One of the rallying points in favor of the rise of Pakistani politician Imran Khan, apart from the utter disillusionment of the masses and corruption of both the major and leading parties, has been his charismatic personality. But Khan’s recent interview to NDTV’s Barkha Dutt, seemed to have lost that element and for once laid bare the stark contradictions between his own statements showing his inanity.

For example, Khan believes, to quote him, ‘the age of martial law is over… Whatever happens I don’t see military takeover.’ Yes, Mr Khan it is. But the ‘military Raj’ has not ended, it has found new ways to penetrate back into the Pakistani society. To believe that military makes its presence felt only through martial laws and coups is naïve. Furthermore according to Khan the parliament may be sovereign but the ‘constitution is supreme’. No doubt that constitution must be upheld at all times and given utmost respect. But if the constitution is supreme and not the parliament, what about the fact that the parliament can amend the constitution? Would that not be against the supremacy of constitution? If not, then would that not make parliament supreme and not constitution?

Khan has a problem with stereotyping but would not hesitate to label Pakistani liberals across the board as drone loving ‘fascists’, or ‘scum of Pakistan’ against the interests of Pakistan. One is but bound to wonder the expression Shirin Mazari and Yasir Lateef Hamdani must be wearing while the great Kaptaan uttered the words. Ironically he uses the typical image of a liberal woman in Pakistan, wearing jeans, to show how his jalsas had garnered the presence of Pakistani people across the board from all sections of society.

The inspirational philanthropist and cricket legend deems the corruption of PPP and PLMN so despicable, and perhaps rightly so, that he would not join hands with them. Not until they declare their assets. According to him once they honestly do so, they would lose out in the game even before he accepts or rejects partnership with them since they are corrupt and an impartial Election Commission of Pakistan would preclude them from running.

However Khan seems to have made corruption the only criteria, or so it seems. That may not be wrong. But one is to ask some questions on that account. He may have problem shaking hands with PPP and PMLN but is alright having representative from his party, Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaaf, attend Defaye Pakistan Rally holding hands with the religious zealots such as notorious Hafiz Sayeed, whose inflammatory speeches the talk show host Barkha Dutt raised issue about. Khan failed to answer adequately why he would send PTI representatives to Saeed, save the explanation that one needs to reconcile the polarized sections of society than to marginalize themg. But not marginalizing the voices of the likes of Hafeez Saeed would in turn mean silencing the voice of progressive Pakistanis, and sanity. Is that really the price Mr Khan is ready to pay in hope that Hafeez Saeed and company might have a change of heart given their status quo depending on blind Islamic nationalism? How mature of Khan to believe that people like Saeed once brought to table may leave aside their fundamentalist demand for further rigid application of Shari’ah laws. It is true that the strategy would most probably work for the low levels of such fundamentalist movements, where the support and muscles are derived from the poverty stricken sections of society but let us not forget the strategy would most probably fail for the higher cadre of these movements where more than poverty it is power status quo and rigidly jihadi mindset at work. How can you reconcile them, without compromising on fundamental principles of democratic and open societies in 21st century, is my question.

One may deem it easier to imagine that if given a chance to reconcile and leave their old ways, PPP and PMLN, including notorious Zardari may turn all saints and leave corruption. On what grounds is it exactly that a misogynistic, anti-religious minority party with no sense of what the demands of a 21st century open and democratic Muslim society are, is to be given leverage over corrupt albeit progressive and secular parties. The point is not to defend any party in particular but to raise a serious question regarding the future prospective partnerships between PTI and others. While Khan is not ready to work in alliance with liberal ‘fascists’ (read: drone loving liberals), he is fine having talks and attending rallies with Islamist fascists.

For many perhaps such questions may sound moronic. Are not PPP or PMLN guilty of such crimes, leave alone almost all the so called secular parties in Pakistan? Correct. But not in the way Khan and company does it. If it was a political alliance only, we could have justified it in the name of real politik. But the darling takes it a step further and repletes his speeches, interviews and even on stage actions with ‘I Used To Be A Playboy But Now Am A Humble Sinner’ statements, while openly promising us a religious freedoms and rights in an ‘Islamic welfare state’. We know how well that promise works, in an Islamized society. Also, not only freedoms and rights Mr Khan but religious equality should be the goal of any man seeking to change the ‘status quo’ to quote you favorite word.

But how would Khan be able to change status quo when he is not ready to take on the Military/Mullah axis in Pakistan? Do the problems of Pakistan begin and end with PPP and PMLN? Surely corruption by political parties is a serious crime but one ought to ask are these parties and their corruption the disease themselves or mere symptoms of a much more serious issue lying underneath? If Khan wish to change status quo in Pakistan he would have to be a bit more courageous and call spade a spade. It comes with a price of course. But wait! Was he not the one promising us unprecedented change and the one Pakistani society deems to be an honest and upright man of principles? After all according to Khan “Religion liberates you from fear; fear of being killed.”

During the interview Khan somewhat admitted he thinks it dangerous to discuss the whole blasphemy law controversy. His solution to the problem? Reconcile the polarized society by eradicating poverty (and of course drone attacks). But is it that simple? To deal with the controversy of the misuse of blasphemy laws we would always need an unpopular iron fist move. Is Khan ready to speak up for real change? Nobody wants to end up dead but nobody should be allowed to give such reductionist explanations, making him seem like a simpleton and misleading people.

Khan speaks of revolution but why is it that there is little attention paid by him to the issue of Balochistan and how military is using its might? Why is it that he is silent on the persecution of religious minorities, especially Ahmadiyyah and Hindu community? Similarly if Khan believes, as he stated elsewhere, that ‘any law that discriminates between human beings is unjust’ and if one is to believe ,as he puts it, ‘Tehreek-I-Insaaf stands for justice’ why is it that Khan has not talked about the unjust religious laws against religious minorities in Pakistan, in the face of their ever more increasing persecution day in and day out, save the same old mantra by almost all of the political class in Pakistan stating under their rule religious minorities would enjoy liberties and freedoms? But by playing his Islamic cards he is doing exactly the opposite. His explanation that Allah is Rabb-Ul-Aalaameen (Lord of the Worlds) and not Rabba-Ul-Muslimeen (Lord Of Muslims) sounds just in an idealized Islamic state. But the fact is Khan is more than sixty now and would soon be with his Rabb-Ul-Aalaameen. What about then? Would the next leadership of PTI show the same reformed mindset while pandering to the Islamic voters on the party lines set down by Khan? That is the reason a clear cut party line for PTI must be set out now, a party line which is all-inclusive, a secular one. If Imran Khan has reached such an enlightened understanding of Islam ( “In my opinion someone who is religious, who is spiritual is going to be compassionate, leftist,” he says while his party’s Ijaz Chaudhry along with religious parties declare al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden the ‘martyr of Islam’ at the Istehkaam-e-Pakistan Caravan on The Mall in Lahore), it does not mean every PTI voter would think like him nor would be watching every interview of his explaining his understanding of Islam. For voters, the Islamic symbols that adorn Khan’s speeches may well represent a common understanding of ‘Muslim identity’, and thus add to the present status quo’s power Khan would like to deconstruct, without an intellectual exercise to comprehend the real meaning behind Khan’s usage of them. That is the reason playing with religious politics, even with a reformed mindset, is a dangerous deed. That should answer Khan’s question to Dutt, “Am I not respecting the sentiments of my own people?” when asked about his praying on stage in front of 100,000 people.

