ISI’s Secret Pakistan: BBC2 Documentary

ISI provides weapons and training to the Taliban fighting US and British troops in Afghanistan, despite official denials, a BBC documentary quotes some people it claims to be Taliban commanders as alleging.

A number of middle-ranking Taliban commanders, it said, revealed the extent of Pakistani support in interviews for the BBC Two documentary series, `Secret Pakistan` A former head of Afghan intelligence also told the programme that Afghanistan gave former president Gen Musharraf information in 2006 that Osama bin Laden was hiding in northern Pakistan close to where the Al Qaeda leader was eventually killed by US forces in May.

The BBC said Pakistan strongly denied the allegations.

One Taliban commander, Mullah Qaseem, told the BBC the important things for a fighter were supplies and a hiding place.
`Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important.

`Secondly they provide us with weapons,` he said, according to excerpts provided by the BBC.

Other Taliban commanders described how they and their fighters were and are trained in a network of camps on Pakistani soil.
The BBC`s claim that they were Taliban fighters could not be independently verified.

According to a commander using the name Mullah Azizullah, the experts running the training are either members of the ISI or have close links to it.

`They are all the ISPs men. They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about bombs; then they give us practical guidance,` he said.

Talent spotting Another Taliban fighter, known as Commander Najib, said Al Qaeda trainers also operated in the camps, talent spotting possible suicide bombers.

`I was in the camp for a month … They were giving us practical training in whatever weapons we specialised in …Suicide bombers were taken to a different section and were kept apart from us.
Those who were taught to be suicide bombers were there, he said.
Amrullah Saleh, who headed Afghan intelligence from 2004 to 2010, said Syed Akbar, a Pakistani believed to be smuggling guns to the Taliban, told Afghan agents he had escorted Bin Laden from one location to another.

`The information we had was suggesting Mansehra was the town where Bin Laden was hiding … It happens after so many years that Bin Laden was (found) about 12 miles from that location, he said.
Mr Saleh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai took the evidence to Gen Musharraf who, according to Mr Saleh, reacted angrily.
`He (Musharraf) banged the table and looked at President Karzai and said, `Am I president of a banana republic? If not, then how can you tell me Bin Laden is hiding in a settled area of Pakistan. I said `Well, this is the information so you can go and check it`,` said Mr Saleh, who quit last year after differences with Mr Karzai over plans to talk to the Taliban.
The BBC said Pakistan strongly denied the allegations made in the programme.

Reuters

What Can Happen if We Give Talibans a Free Hand

There are numerous Pakistanis who are convinced that the Taliban rule inAfghanistanwas the best that the country had ever seen. They say that there was peace inAfghanistanand people could travel wherever they wanted to inside it, that there was no theft, no rape, no looting and generally law and order was good. There is, however, another segment of society, which is of the opinion that religion was misinterpreted and misused by the Taliban when they came to power in Afghanistan.

When they ruled Afghanistan, they did not enact any law which was not in accordance with the primary sources of their faith. They enforced laws taken from the Holy Quran, Ahadith, Sunni jurisprudence and fatwas of renowned Islamic scholars. They imposed restrictions on women and these included a total ban on activities outside the home and the requirement that they wear a long body-covering burqa when outside. Not only this, they were forbidden from dealing with shopkeepers, receiving education, treatment by male doctors, shaking hands with non-mehram men, playing sports, wearing high-heel shoes, or riding bicycles or motorcycles. They were also prohibited from going on a walk outside the house, even with a mehram, and they could not go to a male tailor, appear in the balconies of their homes, or travel in transport with males. Of course, there were other restrictions as well, and these included listening to music, photography, watching TV, using the internet — and all of these were off limits to ALL Afghans. Men were forbidden from shaving their beards and were required to wear headgear like the Taliban. Of course, not all these laws were invented by the Taliban, and in fact most were adopted from various Islamic sources, mostly from the Hanafi school of thought.

Those who support the Taliban also think that when the Americans leave, the Taliban will give up their arms and return to a normal peaceful life. They should see a recent video uploaded on YouTube. It is titled “Takfiri Molvi” (http://youtu.be/C_uYiQxTTf8) and shows a Pakistani Taliban leader calling the Quaid-i-Azam ‘Kafir-i-Azam’. This man also says that army troops have been declared apostates; he calls the Imam of the Kaaba “gumrah” and justifies kidnapping for ransom by saying that this is allowed under jihad. He refers to a kidnapped person as “aseer-e-ghaneemat”. Lootings of banks is also permitted, by calling the loot as “mal-e-ghaneemat” and the killing of women and children is justified by saying that this happens during a war.

The Taliban leader then goes on to call most Pakistanis “apostates” and hence this justifies their killing as a religious obligation. He says quite clearly that the Taliban will continue their jihad till the enforcement of Shariah inPakistanand will kill all those who oppose them.

The Taliban’s agenda has been clearly spelt out in this video. They want to impose Shariah in this country, through the use of force. And they are armed, trained and capable of accomplishing this mission, if they have support from the people. They will neither lay down arms nor end their terrorist activities, even with the withdrawal of US forces and people who think that they will are naïve or living in a state of denial.

So to consider them as “our own people” and to initiate dialogue with them is not going to stop them from carrying on with their activities. I would wish good luck to all those who want to negotiate peace with the likes of Mullah Fazlullah, Hakeemullah Mehsud, Faqir Muhammad, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, Qari Hussian and others.

And as for those media anchors who consider the Taliban important for lasting peace in Afghanistan, why don’t they consider sending their families to join Taliban and their sons to fight Jihad?

North Waziristan & the Haqqani Network

Located between the Khost province of eastern Afghanistan and KP of northwest Pakistan, North Waziristanis the second largest tribal region of FATA.

