Black Tuesday: The View From Islamabad

Re: Nasah #400

``...The ISI objective was to demonstrate — by aiding the demonstrators — a groundswell of anti-U.S. sentiment to hundreds visiting journalists from all over the world...``

Nasahji, I do not know true that report is. But, IF IT IS, then clearly, the left-hand does not know what the right-hand is doing. While such tactics may appear to be a stroke of masterful genius in the short-term, there is eventually a day of redemption, when these things come back to bite you in the long-term when you least expect it (The current Taleban crisis is a case in point). With the disaster that the ISI has already spawned in the shape of the Taleban, I do not have any fear of their much-vaunted abilities.

hamid

re: stretching, irrepressive fitna

perhaps you might skip a yoga class or two?

asif naqshbandi 402

... this might come as a surprise to you, but most pakis in pakistan don`t have the foggiest idea if they are deobandis or barelvis ..... heck, most folks can`t even recite more than one kalima or the alphabet for that matter .... the only people who keep track of these silly theological differences are the lota-brigades that infest the putrid madrassas, squat along the open sewers, or stand around with azar-band in one hand fufilling their religious duties .....of course, these zealots would like to see a religious civil war in pakistan so that they can establish a barelvi or deobandi khilafat - whatever that means ......

...... as far as i know the deobandis are those who squat flies around their ears before going into rukuh and set of fireworks on shab-i-barat ..........or is that the barelvis ?

Re: Romair various

Dear Romair:

We (moderate Pakistanis/USA/India) all hope that the President-General manages to keep a lid on things, and prevents Pakistan from imploding. There are a lot of events to unfold in the future, and your hubris will be welcome after they have safely passed us by. Perhaps, you should understand the reality of the situation. The US is making no bones about terrorism (and no wishy-washiness will be tolerated anymore). Having received the capitulation of the President-General on US demands (the denial of which would have led to a US declaration of war on Pakistan, the destruction of its armed forces, and its strategic weapons), the US establishment will publicly give all possible support to the President-General, while privately monitoring him like a hawk, as long as he delivers the goods. “A democracy is a terrible enemy to have (as the Germans and the Japanese learned)”, said Tom Clancy. I concur. In Pakistan’s case, it runs the risk of turning two democracies into enemies – USA and India. You can be sure, that should the President-General deny/stall any crucial US demand, and not walk the talk, the Americans will fall on his regime like a ton of bricks. Of course, the President-General will be ‘allowed’ an occasional public utterance that demonstrates his ‘independence’ and that lets him retain his ‘national honor’, but if fails to deliver the goods, he will be on the wrong side of American wrath.

You can also be sure, that the events of Sept. 11 were a watershed in American history. There will be no further tolerance of terrorism anywhere American interests can be threatened. No explanations like ‘freedom struggles’ will wash anymore.

The President-General, the Americans and Indians understand, has to publicly drag in India on most international issues (including the speech on Wednesday), because he has inherited an establishment that has traditionally sold its foreign policy to its citizens based upon anti-India sentiments (you yourself admitted a few posts ago that ‘many Pakistani generals were anti-India’). The rubber is soon going to hit the road – you made no mention of Colin Powell’s remarks to the BBC on terrorism in Kashmir. Well, here they are – Powell said the US campaign would be against all acts of terrorism and when asked if that included Kashmiri, Irish and Basque terrorism, said: ``I think that is correct. Any organization that is interested in terrorist operations to overthrow legitimate governments, or governments that represent the will of their people, is a threat. We should go after them”. None of this implies that Kashmiris should stop their struggle – they will simply have to adopt non-terrorist means if they want to prevail in the court of world public opinion. Sept. 11 changed that.

I had told you on a number of occasions that the means are just as important as the ends, but you were too preoccupied by your ‘zero-sum games’.

As regards the lifting of nuclear sanctions – they are actually in the favor of the entire world (US, India and Pakistan included). Their lifting implies that the US will now be able to provide safeguards technology, i.e. Nuclear bomb trigger locks, that they could not have otherwise provided. The US rationale is…better let the President-General keep the weapons under control, rather than Mullah Omar’s cousin. But, if you are dreaming of Kahuta scientists heading to Lawrence Livermore or Los Alamos to cozy up to weapons designers…well, keep dreaming…

Regards

Well, surprisingly Baenazir was firm and supported the ``current initiatives`` taken by Pres. Musharraf. But she constantly kept on bringing points regarding: her party, her people, her this, her that...and very sweetly dropped the bomb about reinstatement of the democratic government next year as promised. That may be a clever strategy as well.

