GPE blog

Amb. Husain Haqqani on Pakistan's Foreign Policy.

2011-05-25T20:09:00.002-04:00

Amb. Haqqani has repeatedly argued that it were the Pakistan’s insecurities towards its much larger neighbor and a foe India – that forged previous military relationships between US and Pakistan – which has changed over time and US needs to address Pakistan’s much larger concerns which are not only the military needs but also social and economic situation.

There needs to be a partnership between the democracies of two nations that will help complete the democratization of Pakistani society. Ambassador argues that the goal should be to offer alternatives to militancy and militarism and a future to the very vibrant youth of Pakistan, which can only be done by helping Pakistan increase its literacy rate from 49% to upper 90s.

Mr. Haqqani recently gave a speech on Pakistan's foreign policy to students at Islamabad's National Defense University. Bellow are the clips from his speech.

Emotion and Reality in Pakistan's Foreign Policy. Speech at National Defence University Islamabad:

Osama's Aftermath: The Real Issues.

2011-05-11T09:04:00.000-04:00

Just a little more than a week ago, the world's most dangerous man - Osama bin Laden - was executed during a covert operation ordered by the world's most powerful man - Barack Obama - the President of United states.

The news of Osama Bin Laden's execution was rather a sigh of relief for the whole world. As President Obama officially announced this news to the world, he did not forget to mention the contribution of Pakistan in the war on terror and in helping US capture Osama Bin Laden. He also mentioned that President of Pakistan - Asif Ali Zardari - was pleased by the fact that world has seen the end of the most gruesome man in the recent history.

It was clearly a victory for mankind and peace loving people. Especially for the Muslims, who after the events of 9/11, were stigmatized and were personified by Osama. Although, I would partially blame Muslims who, were and still, are confused to where they stand in their support. Which helped promote, rather than defuse, this impression.

Severity of the 9/11 events and the need to respond led many, including the then US President George W. Bush, to make mistakes. Mistakes aside the US, and later Pakistan, was on the right side of the history. In a war against global terrorism, and those who had pledged to kill the innocent.

As Pakistan and US fought the war many victories along with mistakes were made. There were tons of human-rights violations, many soldiers lost their life, and enormous collateral damage, of both US and Pakistani military forces, and innocent civilians inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. That also coincided with the damage done by terrorists who struck back at Pakistan - by killing thousands in suicide and other attacks - for supporting the war on terror, which is a war against them and their ideology.

The mistakes US made during the last decade, fighting terrorism, is constantly debated openly in the American media and society at large. Though similar activity takes place in Pakistan, I am skeptical about the fairness of the debate. There is a lot of political rhetoric and media spin, especially due to the hatred for the US, but most importantly for satisfying the audience and winning TRP wars.

The topic most discussed by the Pakistan media is of the country's sovereignty, and the implications of losing it during this war. Most media men and rightist political analysts and politicians argue that the partnership with the US has led to the loss of Pakistan's sovereignty. They say, as US drones and or soldiers enter Pakistan for special operations and executing terrorists, they're violating Pakistan's sovereignty.

However, they fail to realize that sovereignty is a subjective matter and is often more of a political slogan then a reality. No one nation has complete sovereignty, as they are a part of international organizations such as UN, or in agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Treaty), or European Union. In all cases some form of sovereignty is compromised for greater goals.

Pakistan, perhaps, had given up some of its sovereignty by indulging into a proxy war with India. Or at the time of "Afghan Jihad" when Pakistan took in many foreign fighters and trained them on its soil, opened borders with Afghanistan, where anyone could freely travel to Pakistan, without any consideration to Pakistan's own sovereignty. The recent war on terror suggest the same. Most of the terrorists who are living in Pakistan illegally are transgressing Pakistan's sovereignty.

The fact remains that US and Pakistan has mutually agreed on eliminating terrorism from Afghanistan and Pakistan. US has also pledged to rebuild Afghanistan and help Pakistan's fledgling democracy through support and civilian along with military aid. The partnership includes joint intelligence sharing and operating against militants and terrorists wherever they are spotted.

Although, at times there is disagreement between US and Pakistan in the methodology and goals of the war against terror, it is still in both nations' interests to continue to work together, and so they do. Even with the recent events that led to tensions between the two countries, they are still willing to build upon more trust and learn from their mistakes. Which is a positive sign.

Developing good relations with the US, Afghanistan, and India has always been and always will be in Pakistan's best national interests. The citizens of all these nations need to support and in some cases press the governments and establishments of their respective countries in moving towards the direction that will do nothing but bring prosperity for South Asia and the world at large.

Nawaz Sharif, a Bin Laden ally.

2011-05-02T18:32:00.003-04:00

A lot has been said and written on Osama Bin Laden's links to Pakistan's former Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. I gathered a few articles and clips from a show that gives a gimps on the ties between Pakistan's largest right-wing political party and the man who was world's most wanted guy - till the US operation took him out.

This issue was also recently discussed on Aaj tv show, Bolta Pakistan, in which the hosts questioned their guest regarding Osama Bin Laden's attempt to maneuver Pakistan's internal politics.

Daily Times of Pakistan reports - Sunday, March 21, 2010:

Ex-ISI official says he arranged 5 meetings between Nawaz, Osama

LAHORE: Former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) official Khalid Khawaja has claimed that he arranged five meetings in the past between former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden on separate occasions.

In a recent interview with a private TV channel, Khawaja said Nawaz asked the al Qaeda chief to provide financial support for “development projects”.

“I still remember that Osama provided me funds that I handed over to then Punjab chief minister Nawaz to topple Benazir Bhutto’s government,” said Khawaja, adding that Nawaz met Osama thrice in Saudi Arabia alone. “Nawaz insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with Osama, which I did in Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Nawaz was looking for a Rs 500 million grant from Osama. Although Osama provided a comparatively smaller sum ... he secured for Nawaz a meeting with the Saudi royal family.”

The former ISI official also claimed that Nawaz had met leaders of Islamic movements around the world.