Khan goes on to tell Dutt how “if I was not spiritual I would not have been in politics” and “if I did not have faith in God I would not have been in politics”. Good Mr Khan. Now stop shoving your spirituality down our throats. Pakistan has religious minorities, and nonreligious minorities, apart from Liberal and Secular Muslims. Do you not count them in when you tell Ms Dutt that PTI “is a party that hopes to get all the country on the platform”?

In 2002 when he was elected into the parliament as the sole spokesman from PTI, Imran Khan aligned with Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), and criticized the idea of madrassah reforms as well as the mixed sex races being held. Can we be sure now that he has support even from the moderates Khan will shake off the earlier influence of MMA? To convince his critics just as he has conceded his wrong by once supporting Musharraf, he ought to concede publicly being wrong on this note as well. Above all he ought to admit how wrong he was in his reservations on the Women’s Protection Bill in 2006. If he did have the problem with bill and not the freedoms and rights of women it was seeking, Khan could have proposed amendment(s). But he did not. Unless he does so his saying to Ms Dutt that “youth and women are always in the forefront of the change” is futile and contradictory to his actions for he would have failed to protect the very harbingers of change he is counting his support and hopes from a change on.

What then is the alternative seems to be the favorite question of PTI supporters. You, one should tell them. Supporting Imran Khan does not and should not mean pinning down all on him. Your vote does not mean you have lived off your responsibilities as a citizen. It is time that PTI youth should start asking Khan critical question and form a pressure group within party to pressurize him into not only fulfilling his commitment but to move beyond rhetoric and contradictory statements. Today Imran Khan may be Pakistan’s symbol of hope, but the real force is the support behind the symbol. Liberals (if they have any shame and self-respect they should have left the party by now) and Moderates within the party must pressurize PTI to bring itself in line with common sense. Or else, if what we are seeing is the coming of a revolution, a tsunami, we better cross our fingers and hope it dies out soon.

The Urdu version is up here:

” Protecting and promoting human rights through the Rule of Law”

PRESS RELEASE For immediate release – 25 January 2012
Former Pakistan Ambassador to the US faces threats to his life – ICJ

Geneva, Switzerland – The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today expressed its
grave concern for the infringement of rights of Hussain Haqqani, former Pakistan
Ambassador to the United States of America.

Hussain Haqqani has been embroiled in a political and judicial conflict stemming from a
leaked political memorandum that he was alleged to have authored, only a few days after
al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed by US military forces.

“Hussain Haqqani faced a vicious media trial following which the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition filed debarred him from travelling abroad, despite the fact that he has not been charged with any crime,” said Sheila Varadan, International Legal Advisor at the ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Office. “Hussain Haqqani continues to receive threats and has been painted as disloyal to the country. There is, though, no proof of any betrayal of his
duties as an Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States.”

His counsel, Asma Jahangir, confirmed that Hussain Haqqani is under threat and has taken refuge in the compound of the Prime Minister’s residence.

The leaked memo, which on 10 May 2011 was delivered to the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, was said to contain promises of greater cooperation with the Americans in counter-terrorism operations from President Zardari’s People’s Party of Pakistan (PPP) Government in exchange for support from the United States to subvert a potential military coup d’état.

News of the memo was leaked to the media by an American-Pakistani businessman, Ijaz Mansoor, in early October 2011.

Hussain Haqqani was recalled to Islamabad and resigned his post as Pakistan Ambassador to the United States in November 2011. The PPP Government denied allegations of involvement in the memo scandal and a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was set up on 21 December 2011 to investigate the matter. A few days later, the Supreme Court of Pakistan established its own Commission of Inquiry.

There are legitimate concerns that in convening this Commission, the Supreme Court may have overstepped its constitutional authority and that this action could undermine the ongoing Parliamentary inquiry.

“We are calling on the Pakistani Authorities to respect Hussain Haqqani’s right to be presumed innocent and to remove the restriction on his right to leave the country and any other restrictions on his right to freedom of movement,” added Sheila Varadan. “They
must also ensure his personal safety at all times and respect his right to a fair and impartial hearing throughout the Inquiry process.”

For further information, please contact:
Sheila Varadan, International Legal Advisor, ICJ (Bangkok), tel + 66 2 619 83 04

“Benazir Lives”… I’ve always have heard this and possess an unyielding credence in these words. Nevertheless, as I turn up to gaze at the heavens in moments of obscurity, she is there to placate me and to grant me hope and direction. The instant, I see myself ripped by obstructions, she is there to give me valor and vigor. The empathy twinges into trillions and splits my soul as I heed of her brutal assassination even after years, be it a very small mention of the sacrifice that she gave for democracy and humanity. My eyes have not turned blind after watching it and my ears haven’t turned deaf after hearing the sound of bullets – atrocious world… Isn’t it? Someone gives their blood and the other instant; one finds the boulevards being washed to hide that blood… Hide it from whom….and for how long…? Failure, when the blood begins to write up its own history; failure, when the same blood cries out: “You cannot execute a vision”; an utter failure, when you find the same blood flowing through her “charismatic” daughter, Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari.

Time turns to be pitiless, fate turns to be austere, and life turns to be a prickly passage, but there is a flicker of illumination far apart, which tends to brighten the entire universe. That light brings in a message of buoyancy and prosperity, and a conviction to stand with the demoralized and to take a bullet for safeguard the motherland. Thereby, the legend begins – a story of exemplary audacity in a sea of tears. “Benazir” courage comes into existence again, as it requires guts to be able to recall those vicious blazes that burnt the entire planet and snatched the anticipation from trillions – The words do not exist, but yet, it requires empathy to feel that excruciating incident, which threw the entire nation into gloom. In all the frustrations, one heeds the voice that reaches straight away to the heavens:”…murdered legendary mother…you had beauty and intelligence…enemies feared your presence…shot at the back of your ear, so young in 54th year, murdered with three kids left behind, a hopeless nation without you…”

The bereavement has not come to an end yet. Life ceases, as one goes four years back… Is there no worth of a human’s life…? Isn’t the blood given for humankind too sacrosanct? My eyes again catch sight of a crowd, too enthusiastic to see her step on her soil, the same slogans of “Jeaye Bhutto” ring in my ears, and I view the same Benazir, who was the most beloved to me, loaded with rose petals with the white scarf hovering on her head, which became an insignia of hope and democracy. “Walking in your room and office, you’ll always be back you promised…still got the sense of your presence…your eyes, your smile, the presence…perfection, beauty, your elegance, the epitome of benevolence, you were counting down the days to pray at your dad’s grave…” Her charisma continues to be felt and the lesion intensifies as one grasps the veracity in the words of her pudding, Bakhtawar.

