The prime minister was served notice for contempt of court for not obeying the Supreme Court’s ruling on the NRO issue and refusing to write to the Swiss government to initiate proceedings against the sitting president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned counsel for the prime minister, defended his client by citing Article 248 of the Constitution, under which the president enjoys immunity from criminal proceedings and pled that the PM was not guilty of contempt since he had acted in “good faith” under the blanket immunity applicable to the president.

Now, I could hardly qualify to discuss legal issues. Consequently, mine is a layman’s view, for lay readers to consider.

Article 248(1) of the Constitution says: “The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, a Chief Minister, and a Provincial Minister shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done, in the performance of those functions”.

This particular article, however, relates only to acts “done or purported to be done” in the performance of their function of office: which clearly means that this immunity is a) only for the period that they are holding their offices and b) for acts done only in the performance of duties of their respective offices.

It is, however, Article 248(2) and 248(3) that grants blanket immunity to the President and Governor(s), which will come under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. Article 248(2) says that “no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or pursued against the president or a governor during his term of office”. Article 248(3) adds that “no process for arrest or imprisonment of the president or a governor shall issue from any court during his term of office”.

The matter is subjudice and, quite obviously, the court will rule on it based on arguments presented. To a layman, like this writer, these clauses appear, on the face of it, to be watertight. If the verdict of the SC is the same as a layman’s point of view, the President is immune; but only for the period of his tenure in office. The day he steps down, he no longer enjoys immunity.

However, I am certain that there will be ticklish questions raised by learned counsels from both sides: for example, if, during his period in office, a president commits a crime will his immunity shield him from prosecution and arrest? Will that also have to await parliamentary impeachment or the completion of his tenure in office, before he can be tried for the said act?

Another question that comes to mind is that does the president enjoy immunity from investigation, in the event that he is accused of a crime, while still holding his office? Perhaps, the prime minister’s plea that he acted in good faith and according to the Constitution might be considered favourably by the Honorable Court, but what will it say on the question of a sitting president being exempt from any investigation of any kind? What if there is a situation that the court passes an order that the president be produced before the court the day he leaves office?

On a related but peripheral note, there are many voices criticising what is currently going on. In my view, whatever is happening is a positive development. This is because despite numerous crises, the military understands the limits of its power and knows that these are short of an intervention, not an actual intervention. The Supreme Court, the organ of state, intended to define the limits of power of the executive, is doing its duty. This by no means implies that the apex court is incapable of erring, but, isn’t that the way democracy functions?

I hope, I am not in a minority in viewing this moment as a democratic victory for Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 28^th, 2012.

An American analyst and friend, commenting on an article by Anatol Lieven which suggested that the US policy on Pakistan needed a change, said that “the American administration has reached the conclusion that the Pakistan Army is a part of the problem, not the solution. That the Pakistan Army’s interests are not identical with those of Pakistan and, therefore, the US has decided that it (Pakistan Army) must be cut to size. And, if in doing so, it is destroyed, so be it; and I agree with this conclusion!”

With the passage of time, I have concluded that he knew what he was talking about; the US administration (I read that as Pentagon/CIA, not White House/Capitol Hill) is indeed bent upon destroying the image of the Pakistan Army, its chief and the ISI.

The events of May 2 did more damage to the image of the armed forces than anything preceding it. All of General Parvez Kayani’s efforts of the preceding three years, to rebuild the image of the army, were wiped clean.

And yet, the DG ISI and him seemed to have staged some sort of a recovery by accepting the accusation of ‘incompetence’ rather than ‘complicity’, by presenting themselves before the parliament to accept responsibility.

Then came the dastardly attack on the two posts in Mohmand Agency on November 26. Lots of analysts have commented on this attack, some have been kinder to the US than others. I would like to point out three facts that may not have been adverted to: a) these twin posts were 2.5 kilometres inside the Durand Line on Pakistani territory; b) while these were under construction a couple of months earlier, Isaf/Nato helicopters flew over these to check whether they were being constructed at the location and in accordance with the specifications provided to them and, finally; c) between the two posts, the total number of soldiers present was 40, including two officers. Of these 40, 26 are dead and 14 are wounded; not a single individual survived unscathed!

