Can Pakistan end terrorism?

Published: April 16, 2011
SHARES
Email
The writer is an HEC distinguished national professor and Professor Emeritus at the National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 
tariq.rahman@tribune.com.pk

The writer is an HEC distinguished national professor and Professor Emeritus at the National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad [email protected]

Ihe United States Congress Report on Anti-Terrorism was not acceptable to Pakistan, according to a report of April 7 quoting a Foreign Office spokesperson. The report had reiterated that Pakistan still had no ‘clear path’ to end terrorism. This was another way of saying that Pakistan has a double-faced policy towards terrorist groups operating from its soil. While some are fought against, others are not touched. This is not a new complaint as this policy was put into practice after 2001, when former president General Pervez Musharraf became an ally of the United States when the US attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Musharraf wanted to have it both ways: Take American money to fight the Taliban while also protecting some of the militants in the Quetta Shura to acquire ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan when the American finally leave. Certain groups in Punjab, which also carry out sectarian killings, are protected so that they can be used against India. The army and intelligence agencies view these groups as strategic assets because of their India-centric perception of foreign policy. That the same groups have a world view which they may impose, with force and coercion, on the public and that this may violate human rights, womens’ rights and increase anarchy in the country are considerations which do not enter into the equation.

The policy has had several effects. First, it never fooled the Americans who have been constantly saying ‘do more’ to the Pakistanis. Secondly, it has made bitter enemies of certain militant groups which have attacked the police, the army and the intelligence agencies to take revenge and destabilise the regime. Thirdly, it has prevented Pakistan from making friends with India because the militant groups have attacked India — with or without the consent of the Pakistani state — and remain opposed to peace. Fourthly, the policy had confused the common people of Pakistan who now believe the most incredible conspiracy theories including the absurd idea that it is America and India who support the militants. This has made any concerted action against the militants difficult and rare. The action in Swat, though much delayed, was a success, but it was a rare occurrence because for once the public was almost united in its support of the military action against Maulvi Fazlullah’s forces.

The facts, which keep appearing in our media, are that the militants who are caught are Pakistanis and some are Afghans. Many of them have confessed to being trained for suicide bombing in parts of Fata. For instance, on April 3, Fida Hussain, a fifteen-year-old boy, was caught after the suicide bombing on the shrine of the Sufi saint, Sakhi Sarwar. He said that more than 300 young boys were being trained to become suicide bombers in North Waziristan. This attack was owned by Ehsanullah Ehsan, the spokesman of the Taliban. And yet, the media played this down and common people still believe that the bombings are carried out by the American secret services. The army still believes it should keep out of North Waziristan so as to use the Haqqani network to find ‘depth’ in Afghanistan.

Indeed, the state has lied so much to the people that it can take no decisive action against militancy. Sectarian killers in Karachi, even after they have confessed to many murders, cannot be punished because their parent organisations are considered assets by the army and the intelligence agencies. These elements are India-centric and, of course, the army has always been India-centric. The trouble with this policy is that parts of Pakistan have been lost to the Taliban. In February 2006, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan was formed. In September that year, Pakistan signed a peace accord with it. Since then, we are in a state of constant war and no normal Pakistani citizen can walk in and out of this war zone. Indeed, even in 2000, before 9/11, we had lost our land to the militants and had suffered 14 bomb blasts. Even then, television sets were burnt and music was discouraged. In short, our state had abandoned our citizens to militants who imposed their lifestyle upon them.

As long as this double-faced policy remains, Pakistan cannot end terrorism. There are, however, alternatives. One is that Pakistan should adopt the policy of fighting the Taliban wholeheartedly and sincerely, while rewarding those of them who lay down arms. This should go simultaneously with finding jobs for former Taliban and countering their world view with a more peaceful interpretation of Islam. But even while fighting, I do not advocate drone attacks as they kill too many innocent people. However, in that case, both the Americans and the Pakistanis will have to use the infantry, which will mean that more body bags will go to the US and come to our own cities. The other policy is that we should no longer be part of the American alliance against the militants in Afghanistan. We should go our own way by making peace with the militants in Fata. This will mean giving the tribal agencies, in which the militants already dominate or which they influence, to them as a buffer state between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It will also mean abandoning all the inhabitants of these areas to the mercy of the militants. It will actually be a defeat but maybe it can buy us the peace we need so much. The state should then keep the militants out of the rest of Pakistan and counter their narrative on ideological grounds, while trying to win over the people who join them because of poverty and injustice. But this should go along with a strict policy of dismantling the militant groups in Punjab as far as possible, with persuasion as long as that works. On no account should the state itself patronise the militant groups in Punjab or elsewhere in Pakistan. On no account should we fight a proxy war against India or try to influence events in Afghanistan except as good neighbours. In short, the India-centric policy would have to be abandoned. There will be resistance to this, but it will be possible to take action against it if we do not have to fight in Fata also. In short, whatever policy is adopted, it should be sincere, clear and transparent and, of course, it should be meant to bring peace to this troubled land. And, above all, this policy must be clearly presented to the people of Pakistan so that they may abandon the conspiracy theories which make it impossible for them to think clearly and decide what is good for them.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 17th, 2011.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (40)

