Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[ejazr]

Pakistan or any Islamic country cannot be compared to free thinking world (Germany, Japan etc). They (Germany, Japan) are people who think of their countries interest first not any religion. The one thing in Islamic countries is followed to the word are words of influential Mullah's version of history and truth. Until this is actively followed no one in this universe can change the mindset of Jihadis or countries like Pakistan.

This opinion is either naive or bigoted . So Nazi Germany were free and thinking? My Jewish friends would love to hear that. And other than Arab regimes (who got their independance in the 60 and 70s btw and continue to be supported by the US to not implement democratic reforms citing "security threats") almost all muslims live in some form of a democratic govt. Thats about 80% of the muslim population. And given the chance, even the majority of the arabs would prefer a democratic govt. which is bound to happen eventually. There is nothing unIslamic about Democracy as much as these AQ types and their sympathisers would like you to believe.

Now even in Pakistan, whenever there were free and fair elections the politcal Islami parties never won more than 10% of popular vote. Even in the conservative NWFP, It was the secular ANP that won overwhlemingly. Its not surprising that its only when a military dictator was in power that politcal Islami parties won (e.g. during Zia or Musharraf era). So does that conform to the population listening to the crazy mullas on who to vote? Or does it indicate the conveneince of the military-(opportunist)mullah alliance imposing their will contrary to the population's wishes?

Even your outlook that "influential mullas" are a monolith and all of them think the same is not true. Its only that crazy mullas get more air time and media coverage because they are good for ratings.

Infact, there are many more religious Islamic scholars who have argues in favour of Democracy from the very beginning. Here is one such article by a widely respected Islamic scholar even among Arabs. The Concept Of Democracy in Islam

Secondly Germany and Japan were not enemies from first. Japan fought with US in word war 1. Germany actually wanted to ally with any country other than french & soviets (for reference read Hitlers own book and many peoples statements on net) in WW2. Whereas Pakistan existence started with hatred towards Indians and realizing they maybe ruled by an Hindu Indian.

That doesn't change the fact that their ideologies (Nazism and ethnic/religious nationalism) was apparently part of the "free and thinking" world. Germany wanted to ally with anyone who wanted White supremacy supported (according to him) by the Catholic Church while everyone else were 2nd class citizens. There was nothing free about that!

Although the fear of "Islam in danger" was used to gather support from the Muslim League, it was primarliy the need to safegaurd British Strategic interests that Pakistan was created. Secondary to that was safegaurding of interests of the salariat and feudals.

Did you know that even in the rabid communal atmosphere of 1946 where Muslim League's platform was nothing else but a opportunist "vote for Islam" the Congress actually came to power in the conservative NWFP? Even in Punjab it was the anti-muslim league secular Unionist party that came to power. There were no elections in Balochistan but in Sind, the only reason ML formed a government there was because the British nominated members in the Provincial Assembly were asked by the British governor to side with the Muslim League. The seeds of religious/ethnic nationalism were sowed by the ML but it was only in the Zia/Musshy era that they were really taken care of and harvested later.

If you look at it objectively rise of Nazism, and the rise of religious nationalism using Islam as a politcal tool under Zia are quite similar. The radicalisation and militarisation of society, the lack of democratic rule, the supremacist ideology and the preference of big business with no worker/common people rights all are part and parcel of any extreme religious/ethnic nationalist movement. This is the ideology that gives rise to terrorism.

Best solution is help Balochistan to attain independence from Pakistan and separate Northern province and POK from them. This automatically whole country would finish themselves and in the last we can go and do the mop-up :tank:and claim the remaining (POK,NP,Punjab,NWFP):twizt:. Just we need to equip our intelligence to carry this forward. :dfi-1:

Afghanistan was never part of the problem, Pakistanis always meddled in their internal affairs.

My 2 cents.

That might have been best achieved in 1971 when the local population would have actually welcomed that. But not possible now, although Pakistanis and Indians might be genetically the same, socially we have become quite different. Even religious schools like Deoband in India and Pakistan are completely different when it comes to many issues. Islam has been hijacked by the military-feudal groups for politcal needs and the situation there is an aberration.

Espicially post 2008; the level of propaganda anti-India propaganda withing Pakistan going on since 2008 would make it quite difficult. Can you imagine what it would be like to add another 160M or so hostile population to Indian terrorities? Besides what off the economic costs of such massive intervention? The Indian Army issues the Cold start doctrine precisely because such armed encounters are not productive.

You might recall that the TTP said that they were ready to fight alongside the PA if India attacks Pakistan after 26/11. There is your preview of what will happen.

Overall, the politcal parties that do have widepsread support like ANP in NWFP, MQM in Sindh and BNP in Balochistan are quite favourable to India. Same thing with Afghanistan which is an even more conservative muslim country that Pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

[Mod]Ejajr, you raise several good issues. However, we do not encourage calling people names.

There is no need to call someone naive or bigoted. Please consider this in future.[/mod]

 

[ejazr]

I politely repeat that the the article by Mattoo is hogwash. My view is realistic.

1) All this talk of strenthening the civilian government is hogwash. The same civilians- Zulfiqar and Benazir produced Anti-India N bomb( whatever may be the justification) and the Taliban. Excuse me, Benzair died not because she opposed Taliban;she died because she never realised that the child (taliban) she helped in fostering fifteen years back is no longer tame and has become hardened defiant teenager. Even after the first bomb blast in a rally, she was still hopeful that she can gain control of the situation.Moreover, there were rumours that years of exile have dried up her money and she did not want pak govt to take control of her remaining monetary assets.

