Let Us Begin This Note on Love By Benazir Jatoi: New Age Islam's Selection, 04 January 2018
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
04 January 2018
• Let Us Begin This Note on Love
By Benazir Jatoi
• Tweet of the President
By Khurram Husain
• Living in Trump Age
By Rasul Bakhsh Rais
• An Ungrateful Friend
By Rizwan Asghar
• Trump: Blatant Belligerence
By Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal
• Integrating Fata
By Mohammad Ali Babakhel
• The Mark of the Bullet
By Kamila Hyat
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Let Us Begin This Note on Love
By Benazir Jatoi
January 3, 2018
Another year has passed and 2018 beckons with many things to reflect upon. What remains as was before is the inequality and disparity, perhaps even widening. What has changed, however, is the new light in which extremism has taken a firm grip, not to be removed as easily as a National Action Plan and a few secular voices in a sea of varying but consistent faith-laden stalwarts. The year 2016 saw fewer terrorist attacks in comparison but 2017 was a fatal year. It seems year after year, we measure our country’s progress in terms of how many innocent lives we’ve managed not to lose.
Extremism, essentially, rests on unwavering faith and pure hate. Hate, in Pakistan, has taken good advantage of poverty to ensure its reach stems to the very root of every household, neighbourhood and community — thou shall suspect your neighbour and your friend for what lies in their heart may be different from what lies in yours and surely it is inferior. Hate, it seems, has also taken advantage of political instability and elected leaders who have failed miserably and consistently to deliver.
However, what is interesting is that embellished, consistent and unchecked hate has not just followed us into the New Year, it has led us there. The planted Faizabad siege in the capital city for 20 days was based purely on hate, used by forces that be, as a tool to further weaken weak institutions, cause political disruptions and get the message across that democracy in Pakistan is fragile and one uninterrupted general election is no real feat.
Without further analysing Faizabad and all that it has undone, I want to focus on why it is so easy to use extremist elements to weaken institutions and gain points. Groomed and ready to take whatever role is necessary, faith-based elements have been used in Pakistan since its inception against external forces. But this tool is now being used within our borders as well. Faizabad is only the beginning. Why? Firstly, because these elements are always ready and groomed from the beginning to take up any fight. Once trained and ideology fuelled, there is really no controlling them. Secondly, and worryingly, they have become acceptable to us all because hate, divisive instruction and extremist views are now more palatable. The general public has also been groomed over time to accept hate-filled views without challenging them, perhaps some of us even see reason amongst the obvious irrationality. Thirdly, we now have a new fear. In addition to fearing the state and the establishment, we now have another element to fear — the total mainstreaming of extreme and dangerous voices in entrenched orthodoxy. And our silence (because of our fear) allows the extremists flames to keep burning. This is now beyond just the mosque one can avoid if one wishes to or the Friday sermons that one can tune out of. It is also not just a tool restricted to the ultimate question of our national sovereignty. It is in everyday life — in our living rooms through constant televised breaking news and in our everyday and unavoidable public spaces, challenging directly and indirectly democratic institutions, this time, however, under the new guise of religion. The Faizabad incident leading us into the New Year is letting us know, in unequivocal terms, that the goal posts lay not where we thought they did — they lay elsewhere and we must not forget it.
How we have come this far — to allow a certain religious narrative to be so acceptable as to take over the diverse and rich narratives of a country whose fault line lies in the saints of Sehwan and the words of Bulleh Shah — is perhaps beyond my ambit of study. What Faizabad had brought into focus is that time and space are receding and we seem not committed to stopping it. With such a large youth surge in an ever-growing population, Pakistan stands at a tryst in time where there should be no other option but to work towards the de-escalation of hate and everything that comes with it. It also means having an astute recognition of our constitutional institutions and the imperative understanding that the goalposts cannot, should not, shift beyond real and accountable democracy and the norms it holds. This is not possible, however, without a massive state-led narrative shift where it is considered unthinkable by institutions and individuals alike to target vulnerable minorities and the peaceful majority, and use extremist propaganda to push forward an unconstitutional agenda. A long-term and sustainable narrative shift for a functioning society will need the imperative ingredients of strong civil society and unhindered critical thinking.
