It is important to be clear where the wishes of the people lie in the context of foreign and security policy. It lies in creating security, and socio-economic conditions within which the government can fulfill its constitutional responsibilities towards the people.

Public sentiments cannot dictate decisions on NATO supply routes. Government must decide and take responsibility.

As for whether this move will damage or promote Pakistan’s interests, some facts are relevant. For one, Pakistan’s invitation to the Chicago summit was linked to reopening of supply routes. There were also indications were that Washington was also beginning to squeeze Pakistan financially.

First, Pakistan’s decision will now ensure it’s participation in Chicago. And Chicago is important because it brings us into the “policy-making D” regarding the future of Afghanistan.

Clearly while President Karzai and the US are in that D, and now also pursuing the policy of dialogue with the Taliban that Pakistan has been advocating, Pakistan cannot abandon the opportunity to be part of the process.

Pakistan cannot ‘go it alone.’ We need to be in partnership on the best negotiated terms possible. Afghanistan’s future will realistically, given the political, security and financial realities, be determined by a four way engagement- Karzai plus other political groups, the Taliban, Pakistan and the US.

Two, the routes have been opened after the factor was leveraged to begin negotiations on key Pakistan-US related issues. That is still work-in-progress.

For weeks negotiations have been ongoing. Currently negotiations on three specific issues are underway: on terms for the use of supply routes, given that the previous terribly low rate of 350 dollars per container will have to substantially be increased, on terms for US guarantee of no Salala type attacks and negotiation of arrangements ensuring that there are no unilateral drone strikes in the future.

How valid is the criticism of the parliamentary process which has been gaining ground especially as US pressure began increasing? Many argue that policy-making is an executive function hence involving the parliament was a wrong idea.

Parliament’s involvement on a key foreign policy issue which has been popularized in the last three decades was necessary to get a general consensus. However that the issue was dragged for so long is a valid criticism. The long drawn out process triggered the law of diminishing returns to some extent; a fact that Pakistan’s ambassador to the US continued to raise with the government.

Washington was almost in awe of the process and began recognizing its own shortcomings. Apology was available for Pakistan which it refused, agreement to release CSF funds was there which a senior White House official and the Pakistan ambassador jointly announced but the parliamentary process dragged on and talks on the NATO supply routes did not resume.

With the deadlock having been broken, when the two Presidents meet in Chicago, Pakistan will have taken a seat at global policy making on Afghanistan and the region. And, provided that seat is wisely utilized, Pakistan will have also promoted its own security and economic interests- as we are doing in opening up trade along with conflict resolution dialogue with India.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 16^th, 2012.

On December 28 a man by the name of Fazal Kareem Butt filed a petition in the Supreme Court claiming that the government was about to remove the army chief and the DG ISI and that the Supreme Court should seek guarantees that this should not happen since that would undermine his fundamental rights, under Article 189. The petitioner argued that martial law was triggered in 1999 upon the fear that the then army chief had been sacked and hence a repeat of that would undermine the public good.

In my detailed discussions with the petitioner, I came to know of three important facts. One, that his petition was based on three reports that had appeared in The News, and where a defence analyst had raised the possibility of a mutiny. Apart from these reports there was, he said, no other evidence for his view that the removal of Generals Kayani and Pasha was imminent.

That said, the petitioner insisted that the removal from service on January 11 by the prime minister of the defence secretary, and replacing him with a “pliable” was a prelude to the removal of the two generals. He was reminded, however, that the defence secretary was charged with creating misunderstanding between the army and the executive and therefore this was more of a statement to re-track the prime minister’s earlier uncalled-for statement to a Chinese newspaper where he had said that the filing of affidavits filed by the army and ISI chiefs was an unconstitutional act.

