The Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, convened by the Afghan government, started its deliberations in Kabul on November 16. The jirga was attended by nearly 2,000 delegates drawn from all parts of the country. Two broad themes constituted the main agenda for the assembly: a) to consider the parameters of a long-term engagement with the United States that will commit the latter to provide economic assistance and also establish permanent military presence in Afghanistan; and b) to arrive at a consensus on how and on what terms to enter into negotiations with the resistance.

Those who were attending the jirga were all nominated by the government; carefully selected with a view to obtaining a resounding ‘yes’ for the decision, already reached, to allow long-term US military presence in the country. However, in an assembly of 2,000 participants, there inevitably were some who opposed the government move, thereby creating an impression of members being under no pressure or obligation to support the government.

The following facts, however, militate against the proceedings being regarded as a genuine expression of the will of the people: a) No one from the resistance participated in the deliberations; b) On the one hand, the Afghan president has been calling the US forces an army of occupation; on the other hand he is seeking an extended role for such an ‘occupation’ army; c) The coalition forces have, in the last 10 years, killed more than 130,000 innocent civilians.

The jirga delivered its expected verdict on November 19, according to which American military presence in Afghanistan, under what is generally regarded as a puppet government was, in fact, legitimised.

Afghanistan could thus, in the calculations of the Pentagon and the CIA, become a US satellite that would help achieve the following wider objectives: a) Permanent deployment of US combat troops along the Iranian border would be a sword of Damocles around Iran; b) The US would become an accepted partner in establishing its influence in the Central Asia region. The oil and gas deposits of Central Asia would no longer be out of reach for the US; c) China would no longer be allowed to establish its monopoly in terms of political influence in Central Asia; d) Such a presence in Afghanistan would afford the US an opportunity to watch with an intimidating eye the development of nuclear programmes; e) Such being the post-2014 scenario, it would almost certainly create an acute anti-US sentiment in both China and Iran.

If Pakistan continues to lend its support to such US military presence in Afghanistan by continuing to allow vital supplies to pass through its territory, relations with both China and Iran could come under severe strain. This may, incidentally, be one of the camouflaged objectives that the US could seek to achieve. But any cracks developing in relations with China and Iran would be seen with the greatest concern by the people of Pakistan.

A far greater danger, however, would be the continuing fighting in Afghanistan itself that such permanent presence could almost certainly provoke. Constant turmoil in Afghanistan, as tribes defy and challenge US military occupation of the country, could be a substantial factor for instability in the whole region. Imperial hubris has forced yet another unnecessary war and unwarranted occupation of a small, impoverished country. Even the most trumpeted but invalid argument of making Afghanistan save al Qaeda, has lost its relevance. But for the mostly gullible American public, this is the only ridiculous reasoning that is put forward by the new conservatives to justify a senseless, brutalising campaign.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 22^nd, 2011.

One of the most remarkable developments of the 20^th century has been the capacity of nations to bolster economic ties even though they remain sharply divided on many vital issues. Thus the US and the former Soviet Union, despite confronting each other for decades, allowed bilateral trade relations to develop. The China-Taiwan and China-India relations are a case in point. A notable exception was India and Pakistan. There was (and still is) a small but powerful lobby that argues that trade relations can only happen once the Kashmir issue has been ‘resolved’.

The proponents of such a line of thinking would acquiesce in making the 1.38 billion people of the subcontinent hostage to their paranoid concept of nationhood. This lobby has, by and large, held sway over the formulation of policy since the inception of this country. Even if the Kashmir problem is not resolved in the next 50 to 100 years, that would, in their view, be no justification to move to normalise relations in key sectors like bilateral trade. Sadly, their position remained unchallenged because espousing a different viewpoint was considered by many to be risky in terms of ‘political survival’.

There is now a palpable movement for change in the obscurantist mindset. The trouble is, those who are prisoners of a mindset or philosophy that despises any dispassionate evaluation of pros and cons of a certain policy do not seem to be amenable to logic and reasoning.

Not very long ago, two eminent Pakistani economists appeared on two different TV talk shows — Mr Shahid Javed Burki, a former finance minister and world bank officer, Dr Ishrat Husain, a former state bank governor. They both argued strongly in favour of normalisation of trade with India and proved, with the help of verifiable statistics, that Pakistan would be a net gainer by any such opening of trade. In view of their very well-reasoned and emphatic assertions, there should be no room for any further misgiving and doubts about any negative fallout on Pakistan should trade ties be fully normalised.

