Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c03/h07/mnt/56080/domains/filtercoffee.nationalinterest.in/html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160
Tag Archives | jang

Urdunama: Ghazwa-e-Hind

On May 5, 2014, Lashkar-e-Taiba’s leader Hafiz Saeed chastised Pakistan’s GEO Group, accusing it of representing India and favoring India’s views against Pakistan.  He then proceeded to write an op-ed in the very same group’s Urdu newspaper, Jang, two weeks later on the occasion of the anniversary of Pakistan’s nuclear tests.  In his op-ed, Saeed warned Pakistan’s political leadership of India’s enmity with Pakistan and urged them to exercise caution in dealing with the new Indian government.

Excerpts follow:

India conducted its May 18, 1974 nuclear tests a mere 93 miles away from the Pakistani border.  These nuclear tests were conducted within a few years of East Pakistan having been lost.  After the 1971 victory, Indira Gandhi stated that the Two Nation Theory as a credible concept now lay somewhere at the bottom of the Bay of Bengal.

But why did India conduct nuclear tests even after it had successfully managed to dismember Pakistan?  The truth is India accumulated nuclear weapons and missiles not because it harbors any good intentions towards its neighbors, but because it wishes to dismember them.  Pakistan, by contrast, has only pursued nuclear weapons for self-defense.   Nuclear technology is essential to Pakistan for two reasons.

One, India to this day has not accepted the reality of Pakistan.  It opposes the integrity and raison d’être of the Pakistani state.   India is an enemy of Pakistan and Islam on political, religious and societal lines.  The concept of “Akhand Bharat” is but a manifestation of the religious, political and militant extremism of India’s leaders.  India’s leaders harbor the same ill-will towards Pakistan today as they did in 1947 or 1971.  Nuclear weapons are thus needed to protect Pakistan’s independence and sovereignty.

Two, Pakistan is a developing country and is confronted with many challenges, including an energy crisis.  We are now also faced with critical water shortages as a result of India’s “water terrorism” against us.  With the help of nuclear energy, Pakistan can hope to address critical shortages in energy supply in Pakistan.

Sixteen years ago, the ruling BJP party threatened to seize Azad Kashmir and annihilate Pakistan after they tested their nuclear weapons.  The BJP is back in power in India.  Narendra Modi is now the prime minister and most Indians appear to be enthusiastic at the ascendance of this extremist leader.

We appeal to Pakistan’s leaders that they should not forget that India’s attitude towards Pakistan has not changed in the 16 years since the nuclear tests .  India’s attitude towards Pakistan is one of hatred and enmity. Our past leaders were prepared to sacrifice Pakistan’s independence and sovereignty in the quest for peace with India.  They deviated from our long-standing official position on Kashmir.  But what did Pakistan get in return from India?  Enmity, sabotage, terrorism, water aggression and hatred.

The clearest evidence of India’s antipathy towards Pakistan is the most recently-concluded elections in India, which were contested exclusively on the basis of hatred towards Pakistan.  These elections have revealed India’s farcical claims of secularism and friendship with Pakistan. BJP’s agenda involves the abrogation of Jammu & Kashmir’s special status, replacement of the Babri Masjid with a Ram temple and the repatriation of all Hindus living abroad to India.

We therefore ask Pakistan’s political leaders to reassess their priorities in dealing with India.  Optimism is perhaps a good thing, but being delusional isn’t. In international relations, delusional thinking can lead to the downfall of countries.  It is important, therefore, for our government to clearly identify our enemy and understand its aims and motivations. [جنگ]

The MJC appears to be working overtime on account of the new leadership in India.  We also understand that Saeed has scheduled a Ghazwa-e-Hind (Conquest of India) conference on June 5 in Rawalakot, PoK, with the usual suspects Maulana Saifullah Khalid and Nassar Javed likely to be in attendance. (h/t @TarekFatah)

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

GEOPolitics

The attack on Hamid Mir and its aftermath.

Propagandists in Pakistan move in mysterious ways their wonders to perform.  Those who once exercised creative license to ascribe any and all acts of terror in Pakistan to India’s external intelligence agency R&AW are now being labeled agents of that same agency.  Hamid Mir, senior journalist with the GEO Group, was attacked this past Saturday by unidentified persons while on his way to a special broadcast on GEO TV in Karachi.  Mr. Mir was shot six times in the abdomen and legs, but miraculously survived the attack.

In the ensuing outrage, Amir Mir, brother to Hamid and a journalist of repute himself, accused the ISI of orchestrating the attack on his brother.  GEO TV, as part of its coverage of the attack, broadcast a photograph of DG ISI Lt. Gen. Zahir ul-Islam, while Ansar Abbasi, investigative editor of the Jang Group’s English-language newspaper The News, demanded his resignation.