What have we gotten from the corrupt, shameless, uncouth democratic governments in our country so far? Why should we let that happen again or should we ? Probably, to sell whatever is left in Pakistan, to some buyer in the world`s market, whereas Madame proceeds to her den in UK ? This disgusts me. Oh, she also mentioned that her party has won quite a few seats in the local body`s elections. Wherever she goes and whatever she does, there is a hidden personal agenda. But overall, it was an acceptable interview at this time. It would be unfair to take the credit away from the devil. So why not just give her the due. :)

Larry King Ka Damagh Yaqeenun Kharab Thaa Keh he kept on calling her Madame PM. That raised the blood pressure of many and they uninamously uttered loud and clear - May that never happen again - Amen! Amen! Amen!




On another note, CBS(Face The Nation) had Maleeha Lodhi today, who faced a rigorous series of questions and responded very pragmatically. She expressed her concerns on certain ridiculous questions that were being raised from right and left - specially the one regarding the nuclear issue. She addressed that very well!

Well Done, Ms. Lodhi!


Lastly, I heard on CNN-live(yesterday) that US has lifted the sanctions against Pakistan and India. It was a pleasant surprise. I think this step was taken in favor of Pakistan, based on Musharaf`s committments and support; laiken what`s the role of India here, aside from being our neighbor? :)

I have not heard or read the text of Pres. Musharaf`s speech, but it was interesting to hear some CNN analsysts praising him indirectly for the challenges he`s been dealing with since he took over. Some important steps that are being introduced step by step in the country - mainly encouraging women to come at the forefront. It is pretty hard for any democratic government to applaud the steps taken by a military rule - they do not want to play the wrong note. But it`s important to realize that each land has different rules, different circumstances, and different mindsets.

Asif Naqshbandi #401: As someone who has followed the Kashmir issue more closely and personally than probably anyone on this site, I think I can safely state that Pakistan`s position is now stronger than it has ever been historically on the Kashmir issue. The chances of a Kashmir solution now are greater than they have ever been. India has never been in such a defensive position on this issue, as it is right now.

You seem to have bought into the Indian propoganda of Kashmir being a struggle of religious extremists. I would encourage you to look at the range of people who are involved in the Kashmir struggle. The group that Pakistan and the rest of the world recognizes as the representative of the Kashmir struggle is the APHC. This is probably the most moderate group of leaders in the Sub-Continent. They are more moderated religiously than the BJP and anything in Pakistan. That is why their leaders never make any stupid statements. They have completely supported Pakistan`s decisions during the WTC crises, and have stated it openly.

Even within the actively fighting Mujahideen, there is a great spectrum of people. One or two who have actually gone in and carried out attacks against Indian military posts explained all of this to me in great detail. They were about as enlightened, moderate, educated and wealthy as anyone you will find in Lahore, Islamabad. Their aim was not to protect Islam, but to get Kashmir free.

You need to keep in mind there are thousands of of Kashmiris, all over the world (and millions inside Kashmir), who view the Kashmir struggle as an independence movement, not a religious struggle. In England a member of the house of Lords is a Kashmiri and at the forefront of supporting this movement. In the USA, the CEO of Ethan Allen furniture chain is the Kashmiri head of the Kashmir Study Group. I personally do not want any kind of a religious govt in Pakistan (I will take JI, if the only other option are BB or NS) or Kashmir, however I am a staunch supporter of self-determination for Kashmir.

The US stance has always been to support the right of self-determination in Kashmir. The US is not going to do anything against Pakistan now. Nothing. Zero. This is a new phase of a long-term alliance, with Musharraf at the head. He is becoming a hero in the US media circles. His definition of differentiating between fighting terrorism and supporting freedom fights is now going to become the international standard, as he is one of the only people in the world whose govt. has actively participated in both. A friend of a friend in the Pakistani Foreign Service told me that Bush called Musharraf and emotionally told him if he opposed the US, Pakistan would turn into Afghanistan, and if he supported the US, the US would ensure that Pakistan becomes a very prosperous country. Musharraf made the right choice (both morally and politically), in my opinion.

The US may target the extremist factions of the parties fighting in Kashmir, who could be a potential threat to the US. Musharraf has been trying to do that himself. The APHC is itself tired of such groups, which throw acid on women`s faces and make ridiculous statements which actually harm the efforts of the APHC. Everything else will remain the same. The strength of the Kashmiri struggle comes from the wishes of the Kashmiris themselves, the UN Resolutions, and the internationally accepted concept of self-determination. That is why India has so much difficulty presenting its case.