Khawaja said following a “forced retirement”, he went straight to Afghanistan in 1987 and fought against the Soviet forces alongside Osama. daily times monitor

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20103\21\story_21-3-2010_pg1_6

Daily Times of Pakistan reports Tuesday, September 08, 2009:

Osama introduced Nawaz Sharif to Saudi royals: ex-ISI chief
LAHORE: Osama Bin Laden introduced Nawaz Sharif to the Saudi royal family in the late 1980s, and – during a meeting – the former prime minister had asked the Al Qaeda chief to provide employment to Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia, claimed former ISI chief Khalid Khwaja on Sunday. According to the Times of India, Khwaja – who was close to Nawaz in the late 1980s and early 1990s – made the claim in an interview. “During his first visit to Saudi Arabia as chief minister of Punjab in the late 1980s, no one from the royal family gave Nawaz importance,” he said. “Thereafter, on Nawaz’s request, Osama introduced him to the royal family,” said Khwaja. “A close aide of the Sharif family and I arranged at least five meetings between Nawaz and Osama in Saudi Arabia.” daily times monitor
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=200998\story_8-9-2009_pg7_13

While this happens to be not something new or unknown. Nawaz Sharif's ties to Osama Bin Laden always bothered former Prime Minister late Benazir Bhutto, for which she had contacted George Bush Sr. in 1989. President Asif Ali Zardari had mentioned this in his interview to an American channel's show "Meet the Press"

Former ISI chief Khalid Khwaja has confessed on various occasions to playing the role of a mediator for several meetings between Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden. On September 8th 2009 he again mentioned this on Ary News channel's show 11th Hour.

In another show:

A comprehensive timeline of Nawaz Sharif's history and links to Osama Bin Laden is also mentioned with many other proofs and articles in a non-profit organization's website www.historycommons.org:

Spring 1989: ISI and Bin Laden Allegedly Plot to Kill Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto
Hamid Gul, Nawaz Sharif, and Osama bin Laden conspire to assassinate Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Husein Haqqani, a Pakistani journalist who claims to have been involved in the plot, will later say that ISI Director Hamid Gul contacted Osama bin Laden, who was then known to provide financial support to Afghan mujaheddin, to pay for a coup/assassination of Bhutto. Gul also brings Nawaz Sharif, then the governor of Punjab province and a rival of Bhutto, into the plot. Bin Laden agrees to provide $10 million on the condition that Sharif transforms Pakistan into a strict Islamic state, which Sharif accepts. [LEVY AND SCOTT-CLARK, 2007, PP. 193-194] Bhutto is not assassinated at this time, but bin Laden allegedly helps Sharif replace Bhutto one year later (see October 1990).

October 1990: Bin Laden Allegedly Helps Install Pakistani Leader Nawaz Sharif
In October 1990, Nawaz Sharif is running for election to replace Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of Pakistan. According to a senior Pakistani intelligence source, bin Laden passes a considerable amount of money to Sharif and his party, since Sharif promises to introduce a hard-line Islamic government. Bin Laden has been supporting Sharif for several years. There is said to be a photograph of Sharif chatting with bin Laden. Sharif wins the election and while he does not introduce a hard-line Islamic government, his rule is more amenable to bin Laden’s interests than Bhutto’s had been. Sharif will stay in power until 1993, then will take over from Bhutto again in 1996 and rule for three more years. [REEVE, 1999, PP. 170-171] Former ISI official Khalid Khawaja, a self-proclaimed close friend of bin Laden, will later claim that Sharif and bin Laden had a relationship going back to when they first met face to face in the late 1980s. [ABC NEWS, 11/30/2007] There are also accounts of additional links between Sharif and bin Laden (see Spring 1989, Late 1996, and Between Late 1996 and Late 1998).

July 1993: Ramzi Yousef and KSM Attempt to Assassinate Pakistani Prime Minister
Ramzi Yousef and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) unsuccessfully try to assassinate Behazir Bhutto, the leader of the opposition in Pakistan at the time. Yousef, with his friend Abdul Hakim Murad, plan to detonate a bomb near Bhutto’s home as she is leaving it. However, they are stopped by a police patrol. Yousef had hidden the bomb when the police approached, and after they left the bomb is accidentally set off, severely injuring him. [RESSA, 2003, PP. 25] KSM is in Pakistan at the time and will visit Yousef in the hospital, but his role in the bombing appears to be limited to funding it. [RESSA, 2003, PP. 25; GUARDIAN, 3/3/2003] Bhutto had been prime minister in Pakistan before and will return to power later in 1993 until 1996. She will later claim, “As a moderate, progressive, democratically elected woman prime minister of Pakistan, I was a threat to the fundamentalist zealots on multiple levels…” She claims they had “the support of sympathetic elements within Pakistan’s security apparatus,” a reference to the ISI intelligence agency. [SLATE, 9/21/2001] This same year, US agents uncover photographs showing KSM with close associates of previous Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Bhutto’s main political enemy at the time. Presumably, this failed assassination will later give KSM and Yousef some political connection and cover with the political factions opposed to Bhutto (see Spring 1993). Sharif will serve as prime minister again from 1997 to 1999. [FINANCIAL TIMES, 2/15/2003]

Late 1996: Bin Laden Influences Election in Pakistan
Not long after bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan (see After May 18, 1996-September 1996), he tries to influence an election in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, is running for reelection against Nawaz Sharif, who had been prime minister earlier in the 1990s. (Bin Laden apparently helped Sharif win in 1990 (see October 1990).) “According to Pakistani and British intelligence sources, bin Laden traveled into Pakistan to renew old acquaintances within the ISI, and also allegedly met or talked with” Sharif. Sharif wins the election. Bhutto will later claim that bin Laden used a variety of means to ensure her defeat and undermine her. She will mention one instance where bin Laden allegedly gave $10 million to some of her opponents. Journalist Simon Reeve will later point out that while Bhutto claims could seem self-serving, “her claims are supported by other Pakistani and Western intelligence sources.” [REEVE, 1999, PP. 188-189] It will later be reported that double agent Ali Mohamed told the FBI in 1999 that bin Laden gave Sharif $1 million at some point while Sharif was prime minister (see Between Late 1996 and Late 1998). There are also reports that bin Laden helped Sharif become prime minister in 1990 (see October 1990). While Sharif will not support the radical Islamists as much as they had hoped, they will have less conflict with him that they did with Bhutto. For instance, she assisted in the arrest of Ramzi Yousef (see February 7, 1995), who had attempted to assassinate her (see July 1993).

