Protecting Pakistan at the cost of civil liberty

[caption id="attachment_709" align="aligncenter" width="112"] Muhammad Waqas[/caption]

In a recently held heated National Assembly session, the government of Pakistan was able to successfully promulgate the Pakistan Protection Ordinance (PPO). There was plenty of drama, with the opposition parties tearing up copies of the proposed bill and staging a walkout protest. The controversial ordinance empowers security forces to arrest and detain suspects at secret locations, shoot them at sight and also conduct raids without any search warrants. The opposition parties believe that the law proposes extra-constitutional measures, and could turn Pakistan into a police state. However, the law faces a stern test in the country’s Upper House or Senate before it can be formally adopted by the State. Further, opposition parties have vowed to file a petition against the “draconian and regressive law” in the Supreme Court.
The law was conceived to give sweeping powers to security forces and make them more effective in overcoming the menace of poor security situation across the country. Besides being plagued by militancy in the volatile northwestern region bordering Afghanistan, security forces in Pakistan continue to battle militancy, which has crept into urban centers. Meanwhile, the country’s sluggish economic performance and widening socioeconomic divide have also increased the rate of street crimes. In this backdrop, the decree was well intended but fails to tackle the root causes of Pakistan’s main security challenges. According to the law, all elements that create disorder in the country have been declared as “enemies of the state.”
The government also pledges to make the protection of life as its top priority. While all political parties and members of the civil society back the government’s resolve of restoring peace in the country, the proposed bill may be used to target political workers of certain affiliations and also curb civil freedom. The need for such a law is also being questioned with the government already in talks with the main faction of Pakistani Taleban. Perhaps, the law is intended to send a strong message to the militants and warn them of a massive military action in case they back track from the peace process.
The controversial bill could also pave the way for use of brutal force to crush different political and civil rights movement in the country. It will raise the level of insecurity in political and civil circles from neglected provinces, like Balochistan. The government is already struggling to explain its position to the Supreme Court in the alleged enforced disappearances case, and this law would provide a cover to security agencies to continue with their covert activities.
The government would have been wiser to carry out consultations with members of the civil society and other political parties before tabling this law. Given the influence of opposition in Upper House, the law is anyway not expected to be passed in its current shape. Rather than imposing such drastic measures, the government should focus on developing a coherent anti-terrorism strategy that weeds out the primary issues of contention. The ordinance is completely against democratic ideals of freedom of expression and deliberation as it grants the government extraordinary powers to quell dissent under the garb of state protection.

Making peace in South Asia By Masood Sharif Khattak

It is now time for the world to take the spotlight off Pakistan and give a little more attention to the extremist situation in India. The focus needs to be turned to India if the rising graph of the extreme political school of thought in South Asia is to recede.

In India, The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) came into being on Aug 29, 1964, where S S Apte, one of its founding fathers and the then secretary general of the RSS (Rashtrya Swayamsevak Sangh), declared that the world has been divided into being either Islamic, Christian or Communist and that all three of them viewed the Hindu society adversely. He also added that it had become necessary to organise the Hindu world (India) in order to save it from the evils of the Islamic, Christian and Communist world. The VHP believes that all Muslims and Christians in India were Hindus and so they must be encouraged to revert to Hinduism.

One of the stated goals of the VHP is to now make the global Hindu fraternity invincible through adherence to the Sanatan Dharma–i.e., Hinduism. Hindu nationalism is now a hard-line national ideology that looks at the modern-day so-called secular Republic of India as a Hindu polity–i.e., Hindu Rashtra.

The Sangh Parivar, posing as a charity organisation, provides organisational cover to all the violent and extremist Hindu organisations. BJP (Bharatya Janata Party), RSS, VHP and numerous other organisations are now a part of the Sangh Parivar. It is this organisation that collects funds within India and from abroad, including the USA and the UK, in the name of charity that is then diverted to violence against other religions.

The spate of communal violence in India against the minorities has been an outcome of this extremist Hindu nationalism ideology. In 1984, the Sikhs faced the onslaught after Operation Blue Star was launched and the most sacred Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, was militarily attacked and destroyed. Sikhs were killed all over India at that time. The Babri Mosque episode, the more recent Gujarat massacre and many more atrocities against Indian Muslims are too well known. Over the years, the Christians have faced violence of sorts in India. Recently we witnessed incidents where churches were destroyed and Christians were burnt alive. The list of incidents can go into volumes.