I think Bush will force Vajpayee to change his decision on cancelling his visit to Pakistan. The extremist versions of the freedom fighters (who are a minority, by the way) will automatically come under control after the current unsuccessful protests in Pakistan. The US will then push for a UN based solution which will divide Kashmir into three parts, with an independent Valley (something the Kashmir Study Group (and I) have been suggesting for a while). I think Musharraf has plans to stay as President for the next ten years. The US will ensure that it assists him during that time, and I see an independent Valley within the next five to ten years.

``The no jews died in the WTC theory``

You guys may laugh here, but the theory seems to be getting a lot of traction. I overheard it at a Paki restaurant last evening. I was absolutely disgusted and gave the ``janaab`` a peice of my mind.

how can anyone believe such crap? It indicates a refusal even now to look at the real issues. This is another one in the line of: ``ofcourse the hindus shot the shikhs at Chattisinghpura``, ``ofcource the hindus hijacked their own plane to discredit the Kashmiri`s``

God help us all!

Asif Naqshbandi: I think you are missing many important factors.

All the supporters of Islamic parties in Pakistan will not support Taliban against Pakistan. Right now they see it as a war against Islam and Afghanistan people. Once they realize that it is not true, they will have hard time supporting Taliban. A case can be made very easily that Afghan people will be better off under Zahir Shah or UN than Taliban. Neither USA nor Pakistan will support replacing Taliban with northern alliance as India, Iran and Russia would like to have. There is a definite understanding between Pakistan and USA for not installing an anti-Pakistan government in Afghanistan in couple of months.

A clash, even a minor one between Taliban and Pakistan military anywhere along the long border (which in my opinion is real possibility and perhaps desire of policy-makers in USA and in Pakistan) will push all Pakistanis to choose sides. Who would side with Taliban against Pakistan?

The love for Afghanistan or Afghani people is very low in Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and other non-Pashtun cities. The poor Afghan refugees have contributed to this dislikeness during the last 20 years. In places like Islamabad, most Pakistanis do not interact with Afghan refugees, some of them are upper middle class and rich also. The Afghan refugee community of G-8 sector is isolated and exclusive with Pakistanis even avoiding hiring Afghan maids, shopping at Afghan`s shops or using Afghan owned transportation. Actually a distinct Pakistani identity is much stronger against Afghan identity. Most Pakistanis, even fundamentalists will not support Taliban, once Taliban do some stupidity of going against Pakistani military or just firing few missiles into Pakistni cities.

Musharraf government was colluding with Islamists in Karachi in order to decrease MQM influence. They may not be able to continue this policy. MQM knows it and have announced a pro-USA, anti-terrorism demonstration on Wednesday. That may turn out to be much bigger than Friday`s pro-Taliban rally. All the USA media will be covering it and comparing it with Friday`s demonstration. Keep an eye on Wednesday`s demonstration by MQM in Karachi.

I actually believe that the current situation supports a wider window of opportunity for better Indo-Pak relationship. Once the hoopla of Indian fears by some elements of BJP government dies down, US will push for normalizing relations between India and Pakistan with a status quo on Kashmir. India do have a strong case for cross-border terrorism in Kashmir and USA is not going to blindly follow Pakistani line with the ramification of an anti-USA coalition winning the next Indian elections. Being a democracy, USA knows that a democratically elected government in India can not be changed that easily. USA needs India against China in long-term influence in the region. Pakistan will be infuenced to make peace with India, to maximize the benefits of current situation because USA will not be so interested in Pakistan, once Taliban are finished. If unfortunately, the next government in Afghanistan is not very friendly to Pakistan, Pakistan will have to ease tensions on the eastern front to deal with the western. A decrease of Islamists` influence in Pakistan also bode well for easing of tension with India. Ten years down the road, both India and Pakistan might have the same interest forcing them to cooperate and become friendly neighbors. I may be optimistic here but I guess it does not hurt to be optimistic for the sake of better life for south asians.

Re:Reply #: 385

Romair

Hold your horses and let the events unfold. The days and months to come will tell the story.

Sridhar

Re:Reply #: 394

Romair

What you did not mention was that USA, in the long run may aid Musharraf and others concerned to turn Pak into a functioning democracy, to wind up all Taliban inspired operations from Kashmir. A democratic and friendly Pak is good for India. Unlike Pak, Indians do not always curry favors with USA. The sanctions on India imposed by USA did Zilch for India. Actually, its economy has taken off since then and one foreign journalist went on record saying that if India`s economic indicators are any guide, every country should explode a nuclear bomb! Sanctions, on the other hand, have affected Pak adversely. You must also realise that USA treats Pak like a client state, to be armtwisted to fall in line as and when it deems it necessary. Lifting sanctions is symbolic for India, perhaps significant for Pakistan.Colin Powell said that it has lifted some of sanctions against Pak. Some of the sanctions, not all. So, may be the democracy related sanctions are still in place.