Between Late 1996 and Late 1998: Bin Laden Allegedly Pays $1 Million to Pakistani Prime Minister
According to FBI agent Jack Cloonan, in 1999, imprisoned double agent Ali Mohamed will tell Cloonan that he helped arrange a meeting between bin Laden and representatives of Nawaz Sharif, who is prime minister of Pakistan from 1990 through 1993 and again from 1996 to 1999. Mohamed claims that after the meeting he delivered $1 million to Sharif’s representatives as a tribute to Sharif for “not cracking down on the Taliban as it flourished in Afghanistan and influenced the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan.” It is unknown when this took place, but it is likely between late 1996, when the Taliban gain control over much of Afghanistan and Sharif as prime minister would have been in a position to crack down against them or not, and late 1998, when Mohamed is arrested in the US (see September 10, 1998). Cloonan will later say that he believes the information from Mohamed is accurate. [ABC NEWS, 11/30/2007] There have been other allegations that Sharif met bin Laden in 1996 and used his help to win the election for prime minister (see Late 1996), and also allegations that bin Laden helped Sharif win the election for prime minister in 1990 (see Late 1996).

For full timeline visit http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=nawaz_sharif

Poll: What did Pakistan know about the US operation to take OBL out?

2011-05-02T16:58:00.004-04:00

This is Why You're Going to Hell

2011-04-30T22:18:00.001-04:00

You are the most righteous person in the world. You belong to the family of Syeds, the descendants of Prophet. Thus you are superior to all your peers and wish to be treated that way. After all you never forget to mention anywhere that you are a Syed. How could normies treat you like one of them.

You have read Quran multiple times and invited all your friends and family to celebrate each time. Although you did not understood a single word, but the point was to read it respectfully, and place it back in the cabinet wrapped around in a nice pocket with attar sprinkled for good smell. You shall not touch the book till you need to read it to bless the deceased.

You grew up praying 5 times a day, even if you missed the prayer you made up for it. You never cared if the whole world turned around you had to pray. No man or his needs could come between you or your prayer. You could be in the guinness book of world records for not missing any prayer what so ever.

Your attire has always been Islamic. A pure and simple shalwar kamiz, which you wore all the time not just for Friday and Eid prayers like the others who do not know the way to be a proper Muslim. Speaking of Eid you alwys celebrated the holy day with great Islamic spirit. You gave and received Eidi, prayed and ate all you could, and always visited all your friends and family. You made sure you spent good amount of money on all your Eid clothes. After all you could not look inferior to anyone else, this is your religious obligation, and your honor.

Oh and there was no Eid-ul-Adha when you did not buy the most expensive animal to slaughter. You made sure you hand deliver all the meat to all your friends and family. And you also gave some to your servant, who would distribute it to poor. Not to mention you made sure no Kaafir gets his hands on your holy meat, cause that would defeat the purpose of your qurbani.

You stopped going to school just so you could memorize every single chapter of Quran in perfect Arabic, that too in Arab accent. You knew every single word that has been written in the Quran, and you will never forget it. You believe you are entitled to more sawab since it was not your language that you memorized it in, which made it even harder for you to learn. You did not learn the translation though, why would you? You don't want to get confused by the complex matters prescribed in the holly text. Quran is not rocket science that you can research, it is a deen. Only a proper immam will teach you the ways of your religion.

You went to your local mosque everyday and always made sure you collect the most chanda. After all it is for the Afghan, Kashmir, Iraq, and Palestinian Jihad. This is the only way those people could live peacefully. Kufars need to be thought a lesson. You would too enroll in the Jihad, and slaughter Kufars with your own hands, but it was your mother who stopped you. You cannot disobey your mother, after all you will not attain Jannah without respecting her.

You never forget to sit in the front of the Mosque and kiss the Maulana Sahab's hand every time you see him. You always used the proper, Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wa barakatu, to greet people. And never replaced Allah with Khuda. You do not start a sentence without a bismillah. Your vocabulary includes so many Arabic words that even Arabs are ashamed to be so illiterate. These are the holy ways, only they will lead you to Jannah and the hoors.

You made sure your wife wears a full burqa that no animal, let alone a man, has ever seen her face. After all she cannot be revealed to men. You know very well what men think of women who reveals herself. You made sure Islam comes before all her demands. She knows she must not work, for it is against your honor, and you rather kill her than let her out in the men's world.

You make sure you only make friends with the people of your own sect. After all you don't want to be corrupted. They are worst then the Kaafirs and so you can do nothing but wish death upon them. You always hated the way Islamic Republic of Pakistan lets them have same rights as everyone else. Well not all of them have same rights. But they should all be put behind bars, or executed for that matter, for their beliefs. This is why you hate Pakistan's democracy and moved to a different country.

Even after your hijrat to the west, you didn't forget your Muslim brothers and their pain. You still cussed the nation that gave you its citizenship and wished Iran had gotten nukes. You pray for China to have better economy than the nation where you live. After all they refused your application for free health care just because you make too much money in your business. It is yahood's system and their CIA never grants Muslim applications unless you are on their payroll and working against Islam. This is why you bought a dish receiver from a Muslim brother, a one smart brother, who figured how to cheat Kufar's system and watch free TV. You never pay a single dime to Kufar's company.

You do not wish blessings upon the Christian or Jews, even if they wish it to you. That would be harram. You hate it when Hindus wish you Sallam, it is harram for you to wish back, Oh and speaking of harram, you make sure you drive a 100 miles to get to your favorite brothers' store who is the only vendor you know that sells 100% hallal meat.