The chronicle is lengthy enough…Months later, I get to comprehend the truth that martyrs continue to live, as I see Bakhtawar amidst her mother’s followers. The commotion gets unplumbed, as one feels the presence of Shaheed Mohtarmah Benazir Bhutto in her words and conduct, concern for the afflictions of the ailing and vow to assist the under privileged. An icon of women empowerment, highly involved in student politics and humanitarian activities at an international level, one can view a “Benazir” heart in her, which moves to see the peoples’ sufferings. Beginning with her struggle to materialize the vision of her mother, she formed an NGO “Save the Flood and Disaster Victims” to raise donations for those affected by the catastrophic floods in Pakistan. Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari inspires millions, as a daughter, who is too dedicated and committed to the cause for which her mother gave away her life. At times, it appears that Mohtarmah Benazir Bhutto left her the present of a celebrated name and “the people of Pakistan” on her upcoming birthday on January 25, 2008, as this day, she has proved to be the upcoming daughter of the East. Indeed, her passion to terminate the stress of the humanity has earned her trillions of hands, which rise in prayers for her 24/7. “Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto is the most inspiring figure in my life. She was larger than life. I always thought of a tribute which could do some justice to her grand abilities. The very core aim of this NGO is inspired from her passion that was the true emancipation of the people of Pakistan. So I ask in her name for help. Let us come together and rebuild Pakistan. Let’s rebuild it in an even better way. Let’s turn this grave tragedy into an opportunity. We have to rebuild a new bright and shining Pakistani society, to which our commitment is total and unending.” Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari has thus, placed her heart and soul in this soil, as did her mother Shaheed Benazir Bhutto.

Bakhtawar is the true manifestation of the aspirations of her martyred mother.“…how could you be taken from me…my eyes they keep getting sore…when we prayed at your grave, my knees they just hit the floor…”“…But if I could have you…I would take the pain away, I would take the pain, I would take the pain away…”

Amidst snivels and timidity, twinge and murkiness; Benazir was born the very day, the heavens could all heed “I would take the pain away…” Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari – the parable of unparalleled heroism begins…She is bound to be the “lucky charm” for Pakistan, as her name suggests.

“Is mulk ki kismet ap ke hatho may hai, so let’s make a difference”.

Zinda Hai Bibi, Zinda Hai!

Happy Birthday to the future leader of Pakistan, Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari! <3

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority blocks access to porn sites in Pakistan. The central theme of this piece is not porn per se, but the pros and cons of the decision to ban it. In principle of course, if we decide as a nation that we shouldn’t have porn only a click away, then we should have the right to ban it. What is unacceptable is for some agency to control the flow and content of information. Because when authorities decide the content people should have access to, it is usually not for the sake of providing quality information. The concern shown by people about the potential misuse of SOPA and PIPA is a valid one. Porn may be very few Pakistanis’ cup of tea (or is it?), but authorities getting a free hand to ban it will certainly raise similar issues. This is of course a land where sane, reasonable things are routinely labeled as blasphemous. There’s very little doubt, as far as I am concerned, that a lot of babies will be deliberately thrown with the bath water. Even as it is, two Gazans killed by Israeli helicopters somehow get more attention by us than twenty Baloch killed much closer to home.

Let’s leave terrorism, freedom fights, and religious fanaticism aside for a moment, and come back to the issue at hand, that is, porn – or the banning of it to be precise. I think the ball of the PTA ban was set rolling by the report published back in 2010 claiming that among all nations of the world, Pakistan was numero uno on the porn search list. The report appeared in all our leading newspapers. The interesting thing is that nobody found it hard to believe, although we predictably got to hear the usual western-conspiracy-to-defame-us comments, in addition to the self-righteous outrage on Fox News’s multiple orgasms via the Pornistan taunt.

From the report it seems the spirited Pakistanis absolutely blew away the rival nations in all categories, including the bestiality searches. I don’t want to believe the explanation put forward by ‘The young Turks’, namely: the Pakistanis believe that sex with animals is less sinful than with fellow humans. Rape and child sex searches are of course two other disturbing categories we topped in, which would negate TYT hypothesis, but then, these could easily be distinct user groups.

I recently watched an audience-based TV program on the issue. Two of the four panelists in the program were convinced that internet was the root cause of all evil, and that the PTA should ban internet if banning porn sites was a difficult task. The audience seemed to agree with them. Understandable, in a country where having reservations about legislation can be seen as being in favour of the crime, as Salman Taseer found out.

Personally I don’t buy the different arguments presented from time to time in favour of pornography. I am however convinced that just like we couldn’t eliminate prostitution, alcohol and gambling from the society by prohibiting them nationwide, we won’t be able to stop people from watching porn by banning websites. A lot of people are killed every year by ill-prepared, unregulated alcohol; and a lot of horror takes place in underground, non-accredited, unmonitored gambling houses, where the gamblers play on credit and pay with their life or limb. Now I am certainly not for giving legal cover to porn or prostitution because that will be adopting the worst of the western culture. However, since economics determine most everything, the Hall Road DVD shops are sure to again enjoy the old patronage from the porn customer – if they haven’t already – as the ban becomes more and more extensive. That will likely provide the lurking crazies with more motivation to bomb such markets, where a majority of buyers will have nothing to do with porn. And even if a porn buyer or seller is killed, should death be the penalty for this immorality? These simple-in-principle matters are not very simple when it comes to application, are they?

Another particular search that got me (and many others, I should assume) thinking is ‘camel sex’. It’s obvious that ordinary mortals can’t do it with a camel (well I guess nothing is impossible if one shows enough motivation and determination; but as far as animals go, having sex with a camel has to be the most amazing feat, with the probable exception of a giraffe). My curiosity has been aroused but unfortunately I have no way to find out now that the relevant sites have been banned. Assuming that the search had nothing to do with bestiality (as is likely in view of the above), hats off to the geniuses who think that watching two camels making out would be sexually arousing or even aesthetically gratifying (whichever comes first; pun not intended)! I mean, if indulging in this type of activity happens to be one’s thing, why camels, of all things? Could it be yet another way on the part of our wannabe Arabs of associating, and showing solidarity, with the ‘ship of the desert’, which features so prominently in the Arabic holy folklore? TYT may have a point after all.

By Shahbaz Ali Khan

Shahbaz, a former Industry relations and PR professional, has spent the past 8 years experimenting with the frontiers of professional competence by insisting on not specializing in anything but thinking, communicating and writing.  

Social media usage has changed people’s perception of what human experiences and contact means. Therefore, what was once dehumanized, is now part of the process of’re-humanization’. Social networks are experiencing a new kind of internal change whereby the very visible projections of a communal idea have become indiscreet, public and wholly access oriented. We have today managed to launch ourselves onto a common platform of exchange, interchangeable identities and ‘walls’ of self-exposition. This has an inherent accelerating factor for social development, social change (hopefully for the better) and the very visible impact on a community can now be felt and dissected in real-time.