2) the same strengthened civilian pak govt .shall not accept India suggested kashmir solution. both the civilian govt. and the military are the faces of the same coin.

3) And pray, pray why should we keep on dying because of some cancer in a neighbouring country.

4) All this talk of strengthening civilian government;how do we do it; what is the way? Is it giving up of kashmir;no way? Is it unilaterally giving up all the kashmir water and let our lands go parched ,no way but yes ,a negotiated sharing of water? Is it giving up our business in Afghanistan;no way? Pakistan can do business with all our neighbouring countries while we should not do so? Why please?

5) I have never said that we should not strengthen our intelligence apparatus. My position is all indians irrespective of religion and region should co-exist peacefully to the satisfaction of everybody; strengthen the police and intelligence; seal the borders effectively like what US has done after 9/11; strengthen our armed forces and seek IRan's approval of passage to Afghansitan.

6) Just leave the pakistan and pakistanis alone.

7) People like Mattoo just give alternative suggestions in the National security advisory board. They just parrot their thoughts. They do not have a workable solution. They are of the category who think that perseverance in friendliness to any problem is the answer and the problem will evaporate and when there is a cross border terroist attack, these people go in hiding. Where was Matto hiding from 22/11 to Feb 8.?
l

5)

1) The civilian govt. in the 90s where nothing but pawns in the hand of the military. Benazir Bhutto had always consistently tried to counter the military-mulla alliance but she was not powerful enough. Taliban was supported despite her opposition to it. That's why she was kicked out by the military for interfering in "national security" matters. Indian foreing policy has always been conducted by the military, no matter who was in power.
But Pakistan today is not the same in the 90s, all the mosters it created are now turning back on the military. Some might consider this as a punishment from God for their oppurtunist use of Islam for politcal ends.

2) There was never a strong civilian govt. the military always overshadowed it.

3 and 4) There are mutiple internal actors in Pakistan. You have the civil/democratic society, then you have the military, you have the feudals, you have the intelligence agencies that have their own power strucutre. And then you have the "rouge" agents of the military and intelligence agencies that probably are going even more rouge as we saw with the GHQ attack by a former medical corps officer. All these have to be taken into account without compromising our national interests.

We don't even have to start with negotiations and give concessions but we need an effective media campaign to counter anti-India propaganda to the Pakistani people. for example, if countries half way around the world has agreements with GoP to run Voice of America and BBC in local langauge radio broadcasts why should'nt we? And if you went through the my previous post about the link on Pakistani poll by Al jazeera you would have noticed that the local population is FAR more hostile to the Americans than the Indians.

5) Agree with you fully there.

6 and 7) Its not just about "friendliness". Do you think the military-intelligence comples would consider it friendly when we talk about reducing their control and bringing it under civilian/democratic control? You can already see their reactions on the ISI being bought under the interior ministry or the controls specified by the KL bill

The US now looks inclined to strenghtens civil society and reduce the feudal/military control over Pakistan in contrast to its previous policy of having a pliant military dictatorship with an Islamist tilt. The Kerry-Lugar bill was a step in that direction. If India wants a stable South Asia so that we can go ahead and be a world power, we have to align with US interests here (without comprimising with out own national interests) otherwise we may very well end up being left on opposite sides like what happened in the 80s in Afghanistan.

 

[Daredevil]

Pakistan's Partial War on Terror

The deadly results of cooperation with terrorists.
By C. CHRISTINE FAIR

The past week's spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan and the siege of its military headquarters are again casting the spotlight on that country's war on terror. Attention will—and should—focus in particular on Islamabad's many failures to control militants on its own soil. Pakistan is now paying the heavy price for its earlier attempts to use terrorist groups as strategic tools.

For decades Islamabad has viewed and used terrorist groups as assets to be cultivated. Before the Soviet invasion, Pakistan used Islamist militants for operations in India and Afghanistan. Today, Pakistan aids the Afghan Taliban mainly in the belief that if U.S. and international commitment to Afghanistan wanes, it would be better to be friendly with a group like the Taliban that can keep Indian influence in the country at bay—the same logic behind Pakistan's pre-2001 support for the Taliban.

At home, Pakistan has tolerated a raft of terrorist groups ostensibly linked to Kashmir, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for last year's Mumbai massacre, continues to operate under various names. Its leadership roams free and its offices remain open. Jaish-e-Mohammad, responsible for several attacks in India and against international and domestic targets within Pakistan, is similarly unconstrained. Pakistan's track record against so-called anti-Shi'a militias, such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipha-e-Sahaba-e-Pakistan, has been equally lackluster despite vicious attacks against Shi'a who are perhaps one-fourth of Pakistan's population. These varied groups are ensconced not in the unruly tribal areas, but in Pakistan's most populous and militarized province: the Punjab. Punjab hosts six army corps, yet these groups proliferate and operate with impunity literally under the nose of Pakistan's army.

Islamabad has long believed it could exploit these groups for strategic aims while preventing them from causing too much "unapproved" trouble. The government would have likely come to some modus vivendi with the Pakistan Taliban, had its leaders agreed to focus upon Afghanistan rather than Pakistan. Islamabad cracked down militarily on the Pakistani Taliban earlier this year only after it was clear that deal-making had failed. With respect to the so-called Kashmiri groups, Pakistan only sought to moderate their activities to prevent serious Indo-Pakistan crises and international pressure while maintaining their basic operational readiness.