Only BJP, which has made pro-USA tilt the centerpiece of its foreign policy, is shedding tears the way USA is behaving. However, i still think that USA will be working closely with India in months to come to fight against jehadists in Kashmir. This may seem as a setback for Pak but is actually good. Rid of Taliban at home and with a democratic set up in place, Pak will be in a good position to talk about peaceful settlement of Kashmir. The question is: will Pak win this vital war against Taliban. Does it have the strength and the will to go all out? Months to come will tell the story.

Sridhar

.... the dang zionists have done it again ! .... they have succeeded in turning chowkies normally found on the same side of the fence against each other .... even the mild-mannered, my-mother-would-be-proud-of gentleman temporal has lost his grip on the handle of reason and sanity .... it is the result of a diabolical baniyajew scheme to split the ummah ........ and bhaiyo, who will profit from this dissent and division? the prince of darkness, urstruly, and his unwashed wild-eyed warriors .......

....... sometimes when one doesn`t have anything to say, one should keep quite ... so i will just shut up and listen ........i just wanted to get a jab in at poor urstruly who, in my myopic view, is a symbol of all that is wrong with the ummah ........

......... as for chomsky and e. said ... the less said the better ... inspite of all their ranting and raving over the last twenty years, they have had as much influence on mid-east policy as the village people had on opera ...... the only people who listen to them are pakis, palestinians and self-hating liberal jews who have twenty bucks to spare and nothing better to do .........i want my money back .......

[...The war will mostly be waged politically, diplomatically and economically with information, intelligence, intercultural and interreligious understanding, a Canadian specialty.

The Bush administration has grasped this complex reality remarkably quickly and thoroughly. The cowboy President has suddenly seen the wisdom of thinking first, shooting later. He has caught on to all the subtleties, drawn all the right distinctions: the targets are terrorists, not Arabs; the enemy is not Islam but those invoking it to tap into widespread Muslim grievances against American foreign policies....]

rest at:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1001066903438&call_page=TS_News_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=News/Columnists

Re: MaheshG

You seem to have misunderstood me. My intention was to say that in this crisis Pakistan will have to rein in its religious overtures and if it hopes to remain the the good graces of the United States, it will have to become secular. Pakistan has no choice in the matter. Either it adopts secularism or sooner rather than later, the United States will turn its attentions to it and resolve the religious problem in Pakistan.

As to the Pakistani elites, please ignore them - they debate the definations all they wish and will, in the end, decide what Washington wants them to think!

Re: Shammi

Good point! I saw that conterdiction after I had posted the interact.

For clarification, I had meant to say that Pakistan will be a secular state and the term ``Islamic`` would only imply to its offical name. That is what I had meant to say.

Thanks for correcting me.

On the army; I said that within it own ranks the army arrives at a decision through consensus. This does not mean what you seem to be suggesting and on that score I agree with you that army`s democracy is not really representative for a democratic system of consensus in Pakistan.

Hope this helps...

Ciao

Here is a curious report about Firday demonstrations.

Questions:

Is ISI really a state within a state? Is Musharraf in trouble -- or does Pakistan army speak wth forked tongue?

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The key to understanding the links between radical Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan`s ruling Taliban militia lies in Khattak, a town 28 miles from the northwestern city of Peshawar.

This is where the fundamentalist University for the Education of Truth is located, and where nine out of the Taliban`s top 10 leaders spent between eight and 12 years studying and reciting the Quran as it was written in classical Arabic.

The university president is Sami ul-Haq, co-president of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (Party of the Holy Men of Islam). He is widely considered the closest friend in Pakistan of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader believed responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

The institution`s 2,500 students are drawn from all over the Muslim world, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia.

Though many come from the Arab world, some 700 are from Afghanistan and 500 from the Muslim former Soviet republics.

One of the Khattak facility`s chief backers is Pakistan`s powerful Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, considered as a state within a state.

Links between the two go back to the school`s founding 50 years ago by Mr. ul-Haq`s father.

Over the years, ISI has both funded the Khattak facility and recruited agents from its graduating classes.

Since 1996, when the Taliban took over Kabul, its top leaders, who graduated from Khattak, have been frequent guest lecturers, journeying freely between the two countries.

Students at the school speak about bin Laden with reverence, as the Muslim world`s leading hero after the Prophet Mohammed himself.

The Taliban (the word means students in Arabic) movement was inspired by a former ISI chief, Gen. Hameed Gul — a fundamentalist who became virulently anti-American after the United States abandoned Afghanistan following the Soviet pullout in 1989.