According to security experts, the area is considered today to be the epicentre not only of violence inAfghanistanandPakistanbut also a major source of International terrorism. Along with its geographic isolation, difficult terrain and relatively stable coalition of militant groups, they believe that the region has become the most important centre of militancy of FATA because of the impunity with which militants in the area have operated.

Local tribesmen do not approve of the presence of foreign militants, especially the Uzbeks and Punjabis, because they encroach the tribes’ lands and are insensitive to local customs

The most important militant group operating in the region is the Haqqani Network, an Afghan insurgent group led by Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani. Haqqani left his native Khost province and settled in North Waziristanas an exile during the republican Afghan government of Sardar Mohammad Dauod Khan in early 1970s. His son Sirajuddin, popularly known as Khaleefa, who became a key insurgent leader in theAfghanistanin mid 1980s, manages the network’s organisation from the Danday Darpakhel village near Miramshah in North Waziristan and carries out attacks on US and NATO forces inAfghanistan, according to security experts and local elders.

The second most important group in North Waziristanis led-by Hafiz Gul Bahadur, a key militant leader known for hosting foreign militants. Bahadur was announced as Naib Amir (deputy head) under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud upon the formation of the 2007 Tehreek-e-TalibanPakistan (TTP), an umbrella organisation of various militant groups operating in FATA. However Bahadur later formed an anti-TTP bloc by joining hands with Maulvi Nazir’sSouth Waziristan based group because of disagreements over TTP attacks against the Pakistani security forces and tribal rivalries of Mehsuds. The Haqqani Network and Bahadur are considered ‘good Taliban’ by thePakistan military authorities as they don’t carry out attacks insidePakistan and focus only on Afghanistan.

North Waziristan also provides shelter to several other local, foreign and international militant groups, such as the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Islamic Army of Great Britain , Ittehad-e-Jihad Islami (IJI), the TTP, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, the Harkat-ul-Jihad al Islami, the Fidayeen-e-Islami, Harkat-ul-Mujaheen, the Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, according to a latest report published in The News. Elders and political activists of North Waziristan say that many of the foreign militants, especially Central Asians, Arabs and Afghans, arrived inPakistan’s tribal areas when their bases inAfghanistanwere closed down in late 2001. They say that the local population does not approve of the presence of foreign militants, especially the Uzbeks and Punjabis, because they encroach the tribes’ lands and are insensitive to local customs. “We need neither good Taliban nor bad Taliban. The Pakistani government should abandon their policy of using militant groups against each other and should take stern measures to flush out all of these monsters from the area. They are not only carrying out subversive attacks inAfghanistanbut also destroying peace inPakistan,” said an elder from Dawar tribe of North Waziristan.

“We hate Taliban and there are no two opinions about it, but we are compelled to bear the atrocities of these militant outfits because the state has no writ,” said another elder from the Utmanzai tribe. “Our voices are not heard and we are not given appropriate space and airtime in the mainstream media.”

Because of the reluctance of Pakistani authorities to carry out a military operation in the region,USdrone have targeted the Mir Ali, Dattakhel and Miramshah areas of North Waziristan extensively, with five out of six drone strikes inPakistannow being reordered in North Waziristan. Residents of the tribal region say that they live in a constant state of fear of being hit, because of local and foreign militants. The attacks occur without any warning and are often not related to the Pakistani military’s operations.

“The drone frightens women and children who sometimes become the victims, especially if the intended targets are close to their homes,” the Utmanzai elder said.

Tribal elders believe many foreign and local militant leaders have been killed in drone strikes inNorth Waziristan. New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, estimates on basis of media reports that 80% of the people killed in drones were Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. The accuracy rose to an astonishing 95% in 2010. This assertion was corroborated by Pakistani security official Maj Gen Ghayur Mehmood, who commands troops inNorth Waziritan, in a March 9 media briefing. Between 2007 and 2011, he said, 164 drone strikes had carried out and over 964 terrorists had been killed. Of those killed, 793 were foreigners – Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.

When drones kill a key militant leader or fighter, the Ittehad-e-Mujahedeen-e-Khurasan (IMK), a relatively less-known alliance of all local and foreign militant outfits, kill innocent people belonging to local Utmanzai and Dawar tribes, accusing them of spying. The murders have created more hatred for the foreigners. Most of the killings are carried out by Uzbek and Arab members of the IMK, tribal elders say.

Some Pakistani militant groups have abandoned the IMK because of the brutal ways in which they murder people. “We tried our best to reform the IMK but repeated attempts to correct them failed,” Bahadur said in a recent statement issued after pressure from local Wazir tribesmen.

It is pertinent to mention here that with the help of militants led by Nazir, the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe of South Waziristan successfully flushed out Uzbek militants of IMU from Wana and other Wazir-dominated areas of the region in a spring 2007 uprising sparked by the brutality of the Uzbeks.

Similarly, the tense relationship between local and foreign militant outfits operating in North Waziristan has been displayed several times in the past, particularly in November 2006, when the IMU and the IJU accused Bahadur of betraying them and jumping into the government camp by demanding their eviction from theNorth Waziristan. Differences between Gul Bahadur and Central Asian militant outfits were solved after the Haqqani Network intervened.

Security experts say that the Haqqani Network has been playing the role of bridge between the local and foreign militants, especially Pakistani and Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda. It was the Haqqani Network that brokered a truce between the Nazir-led militant group and the TTP in South Waziristan when they were fighting over expulsion of Uzbek militants from the region, said a Bannu-based journalist, adding that that the Haqqani Network has strong presence not only in North Waziristan but also in South Waziristan, Kurram and Orakzai tribal agencies.

The Shia Turi tribes of neighbouring Kurram Agency say the growing drone attacks that killed dozens of Al Qaeda, Haqqani Network and TTP leaders, and the US pressure on Pakistani government to begin an operation inNorth Waziristan, has increased the importance of Kurram for the Haqqani Network. The network will also find in Kurram Agency new passages intoAfghanistan, especially with help from former TTP leader Fazal Saeed Haqqani. And it will bring new problems for the Shias of Kurram Agency.