Now it's possible to see exactly how shortsighted and dangerous Pakistan's strategy has been. First, all these groups are more interconnected than at first might appear, and in ways that make them much harder to control than Islamabad may believe. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi shares membership and resources with Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Pakistan Taliban. Both Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Mohammad facilitate the movement of persons outside of Pakistan into the terrorist sanctuaries in the tribal areas, provide suicide bombers to the Pakistan Taliban, and facilitate high-value operations throughout Pakistan. With the exception of Lashkar-e-Taiba, all support the Afghan Taliban and all are close to al Qaeda. They all share connections with Pakistan's intelligence agencies and some civilian leaders.

Some of these groups have now bitten the hand that once fed them. These groups are vexed by Pakistan's support of the U.S. fight against al Qaeda, provision of logistical support for the Afghan war to undermine the Taliban, the state's complicity in Washington's use of drones in the tribal areas and Pakistan's own military operations in the Pashtun belt.

It is unlikely the recent attack on the Army headquarters, perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, will focus some minds in Pakistan on this complex problem. Pakistanis prefer to attribute their terrorism problem to blowback from the U.S.- and Saudi-sponsored anti-Soviet jihad, or to blame India for domestic attacks. Polls I have conducted suggest Pakistanis are unaware of both the activities of Pakistani militant groups operating on their soil and the long-standing ties between these groups and their security and intelligence agencies.

In reality, Pakistan needs to own responsibility for its mistakes and reverse course swiftly. Other countries, especially the U.S., can help, but so far have shown a worrying lack of interest in doing so.

Washington has largely failed to understand the problem of Pakistan's militant landscape and forge appropriate policy. Since September 11, the U.S. has worked to secure Pakistan's sustained fight against al Qaeda, yet the U.S. demanded Pakistani action against the Afghan Taliban only from 2007 onward. The delay happened in part because the Taliban was believed to have been vanquished. Even when the Taliban re-emerged in 2005, Washington was slow to prompt Pakistan to act for fear of compromising its cooperation against al Qaeda. Similarly, Washington has pressured Pakistan to act against the so-called Kashmiri groups only episodically, and only when their actions have sparked near-war crises between India and Pakistan. And Washington has tended to see anti-Shi'a groups as a domestic problem rather than the threat to regional security they really are.

During this period, the U.S. disbursed more than $13 billion to compensate or reward Pakistan for its cooperation in the war on terror even while it undermined the goals of the same. Congress is improving on this record. Late last month, the legislature proposed tying $7.5 billion of aid over five years to the strengthening of Pakistan's civilian governance. The bill also proposes binding security assistance to Pakistan's efforts to eliminate militant groups that have previously been viewed as state assets. The Pakistani army balked at these conditions because they would limit its ability to use terrorists strategically. But precisely for that reason, it's a good move.

Pakistan's efforts to fight the bad terrorists while protecting the good militants cannot be sustained. The latest string of attacks and bombings shows the high cost this policy is inflicting on Pakistan itself. Nor can the lackadaisical international response to Pakistan's action and inaction in the backdrop of enormous financial largess be justified. Despite army balking, Washington should insist that Islamabad act against terrorism comprehensively as a condition for further security assistance. In the end, Pakistanis may benefit most from such steadfast commitment.

Ms. Fair is an assistant professor in the Security Studies Program at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

 

[Sandrocottas]

Reply to Ejazr's post

Welll, I do not have time to go on debating over this issue.

I just want to end up this discussion by saying the following:

A) It seems from your post that you are probably a non resident indian settled in US or europe with probably friends fro pakistan. It is very easy to sit at a distance and comment on brotherhood.

B) Your posts also seems to digress from the realistic scenario today; there is no point in talking about the past pak civilian governments, past attitudes of Germany and Japan and ANP and all that. And please Germany and Japan had national intersts during the colonial period which clashed with those of Britain and US.

After defeat of germany and Japan; the US in their own interests economically funded Germany and Japan as US wanted to contain Stalin's Soviet union. Both G &J accepted these conditions. Even today, US dominates to considerable amount policies of G & J . Recent articles in media have given publicity to G&J trying to break the strangehold of US. At no point of time, G&J ever contemplated the idea of having no state actors (terrorists) with our without the support of state actors.

C) We in india have witnessed bomb blasts and we are all fed up of excuses given by pakistanis like civilian government has to be strengthened and more time to be given to it; root cause of kashmir to be addressed; inadequate evidence against Hafeez Saeed, dawood is not in Pak etc.

And yes, the idea of having a media campaign for strengthening civilian government is not practical. The Pak government will jam it though they allowed Radio mullah with his inflammatory radio. And Why, Why when US is shaking hands with Pak army; should India have the over smartness to antagonise pak army so that they should infiltrate more terrorists to blow up more of ourselves. There is no guarantee that the civilian government shall be friendlier than the military.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Daredevil]

Treating symptoms, not the disease

By Irfan Husain

Saturday, 17 Oct, 2009 | 11:00 AM PST |


As Pakistan reels from a series of lethal terror attacks in major cities, there is a welcome strengthening of resolve to fight the Taliban and their allies.

Currently, the army is gearing up for a major campaign against the hub of terrorism in South Waziristan. The senior military spokesman has talked of the nexus between Al Qaeda, Fata-based Taliban and jihadi groups from southern Punjab.