But beyond political elites and their untouchable walls, let us, ordinary people, reflect on where we are being led and how we are getting there. Let us resolve to begin 2018 on a note of love, for surely that is where it all starts. So that the next time our neighbour is targeted for their religious belief and used as a political propaganda we think it is unjust enough to question it, in order to protect our human conscious and in turn our democratic values. As Faiz eloquently penned in 1947, Woh Intezaar Tha Jiss Kaa, Yeh Woh Sahar Tau Nahin (this is not the dawn we so longed for, for so long). Real freedom for this country will come when we free ourselves of hate.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1599056/6-let-us-begin-note-love/
----
Tweet of the President
By Khurram Husain
January 04, 2018
YES, we can say it’s all very funny until the bombs begin to drop. The brand new year 2018 began with the president of the United States apparently having a meltdown on Twitter. Some pointed out that it was a full moon night, and not only that, it was a super moon, and that might explain the bizarre spectacle. Who knows! I have yet to hear another more cogent explanation, even though the White House spokesperson was given a chance to provide one in a press conference the following day.
One is tempted to write off the threat tweeted our way as mere bluster, all bark and no bite. The authorities in Pakistan surely did the right thing in giving a measured response.
In her press conference the day after, the White House spokesperson talked of announcing “specific action” against Pakistan “within days”. The episode comes at the end of an important timeline. In August, Trump gave a harshly worded speech in which he talked of “safe havens for terrorist organisations” in Pakistan and warned of consequences, and also invited India to play a bigger role in Afghanistan, a hot-button issue with Pakistan.
The sudden and accelerating rupture in ties is coming at a time when the political and economic situations are both fragile.
A few days later, the news outlet Politico broke the news that action is being considered to apply sanctions against specific individuals in the Pakistani government whom the US considers to have links to designated terrorists and terrorist entities. The next day the spokesman of the US National Security Council said during a press conference, that the president had “put Pakistan on notice” regarding the question of terrorist safe havens and specific actions required. Those actions included sanctions on people within the Pakistani government “who are tied to these kinds of groups, you know, in ways that they shouldn’t be”.
This episode was followed by a cabinet meeting and a meeting between the army chief and the US ambassador in Pakistan, and separate statements from the government and the army rejecting the pressure being applied on Pakistan. A few days later, a detailed response was provided after a National Security Council meeting in Pakistan, attended by the top civil and military leadership. That detailed response asked the US to start “focusing on core issues of eliminating safe havens inside Afghanistan, border management, return of refugees and reinvigorating the peace process for a political settlement in Afghanistan” in addition to rejecting a wider role for India, and attempts to blame Pakistan for the quagmire the US finds itself in Afghanistan.
A seeming lull in this battle of words ensued, but the thing to note is that the sentiments expressed against Pakistan had wider ownership beyond seemingly impulsive tweets by the US president. This wider ownership was seen again when General Mattis, the US Secretary of Defence, visited Pakistan in early December. Even though the public messaging from that meeting was relatively muted, it was fairly clear that attempts to clear the air and bring the two sides onto the same page had failed.
Later that same month, the US vice president made a surprise visit to Kabul to shore up morale amongst the troops, and while assuring them that the US “will see this through”, once again repeated that the president has “put Pakistan on notice” over the question of safe havens for terrorist groups. The official Pakistani response was equally sharp, reminding the vice president that Pakistan does not accept such notices, and there will be “no more do more”.
A few days later the New York Times came out with another scoop, with anonymous sources, saying that the US plans to block $255 million in “aid” to Pakistan. A few days after the infamous tweet, authorities there confirmed the decision and the amount, adding that the money was from the Foreign Military Financing programme, which assists countries in procuring defence equipment as well as military services.
In short, matters have been deteriorating for a while now, and this goes beyond the mercurial impulses that drive the president. The debate in Pakistan has been understandably heated, with a lot of people asking what this means and how much US aid actually matters for Pakistan.
Let’s leave aside the numbers for a moment; the actual amount given in “aid” is disputed. The first question to ask is what might happen, and the next question to ask is what it would mean. In terms of what options the US might be considering, we have heard three specific actions: unilateral incursions into Pakistan territory by US forces to take out targets they identify as hostile, halting aid flows, and sanctioning senior government (most likely including military) officials whom the US considers to have links with entities designated by them as terrorists.
It is unlikely that this will go the military route for the moment, though the direction in which things are going suggest anything is possible as time passes. A sustained rupture in relations with the US has meaning for Pakistan beyond just the amount received as aid. The relationship governs many other engagements that Pakistan has with multilateral creditors like the IMF, World Bank and the increasingly important Financial Action Task Force, as well as private debt markets where Pakistan goes to float bonds. The government is currently considering another approach to the debt markets before March, and sometime in 2018, if a sharp reversal in the deteriorating balance of payments does not come about, an approach to the IMF could become necessary.