You're a haaji, completing your 5th hajj and plan to spend another thousand dollars for the next one. It only makes you a better Muslim and brings you closer to Jannah. You make sure you follow all sunnahs, which is why you always keep maswaaaq in your pocket, and your beard has gotten longer then the height of your one year old kid. . You make sure to cover the TV with a bed sheet before you pray. It is also why you have no pictures inside your house. It is harram you know.

You will never adopt a pet dog, even if your kid demands it. Oh and that kid is going to the private Islamic school. No matter how ridiculously expensive its fees are and how bad the level of education. And as soon as your son is old enough for high school you are moving back to Pakistan or an Islamic nation for that matter. Cause you would never want him to study with the Kufars.

This must get you to Jannah. Right?

Wrong...

Even with all this, you will still go to HELL... why?

Because you are a hypocrite, a big fat hypocrite!!

Decrypting Aafia Siddiqui

2011-04-26T23:16:00.002-04:00

In an update on notorious Aafia Siddiqui, Guardian published an article quoting the Guantanamo files, giving astounding details surrounding her case. I had earlier written a piece, discussing the same issue, which I believe needs to be updated and reposted on this blog.

The legal assistance and the embassy services provided to Dr. Aafia Saddiqui was unprecedented and is probably the first ever for any Pakistani citizen held in United States on charges of terrorism. It was Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts that helped expedite the trial process and assured the family of Ms. Saddiqui that there will be justice.

It is certainly a rare and a strange case, the lady that was wanted by Pakistani and American authorities in 2003 has suddenly become the most valuable person to many Pakistanis. She has been named “daughter of Pakistan” a term coined by none other than the right-wing political parties. The same parties demanded her to be repatriated in return of Raymond Davis, a CIA operative who was held by Pakistani authorities on the charges of shooting and murdering two people in Lahore. Whats even more striking is that even terrorists such as Hakumullah Mehsud labeled her “sister in Islam.”

Aafia and her husband, Dr Muhammad Amjad Khan, divorced a year before she had disappeared. Her husband describes her violent nature and extremist views to be the reason of their divorce. Her activities and links to world’s most wanted terrorists had gotten her and her husband on the terror watch-list. Since her husband was not involved, and did not know of her links with terrorists, he was only questioned by the American authorities but never arrested.

United States intelligence agencies have said that Ms. Siddiqui has links to at least 2 of the 14 men suspected of being high-level members of Al Qaeda who were moved to Guantánamo in September 2006. NYT

There is no doubt about her acquaintances to the terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, It was the reason she was being watched by agencies for a long time. The only reason she was not charged under the allegations of terrorism is because, although she had intentions to, she had not yet attempted to commit an act of terror. The allegations against her are a combination of both the US intelligence analysis and direct testimony by at least three senior Al Qaeda figures, including the 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. If she didn’t have such motives, she would have never fired at an investigation officer, or have ended up in Afghanistan after hiding for five years.

Before her arrest, U.S. authorities had called Siddiqui an al-Qaida sympathizer. She was never charged with terrorism, but prosecutors called her a grave threat who was carrying ”a road map for destruction” — bomb-making instructions and a list of New York City landmarks including the Statue of Liberty when she was captured. NYT

In order to avoid arrest she kept a low profile, and was said to be missing during the the five year period of 2003 to 2008. She was arrested, in Ghazni Afghanistan in 2008, after authorities became suspicious of her loitering outside the provincial governor’s compound. She was carrying instructions on making explosives and a list of New York landmarks, including the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Empire State Building along with sealed bottles and glass jars filled with liquids and gels. According to the Guantánamo files, she had "plotted to smuggle explosives into America and offered to manufacture biological weapons [for al-Qaeda]." The files claim that Siddiqui was at the heart of an Al Qaeda cell based in Karachi between 2002 and 2003, which conspired to mount fresh attacks in the US, on Heathrow airport and inside Pakistan.

According to the files, the cell planned to smuggle explosives into America under the cover of textile exports – 20 and 40ft foot containers filled with women's and children's clothes. The explosives would be used to attack "economic targets" inside the US, according to KSM.

The Guantánamo files give fresh details on Siddiqui's relationship with Ammar Baluchi, the nephew of KSM and a senior al-Qaida figure facing a raft of serious allegations – facilitating the 9/11 attackers, acting as a courier for Bin Laden and plotting to crash a plane packed with explosives into the US consulate in Karachi. Guardian

She tried to escape the detention by shooting at the FBI officers, for which she was tried and convicted at United States District Court in Manhattan.

While in custody, on July 18, 2008, prosecutors said, Ms. Siddiqui grabbed an M4 rifle from a police station floor and fired on Army officers and F.B.I. agents. She was shot in the abdomen. NYT

It is believed that she was never arrested or tortured prior to 2008 incident. Her husband claims that the pictures that have been floating around the media with her lip badly hurt is an old picture. In an interview to The News:

He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle) in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.

Experts believe that it was her own behavior in the courtroom that contributed towards a negative perception of her. Her frequent outbursts and at times failing to cooperate with her own lawyers, ended up hurting her case. Due to her objections a few jurors had also stepped down from the bench, which leaves no room for any biases from the side of jurors. She was sentenced 86 years' jail.

Pakistan Ka Matlab Kya

2011-04-25T01:00:00.000-04:00

In her recent article Marvi Sirmed - a rights' activist and an independent researcher - has insisted upon the importance of a national identity, which she believes to be absent in Pakistanis and especially the youth. This, the idea of identity, has been discussed by many columnist and researchers in the past. Solutions are given, theories are formed, but the debate must continue. Although one thing is for sure, the slogan "What's the meaning of Pakistan," which was used to create Pakistan, is a question that haunts Pakistan till the day.

The identity crises that many, including Marvi, are pointing to, emerges from the concept of Muslim supremacism, that lets majority of Pakistani youth believe in a false sense of identity based not on their culture, heritage, history, language, or traditions but a concept of religion and its domination. Their pride and allegiance is not with their local customs but with a theoretical idea that links them to the Muslims who follow totally different cultures than their own and creates prodigious perplexity over the ownership of an identity.

