Pakistani General accept militants were sent in to bring India to negotiation table.
In a live ARY TV show Do Tok on 12 June 2011, General (retired) Moindin Haider and former Home Minister of Pakistan acknowledged that it was a policy of Pakistan to send in militants in Kashmir to bring India to the negotiation table, just like they created Mukti Bani in East Pakistan. It was cheap way to engage 700,000 army of India instead of having an open war.
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/12/do-tok-with-mazher-abbas-12th-june-2011/
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Pakistani Nukes and the UN
Pakistani Nukes and the UN
Dr Shabir Choudhry 12 June 2011
Pakistan is a declared nuclear weapon state. There are only nine countries in the world which have these weapons. Many believe nuclear weapons bring status, power, influence and stability; but I am not sure if one can say Pakistan has all that.
Nuclear weapons are made with huge amount of money diverted away from social and welfare programmes. It requires many years of hard work and sacrifices, and one clear purpose is that the nuclear weapons will protect borders of the country, its sovereignty and pride, and promote status of the country.
In a land of pure – Pakistan, however, situation is different. Weapons of mass destruction – atom bombs, which Pakistan is keep on improving and increasing their numbers have not brought stability, promoted status of the country or even defended borders and integrity of the country. It is pointed out by some critics that like ‘strategic assets’ and ‘strategic depth’ which, later on became liabilities, it appears nuclear bombs have also become a ‘liability’, as the entire effort seems to be to protect them at a great cost to people and the country.
In a comity of nations Pakistan DOES NOT have good reputation. Everything wrong is associated with Pakistan. Fingers point to Pakistan or Pakistani controlled areas whenever there is a terrorism related incident in the world; and attitude and performance of the army and army related institutions is surely not helping the situation.
The country is deeply divided on religious and sectarian lines. There is a civil war going on in various parts of Pakistan. Those responsible for maintaining law and order and defending sovereignty, integrity and borders of the country are busy in activities which promote insecurity and fuels public anger. It seems no one is in charge to weather the storm which is about to engulf Pakistan; or even worried about dangers facing the country.
Anyone who dares to criticise those responsible for landing Pakistan in this quandary, without any hesitation, are declared anti state, traitor and not patriotic. It looks that the men in uniform (most of them are not even educated - a person holding a certificate of FA or FSC, basic requirement to get a commission in the army is not an educated person – everything they get after getting a commission is training and educationalists differentiate between training and education. Highly renowned guerrilla commander Ilyas Kashmiri who was recently killed in a drone attack was trained, but he was not educated – he was a university drop out) and their agents have wrongly assumed that they have monopoly over wisdom and knowledge; and they alone are patriots. And because of their power and institutional discipline and strength they have right and power to issue certificates who is loyal and who is a ‘security risk’.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that Iran has “precise information that America wants to sabotage the Pakistani nuclear facilities in order to control Pakistan and to weaken the government and people of Pakistan", has made head lines in Pakistani and international media. The news came as a shock to many Pakistanis who were assured by John Kerry only a few weeks ago that there were no such plans.
But who is John Kerry? He might be important to the Pakistani rulers, civil and military alike, as they line up to shake hand with him, and like good children or students listen attentively to every word uttered by him; but he does not make decisions of this nature in America. He is only a Senator. In a country like India and in most civilised and democratic countries President, Prime Minister, Army Chief, secret agency Chief and Foreign Minister won’t meet him.
I have no doubt that the world community is not at ease with Pakistan in control of most deadly weapons on earth. Would people in a market place feel safe when they see a careless and mischievous child playing with a hand grenade? They know child will not only kill himself, but also endanger lives of other people in the market.
The question is what should people in the market do? Should they ignore the child and let him play with the hand grenade; or some how try to take the hand grenade away from him? The child is fascinated with the new toy under his control, and does not want to lose his control. The child discovered that under shadow of this toy he can get away with murder, including export of jihad, violence, extremism and terrorism to other countries.
The child fully appreciated his power and influence and soon recruited like minded children to continue his policy of promoting violence and inflicting fear and harassment. He even got away with Kargil misadventure and attack on the Indian Parliament; and this surely boosted his confidence and sense of pride.
The people in the market have a choice of remaining quiet, but will the danger go away just because they don’t want to be ‘interventionalist’, or don’t want to jeopardise their trade and other interests. There is a danger that if they surround him to persuade him to stop his immature and childish actions the child could use the weapon in his hand; or in order to get sympathy can shout slogans like, Islam is in danger, conspiracy of Hindus, America and Jews and child abuse.
My friend Abbas Butt and I had a meeting with a very senior figure from the European Parliament in 2007. A tragic incident in London known as 7/7 had taken place, which killed more than fifty innocent people. This incident was carried out in name of ‘jihad’ by some misguided extremists, who were also trained in areas under Pakistani control. This and other similar incidents created enormous problems for Muslims peacefully living in Britain and other European countries.
In the meeting, we discussed terrorism and extremism and identified sources of terrorism; and how to counter that. Despite Pakistani claims to fight terrorism, and in return receiving billions of dollars, it was an open secret that Pakistan was supporting terrorist groups and promoting and exporting terrorism. This issue came under discussion in the meeting; and I said I don’t know what could be done to change policy of Pakistani rulers. They know there will be no war because they have nuclear weapons.
It was at that time, our guest said: “Eventually the UN will to take over”. I strongly believe our guest had no intention of saying this and this phrase slipped out because of the nature of the discussion and at heat of the moment.
I said how that is possible. The UN has no army. The UN cannot sanction a war on Pakistan just because the country has nuclear weapons. I asked many questions and requested for replies and some explanation for that phrase, but I got no replies. Our guest did not say another word on that and each time changed topic.
I said to Abbas Butt after the meeting that this phrase speaks volumes about the situation in Pakistan and what dangers the country was likely to face. Because of the position our guest held at that time, it surely gave access to those areas where this kind of discussion could take place. I said only way the UN can take over the Pakistani nukes is:
1. If a situation is created where the government of Pakistan is unable or unwilling to guard these weapons and there is credible evidence that these weapons could get in to wrong hands;
2. Or if there is a civil war, where armed forces are actively fighting each other and there is a serious danger that someone could use these weapons against each other or against Pakistan’s neighbours, an emergency meeting of the Security Council could be convened to pass such a Resolution that for the safety of humanity and peace and stability of the region, the international community has to act and act fast and take control of the Pakistani nukes.
I discussed this matter with some Pakistani journalists who have contacts with secret agencies of Pakistan. Also I discussed this with one senior member of the Pakistani establishment. They didn’t look too worried about this, perhaps they thought their position was so secure that such action could not be taken against Pakistan.
Pakistanis have been relying too much on their strategic location, protection or influence the nuclear weapons provide and on the Chinese support; especially their Veto in the Security Council. But Pakistanis need to wake up, and understand fast changing regional and global situation. No one burns his fingers to put out a fire at neighbours house when the neighbour is only pouring more fuel to the fire.
Pakistanis need to realise that there is a serious danger to their existence; and those who claim that Pakistan is a gift of Prophet PBUH and that Pakistan will remain till doomsday are misleading and are providing a false sense of security. Prophets gift were Qur’an and his Sunna; and whatever is happening in Pakistan is totally against teaching of Qur’an and Sunna. There is no justice, no sense of security and those who are employed to provide security kill people, as if they were in jungle hunting wild animals.
Pakistan gift of Prophet PBUH or not, Pakistan created to serve Islam or to serve some other forces, fact, however, is that Muslims are not safe in this country, apparently created in name of Islam. This is not to suggest that non Muslims are safe in Pakistan. Need of the time is to take appropriate actions now to save Pakistan and people of Pakistan. If immediate and correct actions are not taken then Pakistan may not exist as a nation state; and name of Pakistan might continue with a new geography, as it happened in 1971.
Pakistani nukes, their safety and command and control have been subject of discussion around the globe. I am sure they are safe; and those who control them know how to protect them and how to use them as well, if need arises. Pakistani people are very emotional about their nuclear assets and the Kashmir dispute.
Their rulers have messed up the Kashmir dispute, as rightly acknowledged by Nawaz Sahrif in an interview on 10th June. He said Pakistani institutions have caused more damage to the Kashmir dispute than anyone else. Of course he was referring to the army and the ISI. They have messed up importance, if any, of the ‘strategic depth’ and ‘strategic assets’; and I hope they don’t do same to the nuclear assets.
Many of those who rule Pakistan have very little interest in welfare, stability, prosperity and future of the country at least that is how it appears, mainly because Pakistan is their second home. If something happens to Pakistan they will pack their bags and fly out on C130; and leave the people to face the mess they created.
People with history knowledge might remember that the last ruler of Muslim Spain (known as Undhless to Muslims), King Abdullah was allowed to leave Spain with his family. He left his fellow Muslims at the mercy of those who defeated King Abdullah.