The recent assault on the army headquarters in Rawalpindi demonstrated the capabilities of the foe: launched by a mix of Punjabi and Pakhtun militants, the attack underlined the level of their training and motivation. There is now some talk of taking them on in south Punjab after the successful completion of the Waziristan operation.

Then, of course, there is the question of the terrorist centres in Quetta and Muridke. So where will our war against terrorism stop? With groups being trained and armed across the country, where exactly do the frontlines lie? By reacting to terror attacks when and where they occur, and by launching operations against the likes of the Mehsuds in South Waziristan, it seems like we are applying band-aids to gaping wounds when the patient is haemorrhaging all over the body.

The reality is that we have been trying to treat the symptoms, and not the disease. Thus far, we have not been prepared to admit that the causes of our crisis lie in our collective psyche, and not in the remote badlands of the tribal areas.

The easy response to why we are where we are is to say that it is largely due to the creation of jihadi groups by the ISI and CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the invaders withdrew, and our American allies followed suit, thousands of armed and trained fighters were left to create mischief. The next step in this analysis is to blame our own army and intelligence apparatus for using these groups to further Pakistani interests in Afghanistan and Kashmir. After 9/11, when our establishment under Musharraf was forced to abandon its support for our proxies, they turned against us.

This chain of events is certainly a plausible explanation for our present plight. But it does not go far enough to give us an understanding into why Islamic militancy finds such fertile soil in Pakistan. Some would point to problems abroad while looking for the underlying reasons for militancy, citing Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya and Kashmir among other Muslim hotspots. Again, there is some weight in this internationalist argument.

Nor does Pakistan have a monopoly on Islamic terror groups. These have mushroomed from Indonesia to the UK, and have caused mayhem around the world. Nevertheless, Pakistan is increasingly being seen as the breeding ground for extremism and religiously inspired violence. Time and again, terrorists have been shown to having been trained and indoctrinated in the tribal areas, as well as in Pakis- tani cities.

The proliferation of madressahs in Pakistan is another cause for radicalisation that has been repeatedly identified. From a few hundred when Zia seized power in 1977 to the current estimate of some 25,000, these religious seminaries are seen as the spawning ground for the foot soldiers of jihad.

Here, thousands of young children are taught little but rote learning of the scriptures. Maulvis unqualified to teach have assumed the responsibility of indoctrinating young minds. And while Musharraf vowed to reform this sprawling, unregulated system, he failed to live up to his word in this crucial area, just as he did in so many others.

So what has fuelled this deadly trend? Zia’s zeal to send the country back to the medieval era was certainly one factor. And financing many of the madressahs have been rich Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and elsewhere who thought their philanthropy was paying to educate poor young Pakistanis.

In many cases, this financial support has had more sinister motives, as proxies were paid to further the causes of rival Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia was especially active in exporting its rigid brand of Islam.

More pernicious than these outward symbols of piety was (and is) the atmosphere of religiosity that has gripped the country since Zia’s 11 years in power. By making promotions in the army and the civil service conditional on a public display of belief, the dictator ensured that religion would be our defining identity. And what happened if you were not a Sunni Muslim in Pakistan? Our unfortunate minorities are finding out the hard way.

In these days of cable and satellite TV, it is hard to imagine the days when PTV ruled the airwaves, and bombarded us with endless sermons. Of course, many of our private TV channels still do, but at least we can now flip the remote. Education, both public and private, was forced to include an impossible amount of religious instruction.

Even Aitchison College in Lahore, a centre of secularism, succumbed. I remember one day my seven-year old son Shakir came home to complain that he had been punished in his religious studies class. When I asked him why, he replied: “The teacher asked me what Islam taught us, and I replied Arabic. So she made me stand in the corner.”

Long before Zia, Pakistan was a Muslim country, so he was hardly making any new converts through his relentless campaign. But what he did succeed in doing was to transform Pakistan into an Islamic state. This change in emphasis is deeper than it seems: in a Muslim country, the majority of citizens are followers of Islam. But it has been observed that in an Islamic state, one interpretation of the faith forms the basis for law-making. This can cause non-Muslims to be relegated to second-class status.

It is the consequence of this sea-change that we are contending with today. By creating an environment where a rigid, literal interpretation of the faith rules supreme, we stifle democratic debate based on reason.

Then the question arises about which school of jurisprudence will underpin the law of the land. Next there is the tension between the Deobandi and Barelvi schools. Finally, there is the ever-present conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam. This is the Pandora’s box Zia opened.

Unless we can somehow summon up the will to confront these difficult and divisive issues, we will be destined to continue applying band-aids to our bleeding body.

[email protected]

 

[nitesh]

dunno where to put but this is something like.............

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Survival of the fittest

Pervez Hoodbhoy, in his eminently lucid book Muslims and Science, gave examples of Pakistani nuclear scientists who engaged in research into the supernatural. In a conference on miracles in Islam organised in Islamabad under Zia, one of our scientists presented a paper on the possibility of tapping the energy of djinns to meet our power requirements. Another worked out how to calculate the degree of hypocrisy in society.

 

[Singh]

A state of denial​

The GHQ attack has drawn accusations from several quarters in Pakistan that it was inspired by foreign powers; some have named India and the US among the usual suspects. Such ‘experts’ rarely bother to give any concrete evidence to substantiate their charges, which are based mainly on conjecture.

They can only argue as to which country would want to hurt Pakistan the most: surely it must be India. Since many now see the US as the enemy, it too, in their view, could be the hidden hand behind the attack. In this particular case the leader of the terrorists has been captured alive. An army spokesman has identified him as Aqeel, alias Dr Usman, affiliated with terrorist outfits based in southern Punjab. The terrorists involved in the attack were apparently trained in South Waziristan.