Still, these are not reasons be fearful of American bombast. But it is worth bearing in mind that the sudden and accelerating rupture in ties is coming at a time when the political and economic situations are both fragile. There must be no bowing before the bluster we see coming out of the White House these days, but it is better to keep our reactions measured and deliberate. Most importantly, it is more crucial than ever before to not promote instability in our own country for short-term political objectives.
Source: dawn.com/news/1380641/tweet-of-the-president
----
Living in Trump Age
By Rasul Bakhsh Rais
January 3, 2018
There are too many things one can say about President Donald Trump depending whether a person is conservative from the right-base or liberal. At best, he is controversial and unconventional, unlike other presidents who moved upward from within the political establishment. He has arisen to power due to his effective exploitation of popular disenchantment with the party politics at popular level. He is not groomed well in the etiquettes and conventions of politics — national or international.
Rather, his folksy style has been popular among common men and women in the rural mid-western states — the people he has often referred to as neglected. He continues to be direct, frank, open and unvarnished in his comments on national and international issues. His use of Twitter for announcing his major policy initiatives, political decisions and comments on any event, person or problem is equally unusual, which mainstream political figures around the world may regard as acentric. He is quite impulsive, cannot hold his views back.
Trump is hasty and rash for a president of the United States. He lacks the quality of being thoughtful, reflective or wisely calculating the fallout of what he says. His promptness and unpredictability leave the world leaders guessing about his next move. Not sure whether it is a mark of strength, which it can be in some circumstances, or weakness for the most powerful leader of the world. In many cases, his suddenness in announcing policies has caused him and his associates embarrassment and reversals.
The tweet on Pakistan is unique in harshness, very direct, impolite and undiplomatic. Let me fresh on the choice of words: “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools.” There is a clear message of policy change towards Pakistan, which has been in the making. It seems the last round of diplomatic engagement that brought the US defence secretary to Pakistan failed to satisfy the American side. I guess the message was not unexpected for the foreign policy and security establishment that has been in conversation with the US for long on bridging the real or perceptual gap in our policies towards Afghanistan and the war on terror. What was not expected was perhaps the portrayal of Pakistan as ‘liar’ and ‘deceitful’.
Is it end of the long and troublesome engagement with the United States? Not really. It shouldn’t be that way. Pakistan is today in a much difficult situation inside the country and in relation to the world at large. Responding impulsively to the tweet of President Trump will be unwise. It has always been painful to hear such a language after making so many sacrifices — 70,000 civilians and close to 15,000 security personnel — martyred. Americans dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan also know what Pakistan has done in the war on terror. In responding to the US, we should also be mindful of what the United States had done for us. About $33 billion given to Pakistan in diverse areas of national security, development and economy is not a small amount.
There must have been a quid pro quo — there is no free lunch, when it comes to dealing with foreign powers. This was our choice. In making such choices, I am afraid to say, our leaders had no self-respect either for themselves or for the nation. This relationship has gone bad. Even then, let us use diplomacy to repair this vital relationship; if not, then disengage with honour and dignity — not by using the same language as President Trump has used.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1598943/6-living-trump-age/
----
An Ungrateful Friend
By Rizwan Asghar
January 4, 2018
In his first tweet of the year, US President Donald Trump has accused Pakistan of providing safe havens to terrorist organisations and of repeatedly deceiving American leaders.
Trump believes that his country has given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, but the latter has provided nothing but “lies and deceit”. These comments show Trump’s blinkered view of reality and the appalling ignorance of Pakistan’s supportive role in the war on terror in the post-9/11 period.
Over the past year, Trump has earned a great deal of disapproval for his chaotic foreign policy and a largely unvarnished view of international politics. Showing no understanding of the complexities of inter-state relations, Trump has repeatedly broken the legal rules governing diplomatic negotiations with impunity. Worst of all, if Trump does not tone down his outright belligerence, he might push the world to the brink of a nuclear war.
Many mainstream media outlets in the US have criticised Trump for his inability to behave like a great leader on the world stage. USA Today, one of the most widely circulated newspapers in America, recently said in its editorial that Donald Trump is even “unfit to … shine George W Bush’s shoes”.