In so far as Pakistanis are concerned, the new tools of social media and propagation should have, about two years ago, started us off on a path of real emancipation. On a face to face basis, people here tend to guard and flavor their expression. They follow the established thought ‘parameter’ and usually conform to accepted social truisms. In the relative anonymity of the internet (or what it was prior to the boom in new accounts on Twitter and Facebook), they are more free. They express their disgust, their vehemence and are free to provoke and protect in equal measure. There is liberation and a real and measurable breaking of the shackles, and by and large this has been a very positive thing.

When you observe a child playing with matches, you should not panic immediately, for he (she) will not set themselves and everything around them on fire right away. There is a good few minute’s delay before the child figures out how to strike alight the match-stick.

This is the unfortunate nature of our media, social or otherwise. Targeted towards a predominantly illiterate (and therefore intellectually ‘juvenile’) audience, our media never matured along with their technology. Social media is no exception. We were able to observe a very sudden and assured growth in digital access for universal expression. We were, however, not able to anticipate the flaws in its localization.

The new ‘face’ of humanization and socialization brings with it the in-built trait of impulsiveness and immediate (and uncontrolled) reaction. The Shamsul Anwar affair, turned on its head over the past few days, is an expose of how emancipation, when taken as a quick-fix shot on the arm (as opposed to a slowly ingesting pill dissolving in the stomach) can be premature, misguided and outright damaging.

Facebook dehumanized the person’s identity by making him or her project their lives via carefully(and socially conscious) selected pictures and words. Daily updates on trivial matters, (specifically designed for the wall, uploaded with Facebook in mind) have always been a little too public, a little too generic. It is here, Facebook being the most popular social media around, that we can start to notice fault-lines on the freedom plateau. Pakistanis are, by habit, a reactive people (I would not say nature, there is too much of cultural ‘nurture’ factors at play in our vastly over-populated, non-homogenous gene ‘swamp’). We are quick to put to words our emotions, realizing the biased, non-factual (sensationalist) nature of our media but not realizing the consequences of media hype. The medium should, ideally, dictate the style and tone of the message; social media requires a specific kind of communication, with a premium being placed on succinct, concise andmedium oriented language. What it is not is a forum for merely shortening or paraphrasing our thoughts without reflection. A little knowledge is indeed dangerous when it can be instantly shared with an audience of thousands. The nuances of the English language are but part of the story. There are nuances of fact seeking, information integrity and counter-checking with reason (and reality) which are almost completely lost on a vast majority. The case of the missing girl who was not is a case in point: Not only is it immature journalism (a by-product of decentralized ‘knowledge’ centers without any regard to training, control or merit), but it remains a shocking example of how quickly here-say is turned into fact.

Mostly, social media has been divided along the lines of the very public projection and sharing of one’s lives through snippets and media (FB) and information sharing within the word (syntax and expression) limit of Twitter. This, for me, is a DE-humanized way of living the social media world.  What it means to be a person is now (wastefully) translated to pictorial and word representation. It is this aspect of social media that also allows for small, cut-down and digestible factoids to propagate as the honest truth; there is a simplification that comes with the medium that allows for a loss of complexity and (often) this leads to a loss of objectivity.

Humans do not naturally interact in this manner. However, the very definition of being human and social is now up for a re-configuration. The revolution in Egypt was fueled by, and in return emphasized upon, social media as the new place for social mobilization and expression. The same tools can be used by alarmists, sensationalists, and ‘tea-time’ social agents for disastrous effect.

We should not be deluded by easily accessible, but ultimately false, sources of knowledge and news. We should stop, think, and conceptualize prior to expression. It is a given that media in the mainstream, for its writers, content creators, editors and readers, needs to grow up and do so quickly. Otherwise, as the Shamsul Anwar affair illustrates so clearly, we will always be easy prey to the reactionary and superficial nature of our social media. This post included, read with discretion and react to facts, established and stated as such. If nothing else, do it for self-respect.

It seems at the first sign of cracks in a democratic setup in Pakistan, a battle cry goes out from media pundits, back-door politicians and professional pontificators alike to end or derail the democratic process. As the knives and bayonets are sharpened, headlines like “End the farce”, “Noose tightens” and “Government isolated” dominate in the media.

Many affluent Pakistanis, enjoying the fruits of Western democracies, hypocritically chime in to denigrate democracy and espouse the benefits of a return to strict authoritarian rule or a managed democracy for the unwashed masses in their native land. The mainstay of their argument is that a “controlled” political process can deliver peace, order and stability which the country desperately needs and which the natural chaos of a parliamentary democracy cannot hope to emulate. “The man who has gotten everything he wants is all in favor of peace and order.” Jawaharlal Nehru

The propagandists and doomsayers who predict the end of democracy are helped by the macabre political situation prevailing in the country. The Prime Minister is being held in contempt and has had to appear before the Supreme Court for balking on writing to the Swiss courts to reopen the President’s past corruption cases. A former envoy to the US has taken protection in the PM House, possibly seeking protection from the country’s security services who may seek to harm him for allegedly instigating a memorandum inviting foreign intervention to check the power of the country’s military.

The government has been forced to have a pro-democracy resolution passed by the “sovereign and supreme” Parliament requesting all institutions to respect the primacy of democratic institutions. It is a wonder that a democratic government, constantly watching its back, is also expected to focus on urgent issues facing the country like poverty, hunger, unemployment and the sorry state of government hospitals and schools.

Conditioned by years of playing second fiddle to autocrats and their henchmen, politicians and civil society are reluctant to stand together to fight the misleading allure of authoritarianism or a managed democracy. This is surprising because the non-democratic road in Pakistan is well travelled, taken a great toll on the country, and shaken its foundations to the core.

A strong case can be made that the three long periods of dictatorship in Pakistan’s history, Ayub 1958-69, Zia 1977-1988 and Musharraf 1999-2008 greatly contributed to the disintegration of the country and the spread of a retrogressive Islamic ideology, sectarianism and violence. The “men on horseback” trained in a unitary environment failed and will continue to fail because they are unable to understand the discordant demands of a multi ethnic society.

There is also little evidence that a “controlled” political environment is any less corrupt or can ensure long-term economic prosperity when compared to a parliamentary democracy. It can be argued that whitewashing authoritarianism every few years, does not remove its intrinsic violence and corruption and the way its tyrannies intrude into ordinary lives.

It seems ridiculous to imagine that a command decision made by an unelected leadership can be implemented without question in a complex nation of a 180 million people. History has proven time and time again that changes needed for the betterment of the people require discussion and consensus and not heavy handed approaches to be effective. Given the opportunity, the people will support liberal democracy and its ideals of tolerance, due process and constitutional rights.

Governmental legitimacy should continue to be derived from the ballot box. A silver lining often ignored by pessimists is that Pakistan has legitimate political parties, an increasingly independent judiciary and vibrant media, which are prerequisites for preserving and enhancing a democratic society. Pakistanis also have a history of fighting dictatorship and checking obscurantism through democratic means when allowed.