The second point made by the petitioner was that he was a lawyer for the recently-removed defence secretary. And the third was that he had, on and off, appeared before the courts as a lawyer for the Pakistan Army, i.e. when they have needed civilian lawyers

Interestingly, initially the deputy registrar returned the petition with some objections. The petitioner went into appeal and the Chief Justice of Pakistan called him to his chamber, and after that fixed a date for a hearing to determine whether the petition could be admitted. At that hearing, the CJP asked the attorney-general appearing before him if the prime minister was going to fire either General Kayani or Pasha to which the law officer said “no”. The CJP then adjourned the court for two weeks and the attorney-general was told that by then he would be required to submit a written statement by the government.

This particular case of the petition, of the CJP holding a preliminary hearing as a result of an appeal, the observations that he made, the questions he asked of the attorney-general, and finally the demand he made all raise major questions regarding due process and rule of law.

First, the petition was entirely based conjecture, with no concrete evidence provided by the petitioner. Two, Mr Butt has been a lawyer for the Pakistan army and is now a lawyer for the defence secretary who was recently removed and hence there is a clear possibility of a conflict of interest. Three, and above all, should not the appeal that the CJP heard in his chamber been one that should have been heard in the open, so that all sides could be heard.

The prime minister is within his constitutional authority to remove the two chiefs, and therefore under what law would the Chief Justice of Pakistan interfere in the prime minister’s authority and ask for a no-removal guarantee by the latter? Giving such a guarantee would clearly restrict the constitutional powers given to the elected prime minister. Was the CJP overstepping his constitutional mandate? The CJP can re-interpret or use his own discretion, but not without undermining the Constitution.

Such an action by the CJP could set a dangerous precedent and could undermine the recent thawing of government-army tensions. The Chief Justice of Pakistan is humbly advised to re-trace his missteps on this matter. Meanwhile, the government would be ill-advised to give in writing that it will not remove the army and the ISI chiefs.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 25^th, 2012.

The Supreme Court proceedings ended on January 19 with a clear message to all those who had been worried about any dramatic consequences following the Supreme Court’s January 16 order instructing the prime minister to appear in person and explain why he should not be charged with contempt of court. The message was that neither side will make rash or populist moves, and that a genuine judicial process, operating within constitutional parameters, is at work in which the government will plead its case primarily on legal grounds. Starting from February 1, the coming hearings will focus on the implementation of the NRO judgment and the question of presidential immunity, while the issue of charging the prime minister with contempt of court may become secondary.

The prime minister, who walked in with Aitzaz Ahsan as his lawyer, has signalled to the Supreme Court that from now on the government will not be evasive or confrontationist in dealing with the apex court or its orders.

Meanwhile, in pleading his innocence before the Court the prime minister himself made four important points. One, that the PPP remains committed to upholding the Constitution and acknowledges its supremacy. Two, by recalling the personal appearances in the Court of successive PPP leaders and their past adherence to Court orders, he argued that the PPP’s respect for the judiciary is an established fact. Three, that the president of Pakistan enjoys, within Pakistan, immunity under Article 248, and that outside he enjoys immunity under the Vienna Convention. Finally, the prime minister said that the entire parliament supported the immunity of the president since in the 18^th Amendment, in which many articles were amended, there was an all-party consensus to not change that clause.

The prime minister’s submission and presence prompted Justice Asif Khosa to observe that this was a great day for the rule of law in the history of Pakistan “irrespective of the outcome of the case”. That said, the prime minister’s lawyer will have to explain to the Court why the latter should change its view that the government has been dragging its feet on the implementation of the NRO judgment.

On this matter, Aitzaz Ahsan has already responded by saying that he will submit a detailed response to what orders were passed and how the government responded. The public perception also is that, leaving aside the letter to the Swiss authorities, the government has not fully implemented the Court’s NRO judgment. The prime minister has been exempted from further appearances while Aitzaz Ahsan will argue why his client “acted in good faith” and by not writing the letter upheld the Constitution of Pakistan, which provides immunity to the president against all criminal proceedings.