Is Kharotabad in Quetta a Taliban Base?

Kharotabad: A Taliban safe haven

By Qaiser Butt

October 17, 2011

People in Kharotabad are living in constant fear of possible drone attacks in their neighbourhood, considering that over the past six months, the Afghan and local Taliban seemed to covet this part of Quetta as a veritable ‘vacation spot’.

Every four months, Taliban fighters return from war fronts in Afghanistan and rent out dozens of residential accommodations in this vicinity.

Their presence is becoming a major concern for people living in adjoining areas, especially because this is the same area where theUSalleges the Quetta Shura is hiding out.

A few madrassahs in Kharotabad are also providing ‘free’ accommodation to these militants.

They move freely as if to defy invisible observers, who they think are keeping a watch over them, making it obvious to them that Kharotabad is a safe haven for the Taliban.

Creating an army

Students from religious seminaries in the province are being recruited for the Afghan Taliban movement, a dime a dozen. They are reportedly ‘trained for jihad’ inAfghanistanby Afghan ‘commanders’, before they are sent on designated terror missions.

At least six to eight new, unarmed recruits leave Kuchlak Bazar, located near Quetta, on brand new 75CC motorbikes every morning, headed towards Afghanistan.

They are, it is learnt, told to avoid travelling on main highways to dodge security forces and instead take lesser known mountainous routes via Kuchlak to Qamar Din Karez town on the Pak-Afghan border.

They also avoid travelling in groups – two persons per motorbike. They are also given Rs5,000 each, in addition to sufficient money for fuel.

A majority of these boys join Taliban with their parent’s consent, while many others embark on this ‘holy mission’ without the knowledge of their guardians.

The ideology faction of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), led by MNA Maulana Esmatullah and his party members, is a motivating force for these young students of Balochistan.

Mullah Omar’s messages to people inPakistanand other parts of the world are also sent through Kandahar to Quetta.

Free medical care for war-wounded Taliban

The Afghan and local Taliban who are wounded during their missions in Afghanistan, are reportedly receiving free medical treatment at five prominent private hospitals, a majority of which are situated on the Airport Road.

The administration at these hospitals say that an international NGO of world repute, funds their medical care.”We are being paid by this NGO for the medical care being provided to the wounded or sick Taliban militants,” the administrator at Dr Abdul Khaliq Memorial Hospital said.

The NGO does not allow the police or intelligence agencies access to these “under-treatment” Taliban. The NGO puts up a ‘don’t know’ front “We have not set up any field hospitals in Balochistan to provide medical assistance to the Afghan Taliban or other militants,” the NGO’s head of sub-delegation said.

However, he said, the NGO is supporting three private hospitals inQuettafor providing medical assistance to wounded people. “Doctors atIkramHospitalandImdadHospitalare providing medical assistance to people injured in bomb blasts, firing incidents and other forms of violence.”

Hundreds of patients, mostly Afghans, receive treatment at these private hospitals in the provincial capital, he added.

Malik Ishaq Kills Shias & He is Given Protection by the Punjab Government

A mass killer has been provided protection while the families of his victims continue to suffer threats

Malik Ishaq, well known as a killer in many incidents of sectarian violence and bomb blasts has been taken by the state after killing over 100 victims. He is currently being held under house arrest for a period of ten days, supposedly as protective detention. His arrest happened on September 22, 2011 just two days after the killing of 29 persons from the Hazara tribe, the Shia community, in Mastung, Balochistan province and just three days after a sad incident where four more persons from the same tribe were killed by unknown persons as they were going to work.

A banned religious organisation, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) has claimed responsibility for the killings of the Shiaite and Malik heads that organisation. Malik was bailed from the Supreme Court of Pakistan in July from many cases regarding killings and bombings. Malik remained in detention for 14 years but the government could not provide protection to witnesses. Also the prosecution produced very weak cases which ultimately benefitted his defence. Subsequently he was released on bail by the Supreme Court on the grounds of these weak cases. He still faces seven cases and confessed that he planned the attack on the Sri Lankan Cricket Team when he was in jail in March 2009. In the attack seven security personnel were killed.

He was detained on September 22 on the pretext that he was facing death threats and needed protection. His arrest was made under Article 5 of the Maintenance of public order for ten days. The house detention generally does not fall under the term of punishment in the country as during that period the detainee has access to communications via cell phones, internet and the electronic media.

Immediately after his release on bail he visited many places and roused the people on sectarian issues. At the same time he organised his group, the LeJ, which is supposedly banned by the government. However, the LeJ has overtly opened offices in many districts of the Punjab province and is collecting funds on the streets by means of collection boxes in shops and restaurants. After the killing of the 29 Shia pilgrims from the Hazara tribe in Mastung, Balochistan province as they were going in a bus to visit the shrines of religious leaders in Iran, the LeJ has come out openly and announced that it would continue its movement against the Shia sect as they are infidel and they should be declared a non-Islamic religious group.

It is also alleged that banned militant religious groups are exciting violence in Punjab province with full institutional protection from the ruling party of the province. The federal minister on Interior Affairs accused the Punjab provincial government that its ministers and officials are closely associated with the LeJ which is why no action has been taken against the group.

The state’s attitude, particularly that of the armed forces, towards the militant religious groups is very soft and sometimes it seems that the militant groups are being protected for the purpose of being used at some suitable time in the future when the state of affairs goes out of the control. The state of Pakistan, which is mainly run by the military, has been using religious militant groups against the liberals and enlightened persons and forces.

In another case, Qadri, the killer of the assassinated governor of Punjab has been given the status of a hero of Islam and is enjoying every facility of life in custody; facilities which he never had in his ordinary life being a head constable in the police. He has access to his network through mobile phones and is being held in a special ward of the jail and allowed to have visitors who meet him regularly. All of this is contrary according to the prison manuals.