The critical issues of corruption and poor governance, disillusioned populace and a young population with few economic prospects have to be addressed quickly. This requires Pakistan to come up with a new generation of leaders, who are capable of relaying the foundations of State in crisis and who are also capable of defending its populations’ interests better, based on unwavering respect for different State institutions.

Right now I am feeling like holding a video camera which can live telecast to the entire country and follow Ms Maya Khan constantly. Not only that I would like to give nasty spins to her even “harmless” routine conversations with men (such as the grocery store keeper) and project these as sinful affairs. The feeling of being constantly hounded, misinterpretation of completely normal conversations on the national electronic media and the resulting embarrassment will perhaps instil some sense into her otherwise dumb and attention seeking mediocre third class brain.

Frankly I have become quite used to non-sense which our electronic media utters. During the past decade it has spewed hatred, spread cheap sensationalism, knitted mind boggling conspiracy theories and has reinforced delusional hyper patriotism. However, what I have witnessed today on the net ( a snap shot of Ms Maya Khan’s  third class program) was even way beyond all the third class non sense electronic media has been uttering so far.

Ladies and Gentlemen, for those of you who have not seen it, I am posting the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqCRxTkziR0

Now what the hell were those DHA version of Jamia Hafza brigade were trying to do is frankly beyond my comprehension. Hounding people and trying to embarrass them on national TV and yet claiming that their purpose is to show “proper path” to young impressionable girls and save them from being “exploited” from the wolves, is inherently contradictory and borders on third class cheap moralistic hypocrisy.

Now I understand that every society has some generally prevalent norms with regard to mixing of opposite genders. Pakistan by and large is a conservative society where meeting with the opposite gender particularly if it has romantic undertones, is considered socially unacceptable in most of the segments of the society. Parents, since they are afraid of the negative public backlash often try to restrict their daughters with respect to dating or even meeting the members of opposite sex. In case if a girl is “caught” while dating the negative backlash is huge for most of the families and the poor girl is branded for life.

Now due to this huge social stigma around dating, there is a real chance of reputational harm for a girl who chooses to break the taboos. From that social angle (irrespective of whether in absolute sense dating is moral or “immoral’) there are some unfortunately real concerns. It is perhaps somewhat understandable-strictly from “practical” angle- to highlight those concerns and advise young girls to be careful ( though even then there is considerable room for argument as to whether such “advice” merely reinforces the existing negativity surrounding the mixing of sexes).  However, what Ms Maya Khan was doing was to ensure that girls were deeply humiliated and their privacy completely violated. And all of it was being done supposedly to “protect” the respect of their parents. Now how so called respect of parents could be protected by telecasting their daughters in negative light is beyond imagination.

And worse still we do not even know that whether the so called “guilty” couples were actually even dating or not. In her zeal to the so called guardian of morality, Ms Maya Khan did not even exercise basic decency. And as Café Piyala  has made a very good point that parks are generally frequented by people from lower income segments as due to widening income disparities, these are the only avenues of entertainment and relaxation they can afford. The rich and affluent (even when they are as absurd and idiot like Maya Khan) can actually go to cafes and expensive restaurants. All the so called “immoral” dating is occurring there also. Now would Ms Maya Khan and her dumb entourage of Jamiah Hafza poster women go to those expensive Zamzama restaurants to do the same kind of exercise? We all know the answer! They would never dare to do it. All they are capable of is invading the privacy of those who belong to less affluent sections of the society and who made the mistake of going to public parks.

I fully support the move against Maya Khan which is underway right now and I also endorse the view that the buck should not stop at merely sacking her but should extend beyond it to set an example. I think the electronic media needs to some serious soul searching with respect to understanding what exactly freedom of speech is. In a country where legal system is extremely weak and one cannot sue for defamation, media needs to be extremely careful and while censorship is bad and anti liberal, unfortunately there is a case for a powerful media watchdog here.

Here is the link to an online petition as well

http://www.change.org/petitions/to-mr-zafar-siddiqi-ceo-samaa-tv-stop-subah-saverey-maya-kay-sath-vigilantism-like-lal-masjid

To read the Time article, please click here for a pdf version

Pakistan in my opinion is a bundle of strange contradictions. We always beat the drums and propagate tyranny of Indian and Israeli forces for what is happening in Kashmir and Palestine and yet are criminally negligent of things which are happening on our own soil.

Gilgit-Baltistan is my home town and  is strategically located in an important region and lies right in the middle of four nuclear powers, India, China, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. There used to be a time when it was a tourist heaven but now it has turned into a hell on earth. Peace and fraternity was our identity, but random killings are a routine
tradition in Gilgit now. Our ancestors were once famous for brotherhood, and now the progeny has turned into worst enemies based on sectarian issues.

The question arises, as who is responsible for all the bloodshed in Gilgit-Baltistan? What makes people of Gilgit-Baltistan to grab weapons against each other? And what is so difficult for the security agencies to get hold of miscreant trouble shooters?

Gilgit-Baltistan has 6000 police force, elite force, quick response force (QRF),   Rangers, a whole Military division comprising of three brigades. Apart from these, ISI, MI, and other intelligence have their best networks in the region compared to other parts of the country. Almost 22 intelligence and law enforcement agencies work in this area and yet fail to control the situation and to track the miscreants even in the Gilgit City alone.

The major troublesome area is Gilgit City, which is no more than 5 kilometers in  length and barely three kilometers in width. The total population in this small city is scarcely 150,000. Technically, it should be easy to handle the miscreants with iron hands, but practically it is not happening. The question rises, whose fault is it?

Some  quarters have publically announced on record and threatened that unless the present PPP Government is forced to leave and the present Chief Minister  and the Governor  are removed, peace cannot prevail in the whole region.

Consequently the region is under constant terror and people are being assassinated on the streets and at times right next to the security bunkers. For example  Syed Zia Ud Din Rizvi (most influential religious scholar), Dr. Sher Wali (a professional doctor) , Saif Ur Rehman Khan (a political leader), Asad Zaidi, (Deputy Speaker of GB Assembly), and Ramzan Danish (a renowned businessman, and a political leader ) have been assassinated. Once again a simple question can be asked: Why can’t it be controlled by our security agencies?

Streets are haunted from the fear of assassination; economy is almost zero; tourism, due to the violence, is record low, educational institutions barely work, offices are shut and hospitals, post offices and other departments are divided on sectarian basis and to top it off there are no go areas.

There is such uncertainty that anyone can get assassinated anytime, anywhere- There have been more than 600 killings over 5 years. Who will be responsible for their children? They are now orphans for the rest of their lives? Who will compensate for their miseries in the rest of their lives? Almost every other home bears a widow, helpless and without support and lack of justice? The favorite prey of the terrorists are either the most learned, influential or prominent political figures.

It is the need of the time to focus on the strategies to tackle the highly volatile situation in Gilgit- or else the situation will get worse  and uncontrollable. Writ of law should prevail, more rigorous legislation on security issues should be done, and instead of making “aman Jirgas” the miscreants should be dealt with an iron hand and made an example in front of others. Rather than raising fingers at our nascent legislative structure, we should help them flourish.  And I urge youngsters to take part in the peace process and intra-faith harmony.