The survivors in CMH Peshawar narrated that initially one helicopter approached, fired two flares, saw the posts and flew away. Shortly, thereafter, more helicopters appeared and fired flares again, before opening fire. Aircraft also followed suit. Major Mujahid, after trying to get through to his commanding officer, instructed the gunner of the lone 12.7 machine gun to retaliate but the gunner was shot by a gunship. Mujahid replaced the gunner himself and was hit by a rocket launcher, which killed him and destroyed the machine gun. After this gunships and aircraft just picked them off at will. The attack lasted just under an hour.

With apologies to those who still want to give the US the benefit of doubt; this massacre was a ‘turkey shoot’ and very deliberate!

Only one explanation comes to mind for this planned attack to be launched: it was again intended to embarrass the military command and it succeeded! Not just officers and men of the armed forces are demoralised; the entire nation wants to know why the military high command failed to respond to protect its men.

Once again, for a variety of reasons, the attempt did not succeed to the extent that the US administration probably expected it would. One view in circulation is that the attack was intended to draw attention away from memogate. Another view supports mine, which is that the Pakistan Army is the victim of a well-planned, well-orchestrated psychological warfare operation, launched by the US administration. I hope that those at the helm of affairs can take suitable measures to ward off the next event.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 19^th, 2011.

I cannot but agree with Ejaz Haider’s analysis in his article, “Memogate: not curtains yet”, carried by this daily on November 19. And, while the curtain has not fallen on the stage to signal the end of this drama; I doubt if it will reach its logical conclusion i.e. indicting the perpetrators.

But I want to focus on a slightly different angle since there was, after all, nothing really surprising about all this. The fact that our head of state is prepared to stake the country, its peoples and everything else that goes with it, in an effort to keep his office, is not a revelation! Under his benign leadership we may be suffering from greater corruption than ever before and the misery of the peoples might be greater. but in staking everything to retain his office, this president is no different from his predecessor; a serving general at that time, the venerable Musharraf!

The offer of ‘greater transparency’ of our nuclear programme for the US’s satisfaction is not a ‘first’! Rumours of such an offer being made by an earlier prime minister ran rife in the mid-1990s, until General Waheed Kakar, then COAS, during a visit to the US, orchestrated a press conference where this question was posed to him and he effectively scotched the rumour with his brief response, “no government of Pakistan could survive such a sell-out”! So Zardari is in sterling company and doing neither more nor less than should be expected of him.

What continues to intrigue me are questions relating to why this disclosure should occur. What prompted Mansoor Ijaz to write an op-ed in the Financial Times on October 10? Why, after initially denying it, should Admiral Mullen confirm its existence on November 17, why should the memo then be conveniently leaked to the blog maintained by Foreign Policy? And why, immediately following this, should Mansoor make public all his email correspondence, the numbers on his cell phone on which he received calls during the period the memo was being drafted?

Since it all started with Mansoor Ijaz, let’s concentrate on him. He is a very successful Pakistani-American businessman, well linked to the US administration, though of dubious credentials. Presumably, therefore, he is not looking for a career in journalism.

Consequently, if I was the ‘investigating officer’ assigned the responsibility of discovering why this leak occurred, Zardari would certainly figure in my list of suspects. But the question that would immediately follow is: would he be unaware of the risk of being personally implicated, were the entire contents of the memo disclosed? Certainly not; Zardari might not be intellectually gifted, but he has certainly proven himself to be politically astute and a wily manipulator.

Consequently, in light of developments from November 17 onwards, the name that would head my list of suspects would no longer be Zardari, but our venerable and dearly beloved Uncle; Uncle Sam!

From the day Uncle Sam discovered that, despite their soft-spoken, laid-back, easy-going exterior, the Pakistani generals, Kayani and Pasha, are no pushovers, there has been a deliberate campaign launched by the US administration to vilify and embarrass both. While the American media has faithfully done its bit, it is Uncle Sam who pushed it. If I was to try putting a date to the transformation of this duo from US ‘darlings’ to the object of hate, it would be March 2010, when Obama walked into a meeting of the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue to table his demands to Kayani and, to his surprise, Kayani responded by handing Obama a dossier with his analysis of ‘where, why, and how’ the US was erring in its Afghan policy; which would also explain why he (Kayani) was unable to fulfil US demands.