Trump’s approval rating has hit an historical low. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, almost 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that the US president is consistently seeking to aggravate international crises to shore up his internal position. Given that he has remained quite unsuccessful so far, Trump has chosen to open a new front in his war against the Muslim world. But the US needs to understand that Pakistan cannot bow down to coercion and unconditionally protect America’s interests in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s armed forces are already engaged in a fierce war against the Pakistani Taliban and other terrorist organisations that are operating on our soil with India’s covert support. A sustainable relationship between Pakistan and the US can only be based on the pursuit of the mutual interests of both countries. It’s time for the US to do more and twist India’s arms by persuading the Modi government to stop aiding terrorist groups that are spreading instability in Pakistan.
Many senior US officials have repeatedly claimed in the past few years that they have completely destroyed Al-Qaeda’s ability to launch terrorist attacks against the US. But they have conveniently forgotten that this became possible only because of effective counterterrorism measures taken by Pakistan. The US could not eliminate Al-Qaeda’s core leadership without receiving support from Pakistan’s military intelligence agencies. It is a matter of common knowledge now that Pakistani authorities apprehended many senior Al-Qaeda operatives in the years following 9/11 and handed them over to America. Pakistan’s economy has suffered losses worth more than $100 billion ever since it became a part of the US-led war against terror. Over 70,000 people in our country have lost their lives. But the US remains insistent on pinning the entire blame on Pakistan for the failure of its counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan without any comprehensive plan to fill the political vacuum that was going to be left after the Taliban regime was dismantled. Both the Bush and Obama administrations chose to collaborate with corrupt militias and warlords, lining their pockets with taxpayers’ dollars in the rebuilding efforts that gradually gave rise to popular resistance among Afghanistan’s population. More importantly, the US failed in Afghanistan because of a huge gap between its ambitious goals – which included creating an effective democratic government in Kabul – and the actual efforts it put in to achieve these goals.
The American public has become war-weary. But the conflict continues to drag on. On the other hand, the Washington political establishment needs a scapegoat on whom it can put the blame for its embarrassing but predictable defeat in Afghanistan. And Pakistan is, in many ways, an ideal candidate for that.
After 16 years of failed policies, the Trump administration cannot turn the tide in the Afghan war by coercing the neighbouring countries into cooperation. During his visit to the US in 2010, Pakistan’s then-army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, delivered a detailed paper to the White House that explained his views on how to resolve different lingering problems in the relations between Pakistan and the US. In his paper, General Kayani said: “You are not going to win the war, and you are not going to transform Afghanistan… Stop your grandiose plans and let’s get practical, sit down, and discuss how you will leave, and what an end state we can both live with is”. However, the Obama administration did not pay much attention to General Kayani’s advice and continued with its massive waste of blood and treasure in Afghanistan.
A political solution to the Afghan conflict can only be found by engaging with Pakistan. It is such an incredibly weak and ludicrous argument that the world’s leading military force has failed to defeat the Taliban because Pakistan was unwilling to take action against certain Afghan Taliban groups. The US should address Pakistan’s legitimate strategic concerns and minimise India’s counterproductive role in Afghanistan. The Trump administration can build a strong and enduring relationship with Pakistan only by acknowledging our efforts in combating terrorism. By refusing to do so, the US is behaving like an ungrateful friend that has far too many high and unrealistic expectations.
What the Trump administration must not forget is that the US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US. In order to stabilise Afghanistan, the US will have to engineer a successful regional solution and the sooner Donald Trump realises it, the better.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/264146-an-ungrateful-friend
-----
Trump: Blatant Belligerence
By Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal
January 4, 2018
OVER the past year, Pakistan has faced immense challenges in its dealings with the Trump Administration. The Americans incapacity to accomplish their desired objectives in Afghanistan and transformation in the global politics influenced negatively Pakistan-United States strategic partnership. The mantra of ‘do-more’, unsubstantial accusations, and above all intimidations frustrate Pakistanis. Eventually, Islamabad pronounced ‘no-more’. Indeed, President Donald Trump and his cohorts are not prepared for such a diplomatic snub. President Trump’s recent repulsive tweet alarmed the Pakistani nation. On January 1, 2018, he tweeted: “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33b in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” Ironically, President Trump failed to make distinction between aid and coalition support fund. Pakistan received fund from the United State as a reimbursement of money which former spent for operations in support of the coalition for regional peace.
