Kashmiris’ pro-Pakistan sentiment

By Muhamma Jamil

According to Kashmir Media Service, Pakistan’s national flag was hoisted in various places of Indian-held Kashmir at Hariparbat Fort, Buchpora, Babademb, Gojwara, Rawalpora, Narbal, Sopore and several other places of the Kashmir Valley. The displaying of Pakistani flags has become common in recent weeks in Indian Held Kashmir. Last month, on April 15, Pakistani flags were displayed at a rally in Srinagar that was organised to welcome the veteran Hurriyat leader, Syed Ali Gilani, on his return from New Delhi. Meanwhile, Asiya Andrabi has said that India is perpetrating brutalities on the people of Kashmir through seven hundred thousand army deployed in Indian Held Kashmir. Kashmiris express their pro-Pakistan sentiment by hoisting Pakisani flags on Pakistan Day and on other occasions. She reiterated that she had been hoisting Pakistani flags on Pakistan Day, adding check how many flags are unfurled in the Valley when Pakistan wins a cricket match.

She said: “Kashmir is a disputed territory; and hoisting Pakistani flag would have been a crime if I hoisted the flag in New Delhi or Mumbai.” Two weeks before Pakistan day, scores of Pakistani flags were also waved at a Hurriyat rally in Indian Kashmir by the supporters of Hurriyat Conference Chairman Syed Ali Geelani, which he addressed in Tral area of Pulwama district of Indian-held Kashmir. Last month, Hurriyat leader Masarat Alam was arrested after his supporters waved Pakistani flags and raised pro-Pakistan slogans at a rally in Srinagar. Subsequently, the Hurriyat leader Musarat Alam was put under house arrest to stop him from leading a march to Tral, which had been tense since a young man was killed by Indian forces. Indian government had ordered the ruling regime of Jammu and Kashmir to take immediate and stringent action.
Masarat Alam was booked under the Public Safety Act, which allowed the state to keep him behind bars for two years without any sort of trial. He was released about a month later, and was arrested again. He had already served a jail sentence of five years, for organising stone-throwing protests in the valley in 2010 and subsequent police firing that resulted in the deaths of 100 people. However, no amount of oppression and repression can stop Kashmiris from their struggle for implementation of UNSC resolution that gave them the right to decide about their future through plebiscite under the aegis of the UN. Showing utter disregard to UN resolutions, and Indian army’s atrocities on the people of Kashmir - their murder, rape and fake encounters – are a sad reflection on, what is claimed, the largest democracy in the world.
Kashmiris throughout the world express solidarity with the people of Kashmir. And million March was organized on 26 October 2014 in London. The objective was to highlight the Kashmir issue and expose Indian for having shown utter disregard to the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The coaches reached London from over a dozen cities of England, and many participants had come from Norway and other countries of Europe. They demanded implementation of UNSC resolutions and end to the atrocities perpetrated on the people of Kashmir. Several international agencies and UN have reported human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. The unending nightmare had started when the British Raj sold Kashmir to Gulab singh. According to Article 1 of the Treaty of Amritsar, Gulab Singh acquired all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies situated to the eastward of the River Indus and the westward of the River Ravi. 

The British also undertook the responsibility of protecting the princely state from external aggression. Gulab Singh Dogra was a one-time cavalryman of the Dogra army, and had become Raja of Jammu principality through a grant from Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Indeed, the British were responsible for the unending cycle of slavery, violence and death and destruction by the Dogra Raj that followed the Treaty of Amritsar. Once again in August 1947 at the time of partition of the sub-continent in 1947, the British played ignominious role by facilitating India to occupy Jammu and Kashmir. United Nations Security Council had passed a resolution on 5th January 1949 that gave Kashmiris right of self-determination. As a result of the apathy shown by international community, the above resolution could not be implemented. No other nation perhaps has gone through such a long ordeal and sufferings in the history, and Kashmiris’ unending nightmare continues. 