  • Apr 16, 2011 - 10:41PM

    The problem appears to be that while ending terrorism is desirable, doing so, at America’s behest is not! People do not support entering into N Waziristan as that has been succesfully painted as an American wish, and not in Pakistan’s interest. As long as that remains, those in N Waziristan can get away with quite literally, murder. The same people argue that the Haqqani’s only target NATO operations in Pakistan, and are not responsible for attacks within Pakistan. Even if we agree that that that is indeed the case, how does that project Pakistan as a country from whom a non-state actor governs a sizable area and launches aggressive attacks in another country? There is no national political will to tackle terrorism because ironically, not tackling is seen as a patriotic move to defy America and assert our sovereignty. When attacks do happen, we can blame CIA-RAW-Mossad and look the other way. 30,000 and counting, that is the death tool. How many more?Recommend

  • John
    Apr 16, 2011 - 10:58PM

    Thank you, and nice to see a sane voice. I have been arguing on this forum on the same line, except on the drones.

    Does PAK consider FATA, its sovereign territory? If yes, then get in and root out the global agenda militants. If not PAK can not complain of the drones doing PAK job in the name of sovereignty. Some one in the forum gave a nice analogy of Equating FATA militants to Mosquitos and how the PAK complaints of drones are similar to complaining against mosquito eradication program.

    Keeping them as strategic assets have not helped PAK so far. It is one of the bad investments, and time to dumb them.

    If only war is nice and clean, there will be war everyday. Drone attacks have killed some civilians, but over all it is a successful operation, acknowledged as such by PAK military.

    Dump US in war? PAK has already done it and it has not helped her.Recommend

  • faraz
    Apr 16, 2011 - 11:04PM

    I oppose the FATA buffer solution. Punjab is the main ideological stronghold of extremists. The current leadership of TTP are members of Lashar e Jhangvi, a sectarian terrorist organization, which was formed in Punjab during the 80s. The poor tribals of FATA have been so ruthlessly exploited by the mullah military alliance that their centuries old traditions and culture have been buried under the ideologies of hate. I have complete sympathies for a child of a poor tribal who was indoctrinated for Afghan jihad or strategic depth and turned into an extremists talib. Recommend

  • Cautious
    Apr 16, 2011 - 11:05PM

    So you boil it down to 1) Fight the militants within the tribal territories using both American and Pakistani foot soldiers but somehow not drones because they create civilian casualties (but foot soldiers won’t?) or 2) use the tribal territories as a buffer between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Wake up – Pakistan already rejected America’s offer to go in with Pakistani troops and put these territories in Pakistani control – they were turned down. You don’t want infidel soldiers in the “land of the pure”. As for your second alternative – that’s what you have now and it’s not working out so well for you – it’s the reason that the American’s are using drones. Here’s a 3’rd alternative. Pakistan gives NATO the right to conduct any and all operations within the tribal territories – acknowledges it has no real control of those territories and renounces any sovereignty issues. In effect let others clean up your mess.Recommend

  • bhutjolokia
    Apr 16, 2011 - 11:10PM

    DreamerRecommend

  • PriyaSuraj
    Apr 16, 2011 - 11:36PM

    Pakistan should never have adopted the policy of non state actors and strategic depth from the beginning. Policy makers in Pakistan suffer from short sightedness and lack of vision. Moreover they are unwilling to accept that their policy failed in its objective (of wresting Kashmir) and they need to rework their plans. They need to understand that if you want to change the output, change the input. Life as they say is all about Karma, you reap what you sow (and before anyone gets defensive about Pakistan, this applies to India, America and everyone). Recommend

  • UncleSaram
    Apr 17, 2011 - 12:35AM

    Excellent article Dr Rehman. Sadly, very few Pakistanis will get to read it.

