distort our religion of peace, Islam, by slaughtering innocent people. Three thousand civilians, including my wife, Benazir Bhutto, and 2,000 soldiers and police officers have been killed in the last eight years. Just last week 40 people died in a mosque while at Friday prayers, including 10 children. This is our war as well as America’s.

Yet in both countries there is deep suspicion toward the other. Many Americans still wonder, despite our sacrifices, if Pakistan is doing all it can to fight terrorism. Some resent what they believe is an absence of gratitude in Pakistan for American aid. But consider the history as seen by Pakistanis.

Twice in recent history America abandoned its democratic values to support dictators and manipulate and exploit us. In the 1980s, the United States supported Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq’s iron rule against the Pakistani people while using Pakistan as a surrogate in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That decade turned our peaceful nation into a “Kalashnikov and heroin” society — a nation defined by guns and drugs. In its fight against the Soviets, the United States, as a matter of policy, supported the most radical elements within the mujahedeen, who would later become the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When the Soviets were defeated and left in 1989, the United States abandoned Pakistan and created a vacuum in Afghanistan, resulting in the current horror.

And then after 9/11, the United States closed its eyes to the abuses of the dictatorship of President Pervez Musharraf, providing support to the regime while doing little to help with social needs or encourage the restoration of democracy. For Pakistanis, it is a bitter memory.

Public mistrust of the United States also stems from regional issues, specifically policies concerning India. I know it is the conventional wisdom in Washington that my nation is obsessed with India. But even to those of us who are striving toward accommodation and peace, the long history and the unresolved situation in Kashmir give Pakistanis reason to be concerned about our neighbor to the east. Just as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute cannot be resolved without accommodating the Palestinian people, there cannot be permanent regional peace in South Asia without addressing Kashmir.

The recent upset in Pakistan over the Kerry-Lugar legislation, which President Obama signed into law and which requires the secretary of state to report to Congress on military and civil progress in Pakistan, shows how sensitive many here are to what they see as unfair treatment by the United States. It would be helpful if the United States, at some point, would scrutinize India in a similar fashion and acknowledge that it has from time to time played a destabilizing role in the region.

The perceived rhetorical one-sidedness of American policy often fuels the conspiracy theories that abound here — theories that blame the West for all of our ills. Pakistan’s elected democratic leadership is itself a victim of some of these conspiracy theories, but our American partners must understand their origins and work with us to turn public opinion around.

Although we certainly appreciate America’s $7.5 billion pledge over the next five years for nonmilitary projects in Pakistan, this long-term commitment must be complemented by short-term policies that demonstrate American neutrality and willingness to help India and Pakistan overcome their mutual distrust. It could start by stepping up its efforts to mediate the Kashmir dispute.

In recent days, I have thought often of something my wife, Benazir,  wrote in the days before her death: “It is so much easier to blame others for our problems than to accept responsibility ourselves.” Benazir added that conspiracy theories and “toxic rhetoric” were “an opiate that keeps Muslims angry against external enemies and allows them to pay little attention to the internal causes of intellectual and economic decline.”

The free world stands with President Obama in the effort to defeat the extremism that threatens us all. Pakistanis are on the frontlines in this battle.

But we need help. We need the support of our allies in war but also to help build a new Pakistan that promises a meaningful future to our children. We are not looking for — and indeed reject — dependency. We don’t need or want (nor would we accept) foreign troops to defeat the insurgency, and we seek trade more than aid from you in the future. It is an economically viable and socially robust democratic Pakistan that will be the most effective long-term weapon against terrorism, extremism and fanaticism. This is the necessary endgame. And this is how history will judge victory.

Published in The New York Times

WASIM VIEW- Asif Ali Zardari is the current President of Pakistan and like his predecessor is no favourite of mine. However Zardari has pleasantly surprised me in this article in his honest appraisal of Pakistan-US relations over recent decades.

For once, Zardari has presented the Pakistani position with conviction as evidenced by the tenor of the following sentence in his article ‘twice in recent history America abandoned its democratic values to support dictators and manipulate and exploit us’. Zardari mindful of the might of the dollar does of course engage in serenading Sam and his Uncle at times yet delivers many a knockout blow and a harsh truth in this surprisingly impressive article.