The son of the assassinated governor of Punjab, Mr. Shahbaz Taseer, was also abducted by militant groups from Punjab province on August 27 and his whereabouts remain unknown. It is reported that the LeJ is negotiating through the Punjab government for the release of Qadri in exchange for Shahbaz. The negotiations are apparently being carried out under the supervision of the law minister of Punjab province who is notorious for having relationships with the banned militant groups. Therefore all efforts for the release of Shahbaz have been in the interests of the militant organisations.

The state has totally failed to provide protection to the citizens from the religious militant organisations who are surviving on the mercy of Jihadis.

It has been stated before in many forums that the government of Pakistan is turning a blind eye to the atrocities perpetrated by the religious militant groups. There can be no possible justification for the deaths of innocent persons in the name of religion. Religious minorities see no form of protection or redress from the government whose campaign promise was to provide protection for every citizen of the country. However, it is ironic that one of the very people responsible for these atrocities is being protected by the very government that is supposed to be protecting his victims. Malik’s protective detention under the guise of house arrest comes after his organisation, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, claimed responsibility for the killings of the Shia pilgrims. One must ask if this is another attempt at appeasement by the government towards the militant religious groups.

 

Poverty Does Not Breed Extremism in Pakistan

Spending millions of pounds on development inPakistanwill do nothing to keep young men out of the clutches of the Taliban, according to an extensive survey of Pakistani attitudes towards extremism which will deepen the row over Britain’s aid budget.

Studies suggest poorer Pakistanis were actually less likely to support extremist groups.

The study, conducted by researchers from prestigious American universities, found no link between poverty and support for militant groups.

The findings undermine a central pillar of the Conservative government’s radical new policy on aid, which will deliver almost £1.4bn to Pakistan over the next five years as part of a strategy to protect Britain from terrorist attack.

Recently, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, spelled out the policy to a jeering audience of police officers, who face pay cuts while extra cash is earmarked forPakistan.

“If you get aid right in certain parts of the world, such asPakistan, it will reduce the possibility of terrorism on the streets of theUK,” she said.

Christine Fair, a South Asia expert atGeorgetownUniversityand one of the authors of the new paper, said there was no evidence for such sweeping assertions and that her study of 6,000 people suggested that poorer Pakistanis were actually less likely to support extremist groups than more affluent, better educated people.

“The terrorism literature has long held that poverty does not explain terrorism,” she told The Daily Telegraph.

“Yet despite what would be a fairly robust body of literature, both the British government and the American government, have put together this canard that we can buy our way out of terrorism by investing in education and so forth. We simply don’t find this.”

Andrew Mitchell, who became International Development Secretary last year, has repeatedly talked of putting national security at the heart of aid policy.

With domestic budgets being cut, the argument has been deployed to justify continuing to spend money overseas – even inPakistan, a middle income country where few people pay tax and the government spends more than £4bn on its Army and nuclear arsenal each year.

In March, a review of British overseas declared, “Tackling extreme poverty in Pakistan will help make the UK safer,” as ministers announced they would more than double the amount of cash for the terrorist-hit country – to £446m in 2015, so long as certain benchmarks are met.

However, development agencies such as Oxfam have warned that such moves are wrongheaded and that money should be spent purely to help those in need – not to protectBritain.

The new research, the first of its kind and published by the Social Science Research Network, suggests the money will not even help make Britain more secure.

In an “endorsement experiment”, respondents were asked how much they supported different policies – the use of peace jirgas or reform of school curricula for example.

A test group was told the policies were connected with Kashmiri terror groups or the Afghan Taliban.

The difference between their responses and those of a control group, which was not told of any connection, was taken as a measure of support for the militant groups.

When compared with socio-economic indicators, the researchers found poorer people were less likely to support extremist politics.

The paper concluded that poorer people inPakistanwere more likely to be the victims of suicide bombings and other terror attacks, and therefore were more likely to have negative feelings towards militants.

“This does mean there aren’t good reasons to invest in education and poverty mitigation. There are perfectly good reasons to do that. But if you are doing it with the explicit goal of buying security at home, there is not a lot of evidence,” said Dr Fair.

“None at all.”

Andrew Mitchell, International Development Secretary, insisted that countries lacking education and mired in poverty were the least stable.

“Improving governance, security and the rule of law, matched with better opportunities in terms of education and jobs, means we are lifting people out of extreme poverty and addressing grievances that can lead people towards extremism,” he said.

“It is too narrow to consider this issue simply in terms of financial poverty and extremism. It is vital to consider a wider range of issues that can lead to instability and extremism, including local grievances and poor education.”

ANP’s Afrasiab Khattak Opens His Heart to the Americans & CIA

In a meeting with an American diplomat in July 2009, ANP leader Senator Afrasiab Khattak, with all his children studying in India, claimed that the Haqqani network, a militant group the US holds responsible for multiple attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan, was being protected by the Pakistan military.

The report is one of a number of American diplomatic cables obtained by Dawn that reveal a deep mistrust among the leadership of the ANP,  the party responsible for governance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, about the military’s intentions regarding various militant groups in KP and FATA.

“Khattak described the Pakistani military as treating the Haqqanis ‘separately’ … from other militants,” reported Lynne Tracy, the Principal Officer at the US Consulate inPeshawar. “The Haqqani family, [Khattak] observed, has already moved out ofNorth Waziristan.

“Part of the family, he said, is living in a rented house on theKohat Roadon the southern side ofPeshawar. The other half is living in a house owned by the Haqqani family in theRawalpindicantonment.”

Americahas unsuccessfully been pressuringPakistanto pursue the Haqqani network, which it considers one of its deadliest opponents inAfghanistan. This month the US State Department added one of Jalaluddin Haqqani’s sons toAmerica’s list of global terrorists, on which the leader and two other sons are already listed.

In the July 2009 meeting Mr Khattak also criticised “a purported ISI plan to release Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM) leader Sufi Mohammad” as the second Swat operation was winding down.