Big mistake.  One does not simply accuse the DG ISI on national television and get away with it.  The ISI dismissed the allegations as “baseless” (as all allegations usually are in Pakistan). Pakistan’s Defense Ministry, in its complaint against GEO TV, accuses it of bringing the ISI into disrepute and demands that Pakistan’s Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) cancel GEO TV’s license to broadcast.

With the PEMRA verdict still pending, GEO TV took to Twitter yesterday, indicating that its channel had been blocked by a few cable operators.  This may of course be true, but some of us may be forgiven if we suspect this to be a reenactment of the last time GEO TV claimed to have been taken off air. In that particular instance, a GEO official privately confirmed that they had “taken themselves off the air in order to blame [a] political party, and garner support for the station.”

GEO TV and Mr. Mir are now under attack from many quarters.  Rival media houses are in an all-out war.  Many of them are unable to appreciate the fact that the price one now pays for defying the Deep State is no longer censorship, it is death.  And it wouldn’t matter if it were GEO, Express or Dawn.  The rules of the game have changed.

Of course, propaganda theories of Indian involvement are never very far when hell breaks loose in Pakistan, which is always.  The Awami Muslim League’s Sheikh Rasheed, who was “detained” in the U.S. in 2012 for his links with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hafiz Saeed, opined that the attack on Hamid Mir benefited India, which was looking to malign the Pakistani Army and ISI. Hafiz Saeed also took to Twitter to level vague and uncreative accusations at India and the U.S. 

Mr. Mir himself had been particularly distressed in the recent past at being labelled an “Indian agent.” But how things change.  It wasn’t too long ago that Mr. Mir did the bidding of higher powers in Rawalpindi and Islamabad before he managed to find his liberal conscience (though possibly not his “liberal fascist” conscience).

Indeed, he was for the ISI before he was against it.  After all, not every journalist in Pakistan gets to interview Osama bin Laden.  And that too not once, but on three occasions. But the nature of that relationship changed in 2010 when a tape surfaced of Mr. Mir allegedly conversing with the TTP’s Usman Punjabi, in which he relayed false information that may have contributed to the death of ISI official Khalid Khawaja.  The recorded conversation, still available online, also has Mr. Mir talking disparagingly about Pakistan’s persecuted Ahmedis. Quite the liberal indeed.

So where does this all end? It is hard to see how PEMRA could fly in the face of the ISI’s demands and recommend anything other than revoking GEO’s license. But in time, the brouhaha will be forgotten.  Ansar Abbasi and the GEO crew will probably show up somewhere, somehow on some national TV show in which they will proceed to eulogize the Pakistani army, thereby underscoring their hubb ul-watan (patriotic) credentials. Couple this with private undertakings to comply with the red lines now drawn and order will be restored. Licenses will be reinstated, and talk show hosts and their guests will be yelling at each other, competing for the soundbite of the day on GEO TV soon enough.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Urdunama: Indian Agent

The Abbottabad Commission Report was effectively a witch hunt that burnt no witches.  Vague references to very important people in even more important positions apart, the report names no names.  The absence of detail has angered some in Pakistan’s press corps, and none more so than veteran journalist Hamid Mir.  Mr. Mir, in his op-ed “Indian Agent,” in the Jang, inquires as to how no one in Pakistan’s political, military and intelligence communities appeared to know anything about Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Like a headless chicken likely to assault anything in its path, Mr. Mir proceeds to launch a most unique tirade against Pakistan’s much-feared Inter-services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), President Asif Ali Zardari, COAS Kiyani, ex DG-ISI Ahmed Shuja Pasha and former self-appointed (and only) Field Marshal of Pakistan, Mohammed Ayub Khan.

Mr. Mir is profoundly angered that no one in Pakistan knew where Osama bin Laden was prior to the May 2, 2011 raid in Abbottabad.  This must be particularly annoying to Mr. Mir, given that he is the only journalist in the world to have found his way to Osama bin Laden, meeting with him three times (including once for an interview barely a month after the U.S was in hot pursuit of him in November, 2001).  Excerpts follow:

The operation in Abbottabad lasted for a full hour.  What were the police in Abbottabad, officers of the Pakistan Military Academy, ISI, IB and members of the Special Branch doing during this time?  Where were the defenders of this nuclear-armed nation during the assault on one of our cities? Did the Abbottabad Commission ask these questions of the leaders of our armed forces?

The report indicates that the Commission was not able to meet with those individuals most knowledgeable about the operation, but fails to name names.  No doubt, the Commission alludes to President Zardari, PM Yousaf Raza Gillani and COAS Parvez Kayani.  I knew that the Commission would let them off the hook because it did not want to embarrass the leaders of a nuclear-armed nation.

There is no new information in the Abbottabad Commission report.  Indeed, the Commission has not even been able to answer the question as to how our intelligence agencies are so proficient in being able to tap the phone lines of politicians, journalists and judges, but are incapable of determining how one of the world’s most wanted individuals came to be living a stone’s throw away from the Pakistan Military Academy.