According to American media, in the meeting between Leon Panetta and General Pasha, following this event, there was “a slanging match between the two, in which the soft-spoken Pakistani general more than held his own”!

And while Admiral Mullen is a former general, both Mansoor and Haqqani are also Americans with neither a future nor any stakes in Pakistan; both more than willing to follow instructions from DC. What is more, Uncle Sam wouldn’t be at all concerned if Zardari was to get into hot soup as a by-product of this play. He is easily replaceable; others are already cuing up to take his place!

Love you; Uncle, many thanks!

Published in The Express Tribune, November 30^th, 2011.

On October 10, Mansoor Ijaz, an American business tycoon of Pakistani origin, made a startling disclosure in an op-ed article that he had written for The Financial Times (FT) regarding the contents of a memo which were revealed to him by a “senior Pakistani diplomat… close to President Zardari”. The memo was finalised on May 11 and intended for Admiral Mike Mullen to pass it on to US President Barack Obama. Apparently, Zardari apprehended a military coup in the blowback from Osama bin Laden’s unilateral execution by the US and, in attempting to preempt it, went so far as to promise an entire ‘new security team’, which, by implication, would be more prone to accept US demands. Zardari, apparently, promised to defang the ISI and also offered more, which the author implies, but did not disclose.

Quite obviously, this ‘leak’ resulted in considerable speculation, as it was surely intended to. There was the expected anti-Zardari hype but there was also a strong feeling that Ijaz’s disclosure was a pack of lies. Pakistani government spokesmen obviously denied the existence of such a memo and cast aspersions on the author; as did Mike Mullen and the US government.

I must admit that I too was skeptical to begin with, but I was also conscious that the FT is not an irresponsible rag and was unlikely to carry such an accusation without insuring itself against legal proceedings by ensuring its veracity.

What finally convinced me of the truth of Ijaz’s assertion was his statement in response to the Haqqani challenge to produce his evidence before the Supreme Court. He concluded his response with, “As a 27-year veteran of Wall Street, I can do no better than to quote the big-screen character of Gordon Gekko. He said: “if you stop telling lies about me, I might just stop telling the truth about you”. It is time that Pakistan’s leaders stopped telling lies and got back to the business of governing for the betterment of their people rather than wasting time, energy and much-needed resources in the useless bickering and backbiting that defines today’s debate over the nation’s affairs.”

The question that arose was: if Ijaz was not seeking cheap publicity, nor does he need to make a name for himself as an investigative journalist, why should this leak occur in October, more than five months after the event? It also became obvious that his role as the preferred intermediary was critical; it offered Zardari that priceless luxury: deniability!

The first thing that came to mind after this realisation dawned was that if this memo had been entrusted to Ijaz’s care on behalf of Zardari, it was more than likely that its disclosure was also on Zardari’s request. The question then was, what did Zardari hope to gain?

So, I went back and reread Ijaz’s original article. Ijaz, very cleverly, had picked up on Mullen’s accusations made days before his retirement, to let loose another tirade on the ‘rogue ISI’ and, by implication, the already embarrassed Pakistan army chief.

And who could gain more from this than Zardari? What wouldn’t he give to further embarrass the army and the ISI and perhaps put into place a more pliable ‘new security team’?

The denial by Pakistan’s Foreign Office, our man in DC and the spokesperson for the president, followed by Ijaz’s strongly worded statement, merely played out the conclusion of a well-orchestrated farce; which actually ended in convincing most analysts in Pakistan of the veracity of Ijaz’s assertion.

It also succeeded in further demonising the ISI and embarrassing the GHQ.

Unfortunately for Zardari, it still did not weaken the GHQ so much that he could find himself in a position strong enough to put in place a ‘new security team’! The one thing Zardari and Ijaz failed to vector into their equation is the fact that when there is such an obvious attempt to undermine the army chief, it is the entire army that is affected and the consequence is greater unity within the ranks.

If Zardari were to try to install a new security team, he would face considerable opposition and, what is far more important, he is unlikely to find a ‘pliable’ team which would succumb to domestic political pressure or to US demands that clash with our national interests. Perhaps it is time for Zardari to follow the sterling advice in Ijaz’s response, even if it was made sarcastically.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 13^th, 2011. 