While we all await the Supreme Court hearings, there is an important and related issue on which the Honourable Chief Justice should, in his own wisdom and his commitment to upholding the dignity of the Supreme Court, pass an immediate order. All gatherings, protests or celebrations and sloganeering by lawyers must be prohibited with immediate effect. Irrespective of which political party or which judge such a gathering supports, this undermines the institutional dignity of the Supreme Court. On the day of the hearing, some lawyers were chanting slogans in favour of the PPP, and many more were raising pro-Chief Justice and anti-government slogans. Surely, the apex court is not the place for such sloganeering.

In the post-2007 Pakistan, the intrinsic authority of our institutions must be made operational. One hopes that in the coming days, the government is going to be more obedient in the implementation of the NRO judgment, barring the letter to the Swiss authorities which will be argued by the government’s lawyer.

On that note, it would be fair to say that Pakistan is slowly, but surely, moving towards constitutional rule. While the lawyers and the media must remain vigilant that due process is followed by all parties, the forum for debating or advocating that is the media and other public forums, not the Supreme Court premises.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 20^th, 2012.

No coup is about to take place in a Pakistan where the independent media has ensured that every move by every player on the national power scene is examined threadbare. This exercise in itself is both a leveller and a restrainer. Had there been an independent electronic media in October 1999 there would have been no coup. Examination of every move gives a fair share of public hearing and also self-examination, to all players. The resulting public censure, or approval, now informs the power players of the limits of their power, constitutional or otherwise. So while in the coming days we will see and hear some trial ballooning, some real moves, some political rhetoric, some bombastic claims, some propaganda, some shadow-boxing as well as alarmist breaking news, none of this is likely to send the president, prime minister, or the army or ISI chief packing.

The government will look towards constitutional and political means to survive, the army will be constrained to act within the Constitution and the honourable judges in the Supreme Court will engage with the Constitution remaining mindful of history and fairplay. Asma Jahangir’s critique of judgments and the workings of the Courts cannot be ignored and neither can the call to respect the judiciary as an arbitrator. Everyone, in any position of authority, is on trial in today’s Pakistan, even the Supreme Court.

The media ensures that the moves of all power players — government, politicians, army, and now the judiciary — are examined for historical precedents, legality, constitutionality, double standards; and whether they are based on individual, institutional, party or national interests. Regardless of which position they occupy, which party they lead, how many corps they command, what agencies they command, what bank balances they have, which ethnic card they can play, which foreign country they can lobby or how many votes they can poll, they cannot claim immunity to public scrutiny. All opinions in the public realm are scrutinised against the public’s inherent common sense, its experiential wisdom and the recall wisdom that the media discussions inject into public space.

Public debate and discussion, which many people are critical of and uncomfortable with, have emerged as Pakistan’s new power centre. Its ways are haphazard, and also in many cases questionable, but it is sections of this media that have ensured that the May 2 Abbottabad fiasco is not hushed up, that Saleem Shahzad’s killing does not go un-inquired, that Husain Haqqani is not declared guilty unheard, that a vigorous debate on the pros and cons of the memo issue is being conducted — the list is endless. And now in this current state of political boil in Pakistan, all power players will be forced to enter this interplay with this intangible power centre, by introducing their moves to the public through it, be it the January 11 ISPR press release, an observation by Supreme Court judges, the prime minister’s interview given to a Chinese newspaper, Nawaz Sharif’s call for abandoning the government or Imran Khan’s demand that the president resign.

Perhaps on a broader note, for us in Pakistan, in matters of power and politics there is only one unifying factor that straddles our collective consciousness; we all carry the burden of our tragic history. Tragic, above all, because a democratic system has not taken root. Had it taken root, we would have evolved a credible and effective national management within which Pakistanis could lead secure lives and have hope for progress, and where those exercising executive and bureaucratic authority were held accountable for their actions. Instead, through our history, Pakistan’s national managers, mainly khaki and occasionally civilian, have committed endless blunders.

In Pakistan, often pygmies have paraded as rulers, personal and institutional interests as national interests, and haphazard and reactive cobbling together of ideas as national policy. Hence modern statecraft, in a country so blessed with talent, competence and a collective will to reform Pakistan, tragically remain elusive.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 13^th, 2012.