Some critics view this initiative in a restricted framework. It is argued that some relatively cheap Indian manufacturers would adversely affect a few industries in Pakistan. This may happen in a small number of cases. But the bedrock of a lasting relationship between India and Pakistan is people-to-people contact. There would inevitably be downstream effects, e.g. on transport, hotels and restaurants, and a slow but assured expansion of mutually beneficial contacts in the fields of education, science and technology, agriculture etc. In the ultimate analysis, it would change and herald a new era of more open, transparent and meaningful engagement in a number of sectors. It could change the politics of South Asia.

The two countries have carried a baggage of unresolved issues ranging from Kashmir to Sir Creek. As if that was not enough, Afghanistan is fast emerging as a potential battlefield for a proxy war that both nations must strive to avoid at all costs. In this bleak background, if there is a silver lining, it must be greeted with an open mind and enthusiasm.

More than one-fifth of humanity cannot be in bondage indefinitely because some people would prefer to prolong the agony. They need to wake up to the call of the 21^st century.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 17^th,  2011.

The UN Security Council has decided to prepare separate lists for the Afghan Taliban and for al Qaeda activists. Henceforth, the Taliban and al Qaeda will be treated as two separate entities. In another move, the council will also approve the removal of about twenty Taliban leaders from the UN blacklist.

According to US perceptions, this is a confidence building measure and will, in their view, pave the way for the start of a dialogue with leaders of the Afghan resistance. At the same time, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed that the US is engaged in talks with the Taliban. While it appears that some covert contacts have been made with the resistance in Afghanistan, this does not mean that talks for ending the conflict have begun. One possibility is that talks are underway with the ‘go-betweens’. The US and other western countries, principally the UK, may have been talking to those who claim to take messages back and forth to the main resistance leaders. Future talks will centre around items such as agenda, scope, level of delegations, venue and preconditions, if any. Whether these also relate to the release of prisoners before an ambience can be created for conflict resolution talks remains to be seen.

There are no indications yet of the Taliban showing any inclination to deviate from their consistent stand: No negotiations as long as the coalition forces are on the soil of their country. It appears highly unlikely that this stand has been abandoned or modified. Further, there are two factors that have constantly haunted the Taliban leadership in the context of opening talks with the US. One, resistance leaders believe that the offer of talks is bait designed to create a rift in the ranks of the Taliban. Second, they are of the view that any news of formal talks with the US will blunt their campaign and demotivate their supporters from waging a relentless war against the coalition forces. Resistance leaders have this nagging fear that, once fighting ceases as a consequence of ‘peace talks’, the campaign will lose momentum.

But there could be a genuine US effort aimed at seeking reconciliation with the resistance under some mutually agreeable conditions. A way out could be the installation of a caretaker administration that comprises representatives, chosen in consultation with members of the resistance and the Afghan government, under an overarching peace accord. Under this accord, the coalition forces will withdraw completely and a limited peace-keeping force under UN mandate will be inducted to prevent any possible factional fighting. Elections after a stipulated period of time will be held under UN auspices that will create a parliament which reflects the aspirations of the Afghan people.

Another model could be the convening of a conference of all stakeholders — Russia, China, Turkey, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — which will lay down certain basic benchmarks for the future of Afghanistan. The agreement, ratified by the UN, will bind these countries to a commitment to ensure that al Qaeda and its affiliates have no space in the country and that Afghanistan does not allow its soil to be used against any other country. This would be done parallel to the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The blacklist will go, prisoners will be released and Afghans will be facilitated in devising appropriate political and administrative institutions for their country.

If the intention is to save and stabilise Afghanistan and launch it on a trajectory of peace and prosperity, underpinned by institutions and the rule of law, the opportunities are vast and the options are many. But if the emphasis is on turfs, personal agenda or regional hegemony, then the future looks bleak and dark. If history is any guide, one cannot create an edifice of stability on shaky foundations. Afghanistan should not be made a scapegoat for hegemonic ambitions.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 24^th, 2011.

Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s sentence of 86 years of imprisonment by a US court is both shocking and surprising. It seems to be based on a bizarre story – constructed around the allegations that a woman in custody attempted to snatch a rifle from an American soldier with the intent to kill him. And this found credence and conviction with a court of law. How could there be any legal justification for such a preposterously concocted narrative?

The court ignored a vital missing ingredient in the prosecution case, namely the period between her capture from Karachi by operatives of an intelligence agency and her subsequent arrest more than a year later from central Afghanistan and paid no heed to the abuse that she was subjected to while being held in illegal detention in Bagram base by US military.