Sometime a go, I wrote an article carried by CounterPunch titled, “Has Pakistan declared its independence?” (of the US). Apparently, it not only has, but is prepared to go as far as necessary in the dangerous game of “Chicken” currently being played out with the US. If there is no longer a ‘good cop, bad cop’ game being played by the US and the entire US establishment is united in levelling accusations against Pakistan, it seems that so is the Pakistani establishment and, the political leadership has gone so far as to attempt bringing all political parties on board.

There is, however, no doubt that the present situation is fraught with danger. Pakistan is facing, perhaps the greatest crisis of its existence, by challenging the might of the US at “Chicken”. But great crises have always offered great opportunities; if someone is wise enough to grab them!

Pakistan has, over time, become a nation divided within: ethnic divisions and grievances, sectarianism, increasing religious intolerance and diversity of religious interpretations, and finally, of course, the diverse sources of terrorism.

However, I can recall moments of crises when the nation was united: the 1965 Indo-Pak War; even 1971 when, despite defeat, there was a semblance of unity; and the judicial crisis created by Pervez Musharraf. All of these united the nation and the last one, in fact, forced the dictator to quit and leave the country. Also consider what happened when the Taliban took over Swat after the infamous peace deal there — this also united the nation to support the use of force to exterminate this evil within us. This last determination, to root out extremism from within, is present to this day.

Now to the present. Given the force of the anti-American feeling in this country and the general feeling that our politico-military masters have never had the gumption to stand up to the US and say “No”, this ‘declaration of independence’, whatever its other fallout(s), again offers a priceless opportunity to unite the nation.

Currently, no political party can muster a gathering of an impressive crowd as a show of strength; the people are fed up with our current lot of politicians, across the divides. However, if the all parties conference that the prime minister has called for, was to, unanimously, ask the people merely to come out in the streets in front of their homes/offices/places of business/shops, or wherever they are at a certain time of the day, for five minutes, to express their solidarity with the policy of ‘not succumbing to US pressure’, I think the response would be astounding and, if covered by the media extensively, will certainly give the US pause to reconsider unilateral action against a united Pakistan!

But far more priceless is the opportunity to address the real existential threat to Pakistan from increasing religious extremism, not in our tribal areas but all over the country, including (most of all) Punjab; the breeding ground for terrorists and suicide bombers being preached to hate by our Saudi-funded madrassas; a fact that our political leaders are not even prepared to recognise. After all, the logic behind the breeding of this hate against the Pakistani state stems from the accusation that ‘our politico-military leadership consists of gutless idiots who have sold themselves and the hapless citizens of this country to the greatest kafir (infidel) of all; the US —the country that provides unconditional support to Israel so that Israel can slaughter innocent Muslims at will. The same US that is at war with Muslims the world over, in illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan’.

Well, if that is the logic for declaring all citizens of Pakistan as indifels and, therefore, legitimate targets for suicide attacks, then here is that leadership demonstrating its will to “challenge the US might and face the consequences”! That hate can now be garnished and redirected towards a (perceived) common threat and prevented from being directed within to target the innocent citizens of the country. With a nation united in its stand to respond to a unilateral US action, the opportunities are as many as we can make. This opportunity can be seized to bring peace to Karachi, it might even have some impact on the disillusioned and disgruntled, hopeless Baloch youth.

If we have decided on the dangerous course of brinkmanship with the US and are determined not to blink, let us squeeze every little bit of advantage that we can from it.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 28^th, 2011. 

It was an unusual sight; a senior PPP member holding the Quran to lend authenticity to his diatribe directed at PPP’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik — currently, President Asif Ali Zardari’s right-hand man — and at the MQM, the party that Zardari has tasked his trusted henchman Malik to woo back into the Sindh coalition government. Zulfiqar Mirza is no ordinary member of the PPP. A bosom pal of Zardari, senior minister Sindh, senior leader of the Sindhi chapter of the PPP, whose wife is Speaker of the National Assembly; he is not an individual to be taken lightly.