Will the spokesman’s disclosure silence those who see a foreign power behind the attack? Not likely. The conspiracy theorists in this case are the same people who have been claiming that the suicide bombers — who have killed thousands in Pakistan over the last few years — could not be Muslims. They ignore the reality that many of the suicide bombers have been identified and found to be part of Islamist extremist groups such as the Taliban.

Similarly, some conspiracy theorists believe that Al Qaeda does not exist and the Sept 11, 2001 attacks were the handiwork of Israeli agents. The fact that Osama bin Laden has taken responsibility for 9/11 and all those involved in it were Arab nationals has not deterred the ardent believers of conspiracies.

How should one explain such a state of denial? It is not a case of not knowing the facts. Actually, the conspiracy theorists do not want to believe anything that comes in the way of their firmly held views: firstly, that the US, Israel and India are the arch enemies of Muslims; secondly, that the militants involved in the struggle against anti-Islam forces must be absolved of any charge of brutal excesses.

One can see a clear pattern at work. After every gruesome terrorist act the ‘defenders’ of the terrorists react. They assert that this must be the doing of anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan forces, or of elements within the regime, such as intelligence agencies. Even when the Taliban or other extremists claim responsibility the ‘defenders’ assert that this must be disinformation. It would not be incorrect to conclude that there is a nexus between the Taliban and these apologists, mainly belonging to our religious parties which seem to be acting as the political face of the terrorists.

What kind of mentality is helping create sympathy for violent extremism? How is it that extremists are attracting so many adherents? No doubt, the majority are drawn from madressahs where young boys are subjected to relentless brainwashing. But some supporters are well-educated people. It is important, therefore, to understand the phenomenon of ‘Talibanisation’ since military measures alone cannot destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In the final process, ideas must be fought with ideas.

Over a period of time the perception has developed in Pakistan and elsewhere that the US is following a global anti-Muslim policy. The US is viewed as the main supporter of Israel, which has long been a dagger in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. The Al Qaeda phenomenon itself developed after the US attack on Iraq during the first Gulf War of 1990. In 2001 the US invasion of Afghanistan and, more notably, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 raised Muslim fears to an unprecedented extent.

In Pakistan, sectarianism has been on the rise for the last three decades or so. But it was under Ziaul Haq that extremism acquired the shape that we see today. He patronised fundamentalism for political and ideological reasons. The Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan was seen as a threat to Pakistan’s own security. The West had its own motives to oppose the Soviets. There was also sympathy for the Afghan Mujahideen whose struggle against the Soviets was seen as righteous. It was not realised, until it was too late, that these militants would turn into Frankensteins. Today’s Taliban are the offshoot of the Mujahideen.

Sept 11 led to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Here another miscalculation occurred. The Afghan people have a long tradition of opposing all foreign invaders and history is now repeating itself. Thus, the US and Nato forces are facing a war of national resistance which the Taliban have converted into a ‘jihad’ in the Pakhtun areas. Ethnic Pakhtuns also live on the Pakistani side of the border, thus extending the area of conflict to our tribal belt. Vital support is also coming from sympathisers affected by Talibanisation.

To counter Talibanisation and the religious fanatics, it needs to be emphasised, firstly, that they have done a grave disservice to Islam’s image by their senseless violence and brutality. Secondly, the rampant anti-Americanism that is providing so many recruits for Al Qaeda can be countered by recalling some historical facts. The US invasion of Iraq in 1990 was due to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, an Arab and Muslim neighbour. In that war the UN and the majority of Arab and Muslim states had supported the US.

In 2001, it was the terrorism of 9/11 that resulted in the US invasion of Afghanistan and not vice versa. The liberation of Muslim Bosnia and Kosovo in the last decade was secured by the US, whose support for the Mujahideen had earlier secured Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Even in the case of Israeli aggression against the Arab countries, it was the US that twice secured Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. The US also secured Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza in 1994 that allowed the PLO to return and form a Palestinian Authority in those territories.

Nevertheless, the onus lies on the US to rehabilitate its image in the Muslim world. It must end its blind support for Israel. The US withdrawal from Iraq must be expedited. The US should play a role to help resolve the Kashmir dispute. Barack Obama has a historic opportunity to change the Bush-era policies and build bridges between the US and the Muslim world. It remains to be seen how far he can rise to the occasion.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | A state of denial

 

[Daredevil]

Polarised positions

Polarised positions

BY SEVANTI NINAN
Much as in India, there is a perceptible divide in the Pakistani media discourse about the nation and its threats…
Photo: AFP

National issues: Pakistanis pay homage to the victims of the attack on the Army HQ.
Liberty Bazar in Lahore is the equivalent of Delhi’s Sarojini Nagar market, only less cluttered. The shops aren’t exactly full of goods you want to take back — they look too much like home. But a shopkeeper retailing cloth has a grumble you would not hear back home. Ever since Star Plus became popular here, he says, the demand for saris from his local clientele has gone up.

Cut to a member of the Punjab police posted in the hotel corridor, eager for conversation. “I’ve been stationed here for you all,” he says hospitably. “Bombs everywhere. We want to protect our foreign guests.” Indians value education, don’t they, he wants to know. “I watch your talent contests on TV. I watch Boogie Woogie. But my mother watches Star Plus… I love cricket so much — I am such a fan of Sourav Ganguly. And I wish I could go to India.”