The Government of Pakistan candidly responded Trump’s blatant belligerence. Immediacy, the Foreign Office summoned United States Ambassador David Hale and lodged its protest against Trump’s tweet. Foreign Minister made a befitting rejoinder: “We have already told the US that we will not do more, so Trump’s ‘no more’ does not hold any importance,” He added: “Pakistan is ready to publicly provide every detail of the US aid that it has received.” Defense Minister Khurram Dastagir Khan reminded Americans: “Pakistan as anti-terror ally has given free to US: land & air communication, military bases & intelligence cooperation that decimated Al-Qaeda over last 16 years, but they have given us nothing but invective & mistrust. They overlook cross-border safe havens of terrorists who murder Pakistanis.” These declarations marked seven decades strategic partnership is hastily drifting-apart. Nevertheless, the appropriate response is that Government of Pakistan ought to release all the details of the funds and also share the cost, which Pakistan bear in the United States war on terrorism.
The increasing complexity in Pakistan and United States relations is natural. Both states have divergent regional and international outlook. Today, the Americans are determined to validate India’s Great Power stature in the South Asian strategic environment. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America 2017 stated: “We welcome India’s emergence as a leading global power and stronger strategic and defense partner.” It also pointed out: “We will deepen our strategic partnership with India and support its leadership role in the Indian Ocean security and throughout the broader region.” This resolute unwaveringly challenges Pakistan’s struggle for sovereign equality in the region. Washington’s political and military assistance to New Delhi without taking into consideration Pakistan’s national security obliges Islamabad to realign itself with other Great powers. In case of Afghanistan both Islamabad and Washington have identical agenda to restore peace and stability in the country. But they have divergence over the peace building modalities. The Trump Administration is determined to establish the writ of President Ashraf Ghani led unity government in Afghanistan without the involvement of Afghan Taliban. Indeed, this will translate into American armed forces military victory. Whereas; Islamabad is convinced that without the involvement of Afghan Taliban peace in Afghanistan is an unrealistic stratagem. Trump Administration has been intimidating Pakistan to assist it materializing its agenda in Afghanistan. On August 21, 2017, President Trump arrogantly stated: “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.” On December 21, 2017, during his Afghanistan visit Vice President Mike Pence concurred the threat: “President Trump has put Pakistan on notice.” Consequently, President Trump withheld $255 million in FY 2016 foreign military financing to Pakistan.
Internationally, the United States is scared of resurgent Russia and China’s rise as an economic and military power. Trump’s National Security Strategy 2017 document pointed out: “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” It added: “China and Russia are developing advanced weapons and capabilities that could threaten our critical infrastructure and our command and control architecture.” Pakistan is a key regional ally of China and also improving its relations with Russia. Perhaps, Islamabad’s strategic partnership with Beijing and strategic understanding with Moscow, especially on Afghanistan crisis is not acceptable to Washington. To conclude, President Trump’s frustration constituents are numerous. His domestic initiatives lack dividends. His foreign and strategic policy rating is disgraceful. He has not get much success in Syria, Iraq and Iran. His Jerusalem strategy has backfired. Despite the recent upsurge in airstrikes and increase in American soldiers, Afghan Taliban’s insurgency is intact and IS has increasing its presence in Afghanistan. He fails to change the behaviour of North Korean Regime. Thus, he is formally scapegoating Pakistan for domestic political utilisation and international strategic consumption.
Source: pakobserver.net/trump-blatant-belligerence/
----
Integrating Fata
By Mohammad Ali Babakhel
January 04, 2018
INCORPORATED in NAP, reforming Fata is supported by both civil and military establishments, but the ongoing merger debate is mainly concerned with politics, with neither those who are for or against offering cogent arguments about the opportunities and challenges of a merger and the efficacy of reforms.
Fata is neither solely a political, administrative, nor internal security issue. It is one of social engineering, linked to national integration and foreign policy, and thus requires a holistic approach. Reforms that focus on politics or security alone will fail to contribute to long-term national integrity.
The tribal people already intermingle with KP’s people, and are aware of their laws and norms. Yet despite cultural and social integration, Fata’s political landscape is highly fragmented, and although geographically contagious, the agencies are not directly linked to each other. One has to pass through adjoining settled districts, which are more connected than neighbouring agencies, eg Mohmand and Khyber are more connected with Peshawar and Charsadda than with each other.
We must learn from previous mergers.
Fata’s black economy may attract negative influences. Vested interests will try to maintain the status quo or innovate. The challenge of breaking such linkages requires border management, taxation and anti-corruption regimes. There is also the opportunity to expand mineral extraction. About 7,000 million tons of marble deposits exist in Fata. Currently, 10,000 people produce a daily average of 3,000 tons using antiquated, wasteful methods. Openness may attract investors to introduce new technology.