    Pakistan could have leveraged the momentum gained from the successful Swat campaign to rid the country of Taliban but I think that was never Army’s intention. Recommend

  • saleem
    Apr 17, 2011 - 12:39AM

    Agree with the author except for the drone attacks and FATA as buffer zone. Drone attacks are right on target by killing those militants which our army do not want to kill. On the other count, FATA is not breeding terrorism but it is army and punjabi talibans who are using their land. In fact people of FATA have formed Lashkars to fight talibans. Recommend

  • Apr 17, 2011 - 1:56AM

    I absolutely believe that terrorists don’t believe in any law so it shouldn’t be a law to protect them.they are murders and ruthless killers . They kill everyone even muslims,thanx to intiterrorRecommend

  • Srinath
    Apr 17, 2011 - 2:31AM

    The analysis is spot on. But, will the Army, the institution which benefits most from the status quo, abandon its India-centric policy?Recommend

  • Shabbir
    Apr 17, 2011 - 2:56AM

    Lucid analysis…absolutely spot on.Recommend

  • Milestogo
    Apr 17, 2011 - 5:15AM

    Most Pakistani intellectual beat their chest that America is getting a beatin in Afghanistan like ussr and Vietnam but nobody is thinking what will happen once they leave defeated.

    Taliban will seek revenge and a homeland and shariat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Get ready fir the real battle.Recommend

  • vasan
    Apr 17, 2011 - 6:36AM

    Atlast one real article explaining the reasons for the “Conspiracy” theories involving RAW/CIA and Mossad. Will this prof’s article be believed by the common man?Recommend

  • anfield kop
    Apr 17, 2011 - 8:40AM

    @PriyaSuraj: very well said. india is an example vis-a-vis ltte and sri lanka. Recommend

  • hassan
    Apr 17, 2011 - 10:02AM

    Does Pakistan Want To End Terrorism?
    We need to answer this first……Recommend

  • bvindh
    Apr 17, 2011 - 10:20AM

    Pakistan can not end terrorism because that would mean the end of Pakistan itself.Recommend

  • Cosmo
    Apr 17, 2011 - 10:55AM

    what about Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul?, your article seems to suggest that they have been lying all along in Pakistani TV channels, and the public wouldn’t even care to realize it?Recommend

  • Apr 17, 2011 - 11:29AM

    Agree with the doctor on all issues including the drone issue. About the buffer zone in fata – perhaps only in the short run.

    But doctor – there are no takers for your theory. Forget the army and ISI bigwigs, you will find no takers among the civilians. Even the normally sane host of Aapas Ki baat will counter your argument and talk about the alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan. The more militant Talat Hussain will pooh pooh this by saying that you are asking for the ‘sacred cow’ aka Kashmir to be forsaken.

    A simple ‘let us not sacrifice our interests for an India-centric policy’ will be interpreted as follows: The author is not mohibe watan, the author does not care for Kashmiri widows and orphans, the author is backed by the Bugtis and Raw, the author was in a party that Raymond Davis attended in Lahore….you see how this will go? Even as a teenager growing up somewhere in India in the 1970’s I thought to myself, oh my god what is Pakistan getting into by supporting the afghan mujahideen. But somehow, the country is still no place for sane voices like that of Dr. Tariq Rahman. Recommend

  • Vikas
    Apr 17, 2011 - 11:50AM

    Incredible dr. Tariq rehman.the biggest quality of this article is truth.pakistani people are fooled by media that all military attacks are happening bcoz of india.pakistan nurtured snakes thinking that these snakes can only reach india or in afganistan bcoz snakes dont have wings.pak army didn’t expect that these snakes one day fly in american airlines and land at new york.then the game started and going on in full swing.whats happening in karachi, karachi is a hub of foriegn militants like dawood.they have shelter there.police cant kill them bcoz they(militants) have bigger responsebilities to enter into india and celebrate diwali.pak army shows the fear of india to the people of pakistan and get hefty hikes in defence budgets.that means no money for developement.
    Sri lanka registered 8% growth rate first time in history this year. Bcoz they cleaned militants.pak should learn lesson from them.pak should understand that it can prosper only when it has friendly(genuine) relations with india.india can still make progress as it is making now.bcoz india’s enemies are outside.but pakistan’s enemies are INSIDE.wake up pakistan and clean them bcoz at last snake bites its owner.Recommend