In 1989, Kashmiri youth started armed struggle against atrocities and killings and ruthless exploitation by India’s military, and since then about 90000 Kashmiris have been martyred. After BJP won the 2014 elections and Narendra Modi became prime minister, he crafted a plan to get sizeable number of seats in state elections of Indian Occupied Kashmir. He managed to secure about two dozen seats from Hindu majority areas of Jammu, and also due to boycott by the Hurriyat Conference. Coalition government of BJP and PDP in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) was aimed at robbing the mandate of the Kashmiri people who had reposed confidence in PDP. However, the PDP betrayed its voters by forming coalition government with BJP, compromising on main issues such as article 370, AFSPA, trifurcation of the region, rehabilitation of Pandits and refugees’ issue.

Unfortunately, due to international community’s apathy to the sufferings of the people of Kashmir, UNSC resolution has not been implemented for the last 65 years. In case of East Timor and Southern Sudan, UN resolutions were passed and implemented within months and new countries were carved out of Indonesia and Sudan. It has to be mentioned that in none of the above cases there was a UN mandate, whereas Kashmiris have been given their inalienable right of self-determination through the UNSC resolution. Yet, Indian soldiers continue to arrest innocent Kashmiris, keep them in extra-judicial custody and kill them in fake encounters so as to earn rewards or out-of-turn promotions. International community and the UN should pressurize India into implementing the UNSC resolution allowing the people of Kashmir to join Pakistan or India through plebiscite to be held under the aegis of the UN. 

Pakistan’s priorities

By S M Hali

If a mega project like the CPEC is threatened by people who would like to see the project fail, then Pakistan's priorities should be to assure the security of the project Every country has the right to pursue policies that are in consonance with its national interests and priorities. This aspect is defined in diplomatic relations as ethnocentrism, which enables nations to perceive and examine various options that favour their own welfare above all. Pakistani policymakers have, in the recent past, been in a quandary over the Saudi request to send military personnel and weapons platforms to support its war in Yemen. The request was debated in parliament in the light of two constraints: firstly, the preoccupation of Pakistan’s own military in anti-terror operations and, secondly, avoiding taking sides in what is perceived as Saudi military action against another sovereign Muslim state, Yemen, and by extension a proxy war with another Muslim state, Iran. Parliament’s decision to abstain from dispatching its troops except in the event of a threat to Saudi sovereignty must be respected. 

Meanwhile, another aspect — the delegation of an exclusive, armed force to ensure the security of the workforce executing the completion of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) - was highlighted. It is a question of according priorities to Pakistan’s national interests. Some critics of Chinese munificence towards Pakistan are denigrating the project. A section of the Pakistani press labelled President Xi Jinping’s visit as a call by the “Chinese Santa” while others questioned Pakistan “placing all its eggs in the Chinese basket”, forgetting that Pakistan’s economy is already in the doldrums. It has few friends and limited financial credibility and direct foreign investment. Under these circumstances, if China extends a helping hand, enabling Pakistan to stand on its own two feet, it must be welcomed rather than biting it.

On the other hand, if a mega project like the CPEC is threatened by people who would like to see the project fail, then Pakistan’s priorities should be to assure the security of the project. If, in the pursuit of this priority, scarce defence resources are allocated to the CPEC project, then it should not be perceived as an affront to the Saudis or as favouring Iran.
Bruce Riedel, in his op-ed column "The Pakistani pivot from Saudi Arabia to China" draws unrealistic parallels between the Saudi request for Pakistani military support vis-à-vis what he labels as the Sharif’s promise to President Xi that Pakistan will create a new 10,000-strong “special security division” of the Pakistani army commanded by a two star general to protect Chinese workers in Pakistan. Riedel explicates that 50 percent of the personnel will comprise the Special Services Group of commandos and the force will have its own organic air support. 

Cynically, Riedel comments: “So no troops for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 10,000 troops for the People’s Republic of China. There are major differences in the specifics of course: troops for a foreign war versus troops at home; compensation for past payment versus securing future investment; Islamic unity versus Pakistan’s all-weather ally since 1962.”
Coincidentally, Bruce Riedel has been conjuring scenarios where militants “snatch and grab” Pakistan’s nukes, endangering the Occident. Mr Riedel, who served for 30 years at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was a senior advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to the last four presidents of the US in the staff of the National Security Council at the White House, and has long been urging strong action to defang Pakistan by confiscating its nuclear weapons through use of force.