There should be no bravado or battle cries over Pakistan’s correct decision to boycott the Bonn Conference; to reaffirm its earlier decision that Washington vacate the Shamsi base, to temporarily stop Nato supplies through Torkham and Chaman and to review all ongoing cooperation with Washington and Kabul over all Afghanistan-related matters. Despite these volatile episodes, the bilateral relationship between the US and Pakistan remains one of extreme importance for both countries. In the coming days, if a degree of humility and reflection finds its way in the White House corridors, some way forward will definitely be worked out.

For Pakistan, such decisions, tough and unprecedented, not only within the context of Pakistan-US relations but also in the history of Pakistan’s diplomacy, had to be taken. It is hard to recall a similar quick-footed, yet appropriate, response from Pakistan’s policymakers, through even the most troubled episodes. Clearly, with the November 26 attack being the seventh attack by US forces on Pakistani territory including the May 2 deep strike operation, these decisions were necessary. It was time to draw the red lines and make clear the rules of business if the mutually beneficial cooperation is to continue.

Policymaking without losing sight of the objective of peace in the region, is needed. Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US, are all fairly suspicious of each other’s intentions. Hence, developing a cooperative approach is a Herculean task. Still, through this minefield of distrust, Pakistan and sections of the Obama administration, have painstakingly attempted to negotiate a common way forward.

For Pakistan, the fallout of the Raymond Davis affair, the Abbottabad Operation and Admiral Mike Mullen’s publicly articulated ‘compliments’ to the ISI have contributed to queering the anti-US pitch in Pakistan. And, more importantly, the failed US policy in Afghanistan and its double-play on the Taliban have also generated anger within Pakistan. Nevertheless, despite endless domestic criticism, Pakistan’s government, foremost on the recommendations of the army leadership, has only sought to keep the bilateral relationship moving forward.

There is, therefore, an apparent keenness within the Obama administration to develop, despite the distrust, a cooperative relation with Pakistan. But the degree to which such willingness exists, is tested most in times of crisis. As it has been after the Novemeber 26 attack. Some incontrovertible facts, as stated by the Pentagon, Nato and Isaf regarding the attack are that there was an operation that was being conducted on the Afghan side of the border. The US troops, according to American claims, operating under the collective Isaf arrangement, were fired upon by the Pakistani post. They then contacted Pakistan’s 11 Corps. Whether they waited or not for the response is unclear but then they called for air support and the attacks began.

Pakistan claims there was no firing from the Pakistani posts; that when Pakistan’s director general of military operations informed Isaf commanders in Kabul of the attack, the attack continued. Such a claim, if true, raises fundamental questions regarding the American and Isaf intent to seek Pakistani cooperation. It also supports the US critics within Pakistan’s security establishment who believe the US is not sincere about working on a joint exit strategy with Pakistan. It seeks only tactical cooperation, while pursuing strategically diverse goals including undermining Pakistan’s nuclear programme, its armed forces and its regional position.

How Washington and the Washington-led Isaf responds to the November 26 attack, lie answers to some of these questions. Surely, the Isaf commander does not believe that Pakistan will agree to conduct joint border operations after this attack on Pakistani territory and the killing of Pakistani soldiers, which was followed by Isaf’s refusal to apologise for what was clearly a violation of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) agreed upon by the two sides, which include alerting the other side of a planned operation.

Pakistan’s bagful of past blunders and even some questionable policy approaches cannot be taken as a license by any other country to act with impunity as the US has been doing under the Isaf umbrella. In Isaf, the US calls the shot, and hence, has to be the lead respondent in the case that Pakistan has carefully built regarding the November 26 attack. A wise and credible response from Isaf and Washington that could have averted Pakistan’s tough response should have been an immediate apology for violating the SOP. Also Isaf and Washington should have announced an immediate and transparently conducted inquiry into the facts relating to the attack.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 2^nd, 2011.