Essentially, there are three things he stated in the press conference: a) Rehman Malik being his most prominent target was identified as “Pakistan’s greatest enemy” and “a compulsive liar”. b) The MQM was behind the target killings in Karachi and c) the MQM was actively engaged with the US in a programme for the dismemberment of Pakistan.

Actually, there was really nothing new in the first two disclosures. Malik is almost universally acknowledged as Pakistan’s greatest bane and the MQM has a long history of violence in Karachi/Hyderabad. The exclusion of the PPP among those responsible for the ongoing mayhem in Karachi was prominent by its omission, but that should not be surprising. The US plan for the Balkanisation of Pakistan is more than a decade old. I doubt it has been sanctioned, but the fact that a prominent member of the party manning the treasury benches should publicly say so was a surprise.

Mirza also brought along numerous documents which (according to him) contained incontrovertible proof against Malik and the MQM. What is more, he claimed that these documents had signatures of members of numerous intelligence agencies, police officials, serving army officers etc.

Given his stature in the party and his close bond with Zardari, the scepticism with which analysts initially reacted to his disclosures was to be expected. However, it was his late night interview that was more enlightening and might have put most suspicions to rest.

What seemed apparent was that Mirza had finally cried ‘enough’ and permitted his pent up fury to finally vent itself. What gave this credence, in my view, were his contradictions. “I will appear before the Supreme Court (SC) and make my disclosures, but not in camera”; “if Zardari tells me to, I will keep quiet”; “I have made my disclosures public. It is now up to the government to act on them”; “if Iftikhar Chaudhry (the Chief Justice) has the courage to call me, I will speak”; “which ordinary citizen can refuse to obey the SC?”; “if the SC wants these documents, they are public record, not my personal property”; “I am not afraid of anyone”; I will lead the war against injustice in Karachi”; “I am Zardari’s man till death”; “my resignation is the triumph of falsehood and the defeat of truth”.

These were not coherent, well-rehearsed utterances; rather disjointed ones likely to come from one acting on impulse, without adverting to consequences. He kept contradicting himself in how far he was prepared to go and appeared to be magnificently oblivious to the fact that his indictment of Malik could not but indict the man who lets him run rife: either the prime minister or the president. Most of all, the individual that he acknowledges as his benefactor and continuously swore loyalty to — Zardari!

Mirza is right about one thing though, he has certainly set the cat among the pigeons and, on top of that, he has thrown down the gauntlet for whoever chooses to pick it up. It is now impossible for the SC to ignore his disclosures, nor can it afford not to summon him as a witness. Whether Zardari tells him to keep his mouth shut from now onwards or not is irrelevant. In the light of his public indictment, he can no longer afford to do so.

Time will tell how this drama will conclude but it seems to me that, albeit inadvertently, Mirza may have helped the Zardari/Malik duo to achieve the end they sought. The MQM may no longer be in a position to afford sitting in the opposition in Sindh!

Published in The Express Tribune, September 6^th,  2011.

On July 22, Anders Behrin Breivik, a blond blue-eyed Norwegian and a Christian, suddenly went berserk and began indiscriminately shooting people at a campsite in Oslo, killing 76. A moment’s silence, please, let us share the sorrow of their families.

The perpetrator was caught red-handed and confessed, yet in Norway, there was total disbelief. This could not have been one of their own; such an act in Oslo; not by a Christian? There had to be a Muslim connection! Sounds familiar? Yes, for years we, in Pakistan continued to delude ourselves too. Muslims don’t kill Muslims! There had to be an Indian, or Israeli, or CIA connection! But whether there was a connection or not, Pakistanis Muslims continue killing their brother, sisters and children.

In Oslo, there was a Muslim connection. Breivik says that he was enraged by the thought that Muslims were beginning to occupy Norway! But who did he kill? And I am not going to dwell on whether he was part of an organisation called ‘The Army of God’, and there is also considerable speculation and some evidence to indicate that he may not have been alone. Why did he target this camp and these Norwegians?

He alone knows the real reason or, if he was part of a group, other members might know. Based on media reports, I can merely speculate and, considering that Breivik was a victim of Islamophobia, the reason has to be connected to Islam. Apparently, the Norwegian foreign minister visited this particular camp the day before the tragic killing spree and was greeted with an unapologetic call for the rights of Palestinians with placards reading ‘Boycott Israel’! Could that have caused him to target the Utoeya Labour Youth Camp?