To have been held in unlawful custody, to have been subjected to physical abuse in Bagram, to have been denied facilities of self-defence for five years and to have been convicted on wholly fabricated charges is one aspect of this painful saga.

The other side of the story is equally grim and shameful. It was General Musharraf and the leaders of an elite intelligence agency who arrested Dr Siddiqui along with her small children and, having separated her from her siblings, presented her as a gift to the US military in one of the most disgraceful acts ever committed by the head of an Islamic country or by the ruler of any country. The “commando” president would later audaciously claim credit for handing over such suspects (refer to his book In the line of fire). It is this aspect that now needs to be analysed and addressed. Former President Musharraf is as guilty as the unjust criminal law system that operates in the US for the conviction of a helpless Muslim woman. Any such appraisal would require an exhaustive investigation of our state organisations and their unlimited powers to arrest, torture and at times handover suspects to foreign countries without being held to account for any of these actions.

If we had institutions like a sovereign parliament, Musharraf and those who implemented immoral and unlawful actions would have faced a rigourous process of accountability. Not only that, the parliament would have made laws that would stand in the way of any such oligarchs who consider themselves to be above the law or who could behave in such a disgraceful manner while in occupation of the highest offices in the land, and it would have the capability to enforcing its directives.

But if history is any judge this will also pass and soon we will be overtaken by other events. Long live the Islamic Republic.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 30^th, 2010.

Pakistan is no stranger to crises. Many therefore believe that the current troubles will also blow over. The institutional debacle that has triggered the current mayhem, however, points in a different and ominous direction. A quick return to any semblance of normalcy is not on the cards. A survey of the administration and political landscape would leave no sane observer in any doubt that the country is on the edge of a precipice. Still reeling from the devastation of floods, the problem of rehabilitation and reconstruction is emerging as a challenge to the capacity and resources of the country.

Mismanagement of rescue and relief has left its indelible imprint on the psyche of the people. Close on the heels come the blasts in different cities that have taken a heavy toll of life, they are senseless massacres of innocent human beings that tarnish the image of the country. As if that is not enough, relentless target killings in Karachi haunt the country and the bewildered citizens of the mega city. But not to be left far behind are the aircraft that drop bombs on Kurram, Orakzai and Bara to take out suspected terrorists, in the process killing and wounding innocent civilians. US drones, operating from bases gifted to them in Pakistan, make their ugly appearance and mercilessly butcher civilians as if they were stray cattle.

But that is not enough; so the cricketers sell their souls for money to bring more “glory” to Pakistan. Why should the police be far behind! They become part of a gory and despicable spectacle of the lynching of two children in Sialkot. A rally is attacked and dozens are killed in Quetta — by whom, for what and why, we will never know. This is the picture that is emerging of a state that was ostensibly created to foster harmony, brotherhood and promote the virtues of pluralism and democracy.

The masses having been left in the lurch do not know what to do or whom to follow. With no alternate leadership or a system that can catch the attention of the people, there is despondency all over. It is as if clouds of total despair and helplessness have enveloped the whole country. What is not realised is that if prompt and institutionalised remedial measures are not adopted, the systems not changed, the guilty not held accountable, vital reforms not introduced, the present system will burst at the seams heralding the advent of anarchy and chaos. True, the US has an interest in ensuring that there is a modicum of stability in the country that would facilitate its own agenda in the region, but there are limitations to the US role in Pakistan. A system that is premised on continued US financial and military assistance is fundamentally flawed. It prolongs the agony.

Perhaps there is little time left to address the growing problem of lawlessness that is concomitant and illustrative of institutional collapse. The country needs desperately a leadership that has vision, courage and mass following to institute and implement reforms that would reflect the aspirations of the people on the one hand and ensure that Pakistan extricates itself from the morass of the so-called “war on terror” on the other. Only a fundamental restructuring of priorities can help. Half-hearted measures will not deliver.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 20^th, 2010.

The signs are ominous to say the least: an insurgency that does not seem to be fading, the population in the tribal areas faced with a holocaust, floods ravaging towns, villages, crops and houses all around; corruption peaking at all levels, the Baloch up in arms as never before, an inept and incompetent political leadership that cannot or does not comprehend the whole dynamic of the current crises and a less than visionary opposition which could lay down an alternative. Has the Pakistani state fallen by the wayside or are these symptoms of a still more frightening scenario?

The biggest challenge is to restore the confidence of the masses in the continuing viability of the state. When a people lose faith in the destiny of a country it is a moment for deep reflection. Rhetoric, slogans and an appeal to emotions will no longer work with a population that has been fed lies for six decades and which is traumatised, bruised and now pulverised by the elements. The concept of social justice has remained hollow and devoid of substance for most Pakistanis as poverty has increased.