If it is okay for Washington to focus all its diplomatic and political energies, laced with threatening messages, to fly away its covert operator Raymond Davis, it is much more than okay for Pakistan to suspend business-as-usual with the US-Isaf-Afghan troika following the November 26 attack on the Golden and Volcano border posts in the Mohmand Agency in which 24 security personnel lost their lives. The attack and Pakistan’s response to it both flow from the deep distrust that exists between Pakistan on one hand and the Afghan government, America and Isaf on the other. In a rare and welcome rapid reaction, Pakistan’s key national security institutions, including the defence committee of the cabinet met to decide a policy response.

Clearly, all Afghanistan-related military and intelligence cooperation should be suspended and all diplomatic engagement must focus on working out an Isaf, Nato, US and Afghan response acceptable to Pakistan. The minimum demand must be a joint inquiry. Unless Nato apologises, initiates a joint inquiry and promises action against those responsible for the attacks it must not be business as usual. Pakistan should also review its decision to participate in the upcoming Bonn Agreement unless Afghanistan, American and Isaf take concrete steps including an unconditional apology for the attack.

All the facts on the attack are not and will not become clear without an independent inquiry. Already, on November 28, a Nato spokesman suggested that the attack was in self-defence. He said that an operation was being conducted on the Afghan side and Nato troops came under fire from across the Pakistan border and asked for air support. To this, the Pakistani military spokesman said that after the Peshawer Corps came to know of the attack, the director-general of military operations contacted the commander of Isaf’s regional headquarters in Khost and told him to halt it, but the attack continued for another hour.

Significantly, the posts Isaf attacked were the two new ones set up to prevent Sufi Mohammad’s militants from infiltrating and attacking. Less than a month ago, these militants had attacked Pakistani forces and left 17 FC personnel dead. Nato authorities had been informed about the setting up of these two posts and quite clearly this area was not the one from which the Haqqani group infiltrates into Afghanistan to attack Isaf and Afghan forces.

The Nato response has, so far, been of regret and a claim that its forces attacked in self-defence. It has promised to hold an inquiry. But if Nato itself is the judge, jury and executioner, then there is little likelihood of a fair inquiry. Hence the demand by Pakistan for a joint inquiry is important.

Some broader issues related to this attack should be recalled. Perhaps the most important is that despite US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s genuine effort to resolve Afghanistan-related mutual concerns, there continues to be a serious trust deficit between Pakistan on one side and America and Afghanistan on the other.

Washington’s double policy of talking to and clobbering the Taliban simultaneously is preventing substantive operational level military cooperation. Hence, while on paper, 20 hours before the attack, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Isaf commander General John Allen met and agreed on “measures concerning coordination, communication and procedures for  enhancing border control on both sides”, on the ground the policy conflict between Pentagon-CIA and the State Department-White House is played out.

With the tragic assassination of Professor Rabbani, Pakistan-Afghan distrust has also widened. Are Kabul and the Pentagon also planning to carry out more raids given that the Haqqani network launches some of its attacks from the Pakistani territory? If so, this sixth attack by Isaf forces inside Pakistan’s territory since 2008, may not be the last one. These questions and perceptions notwithstanding, only a joint investigation can help provide credible answers. Through these attacks and the May 2 US-led invasion deep into Pakistan’s territory, Pakistan’s security and sovereignty are being gradually eroded. Only an appropriate policy response seeking corrective measures for the attack, not mainstream bombastic rhetoric coupled with concealed efforts to seek quid-pro-quos, will stop this erosion. A prudent policy response is not warranted merely because of public outrage. A prudent response, that the government must wisely craft and execute, is a state and security imperative.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 29^th, 2011.

Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s death has forced us all to refocus on the almost forgotten icon of Pakistan’s democracy. As the Bhuttos — especially Sanam, Fatima, Zulfikar Jr and the rest — deal with the pain of her death, there is bound to be some bickering, power struggle and politicking. But there is a larger canvas that deserves recall.