  • vasan
    Apr 17, 2011 - 12:18PM

    ANFIELD KOP: I think you dont read newspapers these days. Dont u know what happened to LTTE. India and LTTE severed the connections in 1992 and India kept away. It recently helped Srilanka wipe out LTTE.
    Are u game for wiping out ur terror monsters. I am sure India will give a helping hand like it did in SrilankaRecommend

  • Apr 17, 2011 - 3:52PM

    @Dr Tariq Rahman

    Sir, with due apologies to people’s sentiments, Terrorism, or the idea of using force or threat of force to get your way in any discourse is fundamental to Pakistan.
    If you recall, the Qaid is supposed to have said America needs us more than we need America, afterall Russia is not too far away.
    There is a threat implicit in this statement. The same blackmailing beinkmanship was tried with India and East Pakistan, with limited success though.

    Now the threat is, keep bearing my tantrums and keep footing my bills otherwise we will implode and become Talibanistan. As some one very perceptively said Pakistan is one country that negotiates with a gun pointing at its own head.

    Whether Pakistan would like to abandon this gun? In my opinion, Very Unlikely.Recommend

  • Apr 17, 2011 - 6:33PM

    Another addition to the sane voices of Asma Jehangir, Aziz Burney, Najam Sethi et al. Makes it easier for those of us with equally sane voice to argue for better relations with Pakistan. Recommend

  • Avanti
    Apr 17, 2011 - 8:20PM

    If you analyze ‘real’ history from 1947, You’ll find that India has not done much harm to Pakistan, if any. It’s the Indo-phobia that is Pakistan’s problem. For as long the M’s (Military, Mullah, Militants) have this phobia, I don’t see how Pakistan can get rid of it’s problems. Recommend

  • Apr 17, 2011 - 8:37PM

    Dr Tariq Rahman is one hundred percent correct. But truth is bitter to swallow. Will the politicians and army top bosses are prepared to loose their commissions in the purchase of arms? One army major has commented that every Pakistani could have got a triplex house had the amount spent for the cause of Kashmir was spent for them. In the name of Kashmir, we have lost Pakistan. The huge army is not an asset but a liability to a poor country like Pakistan. Which other country of this size is having this much big army and budget. What lessons we learnt from the history. While povery, corruption, terrorism and religious fundamentalism is eating way the resources of Pakistan, people consider these as non-issues. Where are we going? Where is the end to our troubles? Is there one sincere politicians to lead the nation? Recommend

  • joy
    Apr 17, 2011 - 9:22PM

    sorry sir

    thats a wrong un

    the title should be…” does pakistan want to end terrorism”?Recommend

  • V S S SARMA
    Apr 17, 2011 - 10:15PM

    Avanti: It is not only that India has not harmed Pakistan. Pakistan harmed itself and blamed India for the harm: example, Bangladesh. The other poblem that Pakistan faces is that it tends to equate itself itself with India which has 6 times it’s population and 10 times it’s economy. This equating diverts much of its budget towards Defence which lines the pockets of the military officials but doesn’t do much to protect its peoples.

    Pakistan must realise the strength of India. If Pakistan had acted responsibly and friendly with India, India with its huge market would have opened its doors for the goods and services of Pakistan which would have benefitted Pakistani youth hugely.

    I feel that Pakistan must surrender all Indians and Pakistanis involved in gross murders and terrorism in India to Indian law. It must close all the 50 odd terrorist camps it is running with Federal Budget aimed at India. If Pakistan moves one step forward, India will move five steps forward. The ball is in Pakistan’s court.