Zardari’s article hits a sixer when he refers to Indian evil and tackles head-on the lie of the so-called American conventional wisdom that Pakistan is obsessed with India. Zardari is right and honest in highlighting India’s destabilising role in the region and in reminding America that peace in the region can only arrive when the Kashmir issue is resolved and even asks for US mediation!

On the negative side. Zardari does deliver a cheap shot when he refers to the ‘noise created by an often hyperactive press in Pakistan’ at the start of his article. Such public criticism of the Pakistani press in an article for the foreign media is unbecoming of the office he holds and shows him to be a small man as such trivial issues are not discussed in articles in the foreign media by heads of state.

The second article is written by the war criminal and usurper Pardes Pervez Musharraf. Pardes because the commando general who was so bold and brave is now reduced to only a paper tiger with little bite for he now hides in London after destroying Pakistan yet he has the cheek to offer the pearls of wisdom in the article below:

The Afghanistan-Pakistan Solution by Pervez Musharraf

My recent trip to the United States has been an enriching experience, during which I had a very healthy discourse with the American public and an opportunity to understand their concerns about the war in Afghanistan. One question I was asked almost everywhere I went was, “How can we stop losing?”

The answer is a political surge, in conjunction with the additional troops requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Quitting is not an option.

A military solution alone cannot guarantee success. Armies can only win sometimes, and at best, create an environment for the political process to work. At the end of the day, it is civilians, not soldiers, who have to take charge of their country.

After decades of civil war and anarchy, the Taliban established control over 95% of Afghanistan in 1996. Unfortunately, the Taliban imposed their strict interpretation of Islam on the country. Nevertheless, I proposed to recognize the Taliban regime, in the hope of transforming them from within. Had my strategy been enacted, we might have persuaded the Taliban to deny a safe haven to al Qaeda and avoided the tragic 9/11 attacks.

Another golden opportunity to rescue the Afghan people emerged after the United Nations sanctioned international military operation launched after 9/11. Having liberated Afghanistan from the tyranny of al Qaeda and Taliban, the U.S. had the unequivocal support of the majority of Afghans. The establishment of a truly representative national government which gave proportional representation to all ethnic groups—including the majority Pashtuns—would have brought peace to Afghanistan and ousted al Qaeda once and for all. Unfortunately this did not happen.

The political instability and ethnic imbalance in Afghanistan after 9/11 marginalized the majority Pashtuns and pushed them into the Taliban fold, even though they were not ideological supporters of the Taliban. The blunder of inducting 80,000 troops of Tajiks into the Afghan national army further alienated the Pashtuns.

Meanwhile, Pakistan forcefully tackled the influx of al Qaeda into our tribal areas, capturing over 600 al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban leaders, some of them of very high value. We established 1,000 border checkposts and even offered to mine or fence off the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but this never came to pass. The Afghan government, led by President Hamid Karzai, had no writ outside of Kabul, and the insufficient ground troops of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) allowed the Taliban to regroup. The 2004 invasion of Iraq shifted the focus and also contributed to the Taliban gaining ground in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists who fled from Afghanistan came to Pakistan and settled initially in South Waziristan. Through successful intelligence and law-enforcement operations, we eliminated al Qaeda from our cities and destroyed their command, communication and propaganda centers. They fled to the adjoining North Waziristan, Bajur and Swat regions.

From 2004 onwards, we witnessed a gradual shift in the terrorist center of gravity. The Taliban started to re-emerge in Afghanistan and gradually gained a dominant role. They developed ties with the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas, especially in North and South Waziristan. With a grand strategy to destabilize the whole region, the Taliban and al Qaeda established links with extremists in Pakistani society on the one hand and with Muslim fundamentalists in India on the other. They pose a grave threat to South Asia and peace in the world.