Riedel’s latest op-ed on the issue should be taken with a pinch of salt since it is laden with his personal biases and perhaps US ethnocentrism. His opening comments imply that the Saudi decision to launch a military intervention into Yemen represents a break with its past practice. He surmises that Saudi Arabia has brushed aside the need for US leadership or even participation, pushing forward with forming its own coalition from among its Arab and Muslim allies. He construes that “in dealing with Pakistan, traditionally one of its closest allies, Saudi Arabia is discovering that even close allies often have other priorities.”
Firstly, it is Pakistan’s internal decision as to which alliances it wishes to pursue and, secondly, perhaps Mr Bruce Riedel is oblivious to the fact that the House of Saud is close only to the ruling class in Pakistan. Average Pakistanis receive little respect there while our labour class, toiling under the hot sun in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is treated as serfs and minions. Contrarily, the people of China and its leadership, through six and a half decades, have treated Pakistani citizens with brotherly love and respect. Thus, local media pundits should avoid jumping on the bandwagon, parroting warped theories like Mr Bruce Riedel’s. If, finally, Pakistan has found the spine to stand up to honour the diktats of its own priorities, it must be appreciated rather than questioned. 

Pakistan’s Determination to Win War against Terrorism

By Sajjad Shaukat

Terrorism has caused massive damage to the prosperity of Pakistan. In this context, the Parliamentary Secretary for Interior, Maryam Aurangzeb, while informing the National Assembly on December 19, 2014 said, “Pakistan which has been major victim of terrorism has suffered a loss of almost 80 billion dollars including loss of 50,000 precious lives of civilians and security agencies…huge collateral damage during the decade long war against terrorism.” Afterwards, these losses increased.

Undoubtedly, in our country, the victims of terror attacks and suicide bombings have been innocent men, women and children. Regrettably, those militant entities like TTP, which try to justify terrorism and suicide bombings in the name of Islam, are misguiding the people, while these brutal acts are clearly against the teachings of Islam.

Although currently, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria and other Muslim countries are in shambles due to AI-Qaeda and  ISIL terrorism, yet all types of  violent  tactics,  employed   by  the  militant organizations could not break Pakistan’s  resolve to defeat them.

Valiant security personnel are facing the brunt of terrorist attacks, as they have stood up as the saviors of the Pakistani nation. Pakistan Army consists of six million  professional  troops who are  highly  motivated  to  root  out  terrorism   from  the  country.  

In this regard, the capability of Pakistan’s Armed Forces could be judged from the one year progress of the ongoing military operation Zarb-e-Azb which started on Jun 15, 2014 against the militants in North Waziristan Agency (NWA).

On June 10, this year, while showing the progress of the Zarb-e-Azb, Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif said, “Terrorists have been cleared from their strongholds in North Waziristan and Khyber Agency and fight now is moving into last few pockets close to Afghan border.” He laid emphasis on “continuation of the operations till elimination of the last expected and probable terrorists groups and sanctuaries.”

However, since June 15, 2014, the jets of Pakistan Air Force have bombed militants’ hideouts in North Waziristan, and killed thousands of insurgents including foreign militants, while Pak Army has also killed several terrorists through ground offensive and many of them surrendered before the Army. Thus, these forces destroyed their strongholds, demolishing tunnels and factories producing IED (Explosives), while drying the sources of their funds and sinking their public support.

In fact, the different war between Pakistan’s Armed Forces and the insurgents is simply a ‘clash of wills’ between two entities. Military thinkers agree that although the physical force will determine the type and scale of war, yet it is the ‘will to fight’ or ‘moral force’ that determines the outcome of war. Clausewitz puts it this way, “One might say that the physical force seems little more than the wooden hilt, while moral factors are the precious metal, the real weapon.”

In his book, “Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945”, Creveld identifies the elements of ‘moral force’, whom he calls “fighting power, the willingness to fight and the readiness, if necessary, to die.” The greater these elements, the less vulnerable an armed force will be to demoralization. ‘Moral force’, then, is the crucial factor in determining the combat power of any belligerent.