    It is for Pakistan to decide whether to have a permanent friendship with India or permanent enmity. As for India, the juggernaut rolls and rolls..all the countries in the world have Indians working there (except Lebanon, Pakistan and North Korea) as India expanded itself to every nook and corner of the world due to its adaptation of modern education.Recommend

  • Genius
    Apr 17, 2011 - 10:25PM

    The very fundamental yet vital question as I have heard, being asked by many of the concerned Western intellectuals is ” Why is there no violence and bloodshed in Vietnam today as we see happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan today?”
    So what is the factual answer to this question. “The terrorists are not there in Vietnam anymore today.”
    They have all been sent to Iraq , Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence the terrorism.
    Why not accept this fundamental fact as being reiterated by all the concerned Western intellectuals? Reaction and response from the terrorised people will certainly stop as soon the European terrorists stop theirs. Recommend

  • V S S SARMA
    Apr 17, 2011 - 10:43PM

    Genius: You would like us to believe that the terrorism plaguing the Pakistani society today is the reaction of actions of the European terrorists. This is externalising the issue. Did Europeans teach Pakistan how to deny rights to Bengalis which eventually led to the formation of Bangladesh ? Did they teach you the nuances of Operation Gibralter ? Did they teach you to shelter Dawood Ibrahim ? Did they teach you to run the terrorist camps ? Did they teach you to support hijackers ? Did they teach you to reach Kargil heights to finally get defeated ?

    The problem is within you. It is not due to outside influences. You must mend your ways. The alternative is abyss. Bliss or Abyss ? Decide yourself.Recommend

  • Fortune Cookie
    Apr 18, 2011 - 12:16AM

    Brilliant article!!!!!! Just imagine if both India and Pakistan start spending more of their money for the people instead of ARMING themseleves? UTOPIA!!!! Instead we will make the Americans, British, French, Russians and the Chinese rich, by buying ARMS from them.Recommend

  • harkol
    Apr 18, 2011 - 1:46PM

    @Author

    Most of what you say may be valid. However, the biggest problem Pakistan suffers from is lack of citizen’s voice against a rogue army. Citizens of Pakistan are complicit by default. The army is unaccountable and virtually runs the country’s foreign and defense policy. That’s the root cause of the problem Pakistan has internally and externally.

    Pakistan can still remain a integral unit, if the tail (army) doesn’t wag the dog (the state). What is needed is a truth commission that’ll purge the army of all extremist elements and make it a true fighting force for the national interest (instead of narrow army-interest). Once you have a army that’s truly motivated to end the tyranny of terrorism, it’ll vanish within a couple of years, for terrorists can’t fight an organized opposition like army.

    The terrorism only thrives in Pakistan because of wink and nudge policy of Army, and faster Pakistani citizens come to street and take back control of their country, better it’ll be for Pakistan.

    In Short – it is a citizen/civilian responsibility to get Pakistan back on track.Recommend

  • Usama
    Apr 18, 2011 - 2:25PM

    Its unlikely that there will any halt to drone attacks in northern areas and target killing in Karachi. Simply put, its a matter of dogs and politicsRecommend

  • G. Din
    Apr 18, 2011 - 5:34PM

    @hassan:
    …Does Pakistan Want To End Terrorism?”
    Answer to that is a big fat “NO”!
    Why should it? It pays the bills and creates “strategic assets” at some one else’s cost!Recommend

  • ashok sai
    Apr 18, 2011 - 5:40PM

    Well, I can see hardly any comments from Pakistanis, this summarizes the entire Pakistan problems. It is also suppressing that if this is going to be the reaction from educated class of Pakistan, future looks indeed very dark.
    @ All Pakistanis

    Is Dr Tariq Rahman is patriotic or not ?

    P.S. Very good writing from Dr.Tariq, felt like a slap on policy makers of Pakistan.Recommend

  • Anoop
    Apr 18, 2011 - 6:46PM

    “Can Pakistan end Terrosim?”

    Answer: Cant say.

    **”Can Terrorism end Pakistan?”

    Answer: Most definitely!**Recommend

  • Maria
    Apr 19, 2011 - 4:04AM

    @Anoop: Then maybe India should stop funding the terrorism which they are supporting via their lackeys in Afghanistan. Also stop state terrorism which they are committing in Kashmir.Recommend

  • Zahid Hussain Khalid
    Apr 19, 2011 - 9:45AM

    The childish and unrealistic assertions of “scholars” like Dr Tariq Rehman do not surprise those who know the inside realities of the Great Game and the ground realities of the Greater Middle East. Dr. Tariq’s article is full of contradictions: For example, he draws the following conclusions from his own assumptions on Pakistan’s “perceived policy”:

    The policy has had several effects. First, it never fooled the Americans who have been constantly saying ‘do more’ to the Pakistanis. Secondly, it has made bitter enemies of certain militant groups which have attacked the police, the army and the intelligence agencies to take revenge and destabilize the regime. Thirdly, it has prevented Pakistan from making friends with India because the militant groups have attacked India — with or without the consent of the Pakistani state — and remain opposed to peace. Fourthly, the policy had confused the common people of Pakistan who now believe the most incredible conspiracy theories including the absurd idea that it is America and India who support the militants. This has made any concerted action against the militants difficult and rare. The action in Swat, though much delayed, was a success, but it was a rare occurrence because for once the public was almost united in its support of the military action against Maulvi Fazlullah’s forces.