Gilgit-Baltistan Zindabad, Pakistan Payindabad

Lifestyles of politicians is often targeted and any “exuberance” is projected as complete insensitivity to the plight of the suffering poor of the country. One would expect, that perhaps the owners of the this media empire would themselves try to set the example of simplicity. However, when it comes to contradictions, Pakistani media barons really take the cake.

Recently the daughter of the one of the owners got married in Dubai in a really expensive and high profile wedding ceremony. The interesting thing was that the ceremony was deliberately “hidden” from the expected media spotlight.

However one of the reasons may be the extremely high profile guests who made special appearance including former President General Musharraf, Shahrukh Khan, Kareena Kapur and Arjun Rampal. Now these Bollywood stars generally command an exuberant price to attend such events. One wonders as to why the same level of “simplicity” expected from “corrupt” politicians was not displayed by the top media barons of Pakistan.

Had it not been for this little report, we would have never known:

But Shah Rukh Khan, Arjun Rampal and Hrithik Roshan also attended a high-profile wedding on December 30 during their stay here in Dubai.

They made special appearance at the wedding of Pakistan media mogul Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman’s daughter, who tied the knot with the son of an investment banker who has made inroads into the media business. And the grand event happened in Dubai.

Atlantis Hotel was the main venue for the wedding reception where stars and famous personalities had gathered. But the icing on the wedding cake was when Shah Rukh Khan walked in with Kareena Kapoor, Hrithik Roshan and Arjun Rampal.

Just before SRK walked in another VVIP, former Pakistan President Musharraf, had been lapping all the limelight.

But King Khan’s entry saw the spot light shift and the guests went hysterical. The stage nearly collapsed under the onslaught of fans and the screams of joy could be heard a mile away and beyond

Read the full story here http://www.emirates247.com/bollywood/take-one/big-fat-dubai-wedding-bollywood-and-musharraf-2012-01-05-1.435923

The aggressors have called people of what are now Fata and of Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa different names at different times of history labelled as terrorists or freedom fighters. The ten-year war has taken toll of the American purse and its fighters. On the other hand the Afghan people are constantly suffering. The Americans are openly talking to Afghan Taliban leadership since November 2010 to end American occupation of Afghanistan. The talks are at a crucial juncture where a Taliban office is to be opened in Qatar. The Americans have released five Taliban leaders from infamous Guantanamo prison to be stationed in Qatar. Team led by Marc Grossman from the American side and Qari Yousaf Ahmedi from Afghan Taliban side are in discussions (DeYoung, Karen. US links Taliban talks to Karzai’s consent. Dawn/Washington Post/ Bloomberg News Service. January 13, 2012). The Americans feel greater threat from Iran and want to windup operations in Afghanistan as early as possible.

We need to explore the background of resistance of the people in the area before we make sweeping judgments.

The invasion of Afghanistan by the British ‘Army of the Indus’ in 1839 led to annihilation of the army in its retreat in 1842. The Afghan invasion was pushed by the then Governor General Lord Auckland. This was the time when Britain was the sole super power. British arrogance led them to disaster. To boost army’s moral Sindh was conquered in 1843. This was followed by annexation of Punjab in 1849. These British moves sent clear message about future British intentions to the hill tribes in the north west of the expanding British Empire. Starting in 1850 the British were regularly sending in punitive expeditions into the Tribal belt.

During the Sikh Darbar the Sikhs held the plains but the mountains in the west were independent. Places like Hazara, Bannu, Kohat, DG Khan and DI Khan in the later Sikh period were under the British Deputy Commissioners. During the Sikh wars Amir Dost Mohammad of Afghanistan moved into the Peshawar valley up to the Indus. He made a grave miscalculation by sending a contingent of cavalry to aid the dying Sikh rule.

During the Sikh rule Peshawar valley (Kabul River) up to Jamrud in the west was held with great atrocities. In 1849 the British took over the Sikh Darbar territories and established pickets (check posts) along the eastern banks of Indus and in Kabul River valley along the bases of mountains to restrain raids from tribes beyond in the mountains. The first incursion of the British forces through what was Afghan tribal area took place when their army attacked Ghazni and Kabul in 1839 what became the disastrous 1st Afghan War. This was followed by revenge attack in 1879-80 (2nd Afghan War) when the invading British forces brutally killed people of all ages and both sexes. The scenes of massacres were still fresh in the memory of the tribes when the British forces launched Frontier War in 1863. The idea of this war was to teach a lesson to the tribes of Bonair to stop raids into the settled areas under British control and to ‘Hindustani fanatics’ of Wahhabi Islam who considered the British as occupier of their lands across India making jihad legitimate. The British felt that Hindustanis were also spreading Wahhabi Islam in Fata and had to be stopped (Albinia, Alice. Empires of the Indus. John Murray, London. 2008).

The Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics were receiving funds from ‘Southern’ Bengal. The Mulka village of Syeds of Bunair housed left overs of Syed Ahmed Shaheed (d 1830) in Mahabun Mountains was eventfully burnt by the locals under a British detachment. Between 1850 and 1863 the British launched 20 expeditions into the mountains beyond the plains occupied by the British forces. Each time the number of invading forces increased. In Sitana campaign (1863) more than 5,000 troops were used and later enforced. The initial force was trapped in Ambela Pass and Gen Sir Sydney Chamberlain was evacuated with severe wounds. The cost of the expedition was worrying for the British administration. The tribesmen had few matchlock guns and mostly relied on swords and stones. Swords were used when they came close to the enemy (Adye, John. Sitana: a mountain campaign of the borders of Afghanistan in 1863. Published 1867).

The main issue of attacks by the British beyond its borders into Tribal Areas of Afghanistan was raids (cattle lifting) by tribes supported by ‘Hindustani Fanatics’ in the area. In 1858 the British army raid destroyed Sitana on the southern slopes of Mahabun Mountains. This was followed by destruction of ‘Hindustani settlement’ of Mulka located on the northern slopes of Mahabun Mountains in 1863. The British army in another raid destroyed ‘Hindustani village’ of Mundee in 1864. The other British approach was to stop supplies of funds and fighters from British India. For the people of Fata fear of British occupation of Punjab was an indication of their advancement and occupation of their areas (Punjab Administration Report, 1863-64 and 1867-68).

The British continued its policy of ‘Butcher and Bolt’ in retaliation of tribal raids. After subduing the lashkar the villages of ‘miscreants’ were torched or blown up, the crops burnt, waterways destroyed and cattle rounded up. Each time a new agreement was made with the tribal elders. Starting in 1917 the British troops used ‘Air Service’ to attack the tribal lashkar (now drone strikes by the Americans and bombing by Pakistani F16). In Tirah the tribes were asked to remove ‘Turk and Afghan’ settlers (foreign fighters) which they did sending them back to Afghanistan (Obhrai, 1938). It seems that nothing has changed in the 21st century.

