By Ayesha Siddiqa:
On Wednesday, the Pakistan government formally charged the seven key suspects believed to be involved in last year’s Mumbai terror attacks.
This decision, which came on the eve of the first anniversary of the attacks, is a positive gesture from Islamabad and one which will probably help break the current logjam between India and Pakistan. The Indian government had linked the resumption of talks and the composite dialogue with forward movement in this regard.
The decision also comes in the wake of expanding allegations regarding Pakistan’s linkage with the Mumbai terror plot. Reportedly new evidence has been found in the David Headley case, in which a Chicago-based US citizen of Pakistani origin was found by the FBI to be involved in the planning of the Mumbai attacks. Headley and five other Pakistanis have been arrested abroad for their links with the attack and Lashkar-i-Taiba. There were two other Pakistanis resident in Italy who were also caught for providing funding for the Mumbai terror plot.
The discovery of new information and Islamabad’s decision might provide some temporary consolation to the relatives of the victims, but it would also make them highly suspicious of any peace initiative between the two neighbours. The indictment of the seven suspects could help move bilateral relations further but it may not necessarily put relations completely back on track. There are many in India who will probably continue to be suspicious of Pakistan’s intent to move forward in the case.
For Manmohan Singh’s government this is really a catch-22 situation because while the indictment breaks the logjam, New Delhi would also have to decide whether or not to support and have faith in the Pakistani judicial system, especially when the case is legally and politically complex. The hearings, which are being held in camera, could take a long time to conclude. The defence lawyers would probably also try to challenge the legality of the indictment on the grounds that the seven people were being charged for a crime that did not take place on Pakistani soil.
There is precedence regarding cases which were thrown out on this particular technicality. There is also probability of the proceedings slowing down due to the issue of the defence counsel’s physical access to the only surviving gunman — Ajmal Kasab. One is not sure if India will muster enough confidence in Pakistan to extradite this key witness.
But what is beyond doubt is the fact that the case will probably drag on for a while. The faith the two states may or may not develop in each other regarding the legal processing of this case will also determine the quality of bilateral relations. Not to forget that there are a sufficient number of actors on both sides of the divide who will target their own government for the perceived ‘giving in’ to the rival.
There is certainly a noticeable gap between what the Pakistani state is willing to do to appease New Delhi and how society perceives the cooperation in the case. A popular perception held and propagated by many in the media is that 26/11 is perhaps as much a conspiracy as 9/11. While there are many who continue to remind others of a supposed list of 3,000 Jews who they say had not turned up for work on the day of the attack on the World Trade Centre, similar suspicions are cast on the Mumbai tragedy.
The disappearance of the Kasab family from Faridkot soon after it was discovered by the media only helps support the argument that the Kasab family does not actually exist. What’s important is not that Islamabad’s lie was exposed but that the disappearance would help erase the memory of the discovery from the minds of ordinary Pakistanis.
However, as the two states engage in a battle of wits and patiently await the fate of the legal battle, it is important that they use the opportunity to explore the future of bilateral links, especially from the perspective of evaluating the capacity of the two states and societies to bear such acts of violence. The question that we must ask ourselves is what could happen if there was another attack of the scale of Mumbai. More importantly, could the region afford another tragic incident?
The average Indian is probably not impressed with the argument that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism. New Delhi has dealt with a series of attacks on its soil, especially the two significant attacks: the first on the Indian parliament in 2001 followed by Mumbai in 2008. Although the link with Pakistan is not conclusively proven and many in Pakistan would like to believe the argument that most of the evidence is not presentable in a court of law, the average Indian is not bothered about the legal status.
Therefore, political pressure on New Delhi to respond ‘in the same coin’ if such terror attacks are repeated in the future will mount. Surely the region was saved from a greater crisis due to the nuclear deterrent and American assistance or diplomatic intervention.
However, the aforementioned recipe might not work, or maybe it will. Unfortunately, due to a reduction in people-to-people contacts the general public in Pakistan does not appreciate the deep sense of hurt across the border. While both states choose to deal with this controversy with the help of the media — which means that what one has seen was more of jingoism than a real assessment of the situation — there is a need for a serious review by the media and opinion-makers to objectively assess the region’s ability to deal with a similar crisis in the future.
There are even suggestions that the two states must open additional channels of communication at the level of the heads of intelligence. After all, why beat about the bush and not have those talk who are accused of pursuing a proxy war as a continued option? In fact, the head of the ISI reportedly sent a signal to the Indian government for direct talks.
This is not to suggest that opening this channel is a recipe for setting things right in the short term. It is essentially another layer of CBMs meant to avoid an escalation of tension while proxies are maintained as an option. The more important issue, however, is regarding the transparency of this additional dialogue.
Needless to say, there is too much at stake for both states to continue with proxies or not find a permanent method to resolve dicey issues.
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.
ayesha.ibd@gmail.com
Political storm brews for President Zardari
President Asif Ali Zardari is facing mounting pressure to relinquish many of his powers, raising the spectre of a damaging political fracas just as the nation battles the Taliban.