This lack of identity stems not from the faith of Islam or the popular Muslim belief, but is seeded in the concept of the State of Pakistan and the way it was created and the direction it is being steered. Evidently the partition of greater India in itself was a forced mechanism, derived from political and ideological differences between Muhammad Ali Jinnah (The founder of Pakistan) and Mohandas Gandhi. It was the mistakes of the two, which gave birth to the idea of a separate identity framed around the concept of a two nation theory based on the perceived differences between the Muslims and the Hindus. Pakistan was Jinnah's political, rather then ideological, concept. As it was opposed by prominent Islamic theology based groups within greater India.

As Pakistan came into be, it became evident that it lacks a valid argument to support the bloody and heinous partition. Whereas India retained its identity in the historic name, its culture, pluralistic society, heterogeneous customs, and unity as a federation. It cashed in on its diversity along with its Indian values and clung to a democratic system to govern the state. Whilst in Pakistan the idea of Islamism was promoted fervently by the elite establishment, to force a homogeneity in a reluctant and somewhat lost nation. The lack of democracy and basic human rights not only evoke Bangladesh to separate but exposed the two nation theory and its vulnerability in a diverse society.

As Marvi Sirmed concluded in her article that:

It is important, in short, to be Pakistani before being a Hindu, Christian, Sikh or — yes — a Muslim. The texts beginning from a clichéd ‘all of us are Muslims’, need to be totally shunned in favour of a nation state-based identity, which would not only drag the society towards egalitarianism, but also would define our wider international behaviour.

Pakistanis must not see their diversity as a disability but rather Pakistan's fortitude that strengthens it as a nation. Pakistan needs to completely shun its two nation theory and accept its indigenous - Indian - culture and heritage as its real identity. It needs not to be Islamic Republic of Pakistan but a Union of Pakistani Nation. It is paramount to strengthening its democracy and the constitution, which will polish its true identity. The constitution - in diverse nations like Pakistan - is the backbone of the union, laying down the principles and the framework for a united nation. Last, but not least, educating the youth about democracy and the constitution will pave the way towards a new direction - a new of Pakistan.

The Islam vs. Democracy Debate

2011-04-22T20:55:00.001-04:00

If we collectively fail democracy as a system in Pakistan, we have collectively failed Islam as a religion. A Muslims believes that Islam is a complete deen. That Islam has the guidance to everything, from personal matters to the way a nation should be governed. If that is true; looking at the state of democracy in Pakistan, it seems that the people are really bad at practicing their faith.

There is also a “religious” segment of Pakistani society which believes that democracy is not a system acceptable in Islam but an idea of the West. Little do they know, by making this assertion they are questioning the judgment of Muslims who would vote in the elections. When they question the judgment of a Muslim to be able to decide a leader for him / herself, they are questioning their ability of judgment in all matters, including religion.

So those who are preaching anti-democracy propaganda, are actually declaring that Islam has taught nothing to its believers. That its believers are ignorant, childish, and brainless enough to distinguish between right and wrong. And so this is their first argument against democracy.

Their other argument is, that the leaders – the people – chosen by the masses, do not possess the abilities and knowledge required to run a nation. These people do not consider the fact that those “Muslim” who are chosen to run the nation, should have the same Islam governing their lives that these people do. As all Muslims believe that Islam has taught us how to run all affairs, personal and/or state. So these anti-democracy preachers must be advising that Islam does not teach a Muslim how to be a good leader.

So why the hypocrisy by these anti-democracy so called religious preachers. Is it because democracy actually is a system based on a collective decision making and collective wisdom. And so they believe that their argument, which might stand a chance in a tiny group of people who follow these people, but will fail in a collective judgment of intelligent Muslims. They know that rhetoric and propaganda stands no chance in a truly democratic system, and political Islam has no space in it.

These anti-democracy preachers are not sincere with Islam or Pakistan for that matter. The only thing in their minds is not how they can make better Muslims, but how they can control the weak Muslims. Their Idea of a truly Islamic system of government is an authoritarian system in which they themselves will be hand picked for being an authority on religion and in-tern on all state matters.

Learning from the events around the Middle-East, where collective intelligence of people of nations with the similar autocracies have decided to turn against that system, we Pakistanis should also completely scrap this mindless idea that Islam and democracy is incompatible. The fact of the matter is that Islam complements democracy and vice versa.

Published @ Daily Lahore Post

A beard does not make a Muslim

2011-04-20T23:15:00.002-04:00

Jalees Rehman eloquently argues, in a Huffington Post article, that when it comes to religious matters one should not "judge the book by its cover." The Muslim societies and communities, more than any other group, puts greater emphasis on the individual looks rather then a person's actions. This is very common in communities with historic links to tribal traditions and cultures. For example South Asian and Arab societies, which had, and to some extent still consist of, tribal cultures and totemic norms. Those societies tend to lean towards religious dogmas rather than the practice prescribed in the religion.

For instance the men in Muslim societies are often judged by their beard. Jalees Rehman in his article uses a Latin phrase "barba non facit philosophum," meaning a beard does not make a philosopher. That phrase being so relevant to Muslims, he discusses the role of beard in Muslim men, and argues that:

Many Muslim scholars feel that the Islamic tradition encourages Muslim men to have beards. While the Quran itself does not directly link piety with having a beard, over time, many Muslim communities have developed a vague expectation that pious or devout Muslim men ought to have beards.

This attitude of Muslim communities and their leading scholars is asserting a notion that a person cannot be pious, or that him being compassionate and charitable is of no value, unless he can back it up with a beard.

Mr. Rehman also makes a point that we as people are intellectually lazy and we tend to take the easy route in judging others. We do not focus on people's characteristics such as compassion or humility since

such "inward" characteristics are difficult to ascertain during passing encounters, while the presence or absence of a beard is much easier to determine.

He argues that it is not just the men, but also women, who have to face the piety dilemma of appearance. It is the women in a head-scarf or a fully covered burqa, who are perceived to be of the highest morals, while inversely the ones without any sort of covering are often despised upon.