From times immemorial the Pakhtun belt now located between Afghanistan and Pakistan has not changed although they were Hindus at one time then converted to Buddhism and finally to Islam. Babar (early 16th century) records his attack into Bonair to gather cattle and make a pyramid of heads of the local population (a Turkish tradition of Central Asia). The tribes were in constant war with each other but united against any invader. Nothing has changed.

When the British left in 1947 Pakistan reversed the ‘forward policy’ and pulled out the troops from Fata. We had peace in Fata till 2004.

Let us jump to recent events shaking Fata and Afghanistan. The bookshops today are full of bewildering array of publications on Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda. Most of the modern authors have little understanding of the area, people or its history under discussion. Al Qaeda as an entity appeared on our radar screen through American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Al Qaeda has a foreign agenda and is irrelevant for Pakistan’s Fata problem.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 galvanised the tribes and people of the country against the occupiers. This time Russian had helicopters and tanks but in this asymmetrical war the Afghans had the terrain on their side and supplies of manpower and ammunition from America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Al Qaeda was born out of this triple marriage. The supply of Stringer missiles by the Americans negated Russian air power. The American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 united the Fata tribes once again into military opposition. People of Pakistan are also opposed to American intervention. They are supplying manpower and funds to Taliban as seen in 1860s. The ‘Hindustani fanatics’ are now ‘foreign fighters’ or called ‘Punjabi Taliban’. The Pakhtun ‘raiders’ of 1863 were transformed into Mujahedeen during Russian occupation and then into Taliban when the Americans came in. AK47, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and suicide bombers now affectively replace the Stringer missiles. The Pakhtuns are innovative. Pakistan became an enemy of the Taliban fighting the American and Nato armies because of Pakistan government support to Americans in the form of supplies and drone attacks. We saw spate of suicide and IED blasts in major cities of Pakistan.

The incidence of Lal Masjid in Islamabad and attack of the Pakistani army into South Waziristan in 2004 was the last straw for peace. Most of the students who died in Lal Masjid in the army assault were from Fata and KP. Then came the incidence of US troops killing 24 FC soldiers in cold blood in North Waziristan followed by freeze of Nato supplies through Pakistan and returning of Shamsi Air Base used for drone strikes in Fata. Earlier CIA agent Raymond Davis was held for shooting two motorcyclists in Lahore and then released. This was followed by the killing of Osama in an American raid in Abbottabad, which produced bad blood between the two countries. The people of Pakistan were told of thousands of visas issued by Pakistan to dubious people considered as CIA agents.

America is bleeding like its predecessor the Russians in Afghanistan. The 1st World armies require expensive services, which are not appropriate for war in the 3rd World. With killing of Osama the main reason for invasion of Afghanistan has been removed. The motivational force for the American troops in the field was to make ‘America safe’ by removing Al Qaeda leadership has been achieved. The Americans have killed enough Afghans to settle revenge for 9/11. The US soldiers in the field are now fighting a war where it is ‘them or us’. It is time they got out without giving an impression that they have their tail between the legs. Americans do not need troops on the ground in Afghanistan to ward off any untoward incidence. They have 50 bases in the Middle East and Qatar and Bahrain bases are not far from Afghanistan. For surveillance the Americans have ample supply of drones and settilites. Their troops can be moved into Afghanistan at short notice. I do not see how the Americans can maintain Karzai as the leader of Afghans once they leave.

The other player in Afghan scene is Pakistan. Afghans never had soft corner for the Pakistan. The bone of contention between the two is the 2,640 km 1893 Durand Line Agreement inherited from the British for fixing ‘spheres of influence’ between the two countries. Thus the British claimed Fata and what is now most of KP. Today neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan can dictate to the Fata tribes. Both keep Durand Line as a porous border and bone of contention. The attacks into Pakistan by Taliban or its splinter groups have been worrying. Like the Americans Pakistani leadership has made agreements with the various groups of Pakistani Taliban, which each side claim were broken by the other.

The ‘hull’ for Fata is not war but economics. Fata is heavily dependent on food, electricity, infrastructure, petrol and some places gas from Pakistan and survive on smuggling and jobs in rest of Pakistan. We are not sure of mineral wealth of Fata since no survey has been carried out. We should use the carrot rather than the stick to solve Fata problem. Gun shall make the situation worse. Above all we need professional research of the area and a ten years planned strategy with the consent of the Fata tribes. Before we plan for a long-term policy for Fata it has to be taken off the hands of the Pakistan Army.

Selected Bibliography
Elliott, JG. The Frontier 1839-1947: the story of the North-West Frontier of India. Cassell, London. 1968.

Wylly, HC. From the Black Mountain to Waziristan. Macmillan and Co., Ltd. London. 1912.

Steven, Coll. Ghost Wars. Penguin Books. 2004.

Barthorp, Michael. Afghan wars and the North-West Frontier 1839-1947. Cassell & Co, London. 2002.

Jan, Abid Ullah. Afghanistan: the genesis of the final crusade. Pragmatic Publication. Ottawa. 2006.

Ridedel, Milton A. In search for Al Qaeda: its leadership and future. Vanguard Books, Lahore. 2009.

Razvi, Mujtaba. The frontiers of Pakistan: a study of Frontier problems in Pakistan’s foreign policy. National Publishing House Ltd., Karachi. 1971.

The Second Afghan War: 1878-80. Complied by Charles Metcalfe MacGregor and India Army Intelligence Branch. Army Education Press. 1975.

Caroe, Olaf. The Pathans. Reprint by Oxford University Press, Karachi. 1975.

Pakistan: the militant jihadi challenge. Asia Report No. 164. March 13, 2009.

Fata- a most dangerous place. Principle Author Shuja Nawaz. Centre for Strategic & International Studies. 2009.

Obhrai, Divan Chand. The evolution of North-West Frontier Province. First published 1938. Reprint Saeed Book Bank, Peshawar, 1983.

Saleem, Shahzad. Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: beyond bin Laden and 9/11. Pluto Press, London. 2011.

Hussain, Mujahid. Punjabi Taliban: driving extremism in Pakistan. 2012.

In her most candid interview since 1988, Benazir Bhutto, twice elected prime minister of Pakistan, reveals the extent to which successive civilian governments have been held hostage, and destabilised, by the ‘security apparatus’ of the military. Bhutto, chairperson of the PPP — the single largest political party of the country — explains the helplessness of civilian governments in the face of Intelligence-inspired disinformation on the one hand, and ideologically motivated illegal activities of ‘rogue elements’ of the army on the other. She argues that the security apparatus of the country is out of control and that no government can hope to function smoothly unless these elements are brought under  formalised command structure that prevents them from taking on the role of a state within a state. There is much evidence to support Bhutto’s claims, including that of her adversaries — General Aslam Beg, General Hameed Gul and General Asad Durrani — all of whom conspired against civilian governments and have repeatedly gone on record to admit as much. “Blaming politicians alone for tarnishing democracy is actually less than half the story,” argues Bhutto. Here, she explains why.