During the war against Soviet occupation forces, Gen. Gul worked closely with the CIA and Saudi intelligence.

He spent two weeks in Afghanistan immediately prior to Sept. 11, intelligence sources say.

The murky world of Pakistani links to the Taliban became apparent with efforts to mobilize anti-U.S. demonstrations in cities and small towns throughout Pakistan on Friday.

Security officials told UPI they worried about the loyalties of religious leaders in towns and villages in the Northwest Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan.

No sooner did frontier tribal elders pledge fealty to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday than the heads of the tribes held a jirga, or consultative meeting, Friday to denounce Gen. Musharraf`s support for the U.S. war effort against terrorism.

It is an open secret in Pakistani security circles that ISI devoted undisclosed amounts of money to help the ulema, or religious council, turn out thousands of demonstrators at Friday`s pro-Taliban rallies.

From Karachi to Peshawar and from Lahore to Quetta, the mullahs and muftis were assigned the task of producing from 100 to 500 demonstrators per mosque and madrassa (religious school), a security official said.

The ISI objective was to demonstrate — by aiding the demonstrators — a groundswell of anti-U.S. sentiment to hundreds visiting journalists from all over the world.

Though the protests produced dramatic images, with demonstrators burning U.S. flags and President Bush in effigy, the turnout was far lower than most had expected.

The security official explained that, depending how well the demonstrators shouted and how effective were their banners — hastily painted in English for TV camera crews — they were to be rewarded with chicken dinners and movie outings.

The security official said children were also told they would get 20 rupees (30 cents) if they showed sufficient zeal and 200 rupees ($3) for a direct hit against a police officer with a stone. By contrast, a Pakistani policeman makes 120 rupees a day.(By Arnaud de Borchgrave

THE WASHINGTON TIMES).

I just heard on Canadian TV that the US has officially ended the sanctions on Pakistan. Also that India has officially stated that it will not use this incidence in an anti-Pakistan manner, so it has decided to lay-off. Interesting article from an Indian newspaper site:

``The Bush administration in the United States is likely to reward India and Pakistan by way of lifting the economic sanctions imposed in the wake of the nuclear tests conducted by the two countries in quick succession of each other in May 1998. However, the US` moves to lift sanctions seem to be loaded in favour of Pakistan....

There is a quiet acknowledgement in the Vajpayee establishment that if this happens in the coming week, then it would be an anti-climax for the sustained efforts to get Pakistan declared a ``rogue State.``...

Pakistan is set to get technical assistance, by way of the package for protecting the nuclear arsenal from the jihadis. This could just about mean that Pakistan could have all its arsenals secured and fortified. Yet another package is for meeting the possible Afghan influx into Pakistan in the wake of US moves to launch strikes against Afghanistan. An economic and social package is also on the offer, besides rescheduling of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank loans for Pakistan.`` (www.tehelka.com)

The sanctions weren`t really having too much effect on India, however they were really having an effect on Pakistan. So Pakistan ends up getting a better deal.

SameerJB 377: I have been unable to figure out your train of thought. You seem to dislike the Pakistani religious parties, and support Western styled ideas. Yet you support and highlight the policies of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif; even though they were about to bring Pakistan under an ill-designed and self-serving interpretation of Shariah. You also seem to be diagreeing with the decision of the Musharraf govt. in supporting the West in the current situation, and taking on the extremist parties. These seem quite contradictory to me.

You seem to state that your main motivation is the betterment of Pakistan, yet you continue to highlight the achievements of two regimes which have robbed Pakistan empty; those of NS and BB. This has been proven without a doubt by even neutral international organizations.

Your dislike of the Pakistani military seems to be so intense that you cannot see the difference between Zia and Musharraf; two completely different people and two completely different govts. If Musharraf doesn`t take action against extremist religious parties, you blame the Army. Now that he is doing so, so criticize the Army again, and point out (quoting Ayaz Amir) that he sold out to the West too quickly.

I get the feeling that you will always attempt to discredit any decision by any military leadership regardless of whether it is good or bad for Pakistan. You seem to even oppose its actions against religious groups, even though you dislike the religious groups, as well.

In the situation that Pakistan currently finds itself under, I think it would be useful for Pakistanis to make their decisions on what is beneficial for Pakistan, and not on who is making the decisions. At the very least, one should be consistent in one`s criticism.

Based on that, I was wondering whether you support Musharraf`s current decision of supporting the USA, and the stand he has taken against extremist religious parties; which NS and BB never did? And whether you consider Benazir as a solution to Pakistan`s problems?

Your answers will be greatly appreciated.