I fear it is already too late, as many things are already in motion to deal with future serious problems; but those who take Pakistan as their first home and those who care for people, peace and stability of the region need to act that catastrophe could be saved.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 12 June 2011
Pakistan is a declared nuclear weapon state. There are only nine countries in the world which have these weapons. Many believe nuclear weapons bring status, power, influence and stability; but I am not sure if one can say Pakistan has all that.
Nuclear weapons are made with huge amount of money diverted away from social and welfare programmes. It requires many years of hard work and sacrifices, and one clear purpose is that the nuclear weapons will protect borders of the country, its sovereignty and pride, and promote status of the country.
In a land of pure – Pakistan, however, situation is different. Weapons of mass destruction – atom bombs, which Pakistan is keep on improving and increasing their numbers have not brought stability, promoted status of the country or even defended borders and integrity of the country. It is pointed out by some critics that like ‘strategic assets’ and ‘strategic depth’ which, later on became liabilities, it appears nuclear bombs have also become a ‘liability’, as the entire effort seems to be to protect them at a great cost to people and the country.
In a comity of nations Pakistan DOES NOT have good reputation. Everything wrong is associated with Pakistan. Fingers point to Pakistan or Pakistani controlled areas whenever there is a terrorism related incident in the world; and attitude and performance of the army and army related institutions is surely not helping the situation.
The country is deeply divided on religious and sectarian lines. There is a civil war going on in various parts of Pakistan. Those responsible for maintaining law and order and defending sovereignty, integrity and borders of the country are busy in activities which promote insecurity and fuels public anger. It seems no one is in charge to weather the storm which is about to engulf Pakistan; or even worried about dangers facing the country.
Anyone who dares to criticise those responsible for landing Pakistan in this quandary, without any hesitation, are declared anti state, traitor and not patriotic. It looks that the men in uniform (most of them are not even educated - a person holding a certificate of FA or FSC, basic requirement to get a commission in the army is not an educated person – everything they get after getting a commission is training and educationalists differentiate between training and education. Highly renowned guerrilla commander Ilyas Kashmiri who was recently killed in a drone attack was trained, but he was not educated – he was a university drop out) and their agents have wrongly assumed that they have monopoly over wisdom and knowledge; and they alone are patriots. And because of their power and institutional discipline and strength they have right and power to issue certificates who is loyal and who is a ‘security risk’.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that Iran has “precise information that America wants to sabotage the Pakistani nuclear facilities in order to control Pakistan and to weaken the government and people of Pakistan", has made head lines in Pakistani and international media. The news came as a shock to many Pakistanis who were assured by John Kerry only a few weeks ago that there were no such plans.
But who is John Kerry? He might be important to the Pakistani rulers, civil and military alike, as they line up to shake hand with him, and like good children or students listen attentively to every word uttered by him; but he does not make decisions of this nature in America. He is only a Senator. In a country like India and in most civilised and democratic countries President, Prime Minister, Army Chief, secret agency Chief and Foreign Minister won’t meet him.
I have no doubt that the world community is not at ease with Pakistan in control of most deadly weapons on earth. Would people in a market place feel safe when they see a careless and mischievous child playing with a hand grenade? They know child will not only kill himself, but also endanger lives of other people in the market.
The question is what should people in the market do? Should they ignore the child and let him play with the hand grenade; or some how try to take the hand grenade away from him? The child is fascinated with the new toy under his control, and does not want to lose his control. The child discovered that under shadow of this toy he can get away with murder, including export of jihad, violence, extremism and terrorism to other countries.
The child fully appreciated his power and influence and soon recruited like minded children to continue his policy of promoting violence and inflicting fear and harassment. He even got away with Kargil misadventure and attack on the Indian Parliament; and this surely boosted his confidence and sense of pride.
The people in the market have a choice of remaining quiet, but will the danger go away just because they don’t want to be ‘interventionalist’, or don’t want to jeopardise their trade and other interests. There is a danger that if they surround him to persuade him to stop his immature and childish actions the child could use the weapon in his hand; or in order to get sympathy can shout slogans like, Islam is in danger, conspiracy of Hindus, America and Jews and child abuse.
My friend Abbas Butt and I had a meeting with a very senior figure from the European Parliament in 2007. A tragic incident in London known as 7/7 had taken place, which killed more than fifty innocent people. This incident was carried out in name of ‘jihad’ by some misguided extremists, who were also trained in areas under Pakistani control. This and other similar incidents created enormous problems for Muslims peacefully living in Britain and other European countries.
In the meeting, we discussed terrorism and extremism and identified sources of terrorism; and how to counter that. Despite Pakistani claims to fight terrorism, and in return receiving billions of dollars, it was an open secret that Pakistan was supporting terrorist groups and promoting and exporting terrorism. This issue came under discussion in the meeting; and I said I don’t know what could be done to change policy of Pakistani rulers. They know there will be no war because they have nuclear weapons.
It was at that time, our guest said: “Eventually the UN will to take over”. I strongly believe our guest had no intention of saying this and this phrase slipped out because of the nature of the discussion and at heat of the moment.
I said how that is possible. The UN has no army. The UN cannot sanction a war on Pakistan just because the country has nuclear weapons. I asked many questions and requested for replies and some explanation for that phrase, but I got no replies. Our guest did not say another word on that and each time changed topic.
I said to Abbas Butt after the meeting that this phrase speaks volumes about the situation in Pakistan and what dangers the country was likely to face. Because of the position our guest held at that time, it surely gave access to those areas where this kind of discussion could take place. I said only way the UN can take over the Pakistani nukes is:
1. If a situation is created where the government of Pakistan is unable or unwilling to guard these weapons and there is credible evidence that these weapons could get in to wrong hands;
2. Or if there is a civil war, where armed forces are actively fighting each other and there is a serious danger that someone could use these weapons against each other or against Pakistan’s neighbours, an emergency meeting of the Security Council could be convened to pass such a Resolution that for the safety of humanity and peace and stability of the region, the international community has to act and act fast and take control of the Pakistani nukes.
I discussed this matter with some Pakistani journalists who have contacts with secret agencies of Pakistan. Also I discussed this with one senior member of the Pakistani establishment. They didn’t look too worried about this, perhaps they thought their position was so secure that such action could not be taken against Pakistan.
Pakistanis have been relying too much on their strategic location, protection or influence the nuclear weapons provide and on the Chinese support; especially their Veto in the Security Council. But Pakistanis need to wake up, and understand fast changing regional and global situation. No one burns his fingers to put out a fire at neighbours house when the neighbour is only pouring more fuel to the fire.
Pakistanis need to realise that there is a serious danger to their existence; and those who claim that Pakistan is a gift of Prophet PBUH and that Pakistan will remain till doomsday are misleading and are providing a false sense of security. Prophets gift were Qur’an and his Sunna; and whatever is happening in Pakistan is totally against teaching of Qur’an and Sunna. There is no justice, no sense of security and those who are employed to provide security kill people, as if they were in jungle hunting wild animals.
Pakistan gift of Prophet PBUH or not, Pakistan created to serve Islam or to serve some other forces, fact, however, is that Muslims are not safe in this country, apparently created in name of Islam. This is not to suggest that non Muslims are safe in Pakistan. Need of the time is to take appropriate actions now to save Pakistan and people of Pakistan. If immediate and correct actions are not taken then Pakistan may not exist as a nation state; and name of Pakistan might continue with a new geography, as it happened in 1971.
Pakistani nukes, their safety and command and control have been subject of discussion around the globe. I am sure they are safe; and those who control them know how to protect them and how to use them as well, if need arises. Pakistani people are very emotional about their nuclear assets and the Kashmir dispute.
Their rulers have messed up the Kashmir dispute, as rightly acknowledged by Nawaz Sahrif in an interview on 10th June. He said Pakistani institutions have caused more damage to the Kashmir dispute than anyone else. Of course he was referring to the army and the ISI. They have messed up importance, if any, of the ‘strategic depth’ and ‘strategic assets’; and I hope they don’t do same to the nuclear assets.
Many of those who rule Pakistan have very little interest in welfare, stability, prosperity and future of the country at least that is how it appears, mainly because Pakistan is their second home. If something happens to Pakistan they will pack their bags and fly out on C130; and leave the people to face the mess they created.
People with history knowledge might remember that the last ruler of Muslim Spain (known as Undhless to Muslims), King Abdullah was allowed to leave Spain with his family. He left his fellow Muslims at the mercy of those who defeated King Abdullah.