Only 15 months into his rule, Zardari is contending with rock-bottom public opinion, strained relations with the powerful military, a bloody insurgency and a vocal opposition party challenging his rule.
He has lost much of the public sympathy that helped his Pakistan People's Party (PPP) win elections in early 2008, soon after the assassination of his wife, the hugely popular two-time prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
Political tensions that have simmered for months bubbled to the surface over the weekend, when a legal amnesty protecting Zardari and key aides from corruption cases expired, plunging the nation into uncertainly.
‘At this point of time when the country needs undivided attention to face its challenges, the government could get entangled in legal battles and their future is so uncertain,’ said independent political analyst Talat Masood.
The corruption amnesty, known as the National Reconciliation Ordinance, was passed by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf in 2007.
It quashed charges against Zardari, Benazir Bhutto and other politicians in a gesture of political reconciliation as Musharraf faced increasing pressure to end nearly nine years of military rule and restore democratic elections.
Zardari spent several years in jail for corruption and is still referred to as ‘Mr Ten Per cent’ because of his reputation for allegedly taking kickbacks on deals.
Succeeding Musharraf as president in September 2008, Zardari has immunity from prosecution. But that immunity could now be challenged in the Supreme Court, opening the door for prosecution on outstanding cases.
Rasool Bakhsh Raees, a professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences, said there were numerous grounds for challenging his immunity. And with so many foes, Zardari's position looked perilous.
‘The legal process is going to take its course, and if it does I see slim survival chances for the PPP leadership including President Zardari,’ he said.
Weathering the storm will take political savvy on Zardari's part.
The president on Saturday gave control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, widely seen as a move to fend off criticism by making good on electoral promises to devolve greater power to parliament.
‘It is a signal to political parties and the army that he is willing to accept his reduced position as a figurehead,’ said Raees.
But this will unlikely be enough to appease his critics.
The opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz is calling on Zardari to relinquish powers he inherited from Musharraf to dissolve parliament and sack the prime minister — the so-called 17th amendment to the constitution.
A key problem, Masood said, was that Zardari had very few allies left. ‘The media and military are not very supportive, which means his future is really uncertain and he will have to surrender his powers.’
Tensions have simmered between the army and Zardari for months, notably over a US aid package signed into law in Washington in October.
It earned a terse rebuke from army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who expressed ‘serious concerns’ about strings attached to some of the funding.
Any political fracas will likely unnerve Pakistan's Western allies, who have been pressing Islamabad to expand a multi-pronged offensive launched earlier this year against Taliban militants across swathes of the northwest.
The offensives have sparked a wave of retaliatory suicide bombings by the Taliban, with more than 430 people killed in Pakistan in the past two months.
‘Politicians are not paying attention to real issues; the war against the Taliban, suicide bombings and the economy,’ said Hasan Askari, a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University.
‘Pakistani politics is personalised, and only the issues which can pull down Zardari are being focussed on.’
Only 15 months into his rule, Zardari is contending with rock-bottom public opinion, strained relations with the powerful military, a bloody insurgency and a vocal opposition party challenging his rule.
He has lost much of the public sympathy that helped his Pakistan People's Party (PPP) win elections in early 2008, soon after the assassination of his wife, the hugely popular two-time prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
Political tensions that have simmered for months bubbled to the surface over the weekend, when a legal amnesty protecting Zardari and key aides from corruption cases expired, plunging the nation into uncertainly.
‘At this point of time when the country needs undivided attention to face its challenges, the government could get entangled in legal battles and their future is so uncertain,’ said independent political analyst Talat Masood.
The corruption amnesty, known as the National Reconciliation Ordinance, was passed by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf in 2007.
It quashed charges against Zardari, Benazir Bhutto and other politicians in a gesture of political reconciliation as Musharraf faced increasing pressure to end nearly nine years of military rule and restore democratic elections.
Zardari spent several years in jail for corruption and is still referred to as ‘Mr Ten Per cent’ because of his reputation for allegedly taking kickbacks on deals.
Succeeding Musharraf as president in September 2008, Zardari has immunity from prosecution. But that immunity could now be challenged in the Supreme Court, opening the door for prosecution on outstanding cases.
Rasool Bakhsh Raees, a professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences, said there were numerous grounds for challenging his immunity. And with so many foes, Zardari's position looked perilous.
‘The legal process is going to take its course, and if it does I see slim survival chances for the PPP leadership including President Zardari,’ he said.
Weathering the storm will take political savvy on Zardari's part.
The president on Saturday gave control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, widely seen as a move to fend off criticism by making good on electoral promises to devolve greater power to parliament.
‘It is a signal to political parties and the army that he is willing to accept his reduced position as a figurehead,’ said Raees.
But this will unlikely be enough to appease his critics.
The opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz is calling on Zardari to relinquish powers he inherited from Musharraf to dissolve parliament and sack the prime minister — the so-called 17th amendment to the constitution.
A key problem, Masood said, was that Zardari had very few allies left. ‘The media and military are not very supportive, which means his future is really uncertain and he will have to surrender his powers.’