Prolonged illness had meant that the woman who bravely and resolutely led the resistance against Pakistan’s most toxic dictatorship, who was the head of the PPP’s women’s wing and subsequently became its chairperson and a senior minister in the government, has largely been absent from Pakistan’s political narrative. Among the few known written accounts of Begum Bhutto’s role in Pakistan’s democratic politics are the ones written by the widely respected Bashir Riaz, now a chronicler of the Bhutto family.

It was this iconic figure who carved out a path of resistance and subsequently of a collective democratic struggle in the shape of the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy — something that her equally brave daughter, Benazir, followed.

Until repeated tragedy broke her and she went into exile with her daughter, Begum Bhutto remained active on the domestic and international scene. In June 1993, she led, on then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s invitation, Pakistan’s delegation to the World Human Rights’ Conference in Vienna, and held her own with dignified ferocity. I was a delegate and saw her take up the cause of the Kashmiris with great conviction. In fact, she strongly chided the Foreign Office team for “trying to water down” her own text of the speech condemning Indian atrocities in the Valley. From the podium, in a hall full of delegates, Begum Bhutto shouted down the Indian delegates, who sought a right of reply to her very hard-hitting speech.

And when the Indian press raced towards her as she walked away from the podium and asked her question about Pakistan’s politics, she hit back saying “Do not try and divide us, here for the Kashmir cause we are all one.”

Begum Bhutto bore the brunt of repeated pain, of her husband’s trial and execution and finally after the violent deaths of her two young sons and subsequent intra-family pressures, Alzheimer’s pulled her away from public life. Burdened with these unbearable tragedies, it seems fate intervened with this memory-losing illness, as if to ease her pain.

Begum Bhutto and many others rose to the challenge of fighting a state that was most callous and ruthless and she came away walking tall. She has left us and our children a legacy of resistance and struggle that we will always be proud of. At the same time, we should never forget the times that she lived through because these were periods when the lives of many individuals were destroyed and when the country’s potential of a bright future was hijacked.

For Pakistan, the costs of dictatorship have been devastating. While there are many commentators who talk of the economic benefits of stable dictatorships, how do we ignore the yamounting and destabilising effect that they have on the nation? Dictatorships in Pakistan have delivered many a serious blow to democracy, derailing the one system that could hold our leaders and various state institutions accountable. Another point to note is that these dictatorships have contributed to the creation of our public narrative, which, thankfully, is now gradually being challenged.

We have to realise that the only way forward is a democratic system that allows us to hold accountable all those who are in positions of power and authority. Take the case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who had to make an agreement with the opposition. General Zia felt no such need because dictatorships are not held accountable. Empowered by a vindictive capitalist class, which saw itself as being wronged by Bhutto, he drove us away from what would have been a semblance of a functioning system.

Dictatorships rob us of our stars in their prime and we are left to lament them. The irony is that only now in her death are we extolling her and applauding her for what she did and endured through her life. Rising above all other divides, we need to give credit to the one woman who helped lay down the foundations of Pakistan’s most difficult and yet most principled struggle against dictatorship. She must be given her due place in Pakistan’s democratic history.

This is why she should make all of us feel ten feet tall.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 25^th, 2011.

ISLAMABAD: On October 1, almost nine months after the assassination of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, a brave judge, Parvez Ali Shah, of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), awarded a double death sentence to the self-confessed assassin.

For a befitting sentence such as this one, it would be completely out-of-place to praise a judge as being bold under normal circumstances, in a normal country — a country where the rule of law persists and where the influential and anarchists do not undermine the law by intimidating law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

But not in Pakistan.

The tragedy of Pakistan lies in the decades of policy blunders, where religion was used and abused. Security institutions created an environment of fear, passion and bloody violence in the name of religion, thereby undermining the normal functioning of the judiciary and the administrative system. And now there exist great distortions in powerful sections of the popular narratives regarding the role of religion in state, politics and society.

Irrespective of what prevails within the private sphere, intolerance and impatience are the hallmarks that dictate the expression of religion in the public sphere. Hence, it is within this context that judge Shah deserves to be called bold and brave.

