Following are the excerpts from the book Fascisim of Army Complied By: S. M. Farid available for download at scribd.
The Massacre at Bajaur
It is unfortunate that a national institution has lost its professionalism to a great
extent. The obvious reason being the heavy involvement of the generals in politicking
and their greed for wealth and other undue privileges.
S. Farooq Hasnat
On October 3oth, the Pakistan army, as according to its own admission, wittingly killed
scores of Pakistanis in the Khar village, located in Bajaur Agency, near the Afghan
border. The army spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan, gloating over the
"success" claimed that in this operation gunship helicopters and precision weapons
were used. Some eyewitnesses claimed that it was the American Predator Drone that
fired missiles at the site, while the Pakistani official said that the Americans only
provided intelligence. The Bajaur political officials barred local and representatives of
foreign news agencies from entering the vicinity where this massacre took place. A
noted newspaper editorial remarked that "the decision to ban journalists' entry into
the Bajaur agency is not prudent. It suggests that the government may have much to
hide."
In the first week of October, Foreign Minister Kasuri was reported to have said that
Pakistan has made clear (to the U.S.) that it would not kill its own people in the tribal
areas. He said that "use of military force is not the solution of problems and political
matters are resolved through talks." A CNN interview quoted his saying that ""¦there's
a time when not just brawn but brains are also needed," Foreign Minister told CNN's
Late Edition. "Sometimes what happens is that when you have acts of violence you
end up alienating the local population."
The attack at Khar came as a surprise and as a tragic incident, for the people of
Pakistan. The residents of Bajaur were shocked as they were gearing up for a North
Waziristan type peace agreement. The signing ceremony was to take place after few
hours.
It should be pointed out that the American officials have been critical of the previous
peace deal between the government of Pakistan and the residents of the tribal areas,
in North Waziristan. Apparently, the Bush administration demands the Pakistan
government to use high handed methods against its own people. No matter, why and
how it happened, there is no excuse for killing more than 80 Pakistanis. The manner in
which this attack was conducted and the approach through which the government
spokesmen justified it, raises lots of questions and doubts. A renowned Human Rights
Organization Amnesty International issued a statement saying that "if these killings
were deliberate and took place without first attempting to arrest suspected offenders,
without warning, without the suspects offering armed resistance, and in circumstances
in which suspects posed no immediate risk to security forces, the killings are
considered extrajudicial executions in violation of international human rights law."
There is enough evidence by the foreign and Pakistani journalists that there were
children at the premises and that the air attack was more than from the Pakistani air
force. As mentioned earlier just after few hours a peace treaty was going to be signed
with the tribal elders, on the same pattern as that of Waziristan. Part of the North
Waziristan deal read, "There will be no target killing and no parallel administration in
the agency. The writ of the state will prevail in the area". Those who carried out
December 30 Bajaur killings did so to sabotage peace in the tribal areas and as a
consequence the unity of Pakistan is undermined and Army's image is further
tarnished.
Some analysts like Hassan Abbas argue that a high percentage of Pashtoon
representation in the Army led to the Waziristan agreement. While others agree that in
reality the Army suffered a "defeat" at the battle ground. According to government's
own admission more than 700 of its men lost their lives. The Army just fled as they
have done before, in East Pakistan and Kargil. This was in spite of the fact that more
than 80,000 Pakistani military troops are deployed along the tribal areas of the Afghan
border. It was believed at that time that the best option for the establishment was to
talk to the tribesmen through their representatives.
Another category of arguments goes that it was a pro Taliban faction with which the
government entered into an agreement in Waziristan. The Taliban of the 1990s were
prompted and encouraged by the Army and the tribes were made to believe that by
supporting the Taliban they were helping the Pakistan Army, if not Pakistan, itself.
Then, came that famous somersault in 2001. Any expert on human psychology would
agree that it's not an easy matter for the groups with conviction (instilled or
otherwise) to turnaround and change their opinion, overnight. The change in attitudes
comes through dialogue and persuasion. The use of force in such circumstances is
counter productive and harmful for the unity and strength of the country.
There have been so many blames as well as blunders assigned to the Pakistan Army
that it has become indefensible even for a relentless ally of the establishment to
validate their performance. It is unfortunate that a national institution has lost its
professionalism to a great extent. The obvious reason being the heavy involvement of
the generals in politicking and their greed for wealth and other undue privileges (See
the findings of Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report).They have too many stakes to
guard – strict adherence to professionalism becomes the last option.
The crux of the matter is that one person is playing havoc with the civil, military and
social institutions of Pakistan. His most serious crime in the eyes of many Pakistanis is
that apart from tearing down the national institutions he is also deforming the
language, culture, heritage and above all the sovereignty of Pakistan
Pakistan: Over 80 people victims of possible extrajudicial execution in Bajaur
Amnesty International Statement
Public Statement: November 1, 2006
Amnesty International is concerned that at least 82 people in a madrassa (religious
school) may have been extrajudicially executed in an aerial attack at dawn of 30
October in Bajaur, a designated tribal area near the border with Afghanistan. No
attempt appears to have been made to arrest the victims who were described by army
spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan as some 70 to 80 "militants" who were
"training and learning terrorist tactics" in the madrassa.
Local people said the victims were clerics and students of the school, many of them
under 18. Correspondents said that amongst the dead were children as young as six
years old.
Local people have stated that the initial attack was carried out by drones. Villagers
have reported hearing loud explosions and observing the destruction of the madrassa.
This was followed some 20 minutes later by the appearance of two helicopter gunships
which also fired rockets into the area. The villagers reportedly said that they had
observed drones in the days before the attack flying over the village.
Pakistan Army spokesman Shaukat Sultan denied US involvement in the aerial attack
which, he said, had been carried out by Pakistani helicopter gunships targeting the
madrassa compound which had been under surveillance for some time. A US military
spokesman in Afghanistan denied, too, any US involvement in the air strike.
Amnesty International would like to remind the Pakistani authorities that if these
killings were deliberate and took place without first attempting to arrest suspected
offenders, without warning, without the suspects offering armed resistance, and in
circumstances in which suspects posed no immediate risk to security forces, the
killings are considered extrajudicial executions in violation of international human
rights law.
Under international human rights law and standards, every human being has the
inherent right to life. Arbitrary deprivation of life, including extrajudicial executions, is
always unlawful and no circumstances – war or any public emergency – may be
invoked as a justification of such executions. All allegations of extrajudicial executions
must be immediately and impartially investigated with the view to bringing to justice
those responsible for ordering and carrying them out.
Under international human rights standards, security forces may only use firearms
when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives
of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the
suspected offender.
In has been reported that journalists seeking access to the area were turned back by
the army. This has resulted in an absence of independent reporting from the area
affected.