Tensions have simmered between the army and Zardari for months, notably over a US aid package signed into law in Washington in October.
It earned a terse rebuke from army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who expressed ‘serious concerns’ about strings attached to some of the funding.
Any political fracas will likely unnerve Pakistan's Western allies, who have been pressing Islamabad to expand a multi-pronged offensive launched earlier this year against Taliban militants across swathes of the northwest.
The offensives have sparked a wave of retaliatory suicide bombings by the Taliban, with more than 430 people killed in Pakistan in the past two months.
‘Politicians are not paying attention to real issues; the war against the Taliban, suicide bombings and the economy,’ said Hasan Askari, a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University.
‘Pakistani politics is personalised, and only the issues which can pull down Zardari are being focussed on.’
A tale of two stories!
By Cyril Almeida
Military men have been up to some very bad things, we’ve learned this week. But the very different reactions to two seemingly unrelated stories in the media tell us at least one thing: things aren’t going to get better any time soon.
First, over to Jeremy Scahill, writing in The Nation, US: ‘At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the centre of a secret programme in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.’
Before you reach for your pitchfork to skewer evil Americans up to no good inside Pakistan without our leadership’s knowledge — military or civilian — consider what else Scahill has reported: ‘He [a former senior Blackwater executive] said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan.’
‘Government’ can be misleading since it implies the civilian side of the state, but the story makes it clear elsewhere who inside Pakistan is really working with Blackwater: ‘According to the executive, Blackwater works on a subcontract for Kestral Logistics, a powerful Pakistani firm, which specialises in military logistical support, private security and intelligence consulting. It is staffed with former high-ranking Pakistani army and government officials.’
The reaction to these revelations should be severe; we don’t need America’s version of non-state actors, mercenaries, really, running around our country, whatever their purpose or utility. The fact that the Pakistan Army — that so-called bastion of professionalism and custodian of our national security — has acquiesced in or enabled the activities of these non-state actors as opposed to elected representatives — the so-called ‘bloody civilians’, aka politicians — doesn’t make it any better or well-thought-out an idea.
But here’s the problem: the selective outrage of the media and the public enables military men to remain immune from accountability.
On Tuesday, a front-page headline in Dawn proclaimed: ‘Intelligence agencies looking into oil, gas deals’. The accompanying article goes on to report: ‘According to sources, a team of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) has collected record of the proposed transactions and interviewed the managing director of the Pakistan State Oil (PSO) and some senior officials of the petroleum ministry.’
Who authorised agencies run by the military to investigate commercial affairs? To whom is the ISI/MI team going to present its findings? To what purpose will the findings be applied? None of these questions have appeared to worry many here.
Fixated as the media and the public are on the corruption allegations that are churning the political waters at the moment, it seems to matter little who is probing corruption and why — just as long as someone is, there’s hope that the ‘dirty’ politicians can be drained from the swamp. It’s a simple, visceral reaction in a messy place where there are few good options: corruption, bad; those fighting corruption, good.
But bad as corruption may be, the revelation of the ISI/MI probe is, or ought to be, equally, if not more, unsettling. It is yet another piece of evidence that the transition to democracy, already shaky because of the political sins of the politicians, is headed in the wrong direction, and that the military is perhaps quietly working to nudge it in that wrong direction.
A bold pronouncement? Consider this. It is an open secret by now that President Zardari and the army high command have rocky relations. Neither really likes the other and some of that dislike is personal and some policy-driven. But the publicly known disagreements so far have been about policy issues: who controls the ISI, what is our declared nuclear posture, what conditions attached to US aid are acceptable.
Inserting the ISI and MI into the civilian domain to probe corruption, however, is not about policy, it is about politics. Only the incorrigibly naïve would believe that the intelligence team was sent over to fight corruption in the system.
But the point here is larger than the fate of Zardari or the government. The point is this: a law unto itself, the army’s actions remain frighteningly immune from accountability — and the lack of public and media opposition to its ‘good’ but possibly illegal actions (such as sending its intelligence operatives to investigate a very narrow, specific case of alleged corruption that could affect the presidential camp) means that there is absolutely no chance that the army’s bad and possibly illegal actions can ever be stopped.
In real terms, there is virtually nothing that can be done to stop Blackwater and its ilk from operating here. Secret military operations are the blackest of black holes, and if the media and the public kick up a fuss over Blackwater, the army will quietly switch to some other opaque tactic. And if that is subsequently exposed, too, the army will switch to a third.
Meaningful civilian oversight of the army is obviously a distant goal, but it will remain a chimera — an impossible idea — if the public and the media and the politicians never push back against the army on the smallest of issues.
That’s exactly what the corruption probe by the ISI/MI team should be: a relatively small matter on which there should be no ambiguity in denouncing it and demanding it be shut down at once.
There is, of course, no straight line between the army’s corruption probe and its murky arrangements with Blackwater. But the two stories fit into a bigger picture of the army setting and playing by its own rules. And unless the army gets its knuckles rapped for minor misdemeanours, why should it ever worry about being held accountable for its major sins?