The assassin’s supporters had managed to intimidate the state to the extent that the state prosecutor often found it difficult to enter the court, which was within the jail, through the front entrance. The judge, too, must have received threats, but his verdict dispenses justice, not a fear-ridden compromise of the rule of law.

As the defence prepares to file, within a week, an appeal against the death sentence in the high court, a new round of aggression has emerged on the streets. Not unexpected, opposition to this verdict has begun to emerge. Groups, sporadically and in small numbers, have gathered in different towns to condemn the sentence.

While it is entirely within the court’s purview to deal with the assassin’s appeal, the state, politicians and civil society must take necessary steps to ensure that the rule of law is upheld at all the stages of the assassin’s appeal. The following steps are particularly important.

One, the state must provide fool-proof security to the ATC judge who gave the verdict. Not only is this his right, but any harm to him will deter other judges from giving out sentences on merit.

Two, the government must come out, as should other political parties, to contest the arguments being put forth by the assassin’s defence.

Three, the government and other political parties must publicly engage those who have a working relationship with the supporters of the assassin and ones that are now taking to the streets to contest the ATC ruling.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 3^rd, 2011.

Pakistani politics witnessed a new first. Holding the Holy Quran in his hand and then placing it upon his head, Sindh’s senior minister Zulfiqar Ali Mirza made some very bold revelations against his friend’s key, even if troubled, political ally as well as his friend’s closest and most handy aide.

President Asif Ali Zardari perhaps now faces the biggest challenge of his political career as none other than his most loyal friend and senior minister Sindh, Zulfiqar Ali Mirza, at a press conference issued a loaded charge sheet. Mirza gave specific information along with alleged evidence, against all those he accused. He said the ongoing operation was meaningless and that the real killers were not being apprehended.

Zulfiqar Mirza’s attack has produced a complex political dynamic. One with the ‘evidence’ that Zulfiqar Mirza claims he has against the MQM’s alleged involvement in target killings, he has put the MQM under pressure. An MQM on the defensive provides political leverage to the PPP in its ongoing negotiations with that party. It may also help to stem the growing alienation of the Sindhis against the PPP leadership, especially earlier the mishandling of the revival of the local bodies.

The claims made by Zulfiqar Mirza can also potentially strengthen the PPP’s hand in the Supreme Court’s suo motto hearing on the Karachi target killing. The SC bench now meeting in Karachi is bound to call Zulfiqar Mirza to make good his claims in court.

(Read: Suo motu action on Karachi – CJ seeks report from chief secretary, IGP Sindh)

But the most challenging for PPP’s internal politics is Mirza’s attack on Rehman Malik. Zulfiqar Mirza has made specific charges against the interior minister, holding him responsible for leading a “farcical operation” and for being primarily committed to keeping the MQM on board. In addition to his criticism at the press conference, Zulfiqar Mirza, later in a television program insisted that the interior minister  “is Pakistan’s enemy and if Pakistan breaks up, then Rehman Malik will be responsible for it.”

Although Mirza insisted that he would remain loyal to the president till his dying day and would give his life in the party’s service, within the immediate context he has created major political challenges for the president. He has alleged that the president’s right-hand man is hand in glove with the killers of innocent citizens.

As for whether these extraordinary revelations will lead to any action against Rehman Malik or the MQM, the punch-line comes from Zulfiqar Mirza himself. While speaking on television he said, “I have rolled the ball, now the ball in the court of the president, army chief, the ISI chief, the PM, the speaker of parliament and the chairman of the senate.” Mirza expects them to use the evidence that he has presented to take action against the MQM and the interior minister.  He said the moment the CJP asks him to present himself in court, he will do so.

Zulfiqar Mirza may have become a thorn in the president’s side. But Mirza is one PPP leader that the president will not find it easy to sideline. He will also not able to easily brush aside the alleged charge sheet presented against Rehman Malik nor the MQM. Clearly these moves by Zardari’s closest friend puts the Karachi operation in an even greater spotlight and for all the wrong reasons. It also sharply exposes the weaknesses in Zardari’s politics of “mufahimmat.”