“Khattak told PO July 3 that ISI is intensifying pressure on NWFP Chief Minister Haider Hoti to place TNSM leader Sufi Mohammad in ‘provincial protective custody’ as part of an ISI plan to engineer the surrender of senior Tehrik-i-Taliban Swat leadership, including Mullah Fazlullah and spokesman Muslim Khan,” Ms Tracy reported.

“ISI-proposed terms … of ‘provincial custody,’ Khattak said, envisioned allowing the TNSM leader greater freedom of movement. In return, Sufi Mohammad would declare implementation of the Nizam-i-Adl regulation in Swat acceptable.” If he did so, according to Khattak’s description of the alleged ISI plan, TTP-Swat senior leadership would surrender.

In an indication of the civilian-military disconnect in the province, “Khattak declared flatly that the provincial government wanted nothing to do with this plan. Operations in Swat, he said, should come to a ‘logical conclusion’ – killing or capturing militant leadership.

“ANP leader Asfandyar Wali Khan … was also suspicious, Khattak commented, because ISI Director General Pasha had said nothing during a recent meeting about taking custody of Sufi Mohammad.”

In its comment on the meeting the Peshawar Consulate took note of the mistrust between the military and the provincial leadership and offered its own analysis about the military’s intentions: “While Khattak and other ANP leaders continue to voice respect for senior military leaders in Islamabad and Peshawar, there is tremendous suspicion of ISI and the role it is playing in the NWFP and FATA.

“Khattak commented at one point that ‘ISI’s strategy is to save the Taliban from defeat.’ ISI’s motives and activities are more complicated than that statement suggests. However, the ISI-brokered deal now being described would likely undermine any progress the military has made in reversing the public perception that the military and local Taliban are essentially the same entity.”

Suspicions about the military’s alliances can be seen at least as far back as cables written in 2006. In a meeting with the Peshawar Principal Officer in March that year, ANP chief and then Senator Asfandyar Wali Khan spoke about his plan for political reform in FATA.

One item involved “controlling ISI and the Afghan desk of the Pakistan Army in the FATA. … Operatives oftentimes support long-standing relationships with Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders that undermine the policy initiatives of senior GOP leaders.”

Later that month, Mr Khan “recommended the immediate transfer of all ISI agents from FATA that had previously worked with the Taliban and mujahideen.”

It is once the ANP is in power in KP that the relationship appears to become more interdependent. “Khan said that Kayani had so far played a ‘positive role’ when he took over ISI,” said an April 2008 cable, “closing six militant training camps identified by his party and removing ISI officers who had remained in the FATA too long.”

At the same time, however, Khan was extremely wary of the peace agreement withSouth Waziristan’s tribal elders being devised in April 2008. He “made clear that the agreement was drafted by Pakistan’s military, not its ruling political parties … going so far as to turn on a television to mask our conversation, perhaps reflecting ANP reservations over a deal that appears to have been largely brokered by the military rather than political forces.”

Muted Response to Shahbaz Bhatti’s Murder

by Aryn Baker

Shahbaz Bhatti had no hesitation in his voice as he responded to a question about threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda. “I’m living for my community … and I will die to defend their rights.” It was his last answer in a four-month-old self-produced video that was to be broadcast in the event of his death.

But the radicals had the final say. On March 2, Bhatti, Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs, was shot dead in Islamabad. Pamphlets scattered on the ground claimed the act for a new alliance of “the organization of al-Qaeda and the Punjabi Taliban” and asserted that other infidels and apostates would meet the same fate.

Bhatti’s death had been foretold not just by himself but also in the nation’s response to a previous assassination, that of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer on Jan. 4. Taseer, a self-made millionaire, had turned his largely ceremonial post into a platform for a campaign to amend Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Bhatti, the only Christian in the Cabinet, refused to be a token and swore to battle intolerance. Both men supported clemency for Aasia Noreen, a Christian woman who had been accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Taseer’s stance on the issue infuriated a large part of the population that, thanks to religious leaders and school curriculums, believes that blasphemy is a sin deserving of execution. In the weeks leading up to his assassination, Taseer had been denounced at Friday prayers, excoriated in the media and largely abandoned by his PPP for fears that his campaign would prove politically toxic. The witch hunt culminated in a bodyguard’s pumping 27 rounds into his head and chest in the parking lot of a popular Islamabad shopping center.

Within hours of Taseer’s death, telephone text messages celebrating his assassination made the rounds. “Justice has been done,” read one. “If you love the Prophet, pass this on.” A Facebook fan page for assassin Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri garnered more than 2,000 members before site administrators shut it down. Even the leaders of state-funded mosques refused to say funeral prayers for the slain governor. When Qadri was transferred to a local jail, he was garlanded with roses by hundreds of lawyers — the vanguard of a movement that in 2008 helped unseat a military dictator — offering to take on his case for free.

At his court appearance a few days later, Qadri told the judge that he believed in a Pakistan where loyalty to the Prophet eclipses all other rights. According to Taseer’s daughter Shehrbano, her father “wanted an egalitarian society where open debate is protected and people are not killed for speaking out.” And Bhatti dreamed of a nation true to founder Jinnah’s vision, one where “you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship.” Which vision prevails — Qadri’s or Taseer and Bhatti’s — will decide the future of the country.

The Roots of Extremism
It is not news that Pakistan has a lunatic fringe. What is disturbing is that after Taseer’s murder, when the silent majority finally spoke up, it praised Qadri, not his victim. The public reaction exploded the myth of Pakistan’s moderate Islam; Qadri belongs to a mainstream sect that routinely condemns the Taliban. “The Pakistan we saw in the wake of Taseer’s killing is the real Pakistan,” says Rana of the Pak Institute for Peace Studies. For the past two years, Rana’s organization has conducted in-depth interviews with a broad spectrum of Pakistani citizens. “They might dress Western and eat at McDonald’s, but when it comes to religion, most Pakistanis have a conservative mind-set.”