Doesn’t that sound familiar? Try crying out for the rights of Ahmadis, or Hindu or Christian minorities, or against the laws on blasphemy in Pakistani streets and join Salmaan Taseer!

Ironically, within hours of the incident, The New York Times (NYT) published an online report quoting an unnamed analyst, saying that an unknown Islamic organization, Ansaar-al-Jihad-al-Aalami, had claimed responsibility! It turned out that someone, using a false name had posted an argument on a website which translated to ‘This was Allah’s punishment for the evil that the west is doing in Libya and Afghanistan’!

Accusations of the NYT again acting on CIA’s instructions to stoke anti-Muslim rage in Europe ran rife and the online report by the NYT quietly disappeared! A well-known American radio show host, Alex Jones, is already referring to the Oslo incident as a “flag terror attack” intended to incite Islamophobia in Europe. Directly or indirectly, innocent Norwegian citizens; men, women, and children have died because of Islam. Breivik hated Muslims and killed innocent Norwegians (if my earlier speculation is correct), for supporting the cause of oppressed Muslims.

What will this lead to?

There will be some ‘rednecks’ for whom this will be enough to further stoke Islamophobia. This line of thinking goes something like this: If Muslims weren’t such evil beings, guilty of such crimes, no poor Christian Norwegian soul would have hated them so much as to kill these innocents.

For others, more reasonable people, it will be a clear signal not to support any cause relating to the oppression of Muslims.

Doubtless, there will be thousands of courageous Norwegians who will be even more determined to support the oppressed; any oppressed, irrespective of religion, colour, caste, or creed, but they are bound to be in a minority.

Whether or not it was a conspiracy, as Alex Jones thinks it is, the end result is inevitable. The ultimate global victors are forces of bigotry and obscurantism; those who cannot help spewing hate.

There can be no peace in the world so long as hate continues to thrive and this tragedy in Norway cannot but cultivate increasing hate.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 31^st, 2011.

Are we finally witnessing the beginning of a change? Could it be possible that the Pakistan government is formulating a foreign policy? It is my view that the last time we had national policies was in the early days of Ayub Khan, since then we seem to be rudderless, ‘firefighting’ on a day-to-day basis!

Policy formulation is a complicated business and foreign policy is perhaps the most difficult of all policies to flesh out since it involves relations with other countries; each of which have their own policies. The essential ingredient is to seek common interests and/or possible flashpoints; capitalising on the former and negotiating the latter with each country that is involved in the policy. An obvious compulsion is that of geography. Ideally speaking, any nation at peace with its neighbours can concentrate on developing human resources. In the event of a threat, monies diverted to combatting the threat are at the cost of providing economic/human/social security.

Currently, the threat from violence to Pakistan comes from within as well as from across our western borders. While Pakistan-US relations have always been rocky and unstable, it has recently become obvious that an increasing number of our interests were becoming divergent; which by no stretch of imagination intends to imply that none converge. Perhaps it has become necessary for Pakistan to formulate a foreign policy that will, in time, end our long (tried-and-frequently-failed) policy of total US dependence.

There are two indicators that the government is finally looking at other options. While Iran desperately needs to export energy, the US, being equally desperate, wants to prevent anything that might make Iran economically better off. Consequently, President Zardari’s recent visits to Tehran; and the finalisation of the much delayed gas pipeline are a positive step in a direction that might make us less US-dependent.

Similarly, before the US announced its suspension of military aid, General Kayani’s announcement that all future US aid for the military should be diverted to the public sector indicated that he had foreseen the policy of aid suspension. Simultaneously, we are witnessing a more proactive effort, both by the military and the government, to improve relations with India and Afghanistan.

There has been considerable speculation regarding the hastily scheduled visit of the ISI chief to the US. Anti-American elements state that General Pasha is going to read the CIA the riot act, even threaten to close the Nato supply route! Professional ‘army/ISI bashers’ say that he is going to beg for resumption of aid, and then there are numerous views that lie between the two.