Military men have been up to some very bad things, we’ve learned this week. But the very different reactions to two seemingly unrelated stories in the media tell us at least one thing: things aren’t going to get better any time soon.
First, over to Jeremy Scahill, writing in The Nation, US: ‘At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the centre of a secret programme in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.’
Before you reach for your pitchfork to skewer evil Americans up to no good inside Pakistan without our leadership’s knowledge — military or civilian — consider what else Scahill has reported: ‘He [a former senior Blackwater executive] said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan.’
‘Government’ can be misleading since it implies the civilian side of the state, but the story makes it clear elsewhere who inside Pakistan is really working with Blackwater: ‘According to the executive, Blackwater works on a subcontract for Kestral Logistics, a powerful Pakistani firm, which specialises in military logistical support, private security and intelligence consulting. It is staffed with former high-ranking Pakistani army and government officials.’
The reaction to these revelations should be severe; we don’t need America’s version of non-state actors, mercenaries, really, running around our country, whatever their purpose or utility. The fact that the Pakistan Army — that so-called bastion of professionalism and custodian of our national security — has acquiesced in or enabled the activities of these non-state actors as opposed to elected representatives — the so-called ‘bloody civilians’, aka politicians — doesn’t make it any better or well-thought-out an idea.
But here’s the problem: the selective outrage of the media and the public enables military men to remain immune from accountability.
On Tuesday, a front-page headline in Dawn proclaimed: ‘Intelligence agencies looking into oil, gas deals’. The accompanying article goes on to report: ‘According to sources, a team of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) has collected record of the proposed transactions and interviewed the managing director of the Pakistan State Oil (PSO) and some senior officials of the petroleum ministry.’
Who authorised agencies run by the military to investigate commercial affairs? To whom is the ISI/MI team going to present its findings? To what purpose will the findings be applied? None of these questions have appeared to worry many here.
Fixated as the media and the public are on the corruption allegations that are churning the political waters at the moment, it seems to matter little who is probing corruption and why — just as long as someone is, there’s hope that the ‘dirty’ politicians can be drained from the swamp. It’s a simple, visceral reaction in a messy place where there are few good options: corruption, bad; those fighting corruption, good.
But bad as corruption may be, the revelation of the ISI/MI probe is, or ought to be, equally, if not more, unsettling. It is yet another piece of evidence that the transition to democracy, already shaky because of the political sins of the politicians, is headed in the wrong direction, and that the military is perhaps quietly working to nudge it in that wrong direction.
A bold pronouncement? Consider this. It is an open secret by now that President Zardari and the army high command have rocky relations. Neither really likes the other and some of that dislike is personal and some policy-driven. But the publicly known disagreements so far have been about policy issues: who controls the ISI, what is our declared nuclear posture, what conditions attached to US aid are acceptable.
Inserting the ISI and MI into the civilian domain to probe corruption, however, is not about policy, it is about politics. Only the incorrigibly naïve would believe that the intelligence team was sent over to fight corruption in the system.
But the point here is larger than the fate of Zardari or the government. The point is this: a law unto itself, the army’s actions remain frighteningly immune from accountability — and the lack of public and media opposition to its ‘good’ but possibly illegal actions (such as sending its intelligence operatives to investigate a very narrow, specific case of alleged corruption that could affect the presidential camp) means that there is absolutely no chance that the army’s bad and possibly illegal actions can ever be stopped.
In real terms, there is virtually nothing that can be done to stop Blackwater and its ilk from operating here. Secret military operations are the blackest of black holes, and if the media and the public kick up a fuss over Blackwater, the army will quietly switch to some other opaque tactic. And if that is subsequently exposed, too, the army will switch to a third.
Meaningful civilian oversight of the army is obviously a distant goal, but it will remain a chimera — an impossible idea — if the public and the media and the politicians never push back against the army on the smallest of issues.
That’s exactly what the corruption probe by the ISI/MI team should be: a relatively small matter on which there should be no ambiguity in denouncing it and demanding it be shut down at once.
There is, of course, no straight line between the army’s corruption probe and its murky arrangements with Blackwater. But the two stories fit into a bigger picture of the army setting and playing by its own rules. And unless the army gets its knuckles rapped for minor misdemeanours, why should it ever worry about being held accountable for its major sins?
Increase in US troops may make Pakistan’s situation worse
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said increase in US troops in Afghanistan might lead to a spill over of militants inside Pakistan and make the situation worse. Hence, western countries should evolve a joint strategy against the Taliban on the Pak-Afghan border, he said.
In an interview with German Press Agency ahead of his first visit to Germany as the prime minister, Gilani stressed the Obama administration would have to formulate the military strategy for Afghanistan in consultation with Pakistan.
Responding to a question, Gilani said we have highlighted our concerns about the possible increase in US forces in Afghanistan. Our fear is that if the troops are increased, the militants might spill over to Pakistan, he added.
The prime minister said Pakistan was taking an all out action against the terrorists, which was being recognised also, however, the international community should enhance co-operation with the country.
In an interview with German Press Agency ahead of his first visit to Germany as the prime minister, Gilani stressed the Obama administration would have to formulate the military strategy for Afghanistan in consultation with Pakistan.