Pakistan’s religious parties rarely do well at the polls — a fact often cited by those countering concerns that the country is going fundamentalist — but their street power is considerable. The furor over blasphemy appears to be partly in response to significant losses for the religious right in the 2008 elections. With the current government on the verge of collapse and popular sentiment against the PPP mounting, the religious parties are betting on significant gains if fresh elections are called.

The case of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor accused of killing two Pakistanis during what appears to have been a botched attempt to rob him, demonstrates the state of Pakistan’s politics. It has gone virtually unremarked in Pakistan that Qadri, a confessed murderer, has been hailed as a national hero, while Davis — who, whatever his background, seems to have been acting in self-defense — is considered worthy of the death penalty. Over the past few weeks, street rallies led by the religious right have simultaneously called for the release of Qadri and the hanging of Davis.

Using religion to shore up political support is nothing new in Pakistan. Founded as a Muslim nation carved from a newly independent India in 1947, Pakistan has long struggled to unite a diverse population divided by language, culture and ethnicity. Islam was the common denominator, but Jinnah was famously enigmatic about its role in government.

Then, in 1977, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, an Islamist military general, overthrew the democratically elected government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was already retrenching his secular vision of Pakistan in an effort to win religious support. To further appease Muslim religious leaders, Zia-ul-Haq strengthened the colonial-era blasphemy laws, mandating that breaches should be answered by the death penalty. Since then, more than 1,274 cases have been lodged. As repeating blasphemous words could be considered to be perpetuating the crime, many cases are accepted without evidence, a system well primed for the pursuit of vendettas. That nobody has yet been executed by court order is hardly reassuring: 37 of the accused have been killed by vigilantes. (In 1929, Jinnah famously defended an illiterate carpenter who shot to death a Hindu publisher accused of blasphemy. The plea failed, and after the carpenter was hanged, Taseer’s father was one of the pallbearers.)

The Uses of Blasphemy
When a nation rises up in support of a murderer instead of his victim, it’s hard not to believe it is heading down a dangerous path. “What is happening now won’t matter in five years,” says Shehrbano Taseer. “It will matter in 25 years. What we are seeing now is the fruit of what happened 30 years ago. If people had stood up against [Zia-ul-Haq], we would not be here today. Because of that silence we have madrasahs spewing venom, a true Islam threatened by the same people who claim to serve it, and a cowed majority too afraid to speak.”

President Zardari, an old friend of Taseer’s, condemned the murders but didn’t go to either funeral. After paying his respects to Taseer’s family, Interior Minister Rehman Malik gave an impromptu press conference outside Taseer’s house during which he announced that he too would kill any blasphemer “with his own hands.” A few days later, the Prime Minister announced that he would drop the issue of the blasphemy laws altogether. Meanwhile, the government is under pressure to go through with Aasia’s sentence, and now her two champions are dead.

Reaction to Bhatti’s murder has been muted, characterized mostly by denial. What little newspaper coverage there was focused on security lapses or the role of the country’s Christian community rather than on the motives of the killer. On television talk shows, members of the religious parties and right-wing commentators spun a conspiracy theory that alleged that Bhatti’s murder had been “a plot” hatched by “outside forces” to “divert attention from the Raymond Davis affair.” There was no mention of the fact that Bhatti was campaigning alongside Taseer on the issue of blasphemy.

The PPP was founded in 1967 with the goal of bringing secular democracy to a nation under military rule. It vowed to give power to the people and promised to protect the nation’s downtrodden. That Pakistan’s most progressive party — one that has already endured the assassination of Benazir Bhutto — should cave in the face of religious fundamentalism speaks volumes about the strength of the religious right. A candlelight vigil promoting a progressive Pakistan a few days after Taseer’s assassination drew nearly 1,000 supporters; a religious rally in Karachi the same day had 40,000 in the street chanting Qadri’s name. “Taseer’s murderer was tried in the court of public opinion, and he has emerged a hero,” says a woman shopping for vegetables in the same market where the governor was killed. “If someone kills me because I criticize Qadri, will he too be called a hero?” She declined to give her name.

Of course, few Pakistanis would ever go as far as Taseer’s or Bhatti’s killers. But their ambivalence can easily be manipulated. “Just because we are religious does not mean we will all be reaching for guns the next time someone says something wrong,” says a university student who spent a recent afternoon at a shrine in Lahore dedicated to a revered Islamic saint. “But Salmaan Taseer was an extremist as well. He should not have touched the blasphemy law.” He received a text message praising Qadri and exhorting him to pass it along. It posed a moral quandary: “I don’t agree with the message,” he says. “But I love the Prophet. My thumb hesitated a long time over the delete button.” In the end, he passed the hate along.

Qadri himself was the religious-minded youngest son of a family just stepping into the middle class. Like his brother, he joined the special-forces branch of the Punjab police in 2002. He had been flagged as a security risk because of his strong religious leanings but was nevertheless appointed to Taseer’s security detail when he visited Islamabad. In his confession, Qadri said he had been inspired by the teachings of his local mullah, Hanif Qureshi. At a rally a few days later, Qureshi claimed credit for motivating Qadri. “He would come to my Friday prayers and listen to my sermons,” he said. Then he repeated his point: “The punishment for a blasphemer is death.”

But is it? Two weeks after Taseer’s murder, I visited Qari Muhammad Zawar Bahadur, the head of one of Pakistan’s mainstream religious groups and a co-signer of a statement that advised Muslims not to show “grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the Prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.” For more than an hour, he justified his group’s stance, telling me that the Koran was clear on the issue. I asked Bahadur to show me the exact verse that detailed the punishments for blasphemy. He mumbled that “there are several passages,” as if there were so many, he couldn’t decide which one to quote. When pressed further, he consulted a Koran and read aloud a passage that spoke of killing a man who had once harmed the Prophet.