We now have to deal with a complex situation. Casualties suffered by our soldiers in the line of duty will not go wasted only if we are able to fully secure our next generations from the menace of terrorism. The exit strategy from Afghanistan must not and cannot be time related. It has to ask, “What effect do we want to create on the ground?” We must eliminate al Qaeda, dominate the Taliban militarily, and establish a representative, legitimate government in Afghanistan.

The military must ensure that we deal with insurgents from a position of strength. The dwindling number of al Qaeda elements must be totally eliminated, and the Taliban have to be dominated militarily. We must strengthen border-control measures with all possible means to isolate the militants on the Afghanistan and Pakistan sides.

The Pakistan military must continue to act strongly. Operationally, we must raise substantially more forces from within the tribal groups and equip them with more tanks and guns. On the Afghan side, the U.S. and ISAF troops must be reinforced. All of this must be done in combination with raising additional Afghan National Army troops, with significant Pashtun representation. Exploiting tribal divisions, we should also raise local militias.

On the political front, we need an invigorated dialogue with all groups in Afghanistan, including the Taliban. Afghanistan for centuries has been governed loosely through a social covenant between all the ethnic groups, under a sovereign king. This structure is needed again to bring peace and harmony. We have to reach out to Pashtun tribes and others who do not ideologically align themselves with the Taliban or al Qaeda. I have always said that “all Talibans are Pashtun, but all Pashtuns are not Taliban.” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia can play pivotal roles in facilitating this outreach.

Pakistan and Afghanistan were shortsightedly abandoned to their fate by the West in 1989, in spite of the fact that they were the ones who won a victory for the Free World against the Soviet Union. This abandonment lead to a sense of betrayal amongst the people of the region. For the sake of regional and world peace, let us not repeat the same mistake.

Published in The Wall Street Journal

WASIM VIEW- The author of the article is not  and will never be on my Christmas card list, just like the present President of Pakistan.  General Musharraf is a usurper and a war criminal who has destroyed Pakistan and her institutions and this must be stated at the outset.

The Musharraf article can be best summarised as a wasted endeavor of a fallen and a failed general imparting war advice to a failing US army in Afghanistan. Worse the article offers and promises more ignominy for Pakistan with Musharraf favouring the US surge that will adversely affect Pakistan not least Balochistan. That said what can one expect from Musharraf for he is the author of Pakistan’s present position which is close to a living hell. The land of the pure is burning from Bajaur to Bolan thanks to the decisions of one Pervez Musharraf.

In terms of the article I nearly fell of my chair when I read that ‘armies can only win sometimes, and at best, create an environment for the political process to work. At the end of the day, it is civilians, not soldiers, who have to take charge of their country’. Coming from a usurper who took over Pakistan armed with a gun its shocking to see Musharraf’s respect for the political process, how cute! Furthermore it is a shame the commando general never actioned his own advice when he was in office not least in dealing with Nawab Akbar Bugti via the political process as he now advocates, for that death has sowed the seeds of discontent in Balochistan.

The rest of the Musharraf article concentrates on the past, present and future of Afghanistan as seen by the commando general and much of it is an exercise in futility. Most notable is Musharraf’s desire to reach out to the Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan, on that I can agree and not much else.

The third article is writen by an Afghan heroine covered in  August’s B-side shown here- it is the one and only Malalai Joya. In the article Joya rubbishes President Obama’s new US policy in Afghanistan with her words worth their weight in gold for Joya represents the authentic and true voice of Afghanistan.

A Troop Surge Can Only Magnify The Crime Against Afghanistan by Malalai Joya

After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.

I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week’s announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.

While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don’t believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.

It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies – Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women’s rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.

After eight years of war, the situation is as bad as ever for ordinary Afghans, and women in particular. The reality is that only the drug traffickers and warlords have been helped under this corrupt and illegitimate Karzai government. Karzai’s promises of reform are laughable. His own vice-president is the notorious warlord Fahim, whom Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch describes as “one of the most notorious warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands”.

Transparency International reports that this regime is the second most corrupt in the world. The UN Development Programme reports Afghanistan is second last – 181st out of 182 countries – in terms of human development. That is why we no longer want this kind of “help” from the west.