During the successful military operation, Zarb-e-Azb” retreat of the Taliban from North Waziristan has proved that such elements like ‘will to fight’ and ‘moral force’ have been more found in Pakistan’s Armed Forces then the Taliban militants. It is owing to this factor coupled with the spirit of sacrificing their own lives that the Armed Forces demoralized the militants of the TTP and their affiliated militant outfits.

However, Pakistan’s security forces are also waging this different war against terrorists in other parts of the country. In this respect, every settled district has operational policing system.  Punjab and Sindh Rangers are available to backup Army and Police. Frontier  Corps,  Frontier  Constabulary  and Levies  personnel are providing  additional enforcement  against  the  militant  organizations. Intelligence  agencies  of  the  country  are working  round  the  clock  to foil nefarious  designs  of terrorists  and  their  masters  in hostile agencies.

It is notable that as terrorists had accelerated anti-social, undemocratic and un-Islamic practices, while challenging the writ of the state, and had frightened the entire nation by their terror-acts. Hence, leaders of various political and religious parties including all segments of society and media anchors—particularly commentators of TV channels, who wanted that a handful of terrorist elements must not be allowed to dictate their agenda and to impose their self-perceived ideology on the majority of Pakistanis are admiring the successes of the security forces against these insurgents. Now, the whole nation is united against terrorism and is backing the military operations against these brutal militants.

Nevertheless, the success of the military operations and defeat of the terrorists will become assured, if the ruling and the opposition parties including all the segments of society display practical unity not only with one another, but also with the Armed Forces including other security agencies, which is also necessary to maintain order at this sensitive moment and to win this war against the militants.

So, the right hour has come that Pakistan’s media, politicians, leaders of religious parties and the general masses must not only show solidarity with the security forces and other law-enforcing and intelligence agencies, but must also cooperate with them against these zealots, and to take this war to its logical end.

Therefore, collective wisdom demands that the victory of people  of Pakistan  is inevitable  in this different war, as few  thousand  militants occupying  a part of FATA  can neither capture  whole Pakistan  nor subjugate  its 200 million people. While the state of Pakistan has the capacity to sustain counterterrorism operations, the militant organizations are already in disaster. Our salvation lay in final victory, each and every  citizen  must   own  this  war  against   terrorism   and  we  must  put  our  full  trust in Government and Army. Everyone should play his part and remain united against terrorists by showing Pakistan’s strong determination to win this war against terrorism.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Evolving regional dynamics

By Khalid Iqbal

A stronger Pakistan is emerging, and now it can take stock of regional dynamics from a position of enhanced confidence. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement and America’s clearance of Foreign Military Sale of Viper Attack Helicopters and Hellfire II Missiles to Pakistan have been major contributory factors to this profile. Moreover, upward trajectory in Pakistan-Russia relations has culminated in a Defence Agreement and procurement of MI35 helicopters is on the cards. Prudent avoidance of direct military involvement in Yemen crisis is likely to pay off in the long term, while downturn in relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE may be temporary. Afghanistan’s rationalized foreign policy towards Pakistan has brought respite in Karzai era cross border attacks. If the P5+1 and Iran seal the nuclear deal, then Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project would become a reality. China has already offered to construct this pipeline. And has also committed to sell eight submarines to Pakistan. London based newspaper The Economist in its article “Pakistan’s economy Fuel injection: Lower oil prices prove to be a boon”,

On Apr 30, has released very promising data about Pakistan’s economy, indicating a growth rate of 4.7 percent. Moreover, negative media projection of Pakistan at international level is on decline, though two Pakistanis, Hussain Haqqani and Pervez Hoodbhoy are doing their best to fill the void. 

The US-Pakistan arms deal delivered a strong message to India that if it continues to shop elsewhere then America will sell arms to other countries of its choice. Pressure was too much for India to sustain and it succumbed; as a consequence, it has walked away from purchase of 126 Rafael fighter aircraft from France, much in the similar way it had walked away from Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline a few years back. Now in all likelihood, India could go for an American warplane—may be F-16. An over confident (read arrogant) India of Modi’s early days may slowly mellow down and reconcile with changing realities of regional flux. But periodic erratic impulses radiated by Indian policy making circles often smack of belligerence and aggressive mindset, which though is more of a nuance than substance; has disrupted bilateral dialogue many a times and has scuttled many meaningful peace initiatives. An arrogant India, though does not pose existential threat to Pakistan, it is certainly a source of regional instability; because to channelize its aggressive mindset it ferments trouble in the neighbouring countries by accentuating their otherwise benign fault-lines. 