The questions that Mirza’s charge sheet raises only confirms public criticism of the operation. Questions that have no easy answers but ones that will now be repeatedly asked by many political and non-political stake-holders from across the country.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 29^th,  2011.

The talks scheduled today in New Delhi between the foreign minister of Pakistan and India are the culmination of the post-Mumbai phase of diplomacy between the two countries that started at the Thimphu meeting in April 2010 between Prime Ministers Yousaf Raza Gilani and Dr Manmohan Singh. At Thimphu, the two leaders had expressed their resolve that a working dialogue track be resumed as soon as possible. At Thimphu again, in February of this year, the foreign secretaries met and firmed up details of fresh rounds of bilateral talks between the eight working groups. In between the two meetings held at Thimphu, the Pakistani and Indian home ministers met to cover ground on the 26/11 Mumbai attacks investigation.

The significance of Thimphu was that Indian and Pakistani political leaderships together came to the conclusion that the post-26/11 strategy of making substantive dialogue conditional on progress in the Mumbai investigation was counterproductive for both the Mumbai investigations as well as the bilateral relationship.

At the conclusion of the Delhi talks today, the likely announcements will cover a new visa regime to promote people-to-people contact, confidence-building measures to increase travel and trade between the divided Kashmirs and dates for meetings of the reconstituted working groups of experts. Perhaps Pakistan’s agreement to give ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) status, conveyed during the commerce secretary-level talks, may also be announced. Beyond the content, a decision on the structure of the dialogue process, the active revival of the Joint Ministerial Commission (JMC) will also be announced. Set up in the 1980s, the JMC has met intermittently, depending on the state of bilateral relations and the preferred dialogue track of the governments in power. For example, in 2005, it met after a break of 16 years. Its last session was held in February 2007 but will now be formally revived. This also means that technical-level working groups on agriculture, health, science and technology could well be revived, since they came under the JMC’s ambit.

The impending resumption of a multiple-track engagement between two nuclear-armed neighbours — home to millions of economically, socially and security-deprived citizens — is a welcome development. Equally, Delhi’s decision to opt for a cooperative as opposed to a confrontational approach on Mumbai and Pakistan’s decision to give the MFN status to India are important steps towards improving the context within which there can be substantive cooperation between the two countries.

Some specific issues and developments of late seem to have pushed Islamabad and New Delhi to re-engage. There is the US and Nato troops drawdown in Afghanistan and the search for a reconciliation formula once troops leave; the re-entry of the Taliban; Pakistan’s own comprehensive counterterrorism thrust in Fata; the issue of home-grown Hindu and Muslim militancy within India and India’s quest for a permanent UNSC seat, to name but a few.

Indeed a meaningful engagement will require not only no war, no diplomatic and political antagonism and no interrupted dialogue process, but also resolution of all outstanding problems. It is here where the score-card, so to speak, remains weak.

And now for a bit of a background on the composite dialogue itself which dates back 14 years. Agreement on holding a composite dialogue on its modalities and the issues to be discussed were first worked out and announced during the Nawaz Sharif-IK Gujral government in the Joint Statement of June 23, 1997, announced by then foreign secretaries Shamshad Ahmad and Salman Haider. Working Groups were to be set up to deal with eight issues: Peace and security (including CBMs), Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Wullar, Sir Creek, terrorism and drug trafficking (not ‘cross-border terrorism’), economic and commercial cooperation and the promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields. The foreign secretaries were to deal with peace and security and Kashmir, and “also coordinate and monitor the progress of work of all the working groups”.

While this latest round of post-Mumbai diplomacy may have improved the context of the bilateral relationship, the socio-economic, ideological and security challenges that Pakistan and India are both confronted with requires movement on resolving all outstanding problems. Unless this is done, it will be difficult to sustain substantive bilateral cooperation or to revise the existing threat perception that each country has of the other.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 27^th,  2011.