Like many around the world, I am wondering what kind of “peace” prize can be awarded to a leader who continues the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starts a new war in Pakistan, all while supporting Israel?

Throughout my recent tour of the US, I had the chance to meet many military families and veterans who are working to put an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand that it is not a case of a “bad war” and a “good war” – there is no difference, war is war.

Members of Iraq Veterans Against War even accompanied me to meet members of Congress in Washington DC. Together we tried to explain the terrible human cost of this war, in terms of Afghan, US and Nato lives. Unfortunately, only a few representatives really offered their support to our struggle for peace.

While the government was not responsive, the people of the US did offer me their support. And polls confirm that the US public wants peace, not an escalated war. Many also want Obama to hold Bush and his administration to account for war crimes. Everywhere I spoke, people responded strongly when I said that if Obama really wanted peace he would first of all try to prosecute Bush and have him tried before the international criminal court. Replacing Bush’s man in the Pentagon, Robert Gates, would have been a good start – but Obama chose not to.

Unfortunately, the UK government shamefully follows the path of the US in Afghanistan. Even though opinion polls show that more than 70% of the population is against the war, Gordon Brown has announced the deployment of more UK troops. It is sad that more taxpayers’ money will be wasted on this war, while Britain’s poor continue to suffer from a lack of basic services.

The UK government has also tried to silence dissent, for instance by arresting Joe Glenton, a British soldier who has refused to return to Afghanistan. I had a chance to meet Glenton when I was in London last summer, and together we spoke out against the war. My message to him is that, in times of great injustice, it is sometimes better to go to jail than be part of committing war crimes.

Facing a difficult choice, Glenton made a courageous decision, while Obama and Brown have chosen to follow the Bush administration. Instead of hope and change, in foreign policy Obama is delivering more of the same. But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation.

Published in The Guardian

WASIM VIEW- ‘It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country’ is the signature sentence of the Malalai Joya article and it refers to her reaction to President Obama’s troop surge.

What is important about Joya’s article is that its written by an Afghan woman, a daughter of the Afghan soil who knows her country inside out and so when she writes that ‘by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire’, such words are not mere rhetoric but the harsh truth. Joya is right in declaring that Obama’s troop surge will amount to pouring fuel on those flames and is right too in ‘wondering what kind of “peace” prize can be awarded to a leader who continues the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starts a new war in Pakistan, all while supporting Israel?’

Joya finishes her article with a truth some may say with a warning that ‘instead of hope and change, in foreign policy Obama is delivering more of the same. But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation’. I echo the sentiments of Joya and recall the fact that Afghanistan remains the graveyard of empires, let the American empire be warned.

The final article is written by an Indian author and is a must read for it is written with an independent mind and concludes that the celebrity President Obama will fail in Afghanistan unless and until he focuses effort on resolving the Kashmir issue.

Kissinger’s Fantasy is Obama’s Reality by Pankaj Mishra

Meeting George Bush at the White House to discuss Afghanistan, the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid once marvelled at how a “US president could live in such an unreal world, where the entire military and intelligence establishments were so gullible, the media so complacent, Congress so unquestioning – all of them involved in feeding half-truths to the American public”.

The masters of war and delusion are still flourishing. Widening his campaign of extrajudicial execution by drone missiles within Pakistan, Barack Obama seems far from abandoning an anachronistic American faith in superior firepower; the militarism of our new Nobel peace laureate seems constrained only by its steep financial costs.

Unabashed about their cheerleading in Iraq, many mainstream American journalists and columnists continue to resemble court scriveners of the kind the Mughal emperors employed: “intense”, “methodical” and “rigorous” were some of the adjectives used to describe Obama’s protracted decision-making on Afghanistan. As for the decision itself, Fareed Zakaria, fresh from a “small lunch” with the president at the White House, expressed the new liberal-hawk consensus when he exulted: “Obama is a realist by temperament, learning, and instinct.”