Have we paused and considered what price we are paying for neglecting to provide quality education for everyone? That is one area which should have attracted attention at the highest level. Human resource development is a key ingredient in the socio-economic uplift of a people. In the region, we seem to be spending the least amount as a percentage of GDP on education.

Rule of law, since the inception of the country, has passed us by. There can be no architecture of peace and prosperity without the rule of law and respect for institutions.

For over six decades now, we have accepted Kashmir as a core issue. We have confronted India,fought wars and invested an awesome amount of resources into building our defence capability, all at the expense of the common man, education, health care and the eradication of poverty. The teeming millions of Pakistan, the hungry, the dispossessed, the illiterate have nothing to do with the Kashmir policy that has cost us dearly. The debilitating effects of ill-conceived, expediency-driven policies that have no rationale and serve no national interests have begun to corrode and shake the foundations of Pakistan.

The hour of reckoning is close. There is a need for new, far-sighted, courageous leadership that has vision and that can launch the country on a new trajectory of social, economic political reforms, provide a new social contract and that would design and craft a new bold approach to normalising relations with India.

The alternative to this course is the continuance of a debilitating status quo.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 19^th, 2010.

When so much energy is spent on rhetoric and speeches, little is left to execute a programme to meet the challenges posed by calamities such as the air crash in the capital and the floods that have swept Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and parts of Punjab.

Such a disorganised response only emanates from countries where there are no institutions or little respect for systems or rule of law. While TV reporters could reach the hilltop where the aircraft wreckage was lying, officials of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) could not. Even university students managed to reach the site to help in the rescue operation only to find that there were no arrangements to collect body parts and the belongings of those who had perished in the crash.

An institutional response would have meant specialised teams of experts, well-equipped, dispatched immediately to scan through the wreckage, collect body parts, scavenge through the debris for any items of relevance, remove the debris, dig out human remains and dispatch this material to hospitals for DNA tests and identification of bodies and hand over all other material to the inquiry team.

Why does every such tragedy catch us off-guard? Particularly when we are a country, unfortunately, so used to acts of violence and explosions. Other than lack of institutions the reason for our awkward and inadequate response is that we immediately turn to our favourite hobby of making speeches — as if they will diminish the quantum of tragedy or provide solace to those who lost their loved ones.

The devastating floods that have swept KP and parts of Punjab have left a trail of unquantifiable suffering. While news reporters were seen amongst those who were marooned, no government help was in sight. On a few occasions when a fraction of survivors were reached, the event was widely publicised, as if publicity was more important.

When there used to be a provincial relief commissioner the response to such disasters was more immediate and well-coordinated. If we are so fond of creating new organisations is a provincial relief organisation not a better option to provide instantaneous relief, with the federal government body acting only in support?

We seem to be perennially short on substance and long on symbolism. While people have died, made homeless overnight, crops destroyed, businesses disrupted and bridges dismantled we display the same lack of measured and focused response to the gigantic task of rehabilitation as we did to the disaster itself.

In the meantime, there are more “courageous” pronouncements, TV appearances and endless briefings. But a panic-stricken population who has been fed lies countless times before would not be willing to have anything to do with these unending gimmicks. They would pray for a messiah to emerge to bring order, decency, justice and sanity to the land of the pure.c

Published in The Express Tribune, August 3^rd, 2010.

The sensational revelations contained in the voluminous leaks compiled by Wikileaks, have potentially crippling consequences for Pakistan. However, the government of Pakistan may be able to deal effectively with the material that relates to its intelligence agencies helping some militant groups with plots for carrying out assassination of Afghan leaders. This could be done since many of the reports have no genuine foundation. For instance, some of the material is based on reports provided by the National Defence Directorate — Afghanistan’s intelligence agency — which has a known bias against Pakistan and its policies.

Amrullah Saleh, until recently the Panjsheri chief of the Afghan intelligence agency, had consistently worked to undermine Pakistan’s position and standing with Afghan policymakers, during his long tenure. There would, therefore, be a clear motive in presenting such manufactured or concocted evidence before the US security forces in order to achieve a desired objective. But there is no doubt that the evidence or reports that have been made public, would have grave and serious implications for Pakistan-Afghanistan relations in the months and years to come.

Both governments, under intense American pressure, would not allow a permanent breach to occur in their relations because that would negatively impinge on the US agenda in the region. But in the realm of relations in its totality, the damage would be substantial. The reports could provide fuel to those groups in Afghanistan who blame Pakistan for the many sufferings of their people and country.