Nationalistic zeal

But what Pakistanis get on their news channels offsets any positive impression our colourful melodramas and noisy reality shows may create about India. For each self-styled television patriot we have here, there seem to be half a dozen there. But can you imagine how many we would spawn if we were as much under siege?

Three-and-a-half days on the soil of a neighbour with whom we have a fractious relationship is not long enough to gain perspective, only pointers. On television and in newspapers, Pakistan’s media is telling people what to think, and there is a perceptible divide. Between English and Urdu, between The Nation and Dawn, and between those who think the Kerry Lugar Bill is a good thing (very few), and those who don’t. Pakistan’s media discourse is consumed by the KLB. They have even stopped spelling it out.

The morning after the General Headquarters attack the editorial in Dawn thinks this is partly a signal that the Enemy out there is feeling the heat. “It is clear that the Taliban and their affiliates are feeling the pressure of the military offensive…they are getting desperate.”

The Nation begs to differ. It is the Americans and the Indians, it says, pointing out that the timing is significant. The “incident occurred at a time when Islamabad was begin invaded by the US lobbyists for the KLB…” The other significant thing about the timing, it adds, is the fact that it follows the blast at the Indian embassy in Kabul. Right after that attack came two on Pakistan, the one on Peshawar, then this. “The Indian hand cannot be ruled out…”

Thriving on emotions

Khaled Ahmed, the rare Pakistani editorial commentator (for the Daily Times) who also comments on the media, says the Urdu press thrives on emotion, as with the language press elsewhere in the subcontinent. And from there it is a short distance to spewing poison. “I think our language press express nationalism more than they express information. The Urdu press scrutinises the state of nationalism, the English press scrutinises the state of the nation.” He thinks it is significant that the Urdu papers there do not have pages on the economy whereas all English newspapers have at least four, if not more.

Khalid Farooqi, the editor of an Urdu paper belonging to the Jang group, says delicately in Hindustani, “some elements in this organisation have a narrow soch (perspective) about India.” He then goes on to offer another way of looking at what happened in Mumbai. “Mumbai was terrorism, the fall of Dhaka was Dushmani (enemity),” he says.

By way of explaining the virulence of Pakistani television, he says 80 to 90 per cent of the electronic media anchors come from the ranks of reporters. “If you are a reporter you need a strong editor. But the channels have no strong producer to rein in these anchors.”

He also makes the point that the rise of satellite television has meant a quantum increase in religiosity on both sides of the border. “When we had only PTV we had may be half an hour a day of religious programming on TV, including something on Koran for children.” Now there are four or five religious channels on TV. “What you used to hear over a year before you now get in a day.”

From comments about the ISI’s (Inter Services Intelligence) influence on the media that Pakistani journalists make, often jocularly, you get the sense that it plays the same role there that Indian spokespersons for the foreign office and the security establishment play here. Direct regular briefings to journalists, among whom there is considerable receptivity. “They use all the column writers and TV anchors,” journalists tell you privately. Hamid Mir, often seen on Indian TV channels, and his channel GEO are seen as favoured by the ISI with information and leaks. Even while we were there Mir was on an Indian news channel, revealing that it was the ISI that had founded the Jaish-e-Mohammed in the Red Mosque.

CNBC Pakistan has a programme called “Awam ki Awaz” which invites audience response to the big issue of the day. The messages it scrolled the day after the GHQ attack, reflected anxiety, jingoism — read what you will into them: We must take our fight with India into Afghanistan…We must stop Afghans from moving into India…I love Pakistani army. I love ISI. I am proud of being a Pakistani…”

At the end of the day, the media industry in Pakistan is vociferous, but by Indian standards, small. Their economy does not support the sort of numbers you can get in India. A successful magazine there will sell maybe 20,000 copies. Long running monthly magazines such as Herald and Newsline are good and respected. But Khaled Ahmed says the effort to convert them into weeklies has not been successful. “Since the Indian economy took off it has been great for your media.”

 

[nitesh]

Misguided liberal missiles | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

The problem actually started much before Zia when the founder of the so-called progressive PPP, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, laid the foundation of fundamentalism in the country by introducing a constitutional amendment that essentially started the process of the state deciding about religious matters.

 

[IBRIS]

Pakistan 'key' to UK terror plots

A US report investigating links between Britain and Pakistan says that "a physical and ideological terrorism pipeline" exists between the countries.

The report, published by centre-right think tank The Heritage Foundation, argues that "Pakistan is central" to terrorist plots in Britain.

More than a quarter of those convicted of terrorism in the UK trained or tried to train in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

It also warned that British "homegrown" terrorism constitutes a major threat.

The Heritage Foundation, examined data from "major Islamist terrorist plots" in Britain between 11 September 2001 and early August 2009.

Homegrown threat

The authors, Ted Bromund and Morgan Roach, said the data they analysed showed that 19 out of the 87 individuals convicted of terrorism offences in Britain had family ties to Pakistan.

At least one was a Pakistani citizen, they say, and 61 were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

They also warn of British homegrown terrorism citing the 18 individuals linked to major plots over the past eight years who were trained in Britain - more than in any other country except Pakistan.

The report also noted that North Africa posed a threat, with at least 13 individuals having ties to the region, six of whom were Algerians.

Participation from the Middle East, the report says, was "comparatively insignificant".

The threat, it concludes, came from individuals affiliated with al-Qaeda, making "Islamist terrorism in Britain another front in the war that al-Qaeda is waging now in Pakistan and Afghanistan".