I fear it is already too late, as many things are already in motion to deal with future serious problems; but those who take Pakistan as their first home and those who care for people, peace and stability of the region need to act that catastrophe could be saved.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Pakistan's Kashmiri problem, Praveen Swami
Pakistan's Kashmiri problem
Praveen Swami
http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/11/stories/2011061155291200.htm
Even if a military offensive against jihadist leader Ilyas Kashmiri's bases in North Waziristan materialises, Pakistan's prospects of crushing the jihadist movement are bleak.
Eleven years ago, Muzaffarabad newspapers carried photographs of a grinning jihad commander carrying the severed head of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar of the Maratha Light Infantry, a macabre trophy of a raid across the Line of Control.
Last week, the man in the photograph was reported killed in a United States drone attack. In the years since it was taken, Muhammad Ilyas Kashmiri had emerged as the head of Brigade 313, a feared al-Qaeda linked group that draws its name from the number of followers of Prophet Muhammad who defeated the numerically stronger armies of pagan Mecca. Even though media reports that Kashmiri was connected to the 2008 Mumbai attacks are erroneous, he was responsible for a string of attacks within Pakistan, including the recent strike on a naval base in Karachi. Brigade 313 is also alleged to have jihadists plotting attacks in Europe last summer, and has been linked to the 2009 Pune bombing.
There is still contention over Kashmiri's fate — Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, said he was “98% certain” that Kashmiri was dead, while the United States military says it has no confirmation. But reports have come amongst renewed debate over a possible Pakistani offensive against his bases in North Waziristan, the epicentre of the country's jihadist movement.
Forces loyal to Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)-linked Afghan warlord, are reported to have relocated to adjoining Kurram in anticipation of an attack, and Mike Mullen, the United States' military chief, fuelled rumours that an attack was imminent, saying the operation was “very important.”
Not without reason, sceptics are unmoved: Admiral Mullen had said just the same thing in October last year: Pakistan's military chief General Pervez Kayani, he said, “committed to me to go into North Waziristan and to root out these terrorists.”
Either way, the bad news is this: going into North Waziristan is profoundly unlikely to have an abiding impact on the jihadist movement — as opposed to particular terrorist groups — in Pakistan.
Politics and peace: Long before 9/11, the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan brought about seismic political changes in north-west Pakistan's political landscape. Inspired by the example of the Islamist insurgents they had fought with, young commanders who had participated in the Afghan jihad began to displace the traditional tribal leadership. In some cases, local Islamist militia were set up. North Waziristan's Dawar tribe, for example, formed its own Taliban as early as 1998-1999.
The case of Umar Khalid, a jihadist commander from Mohmand with whom Pakistan signed a short-lived peace deal in 2008, is instructive. Born into the Qandharo sub-tribe of the Safi, and a school drop-out, Khalid had no traditional claims to leadership. Instead, he fought with the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen in Jammu and Kashmir and in Afghanistan after 9/11. Following Pakistan's 2007 raid on the Islamist cleric Abdul Rashid's Lal Masjid in Islamabad, he used his jihadist militia to impose a brutal new order in Mohmand: women were forbidden from receiving an education, music was banned, and barbers were punished for shaving beards.
Leaders like Khalid show that the Pakistani Taliban aren't just ideological enemies of the Pakistani state: they are rebels against the traditional structures of power among the region's societies, and a political challenge to the complex order that sustains Pakistani sovereignty there.
Sana Haroon's path-breaking history of the region, Frontiers of Faith, suggests that north-west Pakistan's jihadists are heirs to a long tradition. Haroon has shown that the political life in the region involved a complex negotiation between tribal custom and clerical authority. Ayesha Jalal's Partisans of Allah, in turn, demonstrates that the ideological foundations of Islamism in the region date back to the collision between Empire and Islam in India. Indeed, as scholars like Thomas Ruttig have shown, much of what is passed off as tradition, like the code of Pashtunwali, is an expedient justification for political expedience.
Back in 2002, under intense pressure from the United States to mop up jihadists fleeing Afghanistan, General Pervez Musharraf ordered the Pakistan army into the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas, the site of these contestations. Operation Meezan, or Balance, was the army's first intervention in the region since independence in 1947. In 2004, a further offensive targeted jihadist strongholds around Wana, in South Waziristan.
Less than prepared for the rigours of a counter-insurgency campaign, Pakistan's army was mauled. Lieutenant-General Safdar Husain, the commander of the Peshwar-based XI corps, persuaded General Musharraf to back down, and seek negotiated deals with the jihadists.
In April 2004, the pro-Taliban legislators Maulana Merajuddin Qureshi and Maulana Abdul Malik Wazir secured a peace deal with 10 commanders of the Islamist insurgency in North Waziristan — an arrangement called the Shakai Agreement. In essence, the commanders promised not to target Pakistan, if the army called off its offensive and let foreign jihadists live in peace.
Less than seven weeks later, though, the deal fell apart, after the two sides failed to agree on the registration of foreign jihadists — in the main, Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs. Even though Nek Muhammad, the key signatory to the Shakai deal, was killed in a missile attack, the Islamist insurgency went from strength to strength: North Waziristan is now the most important hub for jihadists fighting the Pakistani state, as well as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in Afghanistan.
The February, 2005, the Srarogha deal went much the same way. Facilitated by the Jamiat Ullema-e-Islam leader Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman — whose abiding relationship with the Pakistani state has led to his twice being targeted in suicide-bombings this year — the deal saw the jihad commander Baitullah Mehsud agree to expel foreigners from South Waziristan.
Mehsud, though, simply used the deal to regroup, and began fighting again in 2007. The army initiated a half-hearted offensive against Mehsud late that year, but called it off in the wake of the Mumbai attacks: in a briefing for media, an official spokesperson even described the jihadist commander as a “patriotic Pakistani.”
Large swatches of South Waziristan are now ruled by Nazir Ahmad — a Taliban leader who proclaimed last month that his Taliban forces and al-Qaeda were united. “At an operational level,” Nazir said, “we might have different strategies, but at the policy level we are one and the same.”
Finally, in 2006, the Pakistan army signed a third peace deal with the Uthmanzai Wazirs of North Waziristan, hoping to stave off the prospect that low-level attacks would escalate into an insurgency. The agreement, in effect, handed power to Islamists; their flag was flown at the function where the deal was signed. Less than a year on, the two sides were at war, once again.
General Musharraf's desperate peacemaking needs to be understood in the context of the crisis Pakistan was confronted with after 2001. He was faced with multiple lobbies calling for dismantling the army's historical clients, the jihadists: India threatened war, following the attack on Parliament House in New Delhi; the United States was irked by the support jihadists in Pakistan's cities offered al-Qaeda; military insiders like former ISI chief Javed Qazi argued that the military-mullah alliance made attracting desperately-needed investment impossible.
His eventual half-hearted crackdown on jihadist infrastructure, though, proved enough to send thousands of jihadists fleeing the plains into areas like Waziristan. There, they soon realised Pakistan's threats were pyrrhic — and prepared the terror offensive now tearing apart cities in Punjab and other provinces. The scholar Hassan Abbas has recorded, in a seminal paper, that from “March 2005 and March 2007 alone, for example, about 2,000 militants from southern and northern Punjab Province reportedly moved to South Waziristan and started different businesses in an effort to create logistical support networks.” Events have shown that jihadists can be crushed — but at a cost. In 2008, the secular-nationalist Awami National Party took power in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, sparking off a collision with jihadists in neighbouring Swat. Swat's jihadist movement dated back to 1989, when local cleric Sufi Muhammad's Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) sought to replace tribal custom with Shari'a law. Backed, ironically enough, by smugglers and druglords who wanted to eject the Pakistani state from the region, the TNSM waged a low-grade war against Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's government in 1994-1995. The insurgency re-erupted again in 2006.
The ANP government's attempts to reach a deal with Muhammad came to nothing: by 2009, its cadre were being systematically eliminated. The last straw, by some accounts, was a 2009 speech where Sufi Muhammad declared that democracy and Islam were irreconcilable — and that women should only be allowed to leave their homes only for the Haj, not even medical treatment.
Finally, the military went in — crushing the TNSM insurgency, but in the process causing massive civilian displacement and hardship that some fear will lead to a pro-jihadist backlash. Notably, the victory did nothing to end terrorism in the region, which rages on.
Now, though, with a middle-level officer corps ever-more sympathetic to the Islamist cause, a substantial popular constituency hostile to backing the United States' war on terrorism, and a military that has demonstrated few counter-insurgency skills, there is little stomach for another campaign. Fighting in North Waziristan, without doubt, degrades the jihadist movement's capabilities, but large-scale terrorism will not quickly end. For that, Pakistan needs political resources — a commitment to democratisation and development, and parties that can deliver them — that it simply does not possess.
For the foreseeable future, Pakistan's descent into the abyss seems inevitable: war or no war in Waziristan.