In simple and plain words all I am saying is that if that peace in South Asia has to be achieved then the Hindu extremist political school of thought in India has to be reigned in fast. As long as Hindu extremism grows, the Kashmir issue is left unresolved and Afghanistan remains on the boil no one will be able to stem the growth of extremism in South Asia and it shall soon raise its head in all the South Asian countries where it currently exists in a latent state. The world, therefore, needs to awaken to what is happening on the religious extremist front in the world’s second most populous country–India. It is past the danger mark for everyone to begin working towards sanity and peace.

(Courtesy "The Sharif Post) published in 2009.

Nations world over must decide, how long will peace elude them?

By Yasmeen Aftab Ali:

Peace is a state desired not only on a personal level but also on national level and in relationships between nations. Yet it continues to elude at all levels. On a very general level it may be defined as, ‘freedom from disturbance; tranquility.’ Yet, how many of us, at an individual level have ‘complete’ peace? Not many, is my bet. Each one of us has those gray areas in our lives that perturb us. Relationships can be marred by various differences.

Then there is the national peace we hanker after, especially in today’s Pakistan. The *Merriam-Webster *dictionary defines it as, a) ‘a state in which there is no war or fighting b) an agreement to end a war and c) a period of time when there is no war or fighting.

In a country fraught with differences that have reached a boiling point,any difference to approach is dealt with extra-judiciously. A country with citizens and those residing within (they may not be citizens), armed with the state-of-the-art weapons with little or no accountability, taking law in their hands to settle scores. The culprits are either not nabbed or go unpunished. The writ of the state has been negatively affected as a result.
Root causes of lack of peace, leading to terrorism are many – like injustice, increasing levels of social gap, economic disparity with the rich accumulating more and more wealth and the poor falling to sustenance level or below, lack of equal opportunities to better one’s social standing, rampant corruption that has seeped into every level of the society, increasing radicalism resulting from politicizing religion etc.
Religious conflicts have increased over time, deepening rather than lessening. Unfortunately since 2001 religious conflicts owing to armed factions has become a huge security threat to the nation – in particular its innocent citizens. A difficult-to-manage border situation with Afghanistan does not help.

Unfortunately, various governments that have come and gone have not really processed through the issues to move towards a logical solution. A short term and long term plan has been consistently missing, marrying a political and social approach towards addressing the issues at base level. If at all,there has been an effort to address an issue, at best it has been at a superficial level.

A friend argued this is so because governments have been dismissed repeatedly, and take-overs by the Army have been a regular feature of Pakistan’s checkered past. I respectfully disagree. Though the fact so stated, cannot be denied, it is also a fact that the civilian governments formed to rule have failed to develop a blueprint to the effect, what to speak of taking the first step towards any implementation that even came close to addressing the issues briefly touched upon.

The challenge that faces the Pakistan government is to reorient the people of Pakistan ideologically. This is a more uphill task than original orientation. It requires more focused, more determined approach towards clearing up of the fog enveloping the society. There is, in many pockets, a genuine confusion.

*The challenge that faces the Pakistan government is to reorient the people of Pakistan ideologically. This is a more uphill task than original orientation. It requires more focused, more determined approach towards clearing up of the fog enveloping the society.*

This confusion is often channelized by vested interest groups into acts of hate having a negative cascading effect on the society. Arshi Saleem Hashmi, Senior Research Analyst, Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad in his research paper published way back in 2009 states, ‘The real clash is not between Islam and the west, as projected, but between the orthodox and the moderates. The key question is how far the new generation will be different from the one lost to orthodoxy and militancy. Pakistan’s inability to control radicalization limits its capacity to engage in a sustained struggle to control extremism and terrorism and revive the pluralist and tolerant spirit of Pakistan’.

He just about hit the nail on the head here. He suggests, ‘Pakistan needs to emphasize the synthesis of culture and religion rather than be influenced by “Arabization” to prove its true Islamic credentials’.

I could not agree more. In my earlier articles I have always promoted support to all cultures, religions, sects within under the umbrella of Pakistan – for appreciation of the differences enriches the society. Former president of South Africa, F.W. de Klerk to the Rotary Reunion Conference in Cape Town on February 4, 2011 rightly said, “The main threat to peace during the 21st century will come from the inability of states to manage relationships between ethnic, cultural and religious communities.”