Border control

Mr Bromund and Mr Roach say that Britain and America "need to break the Pakistan-UK terrorism pipeline."

"Breaking that pipeline is just as important as, but far more difficult than, ending the flow of trained men from Pakistan into Britain."

They believe that the current war in Afghanistan is key to breaking the "pipeline", saying that "a premature US and British military retreat from Afghanistan would allow that country to serve again as an international terrorist haven and would embolden Al Qaeda and its affiliates to export their ambitions regionally and globally.

In line with the Heritage Foundation's Eurosceptic credentials, the authors also recommend that Britain take action to control its borders, adding that further European integration would imperil Britain's ability to control its ports of entry.

The data, the authors say, shows that out of the 87 individuals convicted of terrorism in Britain, 21 had entered Britain illegally or under false pretences.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan 'key' to UK terror plots

 

[nitesh]

worth reading full:
Understanding the ‘Jihad Print Media’ in Pakistan and its Impact

Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) conducted a national seminar on Understanding the ‘Jihad Print Media’ in Pakistan and its impact on 20 October in Islamabad. The seminar brought together a large number of media representatives, scholars and academics to discuss and comment on PIPS’ recently produced report on the subject.

 

[Vinod2070]

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 1 Part One

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 1 Part Two

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 1 Part Three

 

[Vinod2070]

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 2 Part One

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 2 Part Two

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 2 Part Three

 

[Vinod2070]

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode Three Part One

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode Three Part Two

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode Three Part Three

 

[Vinod2070]

Watch Episode-2 part-1. Their ex air chief clearly states that Pakistan was the aggressor in all wars and need not fear India.

India would get into their unholy mess if we attacked them. Something we all know. They have nothing that would attract us to them!

 

[Vinod2070]

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 4 Part 1

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined Episode 4 Part 2

YouTube - An Enemy Imagined? Episode 4 Part 3

 

[ppgj]

well first thanks vinod for the videos. a good one.

Watch Episode-2 part-1. Their ex air chief clearly states that Pakistan was the aggressor in all wars and need not fear India.

i have always felt that PAF then and even now are very pragmatic. they disagree with with PA'a designs. i wish the other two wings learn from them.

India would get into their unholy mess if we attacked them. Something we all know. They have nothing that would attract us to them!

asghar khan refers to the mess pakistan is in today and goes on to say the situation if india invaded. in any case why will india invade? india just wants peace in its own and the region's interest.

 

[RPK]

Pak generals trying to dislodge Zardari: US

Fearing that Obama Administration wants Pakistan Army to be brought under effective civilian control, the military generals are conspiring to dislodge President Asif Ali Zardari through democratic means and political channels.

The fear, among the generals, who have ruled Pakistan for majority of years after independence is also that Zardari with his enhanced powers of presidency might appoint generals of his choice, when the Army's present top hierarchy comes up for retirement in October next year, according to a leading US intelligence think tank.

The Pakistan military, the think tank Stratfor said sees the alignment of the Obama Administration with Zardari as further undermining its position at a time when its power within the country already has weakened because of the rise of civilian forces and a raging Taliban insurgency.

Noting that both this domestic situation and pressure from Washington have placed considerable limits on the ability of the military to dislodge civilian government, Stratfor said the military was now using its influence to help align forces against the president, to force him out of office with a veneer of legality.

"The goal is thus not to unseat the current

government, but to get rid of Zardari in such a way that looks like the byproduct of a constitutional process rather than of a coup -- a return to the times when the military dismissed four different governments between 1985 and 1999," Stratfor said.

Riling up the opposition against the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) is thus a means of forcing Zardari into a corner, it said. Stratfor said the Obama administration feels that unless the army is brought under civilian control, Washington cannot deal with the region's Taliban problem.

This is because the Pakistani security establishment draws a distinction between "good" Taliban that fight in Afghanistan and "bad" Taliban that wage war in Pakistan, it argued.

Also what has antagonised the Army is the aid package for Pakistan recently signed into law recently, which calls for civilian supremacy over the military in Pakistan, and represents a bid by Washington to work with the Zardari government to rein in the Pakistani military. Stratfor said the Pakistani military as an institution has remained deeply opposed to Zardari, though it has continued to work with him.

"This is due to the fact that the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate feel no good alternative to Zardari exists capable of leading Pakistan. PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif is seen as unreliable given his past struggles with the army and his recent moves to emerge as the torchbearer for democracy," it said.

Noting that one key power of the enhanced presidency is the ability to appoint high-level army officials, the think-tank said this power will come into play when current army chief General Ashfaq Kayani retires in October 2010.

Pakistan's other four-star general, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen Tariq Majid, is due to retire at the same time, and current ISI chief Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha could retire as early as March 2010.

"The Zardari government would like to use this opportunity to appoint generals of its own choice to these top military and intelligence posts, something the armed forces deem extremely unacceptable.

The military thus would like to see Zardari's departure from office before that can happen," Stratfor said.

 

[Singh]

Famed French judge Bruguiere tells of a troubled Pakistan​

In a new book, former investigative magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere says Pakistan has lost control of rogue military and intelligence officers, who are aiding militants.

Reporting from Washington - The Pakistani government has lost control of rogue military and intelligence officers who aid Al Qaeda and its allies and play a double game with the West, a renowned French judge asserts in an upcoming book.