Praveen Swami
http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/11/stories/2011061155291200.htm
Even if a military offensive against jihadist leader Ilyas Kashmiri's bases in North Waziristan materialises, Pakistan's prospects of crushing the jihadist movement are bleak.
Eleven years ago, Muzaffarabad newspapers carried photographs of a grinning jihad commander carrying the severed head of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar of the Maratha Light Infantry, a macabre trophy of a raid across the Line of Control.
Last week, the man in the photograph was reported killed in a United States drone attack. In the years since it was taken, Muhammad Ilyas Kashmiri had emerged as the head of Brigade 313, a feared al-Qaeda linked group that draws its name from the number of followers of Prophet Muhammad who defeated the numerically stronger armies of pagan Mecca. Even though media reports that Kashmiri was connected to the 2008 Mumbai attacks are erroneous, he was responsible for a string of attacks within Pakistan, including the recent strike on a naval base in Karachi. Brigade 313 is also alleged to have jihadists plotting attacks in Europe last summer, and has been linked to the 2009 Pune bombing.
There is still contention over Kashmiri's fate — Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, said he was “98% certain” that Kashmiri was dead, while the United States military says it has no confirmation. But reports have come amongst renewed debate over a possible Pakistani offensive against his bases in North Waziristan, the epicentre of the country's jihadist movement.
Forces loyal to Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)-linked Afghan warlord, are reported to have relocated to adjoining Kurram in anticipation of an attack, and Mike Mullen, the United States' military chief, fuelled rumours that an attack was imminent, saying the operation was “very important.”
Not without reason, sceptics are unmoved: Admiral Mullen had said just the same thing in October last year: Pakistan's military chief General Pervez Kayani, he said, “committed to me to go into North Waziristan and to root out these terrorists.”
Either way, the bad news is this: going into North Waziristan is profoundly unlikely to have an abiding impact on the jihadist movement — as opposed to particular terrorist groups — in Pakistan.
Politics and peace: Long before 9/11, the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan brought about seismic political changes in north-west Pakistan's political landscape. Inspired by the example of the Islamist insurgents they had fought with, young commanders who had participated in the Afghan jihad began to displace the traditional tribal leadership. In some cases, local Islamist militia were set up. North Waziristan's Dawar tribe, for example, formed its own Taliban as early as 1998-1999.
The case of Umar Khalid, a jihadist commander from Mohmand with whom Pakistan signed a short-lived peace deal in 2008, is instructive. Born into the Qandharo sub-tribe of the Safi, and a school drop-out, Khalid had no traditional claims to leadership. Instead, he fought with the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen in Jammu and Kashmir and in Afghanistan after 9/11. Following Pakistan's 2007 raid on the Islamist cleric Abdul Rashid's Lal Masjid in Islamabad, he used his jihadist militia to impose a brutal new order in Mohmand: women were forbidden from receiving an education, music was banned, and barbers were punished for shaving beards.
Leaders like Khalid show that the Pakistani Taliban aren't just ideological enemies of the Pakistani state: they are rebels against the traditional structures of power among the region's societies, and a political challenge to the complex order that sustains Pakistani sovereignty there.
Sana Haroon's path-breaking history of the region, Frontiers of Faith, suggests that north-west Pakistan's jihadists are heirs to a long tradition. Haroon has shown that the political life in the region involved a complex negotiation between tribal custom and clerical authority. Ayesha Jalal's Partisans of Allah, in turn, demonstrates that the ideological foundations of Islamism in the region date back to the collision between Empire and Islam in India. Indeed, as scholars like Thomas Ruttig have shown, much of what is passed off as tradition, like the code of Pashtunwali, is an expedient justification for political expedience.
Back in 2002, under intense pressure from the United States to mop up jihadists fleeing Afghanistan, General Pervez Musharraf ordered the Pakistan army into the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas, the site of these contestations. Operation Meezan, or Balance, was the army's first intervention in the region since independence in 1947. In 2004, a further offensive targeted jihadist strongholds around Wana, in South Waziristan.
Less than prepared for the rigours of a counter-insurgency campaign, Pakistan's army was mauled. Lieutenant-General Safdar Husain, the commander of the Peshwar-based XI corps, persuaded General Musharraf to back down, and seek negotiated deals with the jihadists.
In April 2004, the pro-Taliban legislators Maulana Merajuddin Qureshi and Maulana Abdul Malik Wazir secured a peace deal with 10 commanders of the Islamist insurgency in North Waziristan — an arrangement called the Shakai Agreement. In essence, the commanders promised not to target Pakistan, if the army called off its offensive and let foreign jihadists live in peace.
Less than seven weeks later, though, the deal fell apart, after the two sides failed to agree on the registration of foreign jihadists — in the main, Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs. Even though Nek Muhammad, the key signatory to the Shakai deal, was killed in a missile attack, the Islamist insurgency went from strength to strength: North Waziristan is now the most important hub for jihadists fighting the Pakistani state, as well as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in Afghanistan.
The February, 2005, the Srarogha deal went much the same way. Facilitated by the Jamiat Ullema-e-Islam leader Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman — whose abiding relationship with the Pakistani state has led to his twice being targeted in suicide-bombings this year — the deal saw the jihad commander Baitullah Mehsud agree to expel foreigners from South Waziristan.
Mehsud, though, simply used the deal to regroup, and began fighting again in 2007. The army initiated a half-hearted offensive against Mehsud late that year, but called it off in the wake of the Mumbai attacks: in a briefing for media, an official spokesperson even described the jihadist commander as a “patriotic Pakistani.”
Large swatches of South Waziristan are now ruled by Nazir Ahmad — a Taliban leader who proclaimed last month that his Taliban forces and al-Qaeda were united. “At an operational level,” Nazir said, “we might have different strategies, but at the policy level we are one and the same.”
Finally, in 2006, the Pakistan army signed a third peace deal with the Uthmanzai Wazirs of North Waziristan, hoping to stave off the prospect that low-level attacks would escalate into an insurgency. The agreement, in effect, handed power to Islamists; their flag was flown at the function where the deal was signed. Less than a year on, the two sides were at war, once again.
General Musharraf's desperate peacemaking needs to be understood in the context of the crisis Pakistan was confronted with after 2001. He was faced with multiple lobbies calling for dismantling the army's historical clients, the jihadists: India threatened war, following the attack on Parliament House in New Delhi; the United States was irked by the support jihadists in Pakistan's cities offered al-Qaeda; military insiders like former ISI chief Javed Qazi argued that the military-mullah alliance made attracting desperately-needed investment impossible.
His eventual half-hearted crackdown on jihadist infrastructure, though, proved enough to send thousands of jihadists fleeing the plains into areas like Waziristan. There, they soon realised Pakistan's threats were pyrrhic — and prepared the terror offensive now tearing apart cities in Punjab and other provinces. The scholar Hassan Abbas has recorded, in a seminal paper, that from “March 2005 and March 2007 alone, for example, about 2,000 militants from southern and northern Punjab Province reportedly moved to South Waziristan and started different businesses in an effort to create logistical support networks.” Events have shown that jihadists can be crushed — but at a cost. In 2008, the secular-nationalist Awami National Party took power in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, sparking off a collision with jihadists in neighbouring Swat. Swat's jihadist movement dated back to 1989, when local cleric Sufi Muhammad's Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) sought to replace tribal custom with Shari'a law. Backed, ironically enough, by smugglers and druglords who wanted to eject the Pakistani state from the region, the TNSM waged a low-grade war against Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's government in 1994-1995. The insurgency re-erupted again in 2006.
The ANP government's attempts to reach a deal with Muhammad came to nothing: by 2009, its cadre were being systematically eliminated. The last straw, by some accounts, was a 2009 speech where Sufi Muhammad declared that democracy and Islam were irreconcilable — and that women should only be allowed to leave their homes only for the Haj, not even medical treatment.
Finally, the military went in — crushing the TNSM insurgency, but in the process causing massive civilian displacement and hardship that some fear will lead to a pro-jihadist backlash. Notably, the victory did nothing to end terrorism in the region, which rages on.
Now, though, with a middle-level officer corps ever-more sympathetic to the Islamist cause, a substantial popular constituency hostile to backing the United States' war on terrorism, and a military that has demonstrated few counter-insurgency skills, there is little stomach for another campaign. Fighting in North Waziristan, without doubt, degrades the jihadist movement's capabilities, but large-scale terrorism will not quickly end. For that, Pakistan needs political resources — a commitment to democratisation and development, and parties that can deliver them — that it simply does not possess.
For the foreseeable future, Pakistan's descent into the abyss seems inevitable: war or no war in Waziristan.