Responding to a question, Gilani said we have highlighted our concerns about the possible increase in US forces in Afghanistan. Our fear is that if the troops are increased, the militants might spill over to Pakistan, he added.
The prime minister said Pakistan was taking an all out action against the terrorists, which was being recognised also, however, the international community should enhance co-operation with the country.
pkinside.blogspot.com, A Site covers Pakistan
A weblog (Blog) has started namely PKInside which covers news items about Pakistan Political Situation, Entertainment, Mobile World, Health etc.
http://pkinside.blogspot.com
http://pkinside.blogspot.com
Have a heart, you are the president, Mr Zardari!
By Shaheen Sehbai
WASHINGTON: When an elected head of the state, who is also the head of the largest political party of the country, the Supreme Commander of the country’s armed forces and (at least on papers) the man with his finger on the country’s nuclear button, cannot venture out of his bunker in the presidency, a five-star prison of sorts, and attacks a TV channel, a newspaper editor or a talk show anchor, he must be seriously in trouble or scared to death with insecurity.
It was a great day in my professional career to get so much attention on live TV, nationally and throughout the world, with the country’s president talking about me (why did you not name me) in a furiously threatening tone, foaming and frothing as if he would shoot me if I had been somewhere close to him at the time. I have just landed in Washington to spend a few days with my family on Eid ul Azha and the first thing I hear on TV is my head of state calling me names. It was a unique welcome to the festival of sacrifices.
I heard Asif Ali Zardari’s speech, his first major political address in months, which dealt with no other burning issue of the country, many times wanting to find out what message he had for the country, other than saying that he was a brave man, he was ready to offer sacrifices and he would not be coweddown and would prefer to leave in an ambulance rather than walk out of the presidency under duress. The more I heard his rants, the more loudly I laughed, again and again.
Here is the strongest man in the country so rattled by a few reports and articles by me, or a few talk shows by Dr Shahid Masood, that he forgets to mention anything about the infamous NRO, the shame of the Kerry Lugar Bill, the gross charges of corruption, money laundering or misuse of power against him and his cronies. He did not mention the issues of sugar, atta, electricity and unemployment. He did not praise the soldiers and people fighting the deadly terrorists. He and his few people now sharing power were only worried about their own fate, with the loud spoken Zulfikar Mirza declaring to the world that he would use the Sindh Card, if worse comes to worst.
Zardari referred to me by frequently mentioning someone with “an American passport”. He also said I was not a Pakistani national. He has to get his facts right. But carrying an American passport is not something he would like to turn into a disqualification as bulk of his own cronies are exiles who have acquired foreign passports, including US passports, and they would be the ones to jump the ship first. I am a Pakistani and work in Pakistan and will continue to do so.
His biggest accusation against me was that I wanted him “to leave the presidency in an ambulance”. I think he knows better as he has been telling many who meet him in his bunker that he would not quit and people will have to take him out. This is what he reiterated in his speech on Wednesday night.
But he is wrong on this count as well. I had only quoted his own words on Nov 4 in my column: “The contours of a changed, unwritten script” in these words: “This assessment will purely be an analysis and conclusions drawn up by a journalist....So my analysis is that he will fight back. Some who still have access to him claim that he has expressed these defiant views many a time saying he would never resign and if someone wanted to remove him, he should send an ambulance because he would not walk out on his own two feet.” This is where ambulance was used. In his speech he confirmed what I had written that he would not go away.
In the same article, my opinion was: “All stakeholders agree, and this I can claim after meeting almost all of them in the last few days in Islamabad and Lahore, that President Asif Ali Zardari will have to either step down with dignity, hand over his presidential powers to the PM through a fast-track constitutional amendments process, or become a figurehead and stay within his bunker for as long as he does not create any nuisance.” I was seeing him as a figurehead as long as he behaves. This does not mean his murder, though it could mean a political suicide.
His party leaders have also been objecting to my use of the word ‘martyr’ for Zardari and one Minister, Dr Babar Awan, had the temerity to ask me in a TV show to name the people who would kill Zardari, as if I had been plotting his murder or martyrdom with these people. There has to be a limit to sycophancy and toadyism.
My words in my Nov 7 article were: “Zardari will have to make his decision very quickly on whether he wants to exit with dignity or become a martyr. The days, as they say, are in fact numbered.” It is clear for anyone who understands English what is meant here is a ‘political martyr’ and not dead in the physical sense. If someone cannot understand the language, a very handy Prof Husain Haqqani can help any time.
Other than these references in Zardari’s speech about me, what I can guess is that he is rattled because I have been criticising his style of governance, his failures in taking successful political decisions, his U-Turns at every critical time, his arrogance and stubbornness and lately his indecent manner of speech with his own prime minister.
Neither the president nor the PM have denied any of the contents of my article about Zardari using insulting words against Gilani. In fact, my sources say, when PM Gilani was asked about my article and whether there was a tiff between him and the president, Gilani’s very diplomatic reply was: “I am not angry with the president.” He decided not to comment on what he had heard from Zardari and in what tone.