India realizes its critical dependencies on Pakistan in the context of trade transit facilities. However, instead of pursuing these objective through prudent statesmanship, it endeavors to extract these concessions through arms twisting, literally and figuratively. Though there is renewed talk of an India-Iran deal to develop the Chahbahar port; India has lost the comparative advantage after the conclusion of CPEC agreement. 

Now Pakistan’s sensitivities about Afghanistan are better factored-in in the US strategic calculus. America has reconciled with the distinct possibility that it will be replaced in Afghanistan by China with the help of Pakistan. China already has a considerable economic presence in Afghanistan. It will now concentrate on energy-rich Iran that shall emerge much stronger after its nuclear deal and the recent unravelling in the Middle East. Region. Russia, with its growing understanding with China is emerging as an important regional player looking up to revive its stalled S 3000 missile deal with Iran. 

President Ashraf Ghani has completed the first roundtrip of the capitals which matter in the future political and economic settlement of Afghanistan. During his visit to India he expressed the desire to “make Afghanistan a graveyard of terror” and for this looked up for help from India, Pakistan and other neighbors. Indian analysts feel that New Delhi may be losing influence in Afghanistan because of Ghani’s efforts to forge closer ties with Pakistan and China; however, it is because India has disappointed Afghanistan on many counts, especially its promises of providing hi-tech military equipment. Modi said that India should join an existing Afghan-Pakistan Trade and Transit agreement to allow goods to flow by land from Afghanistan to eastern India and back. “We believe that Afghanistan’s direct surface link to India and the rest of South Asia, and increased connectivity to sea, could turn Afghanistan into a hub that connects Asia’s diverse regions and beyond,” Modi said. The spirit behind the effort is to replace Pakistan’s influence in Pakistan rather than facilitating Afghanistan. During Afghan President’s the visit to India no agreement was signed. Ghani said “we must have a unified approach, we must be united both in the region and globally to contain this terror.” These words indicate a shift in Afghanistan’s position on countering terror, from charging Pakistan with complicity in attacks by the Taliban, to a more cooperative approach with Pakistan. He referred to the IS rather than the Taliban and LeT as the next big challenge for his country. 

As of now Afghanistan is poised to benefit enormously by joining CPEC. While in India, Ghani said: “Our vision today is to be guided by that potential where the energy of Central Asia will flow to South Asia where pipelines, fiber optics, railways, and connectivity, air, ground and virtual will connect us.” And this is what CPEC offers.
India was the first country with which Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement, but the contour of the relationship has changed. Ashraf Ghani has visited China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (twice) and the US before coming to India. In China he frankly spoke of Afghanistan’s new external priorities indicating relegation of India to the outermost circle. He has also decided not to pursue the request for defence equipment from India that has given a jolt to the relationship politically. 

Afghan president feels that he must engage Pakistan vigorously and obtain its cooperation. Ghani has also started sending officer cadets for training at the Pakistani military academy to offset the earlier pattern of Afghan officers being trained exclusively in India. He is also counting on China- Pakistan synergy to actively promote the reconciliation process, and providing economic and other requisite support to help transition Afghan economy from war to corporate economy. He has concluded that India’s capacity to help is limited and Pakistani and China could be more productive partners. China has expressed its willingness to help in the reconciliation process. The CPEC project indicates far-reaching Chinese plans to bring this region into its economic integration, from which Afghanistan would benefit substantially. 