Then there is peace sought at international level. J. Kirk Boyd, a lawyer
and professor at the University of California in his article on peace (excerpted from 2048: Humanity’s Agreement to Live Together; on May 11,2010) writes, “Religious diversity also lies at the root of some of the ongoing conflicts in the world. Ongoing tensions in India have their roots in the unresolved conflict between Moslems and Hindus in Kashmir and elsewhere in the sub-continent. Differences between Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs in India; and Moslems and Christians in Nigeria and Sudan all create volatile situations that can explode into violence and terrorism at almost any time… The age of the single culture, single language state is over. Two
thirds of the world’s 200 countries have minorities comprising more than 10% of their populations. Cultural and ethnic minorities now comprise more than 900 million people throughout the world – one in seven of the human population… Everywhere populations are becoming more multicultural.
Throughout the world people are on the move, legally or illegally, across borders, across continents and across oceans.”

The problem surfaces when one or more nations become more equal than equal.
They take over the moral responsibility of making a determination as to who is right and who is wrong. Not stopping at that, they then launch upon a course of action to punish the ‘wrong doer’. This responsibility is left best to the relevant world forums without being subjected to external influences. Sometimes, one or more religious, ethnic groups overshadow others marginalizing space for their freedom. This too leads to chaos.

In a world riddled with conflict, there must be an effort to move towards a harmonious one. Peace however, cannot be imposed by pressure, threats and bullying. This has to be achieved with patience, setting of specific time related goals, addressing issues at grassroots level. Thor Halvorssen,
President of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation and founder and CEO
of the Oslo Freedom Forum writes, “Meaningful peace is never based on coercion between nations. It is based on open international communication,and problem-solving through non-violent channels. Such a network can only exist when its individual pieces are free.” (Forbes Magazine 12/09/2011) Nations must stop viewing issues through a narrow prism with self-interest first.  One country cannot be allowed to get away with a wrong as the world criticizes another for the same. He further shares, “If we are to achievemeaningful peace, the foreign policy of free governments and the cultural export of free societies must: help build civil society, establish rule of law, secure individual freedoms, spark economic development, separate religion and government, secure freedom of thought and belief, and expose
human rights violations.” Agreed with Thor!

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’

Courtesy Pakistan Today

No terrorists here

By Khaled Ahmed

Carlotta Gall’s book will be met by the same denialism that has gripped Pakistan for many years.

Pakistan, where over 80 per cent of people hate America, is greatly upset over the yet-to-be-published book by reporter Carlotta Gall — a woman and a Jew — who has written in The New York Times that Pakistan was keeping Osama bin Laden in a safehouse in Abbottabad; and that it actually faked shock followed by populist rage at “discovering” him there after America’s dastardly attack to kill him on Pakistani soil.

We say her lies are myriad, typical of a Jewish hater of Pakistan and Islam. She says “the madrasas in Quetta are a cover, a camouflage. Behind the curtain, hidden in the shadows, lurks the ISI. The Pakistani government, under President Pervez Musharraf and his intelligence chief, Lt Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, was maintaining and protecting the Taliban, both to control the many groups of militants now lodged in the country and to use them as a proxy force to gain leverage over and eventually dominate Afghanistan.”

She goes on to indict Pakistan further as an abettor of terrorism through proxy warriors it pretends not to know and claims to be helpless to curb. It pretends to “apparently” cooperate with America but covertly trains militants through its dreaded ISI to go to Afghanistan and kill Americans. She says Americans knew what its great ally was doing but refused to face up to it “for fear of setting off a greater confrontation with a powerful Muslim nation”.

She quotes a former chief of the ISI, Ziauddin Butt — a simple soldier, if you run into him at the Lahore Gymkhana, you will see him stuffing the heads of rich shopkeepers with stories of great derring-do against enemy America — as saying that “he thought Musharraf had arranged to hide bin Laden in Abbottabad”.

Of course, Butt has quickly denied what he said to Gall but he had already told a lot of foreign reporters about how Musharraf and the ISI’s Brigadier Ijaz Shah and ISI chief Shuja Pasha had actually placed him in Abbottabad.

Then Gall turns to the 2007 Lal Masjid affair in Islamabad when Musharraf ordered the attack on this al-Qaeda-linked mosque — and thus dug his grave by daring to go against the hardcore establishment within the army and represented in the ISI. She quotes a cabinet minister on the affair: “One hundred per cent they knew what was happening. The ISI allowed the militants to do what they wanted out of sympathy. The state is not as incompetent as people believe.”