My view is that General Pasha’s visit was merely to establish intelligence-sharing procedures and activities under freshly redefined parameters. Now that Pakistan has indicated that it will defend its national interests when they diverge with those of the US, and the US attempt to pressurise Pakistan by suspending military aid has not succeeded, his visit merely sought corridors where our interests still converge.

If my assessment regarding the drafting of a foreign policy direction is correct, I hope that the next step will be a comprehensive domestic security policy which addresses all issues relating to our human capital.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 21^st, 2011.

Counter-insurgency, or COIN, is a comprehensive strategy and not really a military one. An insurgency takes birth if people have one or more socio-politico-economic complaints. COIN, therefore, must seek to address these complaints. If the preceding statement is accepted, far from winning the COIN war, the military cannot even win battles. It can merely help create a favourable situation for COIN to succeed. To use the term coined by a wiser man than I, insurgents have to be ‘out-governed’ for COIN to succeed.

Two occasions come to mind when the use of force was skilfully manipulated to further the cause of a successful COIN strategy. 1) In the 1980s, even as covert negotiations with the Irish Republic Army (IRA) had been initiated, the IRA was bombing the streets of London. In fact, in 1984, the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher almost got killed. Over some years, the IRA was penetrated by Special Air Service elements and, in 1986, they successfully began to target and kill mid to mid-high level IRA leaders. The IRA leadership went underground and immediately thereafter, overt negotiations began.

IRA leaders, with a million pounds on their heads, sat across the table with the prime minister to negotiate Ireland’s future!

2) In 2009, the Uighur tribe in Urumqi, China, revolted. The revolt was suppressed violently, killing 150-odd, and wounding as many more. The international community decried the violation of human rights to no avail. However, the provincial political leadership met the elders of the Uighur tribe within days of this occurrence to obtain a list of their grievances, which were immediately addressed. In 2010, when I visited Urumqi again, it was as if there had never been a revolt.

In both the examples above, the significant aspect is that those individuals with whom negotiations were initiated were genuine representatives of the people; the IRA of the Irish, and the Uighur elders of their tribe.

In our case, when there is an outcry for negotiations, who is the government of Pakistan supposed to negotiate with? The Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are terrorists who are attempting to obtain political space through the use of violence. They do not represent the aspirations of any people, not even a tribe! And yet, it would be pointless to deny that, just as in the case of Swat in 2008, the public is again beginning to demand a negotiated settlement and, despite the fact that the TTP is ruthlessly killing innocent civilians as well as targeting military installations, there is a slow but steady increase in the support for extremists! Why?

The answer is obvious; a complete disillusionment with the current political leadership across the board; a total lack of governance. From the public point of view, the government is totally subservient to the evil designs of the US and indifferent to the needs of the people. The spiralling cost of living, loadshedding, water shortage — just about everything is multiplying the miseries of the common man.

An increasing number of analysts are predicting a revolution in Pakistan. In my view, that is not very likely. Our tolerance for injustice is considerably higher than that of the Middle East. However, were it to occur, the essential difference between the genuine revolts in Arab countries in search of a representative government and the revolt in Pakistan, in my assessment, is that the one in Pakistan might well throw up Islamic extremists, unlike what happened in the Arab world.

It is for this reason that a comprehensive COIN strategy is becoming an imperative. Our military successes in Swat and South Waziristan Agency are meaningless if the vacuum of governance is not swiftly filled, and it continues to remain at a standstill to date!

If this remains incomprehensible to the central government, it is to be hoped that the provincial government(s) can respond to this most urgent requirement.

There should be no doubt that we are at war with the TTP and that the TTP must be defeated militarily. However, this cannot happen unless the reason for increasing support for extremism ends, which is achievable only through improved governance in all respects.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 8^th, 2011.

Before assessing what the press release issued after the 139th corps commanders’ conference on June 9 said or did not say, it is essential to review the backdrop in which this conference took place and the impact of the events of the past six weeks on the people of Pakistan.

In all fairness, I am compelled to precede the foregoing by narrating a few facts of significance. In November 2007, General Kayani inherited a demoralised and dysfunctional army; one that was viewed with disrespect by the Pakistani people. Within a year, he had turned it on its head, recreating the efficient fighting force that it used to be, restoring, not only the soldiers’ self-respect but also their respect in the eyes of ordinary citizens: No mean achievement.