Nawaz Sharif says: Pakistani institutions have done more damage to Kashmir dispute than anyone else may - may Allah bless him for that
Nawaz Sharif says: Pakistani institutions have done more damage to Kashmir dispute than anyone else may - may Allah bless him for that
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/11/in-session-11th-june-2011-latest-on-dunya-news/
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/11/in-session-11th-june-2011-latest-on-dunya-news/
Monday, 6 June 2011
Non Kashmiri political parties are a serious threat to Kashmiri struggle
Non Kashmiri political parties are a serious threat to Kashmiri struggle
Dr Shabir Choudhry 6 June 2011
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are taking place this month. These elections are no different to the elections that place on the others side of the Line of Control under the Indian Administration. Whereas, Pakistani governments, their secret agencies and their proxies oppose, tooth and nail, elections on the Indian side; they put up a good drama of elections in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control.
At one time, people of the Indian Administered Kashmir under influence of Pakistan and their proxies in the Valley of Kashmir took the bait and boycotted elections as if they were haram forbidden in Qur’an. They were led to believe that if they took part in elections it will be tantamount to voting for accession of the State with India, even though one UN Security Council Resolution clearly says that no election can substitute election.
Thank Almighty that people have now understood game plan of Pakistan and their proxies who urged people not to take part in the elections, as people now know elections are for administrative purposes and they do not change status of this disputed territory. Furthermore, they understood that if the elections are halal – allowed under the Pakistani Administration then they cannot be haram – forbidden under the Indian Administration.
Once the people understood that agents of Pakistan and Pakistan’s proxy leaders were not sincere with the Kashmiri struggle and that the call to boycott elections was to get more rewards from Islamabad, they totally ignored this call of boycott and participated in the elections in great numbers surprising all the analysts.
Unlike India, Pakistani control over areas of Jammu and Kashmir is more subtle, scientific and stringent. Areas known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan do not even have those facilities and liberties which their counterparts, despite the militancy, violence and presence of a large army enjoy; yet these people are fooled in to believe that they are azad meaning free.
As a result of this false sense of being free, majority of people think they don’t need to struggle for freedom, rule of law and fundamental laws. They think because we are allowed to go to mosques, open a corner shop and kill cows in Islamic way we are free, even though our resources and government is controlled and exploited y Pakistan and their agents inside the territories under Pakistani control.
Elections are not contested on any principle or ideology. Those who have money, legal or illegal, can buy tickets of the parties and seats in the Upper House known as Kashmir Council. Recently Kashmir Council elections have been completed and some people had to pay three cror rupees (around £250,000) to buy the seat. Each Kashmir Council member gets around four cror rupees per annum; and it is up to them how they spend that – there is no accountability. It is a good business.
To get a party ticket for the Assembly of Pakistani Administered Kashmir from one of the major political parties, each applicant has to submit 135,000 rupees; and each constituency attracts many applications. All the money goes to party heads. In our unfortunate territory PPP and Muslim League N are big parties and both are non local parties – Pakistanis. Who gets ticket for which seat final decision is taken by Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, so where is the much talked democracy.
While talking to me on this subject Masoom Ansari, a leader of Kashmir National Party said: ‘Azad Kashmiri politics is now controlled by Pakistani political parties and this is very dangerous for the Kashmiri struggle and our identity. What interest does PPP, N League, MQM and Jamat e Islami could have to our problems and our struggle for independence? Pakistan already controls all aspects of our social, political and economic life, our resources are looted and we have become powerless and enslaved in our motherland.’
Masoom Ansari further said: ‘These parties are not here to help or support us in any way. They are here to colonise us. People of Azad Kashmir, before supporting them must think what these parties have done to Pakistan. If these political parties can do that to Pakistan - to their own country just imagine what they can do to a territory that is not legally part of Pakistan? We are deprived of that little control we had on our political parties and selection of candidates, now Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain will decide who is going to be our member of Assembly.’
Another senior Kashmir leader of Liberation League, Choudhry Mohammed Sadiq said: ‘We have differences with Muslim League, we dislike their policies and style of government, but after all they are a local party with local interest in mind. Pakistani parties should not be allowed to take part in the elections. These are non Kashmiri parties with non Kashmiri agenda. They will advance a Pakistani agenda and that is to make this area a part of Pakistan. People should not vote for candidates of these parties to express their approval.’
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my fellow Kashmiris, but I know people will vote for them; and even if they don’t still PPP and many N League leaders will be declared winners. It is also possible that MQM will win a few seats. In a place like Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan money speaks; and elections are not won on the strength of a principle or an ideology.
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are not won or lost on political or ideological basis. Money, social status, tribal strength and moreover contacts with the Pakistani establishment is the determining factor. Islamabad ensures that only those people win the elections who are easy to handle and who have no strength of character or ideology.
Some Kashmiri nationalist parties have decided to sign the declaration which prohibits them to take part in the elections. These parties have no finance to match pro Pakistan parties. They have no experience in contesting elections; and they have weak organisational structures. They don’t have strong contacts with the Azad Kashmir bureaucracy; and the Pakistani establishment don’t want them to win.
Despite all that they have decided to contest. They know they will lose, but they are determined to fight. They are determined to challenge the proxy rule and proxy politics and might of Islamabad. These leaders say winning is not everything; the elections will provide them an opportunity to meet people and tell them how Islamabad and their agents have exploited them in name of Islam and freedom struggle.
These leaders think those who inserted that clause in Act 1974, under which Azad Kashmir is administered, that demands loyalty to Pakistan before one can even become a candidate was designed to keep the Kashmiri nationalists away from the ‘democratic process’. The nationalist Kashmiri leadership without realising designs of the imperialist minds in Islamabad fell in this trap and boycotted elections since 1974. That policy ensured that nationalist leadership did not interact with ordinary people and give this message to the ordinary people that they had no interest and no role in local matters which were related to every day issues of the people.
Some Kashmiri nationalists individually contested elections in the past, and generally they were castigated for that. It was the Kashmir National Party, which after lengthy debates in the party boldly came out with a policy that we will support the democratic process on both sides of the divide; and will take part in the elections.
Some other parties also followed the KNP foot steps and declared that they would also contest elections. The result of intra - party discussions is an alliance called National Democratic Alliance which has put forward an election manifesto and fielded a number of candidates. This is a turning point in the polity of the Pakistani Administered Kashmir.
These pro independent Kashmir candidates are not in a position to defeat the social and political infrastructure put in place by Pakistan and their agencies to protect and promote their interest; but they will be in a position to dent the credibility of Pakistan and their policy on Kashmir. To me that itself is a commendable act and a step in right direction.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 6 June 2011
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are taking place this month. These elections are no different to the elections that place on the others side of the Line of Control under the Indian Administration. Whereas, Pakistani governments, their secret agencies and their proxies oppose, tooth and nail, elections on the Indian side; they put up a good drama of elections in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control.
At one time, people of the Indian Administered Kashmir under influence of Pakistan and their proxies in the Valley of Kashmir took the bait and boycotted elections as if they were haram forbidden in Qur’an. They were led to believe that if they took part in elections it will be tantamount to voting for accession of the State with India, even though one UN Security Council Resolution clearly says that no election can substitute election.
Thank Almighty that people have now understood game plan of Pakistan and their proxies who urged people not to take part in the elections, as people now know elections are for administrative purposes and they do not change status of this disputed territory. Furthermore, they understood that if the elections are halal – allowed under the Pakistani Administration then they cannot be haram – forbidden under the Indian Administration.
Once the people understood that agents of Pakistan and Pakistan’s proxy leaders were not sincere with the Kashmiri struggle and that the call to boycott elections was to get more rewards from Islamabad, they totally ignored this call of boycott and participated in the elections in great numbers surprising all the analysts.
Unlike India, Pakistani control over areas of Jammu and Kashmir is more subtle, scientific and stringent. Areas known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan do not even have those facilities and liberties which their counterparts, despite the militancy, violence and presence of a large army enjoy; yet these people are fooled in to believe that they are azad meaning free.
As a result of this false sense of being free, majority of people think they don’t need to struggle for freedom, rule of law and fundamental laws. They think because we are allowed to go to mosques, open a corner shop and kill cows in Islamic way we are free, even though our resources and government is controlled and exploited y Pakistan and their agents inside the territories under Pakistani control.
Elections are not contested on any principle or ideology. Those who have money, legal or illegal, can buy tickets of the parties and seats in the Upper House known as Kashmir Council. Recently Kashmir Council elections have been completed and some people had to pay three cror rupees (around £250,000) to buy the seat. Each Kashmir Council member gets around four cror rupees per annum; and it is up to them how they spend that – there is no accountability. It is a good business.
To get a party ticket for the Assembly of Pakistani Administered Kashmir from one of the major political parties, each applicant has to submit 135,000 rupees; and each constituency attracts many applications. All the money goes to party heads. In our unfortunate territory PPP and Muslim League N are big parties and both are non local parties – Pakistanis. Who gets ticket for which seat final decision is taken by Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, so where is the much talked democracy.