    Dr. Tariq Rehman did Pakistan invite Americans to take “PANGA” with Afghans? Why should Pakistan do more and for what? Did you ever indulge in a “Cost and Benefit Analysis?” Pakistan is not fooling Americans…Americans are fooling Pakistan.

    If Pakistan is supporting militants then why do they attack police, army and the intelligence agencies? It appears to be a very strange self-contradictory logic!

    What benefit will the militants get by attacking India and opening another war front against themselves? They are not fools. They are smart people who are bravely fighting with an army consisting of best fighting officers from more than three dozen countries. BUT HOW CAN YOU APPRECIATE THAT? You can’t see beyond what Washington sees!

    The military action in SWAT was engineered, provoked and inappropriate. I SAY IT ON RECORD THAT IT WAS THE BIGGEST MILITARY BLUNDER IN THE HISTORY OF PAKISTAN. ONLY TIME WILL PROVE THAT.

    I am very disappointed with the editors of Tribune who only see DR with an individuals name and publish any nonsense that he writes!!!!Recommend

  • Zahid Hussain Khalid
    Apr 19, 2011 - 10:48AM

    The childish and unrealistic assertions of “scholars” like Dr Tariq Rehman do not surprise those who know the inside realities of the Great Game and the ground realities of the Greater Middle East. Dr. Tariq’s article is full of contradictions: For example, he draws the following conclusions from his own assumptions on Pakistan’s “perceived policy”:

    The policy has had several effects. First, it never fooled the Americans who have been constantly saying ‘do more’ to the Pakistanis. Secondly, it has made bitter enemies of certain militant groups which have attacked the police, the army and the intelligence agencies to take revenge and destabilize the regime. Thirdly, it has prevented Pakistan from making friends with India because the militant groups have attacked India — with or without the consent of the Pakistani state — and remain opposed to peace. Fourthly, the policy had confused the common people of Pakistan who now believe the most incredible conspiracy theories including the absurd idea that it is America and India who support the militants. This has made any concerted action against the militants difficult and rare. The action in Swat, though much delayed, was a success, but it was a rare occurrence because for once the public was almost united in its support of the military action against Maulvi Fazlullah’s forces.

    Dr. Tariq Rehman did Pakistan invite Americans to take “PANGA” with Afghans? Why should Pakistan do more and for what? Did you ever indulge in a “Cost and Benefit Analysis?” Pakistan is not fooling Americans…Americans are fooling Pakistan.

    If Pakistan is supporting militants then why do they attack police, army and the intelligence agencies? It appears to be a very strange self-contradictory logic!

    What benefit will the militants get by attacking India and opening another war front against themselves? They are not fools. They are smart people who are bravely fighting with an army consisting of best fighting officers from more than three dozen countries. BUT HOW CAN YOU APPRECIATE THAT? You can’t see beyond what Washington sees!

    The military action in SWAT was engineered, provoked and inappropriate. I SAY IT ON RECORD THAT IT WAS THE BIGGEST MILITARY BLUNDER IN THE HISTORY OF PAKISTAN. ONLY TIME WILL PROVE THAT.

    I am very disappointed with the editors of Tribune who only see DR with an individuals name and publish any nonsense he writes!!!!Recommend

  • Apr 20, 2011 - 10:42PM

    God help those who help themselves…
    If we (the people of PAKISTAN) stands unite against those who create violence then we’ll surely get success so soon!!!Recommend

  • mussarat Hussain
    May 17, 2011 - 7:31AM

    @Milestogo:

    upper chamber of this nation is empty ma brother.

    mussaratRecommend

  • mussarat Hussain
    May 17, 2011 - 7:35AM

    Can terrorists end pakistan ( God forbid) ?

    MUSSARATRecommend

More in Opinion