These days, anyone that protests the narrative of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies is subjected to a cyber-war by their agents on social media platforms.  We are labeled “Indian agents” because we challenge the narrative of the establishment  No one stops for a second to think that if the U.S. was able to orchestrate such an operation in Pakistan with no repercussions, how will these intelligence agencies manage to save face if India were to do likewise?  The army and ISI didn’t have a problem transferring control of Shamsi airbase to the U.S. or permitting drone attacks inside Pakistan, but when Pakistan TV channels allow USAID to advertize content, these agencies accuse us of being bought by the U.S.

If journalists and judges were to argue that this business of attributing all attacks in Pakistan to “unidentified gunmen” has turned the law of the land into a joke, these people are immediately termed to be Indian agents.  If we really did love Pakistan and didn’t want to find employment abroad like a recently-retired chief of the ISI [presumably alluding to Lt Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha], we must speak the truth and not be afraid of being labelled an “Indian agent.”

Conspiracy theories and labeling people “Indian agents” is nothing new in Pakistan.  The foundation for such enduring conspiracy theories was laid during the dictatorship of Ayub Khan.  Indeed, the Mother of the Nation, Fatima Jinnah was also labeled an “Indian agent” by Gen. Ayub Khan when she challenged his dictatorial regime.  Fatima Jinnah was called an “Indian agent” by the same individual who sold Pakistan’s rivers to India, bartered the aspirations of the people of Kashmir, and instituted programs to buy journalists and reporters to tow the establishment narrative.

Those that towed his official line were regarded as patriots; those that didn’t were called “Indian agents.”  True patriots, those that understand how the interests of the nation are being bartered must speak out.  However, in doing so, they must be willing to risk the very distinct possibility of being labelled “Indian agents.'” [روزنامہ جنگ]

 

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

After Salmaan Taseer

Five questions for us to answer on liberalism in Pakistan.

The assassination of Salmaan Taseer has rightly triggered introspection and discourse in Pakistan on identity — social, religious and national.  Of these, articles written by the likes of Raza Rumi, Huma Yusuf, Ayesha Siddiqa, Yaseer Latif Hamdani and Shehryar Taseer deserve special mention and commendation.  There is, however, no dearth for the alternative narrative in Pakistan.  PML-N’s spokesperson claimed (اردو) that Mr. Taseer would have been assassinated by someone else had Mumtaz Qadri not done so. Irfan Siddiqui suggests (اردو) that while Mr. Taseer’s assassination cannot be condoned, it was expected, given the governor’s “liberal extremist” views.

A parallel discourse is also occurring in the West and in India.  Declan Walsh laments on the fate of the liberal Pakistani; Shekhar Gupta qualifies and clarifies; Seema Mustafa foretells of further doom and gloom. An overarching theme in many commentaries is that a liberal Pakistan is in India’s interests; that a “liberal” Pakistani civilian government would (not to say “could”) radically alter its worldview, foreign policy objectives and how it seeks to achieve them.  The trouble with this argument of course, is that a liberal Pakistani civilian government has never existed.   Even so, some commentaries point to Benazir Bhutto and her administrations of the late ’80s and ’90s as  approximate models.

However, liberal though Ms. Bhutto may have been, Pakistan’s worldview did not undergo material change during her leadership. Bilateral relations with India did not improve. If anything, Ms. Bhutto’s reign coincided with the height of the Jammu & Kashmir insurgency fomented by Pakistan, and proliferation of nuclear technology.  Indeed, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and the motivation to match India to the detriment of all else took shape  under the leadership of her charismatic father, the wine-drinking, UC Berkeley-educated Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (“We will eat grass…”).

It would therefore be a worthy exercise to ponder over these five questions on what a model for a liberal Pakistan would look like, and whether a liberal dispensation in Pakistan is a sufficient condition to alter the trajectory of its relationship with India.  For us in India, would the ascendancy of a liberal narrative in Pakistan’s internal discourse  lessen our own threat perception of our neighbor?

  • Could a liberal government in Islamabad effectively end the hold that the military-jihadi complex has on Pakistan’s formulation and implementation of foreign policy objectives?
  • Would it still maintain that India poses an existential threat to Pakistan?
  • What will its position be towards Kashmir? Specifically, towards the insurgency and state-sponsored sub-conventional warfare?
  • What will its position be on terrorism?  If another Mumbai were to occur, would this liberal regime disavow these groups? Actively confront them? Prosecute them? Extradite them, where permissible, to India? Cooperate with India’s own investigation?
  • Would it continue to maintain, by extension of #2, that Pakistan’s conduct in Afghanistan is just and only expected, given India’s commercial and political ties to Kabul?

Tough questions no doubt, but ones that need to be answered in India, as an internal battle for identity rages on in Pakistan.

UPDATE: My op-ed in The Pioneer has a more complete analysis of liberalism in Pakistan.


Read full story · Comments { 5 }