While talking to me on this subject Masoom Ansari, a leader of Kashmir National Party said: ‘Azad Kashmiri politics is now controlled by Pakistani political parties and this is very dangerous for the Kashmiri struggle and our identity. What interest does PPP, N League, MQM and Jamat e Islami could have to our problems and our struggle for independence? Pakistan already controls all aspects of our social, political and economic life, our resources are looted and we have become powerless and enslaved in our motherland.’
Masoom Ansari further said: ‘These parties are not here to help or support us in any way. They are here to colonise us. People of Azad Kashmir, before supporting them must think what these parties have done to Pakistan. If these political parties can do that to Pakistan - to their own country just imagine what they can do to a territory that is not legally part of Pakistan? We are deprived of that little control we had on our political parties and selection of candidates, now Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain will decide who is going to be our member of Assembly.’
Another senior Kashmir leader of Liberation League, Choudhry Mohammed Sadiq said: ‘We have differences with Muslim League, we dislike their policies and style of government, but after all they are a local party with local interest in mind. Pakistani parties should not be allowed to take part in the elections. These are non Kashmiri parties with non Kashmiri agenda. They will advance a Pakistani agenda and that is to make this area a part of Pakistan. People should not vote for candidates of these parties to express their approval.’
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my fellow Kashmiris, but I know people will vote for them; and even if they don’t still PPP and many N League leaders will be declared winners. It is also possible that MQM will win a few seats. In a place like Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan money speaks; and elections are not won on the strength of a principle or an ideology.
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are not won or lost on political or ideological basis. Money, social status, tribal strength and moreover contacts with the Pakistani establishment is the determining factor. Islamabad ensures that only those people win the elections who are easy to handle and who have no strength of character or ideology.
Some Kashmiri nationalist parties have decided to sign the declaration which prohibits them to take part in the elections. These parties have no finance to match pro Pakistan parties. They have no experience in contesting elections; and they have weak organisational structures. They don’t have strong contacts with the Azad Kashmir bureaucracy; and the Pakistani establishment don’t want them to win.
Despite all that they have decided to contest. They know they will lose, but they are determined to fight. They are determined to challenge the proxy rule and proxy politics and might of Islamabad. These leaders say winning is not everything; the elections will provide them an opportunity to meet people and tell them how Islamabad and their agents have exploited them in name of Islam and freedom struggle.
These leaders think those who inserted that clause in Act 1974, under which Azad Kashmir is administered, that demands loyalty to Pakistan before one can even become a candidate was designed to keep the Kashmiri nationalists away from the ‘democratic process’. The nationalist Kashmiri leadership without realising designs of the imperialist minds in Islamabad fell in this trap and boycotted elections since 1974. That policy ensured that nationalist leadership did not interact with ordinary people and give this message to the ordinary people that they had no interest and no role in local matters which were related to every day issues of the people.
Some Kashmiri nationalists individually contested elections in the past, and generally they were castigated for that. It was the Kashmir National Party, which after lengthy debates in the party boldly came out with a policy that we will support the democratic process on both sides of the divide; and will take part in the elections.
Some other parties also followed the KNP foot steps and declared that they would also contest elections. The result of intra - party discussions is an alliance called National Democratic Alliance which has put forward an election manifesto and fielded a number of candidates. This is a turning point in the polity of the Pakistani Administered Kashmir.
These pro independent Kashmir candidates are not in a position to defeat the social and political infrastructure put in place by Pakistan and their agencies to protect and promote their interest; but they will be in a position to dent the credibility of Pakistan and their policy on Kashmir. To me that itself is a commendable act and a step in right direction.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Saturday, 4 June 2011
The death of Ilyas Kashmiri
The death of Ilyas Kashmiri
By Editorial
Published: June 5, 2011
A US drone strike in South Waziristan killed nine militants, including leader of Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Mohammad (HuJI) Ilyas Kashmiri, BBC Urdu reported on Saturday. PHOTO: FILE
It appears that Ilyas Kashmiri, a top al Qaeda militant, has been killed in a drone attack in South Waziristan – with confirmation coming purportedly from his own organisation. His death, if indeed he has been killed, will come as a huge blow to al Qaeda since Kashmiri was being touted as a potential successor to Osama bin Laden and was the outfit’s military commander. Kashmiri was one of the few men who provided a link between al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. As the leader of the 313 Brigade, his autonomous unit within the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, he drew on his contacts from his time resisting the Soviets in Afghanistan to collaborate with al Qaeda. Connected to both local and foreign militant outfits, his killing should come as a relief not just to Pakistan but all countries afflicted by terrorism.
His killing may also reignite the debate over the use of armed drones in the tribal areas. In isolation, it is hard to conceive of a more effective weapon in the fight against militancy. Drones target specific individuals, thereby limiting the casualties that would be incurred if ground troops were sent into North Waziristan. However, the public relations fight for the use of drones has been lost thanks to theduplicity of the Pakistan government. As shown in leaked US State Department cables, the country’s military and government has authorised, and even welcomed, the US drones while maintaining public deniability. Had our government been straight with the people from the outset, perhaps public opinion against the use of drones would not be strong.
Kashmiri’s killing should also be a cause for reflection in the military. Here was another man who was incubated, trained and rewarded by the military for fighting in Indian Kashmir only to turn against his benefactors. As reported by slain journalist Saleem Shahzad, Kashmiri was likely the mastermind behind the attack on PNS Mehran. The fallout between the military and Kashmiri wasn’t ideological; he had, according to several accounts, refused to serve alongside Maulana Masood Azhar. Even upon his return from Kashmir, Kashmiri was allowed to operate relatively freely. He was arrested for plotting to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf but then inexplicably freed. That Kashmiri has now been killed is good news but that the military-militant nexus isn’t yet dead is cause for concern.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 5th, 2011.
Just to get the facts straight, this guy was launched by ‘Pak’ Fauj.
An excerpt from a piece of writing by Saleem Shehzad:
So far A-Qaeda has introduced a few leaders for example Ilyas Kashmiri and his highly sophesticated guerrilla 313 Brigade who espoused the global Jihad.
Born in Bimbur (old Mirpur) in the Samhani Valley of Pakistan-administered Kashmir on February 10, 1964, Ilyas passed the first year of a mass communication degree at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. He did not continue due to his heavy involvement in jihadi activities.
The Kashmir Freedom Movement was his first exposure in the field of militancy, then the Harkat-ul Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI) and ultimately his legendary 313 Brigade. This grew into the most powerful group in South Asia and its network is strongly knitted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Nepal and Bangladesh. According to some CIA dispatches, the footprints of 313 Brigade are now in Europe and capable of the type of attack that saw a handful of militants terrorize the Indian city of Mumbai last November.
Little is documented of Ilyas’ life, and what has been reported is often contradictory. However, he is invariably described, certainly by world intelligence agencies, as the most effective, dangerous and successful guerrilla leader in the world.
He left the Kashmir region in 2005 after his second release from detention by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and headed for North Waziristan. He had previously been arrested by Indian forces, but he broke out of jail and escaped. He was then detained by the ISI as the suspected mastermind of an attack on then-president Pervez Musharraf, in 2003, but was cleared and released. The ISI then picked Ilyas up again in 2005 after he refused to close down his operations in Kashmir.
His relocation to the troubled border areas sent a chill down spines in Washington as they realized that with his vast experience, he could turn unsophisticated battle patterns in Afghanistan into audacious modern guerrilla warfare.
Ilyas’ track record spoke for itself. In 1994, he launched the al-Hadid operation in the Indian capital, New Delhi, to get some of his jihadi comrades released. His group of 25 people included Sheikh Omar Saeed (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) as his deputy. The group abducted several foreigners, including American, Israeli and British tourists and took them to Ghaziabad near Delhi. They then demanded that the Indian authorities release their colleagues, but instead they attacked the hideout. Sheikh Omar was injured and arrested. (He was later released in a swap for the passengers of a hijacked Indian aircraft). Ilyas escaped unhurt. On February 25, 2000, the Indian army killed 14 civilians in Lonjot village in Pakistan-administered Kashmir after commandos had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two Kashmirs. They returned to the Indian side with abducted Pakistani girls, and threw the severed heads of three of them at Pakistani soldiers.
The very next day, Ilyas conducted a guerilla operation against the Indian army in Nakyal sector after crossing the LoC with 25 fighters of 313 Brigade. They kidnapped an Indian army officer who was later beheaded – his head was paraded in the bazaars of Kotli back in Pakistani territory.