It is the right of every writer and journalist to criticise the rulers on their policies, their decisions and their actions. This is exactly what I have been doing during my 42-year-long career. I have criticised every ruler, without fear or favour and whenever the political rulers were out of office and struggling to come back, I happened to be one of their most favorite journalists and had even developed personal friendships with them. This is also true in the case of Zardari.
When he was arrested in 1990 by Jam Sadiq Ali and thrown in the Landhi jail, I and my friends Nusrat Javeed, Mohammad Malick, Shakil Sheikh and a couple of others had confronted Jam Sadiq and forced him to allow us to visit him in the jail. That was the first move in his political comeback. Then I wrote a series of seven articles in which I had questioned Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Jam Sadiq. When in 1993 Benazir and Zardari again came to power, he offered me political jobs and only one journalist, Azhar Sohail, accepted his offer. Sadly he then paid for his life and his family’s ruination three years later.
Once again when Zardari was in power I wrote against his corruption in 1994-95 and then as well he had threatened me and others. I did what I had to do then and faced the consequences.
It was Zardari and Benazir Bhutto who became very friendly to me during their days of wilderness in the Nawaz Sharif/Musharraf eras. In his years in New York, Zardari was particularly friendly and even attended my son’s wedding in Washington. He should be ashamed of now pointing accusing fingers at me for holding a US passport. Can’t he come up with anything better to accuse me? What he was doing in US himself during all those years is also known to people who were in the knowledge. My fault is that I again refused his offer to join his government in 2008 although it is totally wrong that I was ever offered to become Pakistan Ambassador in Canada. Neither had I ever asked him for a political or diplomatic job.
I am totally satisfied that even despite such anger and frustration that the president has expressed against me publicly, without any reason, he has not been able to point any single small or big finger of accusation against me for misusing my professional position or getting any benefit from his or any other government. The charge of dubbing me and others as “political actors” is ridiculous and laughable because if this is all he can come up with, it is pathetic case against me with no legs to stand on. His speech was 90 per cent rhetoric, based on shallow looking claims of pursuing Bhuttoism and the rest 10 per cent was attacks on me, Geo TV and Dr Shahid Masood.
If his corruption, amassed wealth and grabbed lands are questioned, it is pure and simple journalism in the interest of the people and the country and no one can deny us that right. He says he will not listen to any criticism except from his political rivals. What a lame statement is that. Where does he place the others pillars of state, the judiciary, the media, the civil society, the ‘ghairat’ and ‘izzat’ brigades? His political colleagues are easy for him to handle because many of them are in the same boat of looted wealth and plundered resources. But he will have to listen to all of us and hiding in a bunker while claiming to be a brave man, will not wash away his sins or wish us away from the scene.
The real issue is that since the previous government I and my colleagues in the Jang group have been highlighting important issues concerning the constitution, governance, independence of judiciary, rampant corruption and ever-increasing prices. These issues have made miserable the life of common man in Pakistan. Neither the previous government nor the present government could tolerate the Jang Groups’ decision to highlight those issues that affect the lives of ordinary people.
WASHINGTON: When an elected head of the state, who is also the head of the largest political party of the country, the Supreme Commander of the country’s armed forces and (at least on papers) the man with his finger on the country’s nuclear button, cannot venture out of his bunker in the presidency, a five-star prison of sorts, and attacks a TV channel, a newspaper editor or a talk show anchor, he must be seriously in trouble or scared to death with insecurity.
It was a great day in my professional career to get so much attention on live TV, nationally and throughout the world, with the country’s president talking about me (why did you not name me) in a furiously threatening tone, foaming and frothing as if he would shoot me if I had been somewhere close to him at the time. I have just landed in Washington to spend a few days with my family on Eid ul Azha and the first thing I hear on TV is my head of state calling me names. It was a unique welcome to the festival of sacrifices.
I heard Asif Ali Zardari’s speech, his first major political address in months, which dealt with no other burning issue of the country, many times wanting to find out what message he had for the country, other than saying that he was a brave man, he was ready to offer sacrifices and he would not be coweddown and would prefer to leave in an ambulance rather than walk out of the presidency under duress. The more I heard his rants, the more loudly I laughed, again and again.
Here is the strongest man in the country so rattled by a few reports and articles by me, or a few talk shows by Dr Shahid Masood, that he forgets to mention anything about the infamous NRO, the shame of the Kerry Lugar Bill, the gross charges of corruption, money laundering or misuse of power against him and his cronies. He did not mention the issues of sugar, atta, electricity and unemployment. He did not praise the soldiers and people fighting the deadly terrorists. He and his few people now sharing power were only worried about their own fate, with the loud spoken Zulfikar Mirza declaring to the world that he would use the Sindh Card, if worse comes to worst.
Zardari referred to me by frequently mentioning someone with “an American passport”. He also said I was not a Pakistani national. He has to get his facts right. But carrying an American passport is not something he would like to turn into a disqualification as bulk of his own cronies are exiles who have acquired foreign passports, including US passports, and they would be the ones to jump the ship first. I am a Pakistani and work in Pakistan and will continue to do so.