However, Afghan polity is not unanimous on Ghani’s outreach to Pakistan and the Taliban. There is a suspicion that Ghani is seeking to strengthen the Pashtun elements in the polity at the expense of other ethnic groups. Accommodating the Taliban in political structure of Afghanistan is likely to meet resistance from other ethnic groups, especially the idea of giving them governorships and ministerial appointments outside any electoral process.
Despite setback, India is not likely to reconcile with its relatively lower profile in Afghanistan, even if it has to take-on a spoiler’s role. Hence, India may take the trajectories like: coax Iran and paly repeat role of 1980s and 90s for destabilizing central government by provoking ethnic minorities especially Uzbeks and Tajiks; support Iran in playing its sectarian card; go solo and reactivate Dostum card; crate fissures between Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. India is likely to follow a composite strategy drawing from all these options. 

Pakistan needs to follow a prudent policy to capitalize on the advantages that are visible now. Some of these are transient and or slippery; while some others are fragile. A time bound effort is required to benefit from transient ones and comprehensive strategy should be evolved to secure the fragile ones.

Why Pakistan Is Not Myanmar

By Sitara Noor

Last Tuesday, Indian forces carried out surgical strikes inside Myanmar’s territory, reportedly inflicting “significant casualties” which, as per varying estimates, stand at 50-100 militants. As reported, the blitzkrieg maneuvers were done by India’s Special Forces (21 Para), that is a unit under Kolkata-based Eastern Command headquarters, along with troops of Assam Riffeles (27 Sector and 10 Sector). The operation was supported by Indian Air force’s Mi-17 helicopters which targeted NSCN-K camps at two locations Including Tuensang in Nagaland and Ukhrul in Manipur.

The Indian reaction came in response to militants’ attack on Indian military convoy on June 4, which killed 18 Indian soldiers in the Chandel District of Manipur. Following Indian military excursion inside Myanmar, there was a flurry of tweets/statements from Indian political establishment. Terming it revenge, Indian minister in charge of broadcasting, Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore declared the raid “a message for all countries, including Pakistan”. Projecting India’s military and political prowess, he went on to say, “We will strike at a place and at a time of our choosing”. It obviously resulted in firm statements from Pakistan’s political and military leadership alike, reiterating their resolve to protect their land against any Indian adventurism.

It is however important to highlight that Indian political establishment’s statements are inherently contradictory and giving a false impression of India’s military might. The statements drawing parallel between Pakistan and Myanmar may soothe the ears of BJP’s extremist cult essentially the RSS, but they fail to stand the test of political correctness and military capability.

First of all, it is erroneous to assume that it was a solo flight by India without prior permission from the government of Myanmar as some initial reports suggested. To put the record straight, there exists a treaty between the two countries since 1990s on operations across the border and also an agreement that permits locals on both sides for a cross border movement within a range of 15 km on both sides. In the past, there have been instances when Burmese army personnel also crossed the Indian border in pursuit of the Kachin insurgents. Later in 2010, India signed a mutual legal assistance agreement through which Indian insurgents held in Myanmar could be deported for trial under Indian laws. Therefore this operation was carried out under existing treaty and after seeking prior approval from the government of Myanmar. There is no such romanticism vis-à-vis Pakistan. On the contrary, Pakistan and India have a history of border conflicts and Pakistan has made it clear at a number of times that any such adventurism inside Pakistani territory would be considered an act of war.

Secondly, it would be India’s sheer naivety to view Pakistan as a soft swallow. Politically it would be difficult for India to carry out such an action, that too without establishing credible proofs as there are instances in past when some terrorist activity in India blamed on Pakistan, was later on proved to be perpetrated by Hindu extremists. Furthermore, Pakistan maintains a strong professional military force with advanced high tech capabilities to respond to any such action. According to a latest report by eminent American analysts, citing India’s former military officials, India lacks technical and professional capability to carry out such a strike against Pakistan with complete precision. Various reports corroborate that India is far behind in gathering real-time intelligence that is an essential pre-requisite for such an action to begin with. Most importantly both states face altogether different dynamics due to the possession of nuclear weapons. Such a provocative action would certainly let loose escalation spiral, with no possibility of escalation dominance at either side.

The inflammatory jingoistic statements from Indian political establishment, in view of Myanmar operation are nothing but an act of irresponsible statesmanship. It expresses complete absence of political wisdom on their part and ignorance of ground realities. On the other hand, it further strengthens the rationale for having strong conventional as well as nuclear capability to deter any such (mis) adventurism against Pakistan.