Jalees Rehman rightfully makes a point that Muslim communities, especially in the west, waste their valuable time and resources over such shallow matters. Rather than looking at piety with a lens of appearance, Muslims need to take a saner approach, or just not judge at all since that is "God's domain."

Instead Muslims need to focus on the greater issues that impact their communities. It is vital for them to become politically active and take part in all social and political matters. Surely they will find problems, and underlying issues in their communities, that as a Muslim they are obliged to fix - and so they should.

What is Wrong With Burqa

2011-04-19T09:10:00.008-04:00

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is believed to have said “even a smile is an act of charity,” but there are some – Muslims – who tend to refute his teaching and hide their faces altogether. Blasphemy I say!

As I follow the recent debate – spurred by French law to ban covering of face in public places – I cannot refrain myself but think about the important aspects that are left out. Which I will discuss later in this article.

I have read many articles – overwhelmingly in favor of burqa – stating the freedom of expression and religion as an excuse to let the women who adhere to this practice continue wearing the burqa (a Pre-Islamic Persian garb that also covers the face). But the matter is not that simple as there are varying views on this issue.

One view is that a burqa is always forced onto the women by the men in the family, thus the practice should be protested and women must be liberated. Majority do believe that burqa should not be forced and wearing it should be the matter of choice. But that is not the case in patriarchal orthodox tribal societies and families. In those societies and families girls are taught from childhood the obligation of Muslim women to cover herself. And so they are mentally forced if not physically.

This misogynous act diminishes women's identity and objectifies her, as she becomes a property of a man to be owned and used. With burqa she disappears and becomes a part of an unidentifiable herd and loses her individuality. There is no clear way of identifying her unless she walks around with a name tag or some sort of a serial or product code. Like the ones used to identify the indistinguishable items in a market. Sorry!

Another argument – which is being left out of the debate – is that women choose to wear the burqa as they feel that men must not see their beauty. This way they can focus on their mental abilities, and be recognized for those rather than their physical appearance. So they are believing that a woman who wears burqa does it to refrain from devilish eyes of the perverted men who want nothing but sex from her. But in a way she objectifies herself, or worse, she creates a new social order in which she believes the men to be of lower strata than her.

She assumes a godlike position, which bars men from viewing her and knowing her identity. She is some how a superior being who can see the men in any - sexual or non sexual - manner. Judge the men and his physical characteristics, and even decide to pick a perfect mate for herself. Who will only be allowed to gaze at what she was hiding from rest of the world. Thus be granted a special privilege.

This sexism promotes a matriarchal society and becomes another way to discriminate and creates an inhumane class system that cannot be justified by say the right of expression or freedom of religion.

Even if burqa is really about the perverted men, from whom the women must protect themselves. Then the debate should be if a burqa really prevents rape or is it causing more frustration within the society. So if the women - with or without burqa - is at the same risk of getting harassed by individuals, then we must look at our laws and their enforcement.

We also need to take an example of western countries, where the women in bare minimum clothes can travel securely but a - fully covered - women in Muslim societies often gets harassed.

So the point being made is that, it is not the act in itself as much as the thought behind the act of hiding ones identity and appearance, which is wrong and absurd. And that must be debated with an open mind.

Boosting Pakistan Economy

2011-04-15T10:40:00.005-04:00

Any economist would agree to the fact that foreign investment is critical for the economy and job market in Pakistan. As the economy continues to improve so does the foreign investors' confidence. Just today in National Assembly Minister for Information and Broadcasting Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan announced the new numbers for growth in the foreign investor sector.

Madam Minister claimed the foreign investment to have reached a $1231.7 million mark. She claimed that the overall profile of foreign investment improved from US $969.5 million to US $1231.7 million during last eight months as compared with the same period of the corresponding year. She said foreign investors had demonstrated keen interest in the country as they invested $325.7 million in oil and gas sector, $121.3 million in banking sector and $102.7 million in telecommunication industry. All of which helps economy and creates sustainable jobs.

Responding to a question, the Information Minister said the government was planning restructuring of all those public sector organizations that were suffering from losses. She said the government had launched initiatives such as national motivation campaign in order to encourage Pakistani citizens to invest their money. She further stated that the investors now realize that investment made in Pakistan would never be at risk despite there being global recession and economic meltdown.

It was also reported that the Remittances by overseas Pakistanis increased by 22.37 per cent, to over $8 billion, in the first nine months of the 2010/11 fiscal year, and in March a record $1.05 billion was received, according to data from the State Bank of Pakistan

The recent economic numbers, surge in the stock exchange, compiled with a fairly stable political climate is giving positive indicators for economic prospects.

Pakistan’s Global Political Economy

2011-03-30T15:42:00.006-04:00

As the recession hit; the jobless rates soared to 10% and more, banks at the brink of failing, stock exchange plummeted, and economy was left paralyzed. All this happened in United States, which sparked a global recession, bringing down Europe and Asia along with it. This global recession was worst on developing nations, as they feared to face the worst food shortage crises ever.

Though it seems like the worst is over, and US economy is on its way to stability, the recession is still there. US bailed itself out with trillions of dollars in a bid to avoid depression, but now fears a double dip recession. Europe that was also starting to see some stability as the US stabilizes, saw Greek go down, and was required a rescuing. Since economies today are so interlinked a country like Greek can bring the whole Europe down, causing a domino effect and taking United States and Asia with it.

Although Pakistan is not very globally interlinked country, as the ones mentioned above are, it still relies heavily on trade with United States and Europe. Being Pakistan’s largest trading partners – EU and US – any recession in those countries can tremendously impact Pakistan’s trade and economy. So the future of Pakistan’s economy is very much dependent on the global economy.

Though Pakistan’s economy was affected by the global recession, there were many internal reasons for the economic conditions Pakistan faced in the past three years. The internal security situation and political uncertainty dominates in this respect. As Pakistan moves from no action against terrorists to a full-fledged operation and from dictatorship to democracy, things seems to be moving in the right direction.