To read the full interview click here BB’s interview 2000 Annual Issue

Here are a few pertinent passages from the interview:

Q. You have presided twice over a controlled democracy. What have you learnt from the experience?
A. There is a tendency in Pakistan, due to military dictatorships and one-man rule, to think that one person can make all the difference. But in a democratic system, it is not just one person that makes a difference. A democratic ruler, such as myself, functions within the confines of the constitution. We need a civic consensus on what a constitution should be and what constitutes freedom and plurality. I had to work on the mandate I was given and that is why I say that we did not achieve much. I had to work with the 8th amendment and a president who could sack the prime minister. In other words, some elements in the intelligence agencies used the president when they felt I was becoming too powerful. They never allowed us enough time to elect members of the senate which would have made my party — and the democratic forces — stronger. The real solution lies not with any individual. I can only give a clarion call. Then it depends on the masses whether they rally around that call to say that they want a constitution based on the supremacy of the will of the people and that the prime minister and parliament must determine national security and not the military.

Q. Did you attempt to rein in the intelligence agencies when you were in power?
A. Yes, I did. For instance, in December 1988, within a week of my forming the government, Brigadier Imtiaz working at the ISI Internal began contacting political parties to overthrow my government. My political adviser at the time, General Babar, moved to have him replaced. The army refused initially, though later, Brigadier Imtiaz was removed from the ISI Internal, not from the army itself. So, I tried but they defied me and because of the 8th amendment, I could not remove any officer myself. We collected proof, in 1989, of ISI elements visiting MNAs for a no-confidence move. We made audio tapes. The head of the MI entered my office and saw the photograph of the man who had been approaching my MNAs. He panicked, took the photograph and the tape and then sent me a report saying the man in question was deranged. In 1990, when the ISI launched a similar effort, we made a videotape called Operation Jackal . A serving army officer, Brigadier Imtiaz, technically not in the ISI but substantively still there, was taped saying: ‘the army does not want her, the president does not want her, the Americans don’t want her’. He was seeking the support of parliamentarians to oust the government. I gave that tape, substantive proof of treason, to General Beg. He filibustered.

On March 23, 1989, the army jawans mobbed me in a show of support when I went to the Pakistan Day parade. General Beg panicked. I was used to being mobbed and public adulation. I told him it was all right. The support waned when the intelligence agencies — sometimes the ISI, sometimes the MI, at others the FIT and the FIU and even the corps command — intrigued. Poisonous stories were prepared and circulated to the corps
remove you and replace you with General Imtiaz as COAS’. It was a ridiculous story but he believed it. They told Ghulam Ishaq Khan that, ‘If she gets a senate majority, she’ll impeach you and replace you with Yahya Bakhtiar’. They concocted these stories. They went to one of my party leaders and said, ‘Get 10 MNAs and we will make you prime minister’. A corps commander went to my husband in 1989 and said that they could not salute a woman. ‘Let her make you prime minister as we have no problems with the PPP’.
In 1993, they sent a Middle Eastern prince to tell me the same thing — that Nawaz was going but I should bow out because if I fought, things would be different.

Q. Can you provide further examples of how the military establishment and the intelligence agencies operated to destabilise democracy during your first tenure?
A. I have two witnesses who tell me that they attended two similar meetings arranged by a then- serving corps commander during my first term. In these meetings, the corps commander, Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden were present. Osama Bin Laden was told that a woman in this position was against Islam so he should give

Eventually, under pressure, Beg just retired the man whereas he should have been tried for treason. Then, when the no-confidence move failed, I was approached by my MPAs in the NWFP who said that General Beg had called them to the GHQ and said, ‘We want to get rid of her starting with the NWFP and could you please move a no- confidence vote against her.’ So, a
commanders and the jawans to put the seeds of hatred in people’s hearts. These included false stories of corruption, of Indian agents, of Jewish agents, of American agents, Sikh lists. Thus, an impression was created that we are corrupt traitors and even our supporters turned against us. Beg was with me till the Intelligence worked on him and convinced him that ‘she wants to
them money to overthrow me. And then Nawaz said that he would bring Islam to Pakistan. Does the public think these things need to be investigated independently or not? No one had heard of Osama Bin Laden then. I had not either. He is famous now. In those days he was unknown but he was sitting there interfering in my government. He paid 10 million dollars to finance the

Q. Can you provide further examples of how the military establishment and the intelligence agencies operated to destabilise democracy during your first tenure?
A. I have two witnesses who tell me that they attended two similar meetings arranged by a then- serving corps commander during my first term. In these meetings, the corps commander, Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden were present. Osama Bin Laden was told that a woman in this position was against Islam so he should give them money to overthrow me. And then Nawaz said that he would bring Islam to Pakistan. Does the public think these things need to be investigated independently or not? No one had heard of Osama Bin Laden then. I had not either. He is famous now. In those days he was unknown but he was sitting there interfering in my government. He paid 10 million dollars to finance theno-confidence move against me. At that time, we heard that the money came from Saudi Arabia. I sent a minister to meet King Fahd. He has been very kind to me and I really like him. He is an urbane, generous and kind man. I told my emissary to remind the king that he had said to me: ‘Ali Bhutto was my brother and my friend. I opposed his murder. I thought it was unjust then and I think it is unjust now. You are like my daughter’. Then how come he was sending money to overthrow my government?
He sent back a message saying that the Saudi government was not involved and it was a private Saudi citizen. Later on, from these two individuals who were with the PML then but are with us now, I learnt that the meetings involved Sharif, a then-serving corps commander and Osama and they wheedled 10 million dollars out of Osama to overthrow the government.
Meanwhile, my parliamentarians informed me that they were offered a million dollars each by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi to get rid of me. I like Mr. Jatoi. He treats me like a daughter and personally I have no problem with him. But I do think Mr. Jatoi and I both owe it to the nation that the facts should come out.
I set up my own Trojan horse. I told the MNAs to go ahead and take the money. ‘Let them think you are with them’. That is how they lost the no-confidence motion. My four MNAs were counted against me but they did not crossover and two more joined me. Otherwise they had it all set. And then we had this very funny incident when these four MNAs came to the prime minister’s house with briefcases of money and said, ‘You take it’, and I said, ‘No, I cannot’. In the end, of course, the money was not taken but the fact remains that these sorts of sums were paid for no-confidence votes. And they were not paid by the political parties but by the intelligence agencies and rogue elements in the military as well as right-wing adventurists.
And at the SAF games, Beg sat next to me with a very satisfied smile on his face. When three PML MNAs came and sat next to me, his face fell. ‘What are they doing here?’ he asked me in panic. I smiled and said they had joined the government. ‘Isn’t that wonderful?’ Beg just looked like a ghost. And then we were accused of horse-trading and corruption. Thus the intelligence agencies try to create a ‘heads, I win, tails, you lose’ situation for the political class. This simply cannot continue…

“We cannot have an army or intelligence agencies that constantly destabilise governments. We cannot have rogue elements incessantly violating their oath and plunging the nation into crises.”

To read the interview click here BB’s interview 2000 Annual Issue