That verse has routinely been dismissed by leading Islamic scholars as referring to a specific case and having nothing to do with blasphemy. They say there is no definition of blasphemy in the Koran, nor any prescription for its punishment. “Nobody challenges these mullahs, and that is our problem,” says Jamil, who runs a p.r. firm in Lahore. “We can’t invoke liberal secular values anymore. I have to have the knowledge to contradict these men who distort our religion for their own political gain. I have to be able to say, ‘No, this did not happen, this is not right, and show me where it says in the Koran that blasphemers should be shot on sight.’ ”

The Sin of Silence
In the absence of such challenges, those favoring religious intolerance will continue to have things go their way. In late 2007, Benazir Bhutto released an updated manifesto for her father’s party. “The statutes that discriminate against religious minorities and are sources of communal disharmony will be reviewed,” it said. Less than a month later she was dead, killed in a bomb attack just 13 km from where both Taseer and Bhatti were murdered. Her death was an opportunity to rally the nation against the forces of extremism. Instead the party focused on consolidating power. The manifesto remains an empty promise, and two more voices of tolerance have been silenced. For evil to prevail, goes the old aphorism, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.

Deathly Silence Prevails in Pakistan

When Will the Pakistanis Wake-up & Come Out on the Streets against the Current Rotten System?

By Gwynne Dyer

March 9, 2011

While the people of Arab states are overthrowing dictators, Pakistan is sinking deeper into intolerant Islamic extremism. Emboldened by the meek response of the people to the assassinations of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti, Islamist vigilantes will now become more brutal

At least with a dictatorship, you know where you are — and if you know where you are, you may be able to find your way out. In Pakistan, it is not so simple.

While brave Arab protesters are overthrowing deeply entrenched autocratic regimes, often without even resorting to violence, Pakistan, a democratic country, is sinking into a sea of violence, intolerance and extremism. The world’s second-biggest Muslim country (185 million people) has effectively been silenced by ruthless Islamist fanatics who murder anyone who dares to defy them.

What the fanatics want, of course, is power, but the issue on which they have chosen to fight is Pakistan’s laws against blasphemy. They not only hunt down and kill people who fall afoul of these laws, should the courts see fit to free them. They have also begun killing anybody who publicly advocates changing the laws.

Salman Taseer, the governor of the Punjab, was murdered by his own bodyguard in January because he criticized the blasphemy laws and wanted to change them. He said that he would go on fighting them even if he was the last man standing — and in a very short time he was no longer standing. But one man still was: Shahbaz Bhatti.

Shahbaz Bhatti was shot down. The four men who ambushed his car and filled him with bullets left a note saying: “In your fight against Allah, you have become so bold that you act in favour of and support those who insult the Prophet… And now, with the grace of Allah, the warriors of Islam will pick you out one by one and send you to hell.”

Shahbaz Bhatti was not a rich and powerful man like Salman Taseer, nor even a major power in the ruling PPP that they bothbelonged to. He was the only Christian member of the Cabinet, mainly as a token representative of the country’s three million Christians, but he had hardly any influence outside that community. Nevertheless, he refused to stop criticizing the blasphemy laws even after Salman Taseer’s murder, so they killed him too.

That leaves only Sherry Rehman, the last woman standing. A flamboyant member of Parliament whose mere appearance enrages the beards, she has been a bold and relentless critic of the blasphemy laws — and since Salman Taseer’s murder she has lived in hiding, moving every few days. But she will not shut up until they shut her up.

And that’s it. The rest of the country’s political and cultural elite have gone silent, or pander openly to the fanatics and the bigots. The PPP was committed to changing the blasphemy laws only six months ago, but after Salman Taseer was killed President Zardari assured a gathering of Islamic dignitaries that he had no intention of reviewing the blasphemy laws. Although they are very bad laws.

In 1984 General Zia ul-Haq, the dictator who ruled Pakistan from 1977 to 1988, made it a criminal offence for members of the Ahmadi sect, now some five million strong, to claim that they were Muslims. In 1986 he instituted the death penalty for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. No subsequent Government has dared to repeal these laws, which are widely used to victimize the Ahmadi and Christian religious minorities.

Ahmadis and Christians account for at most five per cent of Pakistan’s population, but almost half of the thousand people charged under this law since 1986 belonged to those communities. Most accusations were false, arising from disputes over land, but once made they could be a death sentence.

Higher courts generally dismissed blasphemy charges, recognizing that they were a tactic commonly used against Christians and Ahmadis in local disputes over land, but 32 people who were freed by the courts were subsequently killed by Islamist vigilantes — as were two of the judges who freed them.

The current crisis arose when a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, wa s sentenced to death last November, allegedly for blaspheming against the Prophet Muhammad. Pakistan’s liberals mobilized against the blasphemy law and discovered that they were an endangered species.

The murders of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were bad, but even worse was the way that the political class and the bulk of the mass media responded. A majority of the population fully supports the blasphemy law, making it costly for politicians to act against it even if the fanatics don’t kill them. Political cowardice reigns supreme, and so Pakistan falls slowly under the thrall of the extremists.

Being a democracy is no help, it turns out, because democracy requires people to have the courage of their convictions. Very few educated Pakistanis believe that people should be executed because of a blasphemy charge arising out of some trivial village dispute, but they no longer dare to say so including the President.

“We will not be intimidated nor will we retreat,” said Mr Zardari on March 3, but he has already promised the beards that the blasphemy laws will not be touched. Nor is it very likely that the murderers of Salman Taseer or Shahbaz Bhatti will be tracked down and punished. You could get killed trying to do that.

An Army Without a Country

By Ahmed Rashid

The assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan’s Federal Minister of Minorities, killed in broad daylight in Islamabad by four gunmen, is one of the most shameful acts of political violence committed by Pakistani extremists. That it comes just two months after the murder of Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab and one of the country’s leading liberal voices makes it all the more chilling. Yet the government and state’s reaction to the two killings has been even more shameful—raising the disturbing possibility that extremism is still being used by the security services in its efforts to oppose Western policies in the region.