*The writer is a former visiting fellow at Middleburry Institute of International Studies, Monterey, California. She can be reached at sitaranoor@hotmail.com

Zardari's Frontal Attack

By Zahid Hussain

THE tension between the Sindh government and the security forces has been building up for some time, and it was just a matter of time that the situation would blow up. Asif Ali Zardari’s outburst on Tuesday against the generals has now brought the confrontation to a head — with the federal government standing clearly by the military.
The former president seems to have thrown down the gauntlet. Whatever happens next, the survival of the Sindh government is now at stake. Political observers describe the last-minute cancellation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s meeting with Mr Zardari as ominous.
What made Mr Zardari launch a frontal attack on the military leadership? Most observers and even some PPP leaders agree that it was a reaction to the raid early this week by the Rangers on the Sindh Building Control Authority office. “The links lead to senior PPP leaders,” says a source familiar with the investigation.
Earlier, Rangers had released a report about the crime situation in Karachi, accusing political parties of being directly involved in land-grabbing, extortion and smuggling — swindling billions of rupees every year. This the Sindh government saw as a deliberate move to undermine the civilian administration. “The Rangers have for a long time been transgressing the force’s mandate to embarrass the provincial government,” says PPP Senator Farhatullah Babar.
Those two incidents last week may have proved to be crunch points, but the tension between the federal law enforcement agency and the Sindh government has been mounting for quite some time. PPP leaders often complained of the Rangers establishing a parallel authority and getting involved in affairs beyond their jurisdiction. The allegations have been firmly refuted, though, by the federal government and the Rangers.
Although the Rangers were called out in aid of the civil administration and have now been spearheading law enforcement in Karachi for many years, the strain intensified after the formation of the provincial apex committee — that also included the local corps commander and the head of the Rangers — earlier this year under the National Action Plan to fight terrorism.
Some highly placed sources confirm reports about tension brewing between civil and military leaders in the apex committee meetings, with the army and Rangers’ officials taking up issues of widespread corruption and the collapse of administration in Karachi.
Many analysts, however, agree that the ineptitude of the Sindh government and the virtual collapse of civil law enforcement allowed the Rangers to fill the vacuum. The provincial government and PPP leaders ignored repeated warnings, further widening the gap between the army and provincial administration. The action by the Rangers has also provoked the ire of the MQM, which has been the major target of the crackdown.
Interestingly, the provincial government and the PPP leadership vehemently defended the Rangers’ action against the MQM and the alleged extra-judicial killing of the latter’s activists. But the conflict came to a head when the crackdown was extended to the government officials.
According to security officials, the land scam in Karachi that has thrived under the direct patronage of PPP leaders is the biggest source of crime and the major cause of violence between various political parties involved in a turf war. “Why don’t the Rangers go after militant and sectarian groups, which is their responsibility?” questions Farhatullah Babar.
Given the worsening law and order situation, traders and big business started looking towards the military and the demand for the imposition of governor’s rule grew louder. That the corps commander frequently addressed businessmen also raised eyebrows in the civil administration.
All this led to the reinforcement of the suspicion that the noose was being tightened around senior PPP leaders. “The attack on the military leaders by Zardari is a desperate move to pre-empt any action by the Rangers against his close associates,” says Dr Hassan Askari, a leading political analyst.
Although there has not been any public response by the military as yet, a senior official described the speech by the former president as “disgraceful”. The strong condemnation that has come from the prime minister and federal ministers is clear indication that Mr Zardari cannot hope for support from any political party. “Mr Zardari now has very limited options,” says Mr Askari. “The policy of confrontation will not work. He has boxed himself into a corner.”
It remains to be seen, though, how Mr Zardari extricates himself and his party from this situation.
Published in Dawn, June 18th, 2015.

Spare the Children

By Rafia Zakaria

ON Thursday, June 11, the head office of the NGO Save the Children received a letter from the Economic Affairs Division of the Pakistan government, ordering it to shut down all its operations in the country.

According to news reports, the NGO had been under scrutiny because of the alleged involvement of its employee, Shakeel Afridi, in a CIA-mandated fake vaccination campaign in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Following receipt of the letter, Save the Children shut down its operations in various cities. However, on June 14, the Ministry of Interior announced that the charity was being permitted to resume its operations and reopen its offices. No further explanation about the reversal of the decision was provided.