The development would also reduce space for Pakistan as a peace broker and would tarnish its image as a country that is only seeking a peaceful, stable Afghanistan.

A tremendous amount of hard work, coupled with brilliant diplomacy may help contain the negative fallout of the reports. Pakistan has deployed more than 100,000 troops on the border in order to provide stability to the regime in Kabul. It also continues to allow 65 per cent of US/Nato supplies to pass through its territory.

The intelligence agencies throughout the world keep contact with all relevant players in a conflict. The important point is, have these contacts prevented Pakistan from acting in a way it has operated in support of the coalition forces in the last nine years?

This standpoint would help salvage the situation to an extent. But there may not be many takers of this explanation in the US Congress and the mainstream US media.

The many sceptics on the Hill, in the CIA, in the Pentagon and the state department as well as the influential media and the think tanks would launch new reinvigorated attacks on Pakistan’s credentials — its motives for standing with the coalition forces and its futuristic view of Afghanistan. This will be reflected in reduced funding, diminished level of cooperation, less support for Pakistan, vis-a-vis India and greater American-Afghan collaboration in order to prevent a post US-pullout Afghanistan falling into the lap of Pakistan’s establishment.

These are very serious consequences. With regard to its motives and role in Afghanistan, Pakistan is potentially in deep trouble. The way out of this impasse is not only launching a robust defence of its policies, exposing the many inaccuracies in the reports, questioning the motives, but also in a reappraisal of its entire policy — a policy that is based on the whole hearted support of the coalition forces at the cost of destabilising Pakistan itself.

Pakistan should sincerely promote a genuine reconciliation process based on a recognition of Afghanistan’s independence and sovereignty and ensuring the mainstreaming of all resistance groups in the political process of Afghanistan. That will have to be premised on the withdrawal of all coalition forces.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29^th, 2010.

With so many powers in contention for dominance in our region, the contest has assumed new dimensions. Oil, gas and untapped mineral wealth have galvanised regional powers to seek ever greater shares in investments in a world which is destined to run out of natural energy resources in the next half century. In this perspective of economic rivalry, Afghanistan figures prominently.

The three major powers – US, Russia and China – have major, often conflicting, goals in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Russia, the erstwhile ruler of central Asia, is wary of a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan whilst China would not want to see the restive Sinkiang province used by militants who have roots in Afghanistan.

It is in their interest that the US prevents extremist forces from gaining power in their respective areas of interest. However, they would show serious concern if there were any signs of permanent Nato presence in these areas once the combat phase is over. The policy of reconciliation and reintegration being pursued vigorously in Afghanistan is also viewed from different perspectives. President Hamid Karzai is trying to reach out to the estranged militants in order to persuade them to get into the mainstreamed political process.

His holding of a grand assembly of elders in Kabul next month is a step in that direction. But distances are growing between him and the Americans. The US goal is to achieve some semblance of military victory before the November 2010 congressional elections. But they have little inclination towards long, drawn-out negotiations with diehard fundamentalists who are now battling the coalition forces. Thus, when Karzai invited the Iranian president to Kabul, the US was annoyed.

When Pakistan decided to detain Mullah Baradar, a senior Taliban leader, the Afghan government expressed displeasure because it felt this would sabotage negotiations they were illegally having with certain Taliban leaders. India is concerned about Pakistan patronising a Taliban government, if one was to emerge after the withdrawal of coalition forces. While all these countries are pushing forward conflicting agendas, little is being done to end the conflict that has caused such devastation.

Pakistan’s policy contours are inexplicable at best. It is not making the emergence of an independent and stable Afghanistan a top priority, even though this is in its best interests. An India-centric approach takes the focus away from fundamental problems that need to be resolved. And in recent weeks it has declared that a withdrawal of coalition forces would be a grave error.

If Pakistan, which is supposed to have the best insight into the dynamics of this conflict, shows a total lack of understanding about the factors that continue to fuel the insurgency, it must be a sorry state of affairs. Pakistan, bogged down in trivialities, is not emphasising on seeking a durable solution to the conflict. Any convergence of US and Pakistan objectives would be deemed to be clashing with India’s interest. Any act that brings Iran and Afghanistan together would be viewed with suspicion in Washington.

Any notion of permanent US presence in the country would raise deep concerns in Beijing and Moscow. Any talk of reconciliation with the Taliban would be opposed by Iran, Russia and India. This has added to the immense complexity of the new Great Game. For Pakistan to steer past this awfully complicated situation would require vision, foresight and statesmanship of the highest degree.