More dangerously, she states: “In 2007, a former senior intelligence official who worked on tracking members of al-Qaeda after September 11 told me that while one part of the ISI was engaged in hunting down militants, another part continued to work with them.” We say officers who don’t have the stomach to play double often spill dangerous beans to foreign journalists. If it weren’t for these cowards, Pakistan would be floating on the mists of a utopia at whose gates America and India — the latter with its hands clasped together in supplication — would beg entry.

We say Butt is a military genius because he was the first head of the army’s Strategic Plans Division, which controls nuclear weapons, and that Nawaz Sharif made him director general of the ISI in 1997, and promoted him to army chief in 1999. (Whisper: Sharif was overthrown by the army after this.)

Pakistani journalist Amir Mir, who is not yet convinced that terrorism in Pakistan is carried out by America and India working in tandem, has revealed more juice: “It was in December 2011 that General Ziauddin Butt was quoted by the Western media for the first time saying that Osama was kept in an Intelligence Bureau safehouse in Abbottabad and Musharraf knew about it. He was quoted in an article on the well-known Jamestown Foundation website, saying: ‘General Ziauddin Butt said Osama bin Laden was kept in Abbottabad under the instructions of IB Director Brigadier Ijaz Shah’.”

Ijaz Shah is the same brave man who clairvoyant Benazir Bhutto predicted would be instrumental in killing her. Shah was also “responsible” for hiding Omar Saeed Sheikh, who had killed American journalist Daniel Pearl. General Butt stated that “former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had set up a 90-man commando team to track and kill Osama bin Laden but it was disbanded after he was ousted in a military coup.”

The American diplomats in Islamabad were sending a lot of dastardly information back home. WikiLeaks claimed, while citing secret documents seized from the Abbottabad compound of bin Laden, that the al-Qaeda chief was in routine contact with up to 12 ISI officials. We say, all lies! As the chief priest of Makka said, it is an international conspiracy to make Muslims fight each other.

to help us personalise your reading experience.

Late prime minister Benazir Bhutto, in her book Reconciliation, mistakenly linked the deep state with terrorism and feared she would be eliminated through this dark nexus. According to her, Pakistan’s establishment comprised the army, the intelligence agencies, religious leaders piously building political muscle through proxy warriors and those brainwashed with textbook nationalism favouring the Islamic state.

She was attacked in Karachi by one of the three assassination squads she had listed in her book. No special security was provided to her. Her book referred to Saifullah Akhtar, a specially favoured jihadi leader in Pakistan who, together with General Zaheerul Islam Abbasi, nearly toppled the Bhutto government in 1995. But all these “facts” are in abeyance, so to speak, while the case of Bhutto’s assassination is being investigated. And India must have arranged the murder of the man who was investigating it, senior police officer Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali, who was gunned down in a street in Islamabad in broad daylight.

Assistant secretary general at the United Nations, Chilean diplomat Heraldo Munoz, who headed a UN inquiry commission on Bhutto’s assassination, writes: “Akhtar had joined hands with Major General Zaheerul Islam Abbasi, a former intelligence officer, not only in an attempted coup against Benazir Bhutto in 1995 but also in an attempt to remove the army leadership. After Akhtar spent five months in jail, he was released from detention. Years later, arrested in the United Arab Emirates for plotting to murder Musharraf, he was handed over to Pakistan; but after being held in jail for a couple of years, he was quietly released by the government after the Supreme Court inquired as to his whereabouts.”

Who did Bhutto name as her potential killers in her book? In a letter sent to then president Musharraf, she named former ISI director general Hamid Gul, the Intelligence Bureau’s retired chief, Brigadier Ijaz Shah, and the then-chief minister of Punjab, Pervaiz Elahi, plus former Sindh chief minister Arbab Ghulam Rahim. Surely, she was brainwashed by the enemies, you know who, of Pakistan; therefore the letter was ignored.

Major General Zaheerul Islam Abbasi, who attempted a coup in 1995, was a soldier of Islam. Now dead, as Brigadier Abbasi, he was once Pakistan’s military attaché in New Delhi and believed that “India will soon be destroyed because of its obscene movies,” as he told me once when I was visiting Delhi. He got thrashed by RAW in a sting operation and was repatriated, only to be promoted and sent to Gilgit to challenge India on the Siachen. As Allah willed it, he got a large number of troops killed by mounting an unauthorised operation.

We hold that obscene movies will be the end of India. Good riddance. Dastardly America is dying anyway.

The writer is consulting editor, ‘Newsweek Pakistan’

(The India Express)