However, the most significant operation of Ilyas was in Aknor cantonment in Indian-administered Kashmir against the Indian armed forces following the massacre of Muslims in the Indian city of Gujarat in 2002. In cleverly planned attacks involving 313 Brigade divided into two groups, Indian generals, brigadiers and other senior officials were lured to the scene of the first attack. Two generals were injured (the Pakistan army could not injure a single Indian general in three wars) and several brigadiers and colonels were killed. This was one of the most telling setbacks for India in the long-running Kashmiri insurgency.
Within just months of arriving in the Afghan war theater in 2005, Kashmiri redefined the Taliban-led insurgency based on legendary Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap’s three-pronged guerrilla warfare strategy. For the Taliban, the main emphasis was to be placed on cutting NATO’s supply lines from all four sides of Afghanistan, and carrying out special operations similar to the Mumbai attack in Afghanistan. (See Asia Times Online)
Ref: http://www.syedsaleemshahzad.com/2011/05/bin-ladens-death-new-organization-leadership-emerges/
By Editorial
Published: June 5, 2011
A US drone strike in South Waziristan killed nine militants, including leader of Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Mohammad (HuJI) Ilyas Kashmiri, BBC Urdu reported on Saturday. PHOTO: FILE
It appears that Ilyas Kashmiri, a top al Qaeda militant, has been killed in a drone attack in South Waziristan – with confirmation coming purportedly from his own organisation. His death, if indeed he has been killed, will come as a huge blow to al Qaeda since Kashmiri was being touted as a potential successor to Osama bin Laden and was the outfit’s military commander. Kashmiri was one of the few men who provided a link between al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. As the leader of the 313 Brigade, his autonomous unit within the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, he drew on his contacts from his time resisting the Soviets in Afghanistan to collaborate with al Qaeda. Connected to both local and foreign militant outfits, his killing should come as a relief not just to Pakistan but all countries afflicted by terrorism.
His killing may also reignite the debate over the use of armed drones in the tribal areas. In isolation, it is hard to conceive of a more effective weapon in the fight against militancy. Drones target specific individuals, thereby limiting the casualties that would be incurred if ground troops were sent into North Waziristan. However, the public relations fight for the use of drones has been lost thanks to theduplicity of the Pakistan government. As shown in leaked US State Department cables, the country’s military and government has authorised, and even welcomed, the US drones while maintaining public deniability. Had our government been straight with the people from the outset, perhaps public opinion against the use of drones would not be strong.
Kashmiri’s killing should also be a cause for reflection in the military. Here was another man who was incubated, trained and rewarded by the military for fighting in Indian Kashmir only to turn against his benefactors. As reported by slain journalist Saleem Shahzad, Kashmiri was likely the mastermind behind the attack on PNS Mehran. The fallout between the military and Kashmiri wasn’t ideological; he had, according to several accounts, refused to serve alongside Maulana Masood Azhar. Even upon his return from Kashmir, Kashmiri was allowed to operate relatively freely. He was arrested for plotting to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf but then inexplicably freed. That Kashmiri has now been killed is good news but that the military-militant nexus isn’t yet dead is cause for concern.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 5th, 2011.
Just to get the facts straight, this guy was launched by ‘Pak’ Fauj.
An excerpt from a piece of writing by Saleem Shehzad:
So far A-Qaeda has introduced a few leaders for example Ilyas Kashmiri and his highly sophesticated guerrilla 313 Brigade who espoused the global Jihad.
Born in Bimbur (old Mirpur) in the Samhani Valley of Pakistan-administered Kashmir on February 10, 1964, Ilyas passed the first year of a mass communication degree at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. He did not continue due to his heavy involvement in jihadi activities.
The Kashmir Freedom Movement was his first exposure in the field of militancy, then the Harkat-ul Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI) and ultimately his legendary 313 Brigade. This grew into the most powerful group in South Asia and its network is strongly knitted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Nepal and Bangladesh. According to some CIA dispatches, the footprints of 313 Brigade are now in Europe and capable of the type of attack that saw a handful of militants terrorize the Indian city of Mumbai last November.
Little is documented of Ilyas’ life, and what has been reported is often contradictory. However, he is invariably described, certainly by world intelligence agencies, as the most effective, dangerous and successful guerrilla leader in the world.
He left the Kashmir region in 2005 after his second release from detention by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and headed for North Waziristan. He had previously been arrested by Indian forces, but he broke out of jail and escaped. He was then detained by the ISI as the suspected mastermind of an attack on then-president Pervez Musharraf, in 2003, but was cleared and released. The ISI then picked Ilyas up again in 2005 after he refused to close down his operations in Kashmir.
His relocation to the troubled border areas sent a chill down spines in Washington as they realized that with his vast experience, he could turn unsophisticated battle patterns in Afghanistan into audacious modern guerrilla warfare.
Ilyas’ track record spoke for itself. In 1994, he launched the al-Hadid operation in the Indian capital, New Delhi, to get some of his jihadi comrades released. His group of 25 people included Sheikh Omar Saeed (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) as his deputy. The group abducted several foreigners, including American, Israeli and British tourists and took them to Ghaziabad near Delhi. They then demanded that the Indian authorities release their colleagues, but instead they attacked the hideout. Sheikh Omar was injured and arrested. (He was later released in a swap for the passengers of a hijacked Indian aircraft). Ilyas escaped unhurt. On February 25, 2000, the Indian army killed 14 civilians in Lonjot village in Pakistan-administered Kashmir after commandos had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two Kashmirs. They returned to the Indian side with abducted Pakistani girls, and threw the severed heads of three of them at Pakistani soldiers.
The very next day, Ilyas conducted a guerilla operation against the Indian army in Nakyal sector after crossing the LoC with 25 fighters of 313 Brigade. They kidnapped an Indian army officer who was later beheaded – his head was paraded in the bazaars of Kotli back in Pakistani territory.
However, the most significant operation of Ilyas was in Aknor cantonment in Indian-administered Kashmir against the Indian armed forces following the massacre of Muslims in the Indian city of Gujarat in 2002. In cleverly planned attacks involving 313 Brigade divided into two groups, Indian generals, brigadiers and other senior officials were lured to the scene of the first attack. Two generals were injured (the Pakistan army could not injure a single Indian general in three wars) and several brigadiers and colonels were killed. This was one of the most telling setbacks for India in the long-running Kashmiri insurgency.
Within just months of arriving in the Afghan war theater in 2005, Kashmiri redefined the Taliban-led insurgency based on legendary Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap’s three-pronged guerrilla warfare strategy. For the Taliban, the main emphasis was to be placed on cutting NATO’s supply lines from all four sides of Afghanistan, and carrying out special operations similar to the Mumbai attack in Afghanistan. (See Asia Times Online)
Ref: http://www.syedsaleemshahzad.com/2011/05/bin-ladens-death-new-organization-leadership-emerges/
Friday, 3 June 2011
We must forget bitterness of the past
We must forget bitterness of the past
Dr Shabir Choudhry 4 June 2011
Call me what suits you, but I have to say what I strongly feel is true and which has soured relations between non Muslims and Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Non Muslims (and Muslims to some extent) were butchered, raped and kidnapped by Tribal invaders in October 1947. This Tribal invasion was managed by Pakistani rulers to capture Kashmir. Horrible memories of the past were still there when Pakistani backed militants drove out non Muslims from the Valley of Kashmir in 1990. These people are living away from their homes and from their natural habitat for more than two decades.
Both events were tragic and unwarranted; and what hurts me more is that these shameful acts were committed in name of religion and freedom struggle. No religion and civilised society can allow acts like that. To me and many other liberal and democratic citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, these acts were shameful to our history of toleration and coexistence; and they must be condemned.
These thoughts came to my mind once again because of inconsiderate attitude of one Pandit brother who with his family was uprooted by militants in 1990. During my recent visit to Vienna, where I went to address a Seminar on Cross border Terrorism and Human Rights in Kashmir, I met this Pandit.
My hosts, Naeem Khan and Abdul Rashid Choudhry suggested having an evening meal at a restaurant owned by this Pandit; and also inviting him to this seminar. They said he is a good person to have a chat on matters related to Kashmir.
Naeem Khan introduced me to him and also extended invitation for the seminar. He shook hand with a smile but soon after hearing about the seminar he retorted: You have come for a meal, enjoy it. Leave Kashmir and its politics on one side.
Realising his anger I immediately intervened and said: ‘You are our Kashmiri brother and tomorrow’s seminar is on terrorism and human rights in Kashmir, and we need to oppose…’
He abruptly interrupted me and said: ‘When we were victims of this terrorism you people were no where to be seen. We were terrorised, killed and expelled from our homes. After 20 years now you want to oppose terrorism and express sympathy….It is best to leave Kashmir and its politics aside and enjoy your meal.’
He said this and walked away. I was taken aback by his attitude. My hosts were also embarrassed with his attitude. I told my hosts that I did not expect this kind of response from him but we need to understand their bitterness as well. These people lived there for centuries. They are part of Kashmiri history and culture and some fanatics infatuated with power and new and alien interpretation of Islam drove them out of their homes.