For three decades, Jean-Louis Bruguiere was an investigative magistrate, a powerful role that combines the duties of prosecutor and judge and allowed him to cultivate high-level contacts from Algiers to Moscow. He stepped down from that post in 2007, and now serves as the European Union's envoy to Washington on issues related to the financing of terrorism.

His 481-page book, "What I Could Not Say," is to be published Monday in France.

An advance copy obtained by The Times bolsters the 66-year-old official's swashbuckling reputation with previously undisclosed witness testimony and intelligence documents from a trove of case files.

Pakistan's government has long faced criticism that elements of its security services have protected militant groups. The government says it is trying to purge them, and it has launched offensives this year against militants in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan, where its forces are currently battling entrenched Taliban fighters.

The book details French investigations of extremist activity in Pakistan, including a case in which officials went as far as hiding militants from CIA inspection teams at a training camp run by the Pakistani military. Military handlers then sent the trainees on terrorist missions to the West, Bruguiere asserts.

The United States made strategic errors in dealing with Pakistan, he says, adding that it might be too late to clear the security forces of those who sympathize with the extremists.

Islamic radicals seemed to benefit from "a certain sympathy, to say the least" within Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, he writes, citing one of his cases. "We did not have the impression that our interlocutors considered [Al Qaeda militants] to be terrorists."

Published as interviews with Jean-Marie Pontaut, an editor at L'Express magazine, the book is a portrait of one of Europe's best-known crime fighters. The stocky, square-jawed, restless Bruguiere comes from a line of judges dating back to Napoleonic times. He tells of interrogating fanatics and eating crocodile meat during a harrowing investigative trip to Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. But he also writes about growing up among Surrealist painters, who were friends of his father, an art aficionado. And he participated in Paris' leftist student protests of May 1968.

Tracing a history of modern-day terrorism, the book describes the nine-year investigation of the 1989 bombing of a flight from Chad to Paris that killed 170 people. The global hunt culminated in the convictions, in absentia, of top Libyan officials. The judge also recounts the fight against far-left and Palestinian groups supported by the Soviet Union.

After terrorist attacks on France in the 1990s, Bruguiere became an expert on Al Qaeda and an early warning voice. Today, he says, errors by Washington contributed to the crisis in Pakistan.

"The situation in Pakistan is among the most worrisome," he writes. "The central government has lost control of certain elements of the army and the ISI, an intelligence service that no longer has the trust of its foreign partners."

The judge cites his investigation of Willie Brigitte, a Frenchman who was convicted of terrorism charges in 2007.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Al Qaeda militants helped Brigitte go to Pakistan to train with hundreds of Arabs and Westerners and several thousand Pakistanis and Afghans at a mountain complex in Punjab. Affiliated with Al Qaeda, the camp was run jointly by the Lashkar-e-Taiba extremist group and Pakistani security forces, which supplied arms and instructors, the book says.

CIA officers accompanied by Pakistani officials made four inspections of the camp, part of an agreement in which Pakistan had promised to prevent foreign militants from training with Lashkar, Bruguiere writes.

"But, since most of the officers of Lashkar belonged to the army, these inspections were doomed to draw a blank," the book says. "The foreign recruits were alerted on the eve of the arrival of the inspection teams by their instructors, military men informed by their hierarchy.

"The trainees then had to . . . erase any traces of their presence and head to an elevation of more than 13,000 feet while the inspection lasted."

The book says Brigitte testified that his handler was a Pakistani military officer, identified as Sajid, who sent the Frenchman to Australia to join a cell plotting bomb attacks on targets that included a nuclear plant. Alerted by French investigators on Brigitte's trail, Australian police arrested the group in 2003.

Sajid also dispatched militants for missions in Britain and in Virginia, where authorities later convicted Americans who were part of a group known as the "paintball jihadis" and who were fellow trainees of Brigitte, the book says. A French court convicted Brigitte on terrorism charges and sentenced him to nine years in prison.

In 2006, Bruguiere went to the Pakistani port city of Karachi to investigate a suicide bombing that had killed 11 French naval contractors three years earlier. Pakistani security officials were uncooperative and hostile, he asserts.

"French officials in Pakistan were the target of threats and physical intimidation: a way of dissuading us from returning," he writes.

The George W. Bush administration underestimated the threat in Pakistan largely because it was distracted by the war in Iraq, Bruguiere says. He says U.S.-French tensions over Iraq did not harm anti-terrorism cooperation, and he writes about his many friends and allies in U.S. law enforcement.

But Bruguiere says he warned U.S. officials that the war would worsen Islamic extremism. He dismisses former Vice President **** Cheney and former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as "men who did not understand the Arab world" and "felt invested with a quasi-divine sense of mission."

At the same time, Bruguiere shares with U.S. conservatives a deep suspicion of Iran. Attacks by Iranian operatives in France and elsewhere show that Tehran's security apparatus is the "real heart of power," the book says.

Iran has used systematic deception to manipulate Western diplomats in talks about its nuclear program, while preparing a global terrorist infrastructure that could be used in a confrontation with the West, Bruguiere charges.

Iran also could strike in unexpected ways in remote places such as West Africa or Latin America, where Tehran's longtime ally Hezbollah has an entrenched presence, Bruguiere warns.

"These networks . . . are able to create circumstantial alliances with drug cartels operating in Colombia and Mexico," the book says, referring to the convergence of extremists and traffickers as "a complex configuration of threats directed at the United States."

Famed French judge Bruguiere tells of a troubled Pakistan -- latimes.com