Actually, Obama’s idea of sending 30,000 more soldiers to help subdue the Taliban, reinforce the corrupt regime in Kabul, and assassinate more people in Pakistan until the inevitable American retreat, seems a particularly incoherent fantasy. Perhaps Zakaria means that Obama is a “realist” in the same way as Henry Kissinger was praised as one, doggedly pursuing “national interests” through the world’s manifold complexity. After all, Obama invoked Kissinger’s apparently prestigious imprimatur when he proposed to bomb “safe havens” for terrorists in Pakistan during his presidential debate with John McCain last year.

Certainly a more historically grounded realism would acknowledge that Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation with a highly politicised postcolonial population, is not Cambodia – the hapless country Kissinger and Nixon devastated after failing to make Vietnam fall in line with American national interests. Or that the Pashtuns, though never colonised and hardly ever a nationality, have repeatedly proved more effective than the most organised anti-colonial movements in expelling foreign occupiers from their land.

Unleashing greater firepower on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama could have learned from the shrewd psychological realism of his early hero, James Baldwin. “Force,” Baldwin wrote during Kissinger and Nixon’s last desperate assault on Indochina, “does not reveal to the victim the strength of his adversary. On the contrary, it reveals the weakness, even the panic of his adversary and this revelation invests the victim with patience.”

The Taliban, predictably resurgent as a result of Nato’s blunderbuss tactics, may now choose to lie low for a while. The general respite from violence may even prove long enough for Obama’s intellectual courtiers to declare that the surge in Afghanistan has “worked”. As in Iraq, a new cycle of suicide bombings may then begin; but America, and its media, will have already turned away.

The realism of American foreign policy, it seems, can only be selective and ephemeral, as American elites endlessly calibrate their national interests – invading, bombing and abandoning vast regions as they please, leaving other people to pick up the pieces.

Obama’s long speech on Afghanistan barely mentioned Pakistan, which in 2005 suffered a single suicide attack and now – after the intensified American-led or directed assaults on Afghanistan, Swat and Waziristan – suffers several such outrages in a week. In the same speech Obama did not refer even once to India, with which Pakistan has fought three wars over Kashmir, and whose military occupation of the Muslim-majority valley remains the biggest recruiting tool for jihadists in Pakistan, such as those who led the terrorist attack on Mumbai a year ago. (Not much exaggeration is needed to indoctrinate them: an Indian human rights group last week published evidence of the mass graves of nearly 3,000 Muslims allegedly executed over the last decade by Indian security forces near the border with Pakistan.) Obama will of course speak of Afghanistan’s neighbours when another jihadi assault on India, which is very likely, brings India and Pakistan closer to war, endangering America’s campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is also true that the historical and geopolitical relationships between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan may be too fraught for American foreign policy realists to reckon with.

In 1971, India facilitated the secession of Pakistan’s easternmost province (now Bangladesh), provoking Pakistan’s humiliated army and intelligence officials to pursue a policy of creating “strategic depth” against India by seeking Pashtun clients inside Afghanistan. In the 1990s, Pakistani officials who helped supply the mujahideen during the CIA-led anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan turned to fuelling the popular insurgency in India-ruled Kashmir, which since 1989 has claimed more than 80,000 lives. Throughout the decade, Pakistan’s highly secretive intelligence agency, the ISI, trained and financed militant Islamist groups for jihad in Kashmir – even as it settled on the Taliban as its proxy in Afghanistan, which had been abruptly abandoned by the US following the Soviet withdrawal.

Obama himself identified Kashmir as the rusty nail in south Asia’s body politic a month before he was elected. Discussing the situation in Afghanistan, he told Joe Klein of Time magazine that “working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve the Kashmir crisis in a serious way” were “critical tasks for the next administration”. But, assuming the presidency, Obama inherited other, more strategic as well as lucrative national interests.

The Bush administration had wished to build up India as a strategic US ally and counterweight to China in Asia. Encouraged by an assertive Indian-American lobby, and American arms manufacturers, Bush offered an exceptionally generous civil nuclear agreement to India – which, unlike Iran, has long refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty. India is now finally an open market for US defence companies: Lockheed Martin alone hopes to cut deals worth $15bn over the next five years.