I can understand his bitterness and anger of other Kashmiri brothers who have become victims of extremism and violence. However, it must be remembered that it is in the interest of some groups in India and Pakistan to ensure that people of the region continue to remain divided on religious and sectarian lines, as it serves their personal and political agenda.
These groups can only flourish if people of the Sub Continent are divided on religious, ethnic and regional lines. They know apart from other issues the Kashmir dispute is the main unresolved dispute and to which people of the governments have emotional attachment.
Leaders of these extremist groups know that social and political culture of Jammu and Kashmir is different, and there is more tolerance and harmony. These extremists could only succeed if they can divide people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious and ethnic lines and destroy peace and harmony in the State.
Since 1947 all ethnic groups of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered; and there is bitterness and anger. Those who want to keep us divided they keep on pouring fuel on fire, and devise new strategies to promote hatred among different ethnic communities that we hold each other responsible for our miseries.
Success of those who occupy us is that in each divided region of the State of Jammu and Kashmir we wrongly think that our problems are either because of Muslims, Hindus, Sunnis, Shias or Buddhists; and further division is on ethnic and regional lines. Fact, however, is that forces of occupation spread these rumours and use vulnerable people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds to advance their agenda of promoting hatred and entrenching their rule.
Those who became victims of communal hatred need to think why all of sudden their homeland became inhospitable to them. Those who did not like culture of peace and tolerance prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir, they by use of money and extremist ideology transformed it in to a ‘jihadi camp’ where non Muslims were the prime target; but those Muslims who challenged this alien thinking and ideology were also butchered.
It was not a fight of one religion against the other; rather it was a mindset which wanted to change the political and social scene by use of force to advance its extremist ideology. I am as against this mindset as any non Muslim can be. Our struggle, therefore, should be against this mindset rather than against any religion or against ordinary citizens of Jammu and Kashmir.
During this trip I asked one Kashmiri activist what was his struggle for. He said, ‘at one time he wanted to join Pakistan, but after visiting Pakistan his views have changed; and now his struggle is for an independent, democratic and secular Jammu and Kashmir.’
I said but, ‘that option, despite so much bloodshed, violence and destruction is not on the table and we Kashmiris are urged to become either part of Pakistan or India. In view of that what is best for us.’
He paused for a moment and looked around, and after realising that there was no one else listening he said: ‘I have seen both India and Pakistan. Our first choice must be an independent Jammu and Kashmir and if that is not possible then we should come to some kind of terms with India rather than Pakistan. India, despite all the faults and what has happened over the years can offer us better deal than Pakistan could ever give us. Pakistan has no future of its own and we will end up having very serious social, political and economic problems; even if Pakistan survives as a nation state, we will lose our identity and culture in Pakistan.’
We people of Jammu and Kashmir need to understand that, despite different religions, different cultures and different languages our State was one political entity until it was forcibly divided; and whatever its future might be the State must remain one political entity. If we diverge from this crucial point, then we are all doomed; and we will become history.
Those who want to annex our homeland and usurp our fundamental rights will promote extremism, hatred and divisions, as that will help them to weaken us and rule us. We need to be conscious of their designs and counter them. It is, therefore, imperative that we put bitterness of the past behind us, and think as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir to protect our history, culture, identity and future of next generation.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 4 June 2011
Call me what suits you, but I have to say what I strongly feel is true and which has soured relations between non Muslims and Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Non Muslims (and Muslims to some extent) were butchered, raped and kidnapped by Tribal invaders in October 1947. This Tribal invasion was managed by Pakistani rulers to capture Kashmir. Horrible memories of the past were still there when Pakistani backed militants drove out non Muslims from the Valley of Kashmir in 1990. These people are living away from their homes and from their natural habitat for more than two decades.
Both events were tragic and unwarranted; and what hurts me more is that these shameful acts were committed in name of religion and freedom struggle. No religion and civilised society can allow acts like that. To me and many other liberal and democratic citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, these acts were shameful to our history of toleration and coexistence; and they must be condemned.
These thoughts came to my mind once again because of inconsiderate attitude of one Pandit brother who with his family was uprooted by militants in 1990. During my recent visit to Vienna, where I went to address a Seminar on Cross border Terrorism and Human Rights in Kashmir, I met this Pandit.
My hosts, Naeem Khan and Abdul Rashid Choudhry suggested having an evening meal at a restaurant owned by this Pandit; and also inviting him to this seminar. They said he is a good person to have a chat on matters related to Kashmir.
Naeem Khan introduced me to him and also extended invitation for the seminar. He shook hand with a smile but soon after hearing about the seminar he retorted: You have come for a meal, enjoy it. Leave Kashmir and its politics on one side.
Realising his anger I immediately intervened and said: ‘You are our Kashmiri brother and tomorrow’s seminar is on terrorism and human rights in Kashmir, and we need to oppose…’
He abruptly interrupted me and said: ‘When we were victims of this terrorism you people were no where to be seen. We were terrorised, killed and expelled from our homes. After 20 years now you want to oppose terrorism and express sympathy….It is best to leave Kashmir and its politics aside and enjoy your meal.’
He said this and walked away. I was taken aback by his attitude. My hosts were also embarrassed with his attitude. I told my hosts that I did not expect this kind of response from him but we need to understand their bitterness as well. These people lived there for centuries. They are part of Kashmiri history and culture and some fanatics infatuated with power and new and alien interpretation of Islam drove them out of their homes.
I can understand his bitterness and anger of other Kashmiri brothers who have become victims of extremism and violence. However, it must be remembered that it is in the interest of some groups in India and Pakistan to ensure that people of the region continue to remain divided on religious and sectarian lines, as it serves their personal and political agenda.
These groups can only flourish if people of the Sub Continent are divided on religious, ethnic and regional lines. They know apart from other issues the Kashmir dispute is the main unresolved dispute and to which people of the governments have emotional attachment.
Leaders of these extremist groups know that social and political culture of Jammu and Kashmir is different, and there is more tolerance and harmony. These extremists could only succeed if they can divide people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious and ethnic lines and destroy peace and harmony in the State.
Since 1947 all ethnic groups of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered; and there is bitterness and anger. Those who want to keep us divided they keep on pouring fuel on fire, and devise new strategies to promote hatred among different ethnic communities that we hold each other responsible for our miseries.
Success of those who occupy us is that in each divided region of the State of Jammu and Kashmir we wrongly think that our problems are either because of Muslims, Hindus, Sunnis, Shias or Buddhists; and further division is on ethnic and regional lines. Fact, however, is that forces of occupation spread these rumours and use vulnerable people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds to advance their agenda of promoting hatred and entrenching their rule.
Those who became victims of communal hatred need to think why all of sudden their homeland became inhospitable to them. Those who did not like culture of peace and tolerance prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir, they by use of money and extremist ideology transformed it in to a ‘jihadi camp’ where non Muslims were the prime target; but those Muslims who challenged this alien thinking and ideology were also butchered.
It was not a fight of one religion against the other; rather it was a mindset which wanted to change the political and social scene by use of force to advance its extremist ideology. I am as against this mindset as any non Muslim can be. Our struggle, therefore, should be against this mindset rather than against any religion or against ordinary citizens of Jammu and Kashmir.
During this trip I asked one Kashmiri activist what was his struggle for. He said, ‘at one time he wanted to join Pakistan, but after visiting Pakistan his views have changed; and now his struggle is for an independent, democratic and secular Jammu and Kashmir.’
I said but, ‘that option, despite so much bloodshed, violence and destruction is not on the table and we Kashmiris are urged to become either part of Pakistan or India. In view of that what is best for us.’
He paused for a moment and looked around, and after realising that there was no one else listening he said: ‘I have seen both India and Pakistan. Our first choice must be an independent Jammu and Kashmir and if that is not possible then we should come to some kind of terms with India rather than Pakistan. India, despite all the faults and what has happened over the years can offer us better deal than Pakistan could ever give us. Pakistan has no future of its own and we will end up having very serious social, political and economic problems; even if Pakistan survives as a nation state, we will lose our identity and culture in Pakistan.’
We people of Jammu and Kashmir need to understand that, despite different religions, different cultures and different languages our State was one political entity until it was forcibly divided; and whatever its future might be the State must remain one political entity. If we diverge from this crucial point, then we are all doomed; and we will become history.
Those who want to annex our homeland and usurp our fundamental rights will promote extremism, hatred and divisions, as that will help them to weaken us and rule us. We need to be conscious of their designs and counter them. It is, therefore, imperative that we put bitterness of the past behind us, and think as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir to protect our history, culture, identity and future of next generation.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)