His biggest accusation against me was that I wanted him “to leave the presidency in an ambulance”. I think he knows better as he has been telling many who meet him in his bunker that he would not quit and people will have to take him out. This is what he reiterated in his speech on Wednesday night.
But he is wrong on this count as well. I had only quoted his own words on Nov 4 in my column: “The contours of a changed, unwritten script” in these words: “This assessment will purely be an analysis and conclusions drawn up by a journalist....So my analysis is that he will fight back. Some who still have access to him claim that he has expressed these defiant views many a time saying he would never resign and if someone wanted to remove him, he should send an ambulance because he would not walk out on his own two feet.” This is where ambulance was used. In his speech he confirmed what I had written that he would not go away.
In the same article, my opinion was: “All stakeholders agree, and this I can claim after meeting almost all of them in the last few days in Islamabad and Lahore, that President Asif Ali Zardari will have to either step down with dignity, hand over his presidential powers to the PM through a fast-track constitutional amendments process, or become a figurehead and stay within his bunker for as long as he does not create any nuisance.” I was seeing him as a figurehead as long as he behaves. This does not mean his murder, though it could mean a political suicide.
His party leaders have also been objecting to my use of the word ‘martyr’ for Zardari and one Minister, Dr Babar Awan, had the temerity to ask me in a TV show to name the people who would kill Zardari, as if I had been plotting his murder or martyrdom with these people. There has to be a limit to sycophancy and toadyism.
My words in my Nov 7 article were: “Zardari will have to make his decision very quickly on whether he wants to exit with dignity or become a martyr. The days, as they say, are in fact numbered.” It is clear for anyone who understands English what is meant here is a ‘political martyr’ and not dead in the physical sense. If someone cannot understand the language, a very handy Prof Husain Haqqani can help any time.
Other than these references in Zardari’s speech about me, what I can guess is that he is rattled because I have been criticising his style of governance, his failures in taking successful political decisions, his U-Turns at every critical time, his arrogance and stubbornness and lately his indecent manner of speech with his own prime minister.
Neither the president nor the PM have denied any of the contents of my article about Zardari using insulting words against Gilani. In fact, my sources say, when PM Gilani was asked about my article and whether there was a tiff between him and the president, Gilani’s very diplomatic reply was: “I am not angry with the president.” He decided not to comment on what he had heard from Zardari and in what tone.
It is the right of every writer and journalist to criticise the rulers on their policies, their decisions and their actions. This is exactly what I have been doing during my 42-year-long career. I have criticised every ruler, without fear or favour and whenever the political rulers were out of office and struggling to come back, I happened to be one of their most favorite journalists and had even developed personal friendships with them. This is also true in the case of Zardari.
When he was arrested in 1990 by Jam Sadiq Ali and thrown in the Landhi jail, I and my friends Nusrat Javeed, Mohammad Malick, Shakil Sheikh and a couple of others had confronted Jam Sadiq and forced him to allow us to visit him in the jail. That was the first move in his political comeback. Then I wrote a series of seven articles in which I had questioned Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Jam Sadiq. When in 1993 Benazir and Zardari again came to power, he offered me political jobs and only one journalist, Azhar Sohail, accepted his offer. Sadly he then paid for his life and his family’s ruination three years later.
Once again when Zardari was in power I wrote against his corruption in 1994-95 and then as well he had threatened me and others. I did what I had to do then and faced the consequences.
It was Zardari and Benazir Bhutto who became very friendly to me during their days of wilderness in the Nawaz Sharif/Musharraf eras. In his years in New York, Zardari was particularly friendly and even attended my son’s wedding in Washington. He should be ashamed of now pointing accusing fingers at me for holding a US passport. Can’t he come up with anything better to accuse me? What he was doing in US himself during all those years is also known to people who were in the knowledge. My fault is that I again refused his offer to join his government in 2008 although it is totally wrong that I was ever offered to become Pakistan Ambassador in Canada. Neither had I ever asked him for a political or diplomatic job.
I am totally satisfied that even despite such anger and frustration that the president has expressed against me publicly, without any reason, he has not been able to point any single small or big finger of accusation against me for misusing my professional position or getting any benefit from his or any other government. The charge of dubbing me and others as “political actors” is ridiculous and laughable because if this is all he can come up with, it is pathetic case against me with no legs to stand on. His speech was 90 per cent rhetoric, based on shallow looking claims of pursuing Bhuttoism and the rest 10 per cent was attacks on me, Geo TV and Dr Shahid Masood.
If his corruption, amassed wealth and grabbed lands are questioned, it is pure and simple journalism in the interest of the people and the country and no one can deny us that right. He says he will not listen to any criticism except from his political rivals. What a lame statement is that. Where does he place the others pillars of state, the judiciary, the media, the civil society, the ‘ghairat’ and ‘izzat’ brigades? His political colleagues are easy for him to handle because many of them are in the same boat of looted wealth and plundered resources. But he will have to listen to all of us and hiding in a bunker while claiming to be a brave man, will not wash away his sins or wish us away from the scene.