By 2009, the nation stood united behind the military, enabling it to undertake two remarkably successful operations to reclaim Swat and South Waziristan Agency. Kayani was on top of the army’s pinnacle. Even the Raymond Davis affair reflected creditably on the army/ISI who had successfully got rid of ‘rogue CIA’ elements walking our streets and killing at will.

The problem with riding a pinnacle that high is that if you fall, the fall is long and very hard.

On May 2, Navy SEALs violated our territorial sovereignty, penetrated as deep as Abbottabad and reportedly killed Osama bin Laden, who had been in hiding in a house a couple of kilometres from the Pakistan Military Academy, and escaped unchallenged. The real truth of this event is irrelevant; the act is what matters.

As soon as the Pakistani public recovered from this stunning piece of information, their first response was a sense of outrage. Outrage that the US could carry out such an attack unchallenged and without the knowledge of the military/ISI; outrage that Osama could have been housed in a cantonment like Abbottabad, without the knowledge of the army/ISI, accusations of complicity/incompetence flew as wildly domestically as they were being raised abroad. But, most of all, a feeling of deep agony and betrayal, that the military they had held in such esteem was not even capable of discovering and responding to such a raid. Had PAF planes taken to the air in time, even if only to be shot down; had the army reacted in time, even if only to be killed, the agony would have been less.

As if that wasn’t enough, within days, suicidal attacks avenging Osama’s death started and, exactly three weeks later, PNS Mehran was attacked; a naval base housing extremely valuable assets which were destroyed. The naval chief informed the public that it “was not a security lapse”! How gullible he must think us to be? But the people received another message: ‘Your armed forces cannot even guard their own precious assets’.

Once again the question of the safety of our nuclear assets is under debate: Abroad, and in every drawing room in Pakistan!

To add slime to the mud was the foul murder of Saleem Shahzad. Personally, I don’t think it was committed by the ISI merely because, given the intense pressure that it currently is under, it would be stupid of it to do so and to leave the body to be found; and General Pasha is anything but stupid! However, my view is irrelevant; public perception isn’t.

It is in this backdrop that the press release has to be viewed.

Clarifying the question of how much US aid has been received and how much has gone to the military was important. And the suggestion that funds intended for the military be diverted to improve the lot of the people is a good gesture, but the most significant comment was the concluding one; “Pakistan’s internal situation is the most important factor and it cannot be relegated in priority. Army leadership reaffirmed its resolve to continue supporting the democratic system without any preference to any particular political party. It is also determined to lead the fight on terror in partnership with other law enforcement agencies and in line with the Constitution”.

It was important that support to democracy be restated and that this support was not to the exclusion of any political party. It was also important to reaffirm the resolve to fight the scourge of terrorism.

The earlier comment in the press release, implying the military’s acceptance of the supremacy of elected leaders, might be superfluous and, given the state of our democratic environment, difficult to swallow.

However, this press release was, quite obviously, addressed to the public; and in that respect, woefully inadequate. That military to military relations (with the US) will have to be reassessed; or an appeal to the public to refrain from maligning the armed forces is not reassuring, nor is it likely to have a visible impact. Nor is it sufficient to restate the opposition to drone strikes.

The people needed to hear a more positive, confident response; one that openly acknowledges errors, even if without detailed explanation, and one that offers reassurances for the future and promise of action.

Implying that the government will formulate a policy on drone attacks is almost laughable. It is an open secret that governmental response to US demands is never negative; if there is any resistance to the US, as CIA Director Leon Panetta’s most recent visit again reminded us, it comes from the GHQ/ISI. If drone attacks are to be permitted only to ‘take out’ high value targets, with permission of the GHQ/ISI, the PAF should be visible, patrolling the skies.

The military’s image has again hit an all-time low. If it is to be rebuilt, the GHQ will need to speak confidently to reassure the people and demonstrate its will by following words with action. Palliatives will not suffice; it is time to stand tall; respond openly to questions being raised on the military’s ability to deliver; and, most importantly, to deliver.

This nation stood united behind the military, leading to its success; it must be won over again. This is doable, but not through such press releases.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 16th, 2011.