Of course, as China increasingly underwrites the American economy, notions of “containing” the Middle Kingdom through pro-America allies now look like some idle cold-war game-playing in Condoleezza Rice’s state department. But the Bush administration’s decision to legitimise India’s nuclear status, and to help project the country as a rising superpower, has stoked an old paranoia in Pakistan (and indeed in China, which, breaking from its policy of befriending previously hostile neighbours like Vietnam and Mongolia, has recently assumed its harshest stance towards India in decades).

American officials often complain that Pakistan’s security establishment is “obsessed” with India. Seen through the perspective of American national interests, the obsession seems purely irrational, a frustrating diversion from the urgent task of combating anti-American extremists. But Pakistan sees India as gaining “strategic depth” in its own backyard, using Afghanistan – where India has poured over a billion dollars in aid since 2001 and has four consulates in addition to its embassy in Kabul – to support secessionists in the troubled ¬ Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Pakistan’s leaders – who are convinced that America will abandon Islamabad just as it did Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 – will play the same charade with Obama that General Musharraf’s foreign minister once frankly described as, “First say yes, and later say but”. They may well launch a few token crackdowns on militants but are unlikely to abandon the possibility of allowing some to remain in order to unleash them, at a later date, on India-ruled Kashmir. As always, the road to stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan runs through the valley of Kashmir; and in making south Asia’s primary conflict disappear, Obama now seems yet another exponent of that exhausted genre of magical realism.

Published in The Guardian

WASIM VIEW- Mishra’s article is well-written as you would expect from an author. It is also hard-hitting and truthful, take for example his condemnation of US drones referring to them as a ’campaign of extrajudicial execution’. More words of wisdom that I concur with include ‘Obama’s idea of sending 30,000 more soldiers to help subdue the Taliban, reinforce the corrupt regime in Kabul, and assassinate more people in Pakistan until the inevitable American retreat, seems a particularly incoherent fantasy’.

I was not surprised or startled when Mishra opines that ‘Obama’s long speech on Afghanistan barely mentioned Pakistan, which in 2005 suffered a single suicide attack and now – after the intensified American-led or directed assaults on Afghanistan, Swat and Waziristan – suffers several such outrages in a week’. The US impact is no longer measured in simple proofs of the legendary taste of the pudding anymore but in the blood bowl of innocents that die daily as Uncle Sam asks Pakistan to ‘do more’.

Mishra’s views on Kashmir and India as a proud Indian are a breath of fresh air and prove that honest individuals reside on the eastern side of Pakistan’s border. On Kashmir Mishra is only too right in whose military occupation of the Muslim-majority valley remains the biggest recruiting tool for jihadists in Pakistan, such as those who led the terrorist attack on Mumbai a year ago. (Not much exaggeration is needed to indoctrinate them: an Indian human rights group last week published evidence of the mass graves of nearly 3,000 Muslims allegedly executed over the last decade by Indian security forces near the border with Pakistan.) I concur entirely.

On India, Mishra revisits history when he says that ‘In 1971, India facilitated the secession of Pakistan’s easternmost province (now Bangladesh), provoking Pakistan’s humiliated army and intelligence officials to pursue a policy of creating “strategic depth” against India by seeking Pashtun clients inside Afghanistan. In the 1990s, Pakistani officials who helped supply the mujahideen during the CIA-led anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan turned to fuelling the popular insurgency in India-ruled Kashmir, which since 1989 has claimed more than 80,000 lives. Once again I concur.

Mishra is right in reminding the celebrity President Obama that ‘working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve the Kashmir crisis in a serious way were critical tasks for the next administration’. In his final conclusion Mishra writes that ‘as always, the road to stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan runs through the valley of Kashmir; and in making south Asia’s primary conflict disappear, Obama now seems yet another exponent of that exhausted genre of magical realism’. Once again I concur with the brilliant and true words of Pankaj Mishra who has proved in this article that Indians like Pakistanis can speak the raw truth on Pakistan, India and Kashmir and hats off to him for doing so.