As of recently Pakistan has started seeing a positive economic outlook, as all its vital indicators look decent, and its purchasing power parity seems to be increasing. Projecting to trend upwards in the next five years. This positive trend is portraying the increasing power of consumers to purchase vital household commodities. This is not to say that things are perfect, but they do seem to be heading the right direction.

Besides the evident tangible benefits that can be measured with economic formulas there has been crucial decisions made in Pakistan that are impacting its present and perhaps the future. Those are some positive developments that can shape a prosperous future for Pakistan, thus can be quantified as intangible benefits.

One of those would be the decision to fight terrorists that enjoyed safe sanctuaries inside Pakistan for decades. Although the war on terror is a huge bill on Pakistan’s economy, there are some benefits that cannot be quantified with numbers or currency for that matter.

Those happen to be the fruits in the future for the pain and suffering of today. Eliminating the terrorist organizations will not only improve security situation inside of Pakistan but also help pave better relationships with neighboring countries and the west. As there will be no one from Pakistan conducting acts of terror such as the Mumbai incident or the 9/11, the relationship of trust and trade will develop with other nations, which will help ease security perception along with helping build a better economy by investing in butter rather than guns.

The investment in security agencies – such as police and other law enforcement agencies – today will result in a better force for the future. Those agencies – that have always been underfunded and under trained – will now be fully capable of handling terror and the organized crimes of today’s world.

Another investment in Pakistan’s economic future is its democracy. The decisions that are made under a democracy are sound and everlasting, such as the making of Pakistan’s constitution that is yet to be conflicted. Though dictators in the past tried making many constitutions and amendments, just to fail, as none were accepted by the people of Pakistan.

The decisions the government today takes, whether it be popular ones like the NFC Award and 18^th Amendment, or it be the unpopular ones like improving and increasing taxes and eliminating subsidies, all will be everlasting and beneficial to Pakistan’s future. These are the investments for a better and a stronger Pakistan and its democratic system.

Although Pakistan’s economy is bouncing back, the growth could’ve been higher and achieved faster. More foreign investments could’ve come rather than flown the country in the past year. For that to happen Pakistan needs to provide security, independent judicial system, and reduce political uncertainty. Though security situation and some independence of judiciary has been achieved the political uncertainty has not reduced at all.

One of the major reason for that is, the Pakistan’s infant media, which loves to buzz on “corruption.” This cry, it knows very well sells and creates the sensationalism which it craves for its ratings. Although the judicial independence seems to have gotten better under democracy, we have seen a lot of politicking and judicial-activism in the higher judiciary. That is not good for economy either, since it fuels political uncertainty and scares investors.

As the Parliament debates the budget (2010 – 2011) we can see the challenges and the opportunities the government faces. Besides fulfilling IMF’s criteria, Pakistan itself has a great need to tighten the belt and spend within the means. This could mean to reduce spending or increase earnings through taxes or growing the economic pie. The budget seems to be doing both.

Though following those policies is not easy, especially on the poor who needs development and subsidies to survive, the government seems to have found an equilibrium. Steps such as increasing the wages of government employees by 50%, keeping subsidies on vital food commodities, and allocating more towards social safety net programs such as Benazir Income Support Progam. Those are all the measures to prevent poor from facing the brunt of a realistic, harsh, and a fiscally responsible budget.

President Zardari's Constitutional Reforms

2011-03-30T15:29:00.003-04:00

Monday April 19, 2010 – President Zardari made history by signing the landmark constitutional reforms amendment bill into law. Zardari – after taking office 18 months ago – pledged to reform the constitution. He promised that all the anomalies that were created by the dictators to protect their powers will be removed from the constitution. After this amendment the powers he inherited from the former President, General Pervez Musharraf, has been reverted back to the Prime Minister. The significance of this gesture is that Zardari is the first President in Pakistan’s history to give up his powers and act as a figurehead President as the original constitution intended.

A great milestone was achieved when the Parliamentary Constitutional Reforms Committee finished drafting the bill for the 18th Amendment in Pakistan’s constitution. After 9 months of deliberations the committee, that represented all Parliamentary parties, came to a unanimous consensus on amending around 100 articles of Pakistan’s current constitution. Majority of the changes are made in effort to revert back to the original spirit of Pakistan’s 1973 constitution. This was followed by a week’s debate in National Assembly, where it passed unanimously, and later passed by the Senate after another week long debate.

Reforming the constitution after 37 years of its creation was not the only milestone this president completed in his 18 months in office. Creating consensus on a landmark National Finance Commission (NFC) Award was another tangible achievement by Zardari regime. The NFC Award along with the 18th Constitutional Amendment is aimed at giving the provinces more autonomy and decentralizing the authority and finances from the center to the provinces.

Pakistan’s media, which is overwhelmingly right leaning, opposes many of President’s policies and term him as a “unpopular president.” The media and press in Pakistan act like Fox News on steroids, giving it all they can to prove their point; whether it be conspiracy theories, one sided polls, false sense of nationalism, or even fortune tellers to predict the future of Zardari regime.

The flip-side of all the media’s Zardari-phobia is that the president might as well turn out to be one of the most powerful civilian presidents in Pakistan’s history. He had not only brought the institutional and democratic reforms as mentioned earlier, but also benefited and strengthened his party to great extremes. Holding the party together after the death of Ms. Benazir Bhutto, and leading the party to a victory in the, February 2008, general election polls was a tremendous task. He didn’t stop there; creating government of his Prime Minister, forging alliances with parties to make governments in all four provinces, taking majority in Senate without any tussle, having a chairman senate from his party, and leading his party to victory in Gilgit Baltistan, the newly formed unofficial province of Pakistan.

After his grand achievement, President Zardari, is back on the road selling the accomplishment of his government to the people while announcing and inaugurating various development projects along with organizing his party for upcoming local bodies’ elections. President Zardari has said that his party has completed eighty percent of work from their election manifesto and will continue to work for improving the lives of poor people of Pakistan.