The closure of Save the Children and now its unexplained re-opening raises several crucial issues. First, if there is evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the organisation, especially something as egregious as being involved in espionage, then it would have made sense for the government to release such information to the media and the public prior to issuing an order of closure.

Second, the closure of an international NGO jeopardises the ability of Pakistan’s poor to benefit from the relief work provided by organisations such as Save the Children, further isolating the country’s impoverished from the global community.

Third, given the fact that developing countries like Pakistan desperately need the assistance provided by organisations like Save the Children, what measures of accountability exist (or should exist) for monitoring their activities?

On the first issue, it is crucial that the Ministry of Interior, which has now rescinded the order to suspend operations, share with the public the basis on which the order was first issued. In a country rife with conspiracy theories, it is crucial that the operations of NGOs not be suspended on the basis of doubts and rumours.

---

The frivolity implied in decisions made and then overturned is unbecoming of a government that is accountable to the citizens of the country.

---

In this case, if evidence against Save the Children’s involvement is present and irrefutable enough for the government to issue an order in the first place, then how could a decision made on its basis be inexplicably rescinded two days later? Surely, evidence of the good work done by Save the Children would have been available to decision-makers who issued the letter on Thursday as it was to those who reversed it days later. The frivolity implied in decisions made and then overturned is unbecoming of a government that is, at least in theory, accountable to the citizens of the country.

Second, the closure of Save the Children should provoke some discussions of how governmental actions such as these can impact the country’s ability to avail itself of the relief and development services provided by such organisations. International news coverage on the issue has underscored the hardships that international NGOs already face in working in Pakistan, citing the similar closure of the Norwegian Refugee Council last year as another example of a seemingly arbitrary government crackdown.

On the domestic front, the government’s inability to crack down on the public-service arms of various militant organisations suggest that only one kind of NGO, the international kind, appears worrisome to those monitoring NGO service provision in the country. The rhetoric of various conservative groups against international NGOs further propagates the impression that it is not the actual work being done by the organisation but the political dividends that may or may not be reaped in the event of their closure that are important to those making decisions regarding their work and lawful presence in the country.

Finally, and perhaps most important, is the issue of NGO accountability at an international level. Unlike governmental aid organisations, NGOs like Save the Children or the American Red Cross are not accountable to any particular government. As long as donors in the Western world continue to contribute, their coffers remain full and they remain largely independent in terms of where and how they spend their money.

A recent report on the American Red Cross’s work in Haiti has revealed the dark side of this arrangement, exposing how the organisation had claimed to build 130,000 houses when it had built only six. Even after the exposé, the Red Cross failed to provide details regarding how $500 million raised for earthquake relief in Haiti was actually spent.

The example of the Red Cross debacle in Haiti is important because it illustrates how governments of developing states like Haiti and Pakistan are really unable to provide any close monitoring of their expenditures. Initially, this fact of NGO independence was imagined as a positive thing, enabling NGOs to avoid government corruption and bureaucracy and deliver relief and development faster and more efficiently. However, as reliance on the work of international NGOs has grown, this lack of oversight and relative independence has become a cause for concern.

With little oversight at the local level and few checks at the international level, there aren’t many obstacles by way of who these NGOs collaborate with, how they spend their money, or hire their workers. In the case of Pakistan, the very possibility that Save the Children could have been involved with a CIA espionage operation reveals just how grisly things can get.

The report of Red Cross corruption in Haiti and the possibility that Save the Children was involved in CIA espionage related to the OBL raid both underscore the need for international mechanisms of oversight on the work of these organisations in countries like Haiti and Pakistan.

Given the work done by Save the Children in Pakistan, it is imperative that the Ministry of Interior release information to the public regarding why the organisation was scrutinised and whether any substantive proof of wrongdoing exists. Given that Save the Children relies on raising money from individual donors, such a public exposition would enable greater transparency regarding its workings and reveal to one and all whether or not anything actually went wrong.

The article was published in Dawn, June 17th, 2015.