The 40-year-old Bhatti was a Roman Catholic and the only Christian member of the cabinet of PM Gilani. It was a death foretold. Taseer had been assassinated for his courageous struggle to amend Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which has been used to persecute minorities—a struggle to which Bhatti had also dedicated himself. Bhatti made a videotape some months ago that he wanted released to the BBC if he was killed. In it he said he would carry on the campaign to amend the blasphemy law.

“I will prefer to die for the cause [of defending] the rights of my community rather than to compromise on my principles,” Bhatti said in the tape. “The forces of violence, militants, banned organizations, Taliban and al-Qaeda, want to impose their radical philosophy in Pakistan and whosoever stands against it, they threaten him.”

Bhatti knew his life was in danger; he had been threatened repeatedly in recent weeks and had asked the government to provide him with security and a bulletproof vehicle. But even after Taseer’s murder, the government did nothing. Like Taseer, he ended up riddled with machine gun fire—though it is unclear whether a security detail might have helped, since Taseer was shot dead by his own bodyguard, a highly trained police officer. In both cases, the killers have come from a culture that has grown increasingly intolerant in recent years, abounds in conspiracy theories, and wrongly interprets Islam solely in terms of jihad and violence.

As leaders worldwide—from the Pope to Hillary Clinton to Nicolas Sarkozy—strongly condemn Bhatti’s murder, the reaction of the Pakistani government has been vapid. No action has been taken or promises made to curb the freedom of violent extremist groups, who have hailed both murders and who have meanwhile been staging daily street demonstrations in Lahore to demand the death sentence for Raymond Davis, the American CIA agent who is now in Pakistani custody after killing two Pakistani men believed to be agents for the army’s ISI. (Davis was part of a secret team working in the country; the exposure of his activities puts further strain on the uneasy alliance between the US and Pakistan.)

For its part, the army has so far failed to express regret about either Bhatti’s murder or Taseer’s. The army chief General Ashfaq Kayani declined to publicly condemn Taseer’s death or even to issue a public condolence to his family. He told Western ambassadors in January in Islamabad that there were too many soldiers in the ranks who sympathize with the killer, and showed them a scrapbook of photographs of Taseer’s killer being hailed as a hero by fellow police officers. Any public statement, he hinted, could endanger the army’s unity.

Behind this silence lies something more sinister. For decades the army and the ISI have controlled the extremist groups, arming and training them in exchange for their continuing to serve as proxy forces in Afghanistan and Kashmir. But in recent years, the army has lost control of them and they are striking targets of their own. Yet the army has refused to help crack down on its rogue protégés—despite the fact that extremists have increasingly attacked the army and the ISI itself, and at least 2,000 military personnel have died at their hands in the past five years. This is all the more ominous in view of the resources the military commands: half a million men, another half a million reserves, 110 nuclear weapons (according to US media estimates) and one of the largest intelligence agencies in the world, the ISI, which has an estimated 100,000 employees.

If the army has now surrendered any willingness to take on the extremists, the political establishment had already given up long ago. Prime Minister Gailani and President Asif Ali Zardari head the Pakistan People’s Party, the largest national party in the country—some would say the only national party left. Zardari, as the husband of slain leader Benazir Bhutto, is no stranger to extremism himself, and his populist base has traditionally voted for the party’s anti-mullah, anti-army and pro-people policies. Unfortunately those principles were abandoned by a series of corrupt and ineffectual leaders, and the PPP today is not even a shadow of what it once was.

Zardari has backtracked on foreign policy goals such as improving relations with India and Afghanistan, as well as on domestic efforts to curb the power of the extremists and impose new taxes—on almost everything that may have helped Pakistan move towards becoming a modern state. There is no doubt that the army has tried to thwart the civilian leaders at almost every turn—but rather than resist or resign, the politicians have just been brow beaten into compliance and abject submission.

As a result, there is a vicious double game playing out in the streets, fueling the tensions that resulted in Bhatti’s death. The security agencies have unleashed Lashkar-e-Taiba (LT)—the largest and most feared extremist group in Pakistan, which was behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks—on to the streets of Lahore. The group has been banned by the US, Britain and the United Nations and supposedly by Pakistan too. LT stalwarts have been demonstrating daily outside the US consulate to ensure that Raymond Davis—who was apparently charged with monitoring their activities—hangs. By giving free reign to such banned groups the security agencies may have inadvertently signaled to all extremist groups, including the sectarian groups who hate Christians, that they are free to take the law into their own hands. What is behind this complex and mind-boggling strategy? It is all part of a wider cat and mouse escalation between the US and the Pakistani military. The army wants to control any future peace talks that the US may have with the Taliban, so that the army’s aims for a future pro-Pakistan Afghan government in Kabul are met. Its leaders also want to make doubly sure that any long-term American arrangements do not leave Pakistan’s rival India in a stronger position in Afghanistan.

So far the US seems unmoved; and it has already circumvented the ISI to start indirect peace talks with some Taliban. One consequence is that the military are allowing extremist groups considered anathema to the US on the streets. This is also why Davis is not being freed, and why US-Pakistan relations are at their worst in many years. In the meantime, the army and the government continue to receive about $3 billion a year in US military and economic aid.

On March 3, Senator Bob Corker, who recently visited Islamabad, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he found Pakistan “the most disheartening place in the world to be, where you are talking the type of relationship that we have.” He added, “I think that in many ways we get played like a piece of music” by the Pakistanis.

The ISI may well be playing the Americans, but it does so at the cost of steadily ceding ground to the extremists. Right now Pakistan is becoming a place where there is an army without a country.

March 4, 2011

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/mar/04/army-without-country/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 209 other followers