As the President has transfered his powers to the parliament, it is up to them and all the political parties elected in the parliament, to focus on the issues that matter to the public the most. After the passage of 18th Amendment, It is high time that all parties should also create consensus over other national issues such as the energy shortfall, inflation, and economy.

Reconciliation Is No Silver Bullet

2011-03-30T15:22:00.002-04:00

Two years ago – February 2008 – Pakistan began its transformation to democracy with a general election that brought Benazir Bhutto’s PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) into power. The party decided to continue its policy, introduced by its slain leader Ms. Bhutto, of reconciliation with all political players. It formed a coalition government with its rival and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz) in Punjab province, ANP (Awami National Party) in NWFP province, and MQM (Muttahida Quami Movement) in Sindh province. PPP also decided to share power with those parties in the center and the idea was to create a powerful democratic government alliance that can address all the challenges faced by the country after a decade long dictatorship.

Democracy
Reconciliation allowed, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, there to be a unanimously elected Prime Minister. Seats in Senate were also distributed amongst the parties according to the strength of their mandate in the National Assembly. It was unprecedented in Pakistan’s history that every party’s mandate was not only respected but many of the major ministerial positions were given to the smaller coalition partners and the opposition parties.

Struggling Coalition
This unique grand coalition government used its strength to drive Musharraf out of power and resign from the Presidency. Soon after Musharraf’s resignation, PML-N and PPP alliance started to fall apart. It was considered an unholy alliance of a rightist PML-N and a Leftist PPP. The differences in ideology and manifesto along with issues related to constitutional reforms and reinstatement of judges caused a lot of friction between the two. Analyst believe that it was enmity for Musharraf rather than willingness to work together that brought the two parties together. Or some say it was PML-N’s shortsightedness, as it did not only heat up the political temperature, but hurt the chance for the democracy to flourish.

Lawyers movement
PML-N’s hawkish politics after the separation from alliance changed the whole political environment. What was seen as a real change in Pakistan’s democratic history soon turned into a political chaos. Thereafter PML-N joined the lawyers movement to reinstate the deposed judges and demanded that it be done instantly with an executive order. Ignoring the parliament they went straight to the streets to march towards the capital and force the government into accepting their demands. An infant media started portraying this as a revolution; the things started to look bad, Pakistan’s democratic future bleak, and the government seemed powerless. PML-N, playing its usual reactionary politics, brought the system to the brink of collapsing. The government at-last reinstated the judges, following its policy of reconciliation, though on the PML-N’s terms rather than its own. PPP’s government could have utilize its majority and its executive muscle effectively to resolve the issue at an earlier stage. Perhaps being out of power for fifteen years and losing its leader had made the party quite vigilant.

War on Terror
The coalition government of PPP began to put itself at a weaker position by agreeing – contrary to its political ideology – to have a dialogue with the taliban. The hawkish right-wing opposition, overwhelmed by its victory in judges restoration campaign, kept pushing PPP’s government further to the wall. PPP, not realizing the strength of its mandate, let media and right-wing parties dictate the policies. Luckily the dialogue with taliban failed as the militants, who had entered Swat, started making mistakes. The militants, who had moved closer to the population centers, were now in the eyes of the camera. Their true image was exposed as the video of flogging a young girl was televised around the world. The rightist parties toned down their rhetoric – as the taliban leaders started to denounce democracy and judiciary – distancing themselves from the policy of dialogue with the militants. Government finally reconciled at its own terms and ordered the army to conduct successful operations in Swat and surrounding areas. Effectively managing the conflict, government was successful in clearing the area from the militants and returning the internally displaced people back to their homes.

Kerry Lugar Bill
PPP’s authority was challenged when some of its own coalition members started to part themselves from the Kerry Lugar bill. As US and Pakistan were getting into a new era of partnership through an aid package by the US congress, the political parties along with media and military generals exhibited their contention over the language of the bill. This brought PPP on a defensive, its leaders clueless and defenseless to the pure absurdity of the opposing parties’ arguments against the American bill. The opposition ran out of rhetoric, media lost interest, and the debate faded away.

Provincial Issues
Reconciliation is not always a zero-sum-game, as it was proved by the coalition government in passing the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award. It was a huge step in resolving most of provincial conflicts and financial problems. Many previous governments had failed to formulate a method that will be acceptable to all provinces. PPP-led government managed to get this passed with consensus and reconciliation between all players. This was one time PPP showed its leadership and political strength, to achieve one of the most important benchmarks of its manifesto.

National Reconciliation Ordinance
The politics of reconciliation seemed to have failed once again when the issue of National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) came to the table. The Supreme Court had allowed the parliament to revisit all ordinances promulgated by former President Gen. Musharraf during his term. One of the ordinance was the NRO, which PPP’s wanted parliament to pass. It seemed as if the PPP-led government had enough votes to pass it, but the tide turned as MQM decided not to back PPP on passing this legislation. Not learning from the past, PPP failed to reconcile with its coalition partners or even use political arm-twisting to get this important legislation passed. Obviously it was short-sightedness on the part of MQM, but they were not the ones facing a political loss. Failing to take an aggressive stance on their policy and following a weak strategy caused PPP to lose a vital political battle.

Future Strategy
PPP is said to be more effective and better organized when in opposition than when it is in power. This is proving to be true, as we see the party not fight for its stance, nor use its political and executive powers effectively, and act apologetic on many major political issues. As the government will be facing many tough issues in the future; such as local body elections, constitutional reforms, law and order situation, and economic policies. They must use reconciliation, and the political strength that comes from the mandate given by the people, to resolve all these difficult matters. The leadership of PPP needs to realize that it is the one running the country and it will be them who will be answerable to the people in the elections three years later. The government needs to start running the country on their terms not the opposition parties’ and definitely not the media’s. It is PPP’s prerogative to make the policies, for which it should use all its political and executive strengths, not getting dictated by other parties in the alliance or the opposition. Reconciliation is not the ultimate solution, or a silver bullet, the government in power will not be effective in governance unless it uses its strengths to maximize its political goals and follow its manifesto for which it was elected.