The real issue is that since the previous government I and my colleagues in the Jang group have been highlighting important issues concerning the constitution, governance, independence of judiciary, rampant corruption and ever-increasing prices. These issues have made miserable the life of common man in Pakistan. Neither the previous government nor the present government could tolerate the Jang Groups’ decision to highlight those issues that affect the lives of ordinary people.
Court issues arrest warrant for Bhutta
Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, Muhammad Tanvir Mir, has issued an arrest warrant for Muhammad Shoaib Bhutta, publisher of a daily in Islamabad.
The judge summoned him on December 4 to ensure his presence in the court. The court issued an arrest warrant for Bhutta on the complaint of Abdul Aziz Mohmand, resident editor the Jang, The News and Geo editorial management, and on the basis of arguments and evidence presented before the court.
Abdul Aziz Mohmand in his application stated that in the best national interests, the Jang Group had played a leading role in the movement for an independent judiciary and rightly represented the masses. Besides, the Jang Group and Geo TV raised the issues of governance and corruption among the masses, due to which the group has to face serious challenges, he added.
He stated that the said person published defamatory, unfounded, false and baseless reports and financial charges in his newspaper against the Jang Group to damage its popularity and reputation among the masses.
The daily alleged that the head of the Jang Group editorial had sent a message to important personalities of the government that if they wanted end to one-sided campaign against them and personnel of the judiciary in the group newspapers, editorials and electronic media, they have to accept their demands. After the government refusal the group editorial head gave go-ahead to his workers and said that if the government is facing difficulties, then it should cut advertisements of other newspapers and electronic media to fulfil their shortage.
Abdul Aziz Mohmand maintained that the said publisher republished such baseless materials twice, and damaged the reputation of the group and tried to weaken its commitment.
The petitioner said that besides publishing baseless news against Geo TV, Daily Jang and The News the publisher Malik Shoaib Bhutta also printed posters and panaflex banners with logos of Geo TV, Jang and The News. The posters contained extremely contemptuous sentences against the Jang Group of Newspapers and Geo TV. When the workers of the Jang and well-wisher readers removed those banners and posters after the city administration failed to do so despite repeated complaints, the said publisher reported the next day, “the Jang Group could not tolerate few banners and posters against it”.
The same person also levelled baseless allegations against Jang Group during a talkshow on official TV channel. The petitioner requested the police to register an FIR against the accused, but the police neither responded positively nor registered an FIR.
Abdul Aziz Mohmand pleaded in his petition that this act was crime under section 499, 5000, 501, 502 and 502A of the Pakistan Penal Code. Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Tanvir Mir accepted the petition for regular hearing on the basis of arguments and evidences and said it seemed that Mohammad Shoaib Bhutta had intentionally committed defamation, hence his arrest warrant were being issued. The court adjourned the hearing till December 4, 2009 and ordered to appear before the court.
The judge summoned him on December 4 to ensure his presence in the court. The court issued an arrest warrant for Bhutta on the complaint of Abdul Aziz Mohmand, resident editor the Jang, The News and Geo editorial management, and on the basis of arguments and evidence presented before the court.
Abdul Aziz Mohmand in his application stated that in the best national interests, the Jang Group had played a leading role in the movement for an independent judiciary and rightly represented the masses. Besides, the Jang Group and Geo TV raised the issues of governance and corruption among the masses, due to which the group has to face serious challenges, he added.
He stated that the said person published defamatory, unfounded, false and baseless reports and financial charges in his newspaper against the Jang Group to damage its popularity and reputation among the masses.
The daily alleged that the head of the Jang Group editorial had sent a message to important personalities of the government that if they wanted end to one-sided campaign against them and personnel of the judiciary in the group newspapers, editorials and electronic media, they have to accept their demands. After the government refusal the group editorial head gave go-ahead to his workers and said that if the government is facing difficulties, then it should cut advertisements of other newspapers and electronic media to fulfil their shortage.
Abdul Aziz Mohmand maintained that the said publisher republished such baseless materials twice, and damaged the reputation of the group and tried to weaken its commitment.
The petitioner said that besides publishing baseless news against Geo TV, Daily Jang and The News the publisher Malik Shoaib Bhutta also printed posters and panaflex banners with logos of Geo TV, Jang and The News. The posters contained extremely contemptuous sentences against the Jang Group of Newspapers and Geo TV. When the workers of the Jang and well-wisher readers removed those banners and posters after the city administration failed to do so despite repeated complaints, the said publisher reported the next day, “the Jang Group could not tolerate few banners and posters against it”.
The same person also levelled baseless allegations against Jang Group during a talkshow on official TV channel. The petitioner requested the police to register an FIR against the accused, but the police neither responded positively nor registered an FIR.
Abdul Aziz Mohmand pleaded in his petition that this act was crime under section 499, 5000, 501, 502 and 502A of the Pakistan Penal Code. Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Tanvir Mir accepted the petition for regular hearing on the basis of arguments and evidences and said it seemed that Mohammad Shoaib Bhutta had intentionally committed defamation, hence his arrest warrant were being issued. The court adjourned the hearing till December 4, 2009 and ordered to appear before the court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)