Integrating traditional law enforcement forces into the police may have negative and positive effects, such as compromising KP’s security on the one hand, and increasing employment on the other. The transition may be turbulent, given that Levies and Khasadars are loyal to tribal dynamics and averse to modern policing, while the police are averse to tribal norms and lack the skills and experience to operate in rugged terrain. But the merger may reduce the space for criminals and extremists, particularly if law enforcement is primarily trained in community policing and counterterrorism.
The real challenge is converting conflicting political opinions into consensus. Socio-economic disparities and low peace indexation will impact settled districts. Lack of infrastructure will hamper governance. But the merger can transform Fata from a tribal administration into a settled area and help it transition from the FCR to constitutionalism. Fata’s people are fed up of the colonial apparatus; 23 provincial assembly seats may provide relief, as well as opportunities for women to join the political system.
Those against merger argue that it will disturb the socio-cultural fabric and intensify the struggle between factions. It would increase KP’s Pakhtun population, which may threaten people from Hazara, D.I. Khan and Tank, and amplify demands for separate Hazara and Seraiki provinces. The maliks and lungi holders would also resist being replaced as titleholders.
Fata is administered through a discriminatory law, but it also enjoys certain fringe benefits like tax and utilities exemptions. An abrupt withdrawal may provoke severe reactions. Quotas in educational and professional institutions would be eliminated, which may enhance conflict between current and newly incorporated parts of KP.
How to protect such privileges and immunities needs to be well thought out, and reforms should be customised to be culturally acceptable. Ideally, legal and administrative proposals should incorporate titles like mashar, jirga and malik. Retaining these in the new local bodies would build trust.
Owing to security and financial reasons, creating a separate province isn’t feasible. Historically, administrative readjustments have either been short-lived or ineffective. The partition of Bengal in 1905 was annulled in 1911. The creation of One Unit in 1955 was ultimately reversed in 1970. Dir, Swat and Chitral were merged with NWFP, but owing to its status as a Provincially Administrated Tribal Area (PATA) under the Constitution the laws enacted by the provincial assemblies could not be applied unless endorsed by the governor and president. In Balochistan, ‘B’ areas were converted into ‘A’ areas in 2003, bringing the entire province under the police’s jurisdiction, but this was reversed in 2010. Lessons must be learnt from previous merger experiences, and those issues should not be repeated.
The situation warrants a phased transition to be completed by 2021. First, six Frontier Regions are to be notified as parts of adjoining settled districts. Second, Bajaur, Khyber and Kurram are to be integrated in KP. Third, Orakzai and Mohmand, and in the fourth phase South and North Waziristan are to be settled.
A hasty transition may entrench the status quo, burden KP financially or give birth to another Pata. The country cannot afford a half-baked merger.
Source: dawn.com/news/1380639/integrating-fata
-----
The Mark of the Bullet
By Kamila Hyat
January 4, 2018
A decade after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at Rawalpindi, there has been a flood of new speculation about who killed her, with what motive and how. There has been no progress in the patchy investigation into the case since 2007, with the Anti Terrorism Court heading the case ruling in August last year that former dictator General Pervez Musharraf be declared an absconder in the case, two senior police officials arrested and five men allegedly linked to the Taliban freed. The problem, of course, is that this leaves us not even close to understanding where the conspiracy to kill Benazir was laid out and which forces stood behind it.
There is so much that has gone without question. The stories and columns now coming forward make it clearer than ever before that Benazir Bhutto herself understood that she was destined to be killed weeks before the bullet that took her life was pumped into her head. This in itself is extremely significant. Benazir’s letter to a US journalist, her comments to journalists at home and to others – in which she even pointed to her killers – have been repeatedly overlooked. Essentially, she suggested Pervez Musharraf was seeking her life: perhaps by refusing to grant her the security she needed, perhaps through other acts. Because of the lapses in investigation, we are still not clear; most likely we will never be.
There are also increasingly forceful suggestions from people with access to key information that the precisely planned murder was plotted out step by step in the rooms of a seminary at Akora Khattak. This aspect too has not been followed up on. There is of course the possibility of linkages between various elements potentially involved in the murder. It is strange that the cleric who heads the enormous seminary remains free and involved in forming alliances with mainstream parties who claim to hold progressive ideals. Musharraf, an increasingly erratic man, has joined the voices that insist Asif Ali Zardari plotted to kill Benazir, a rather unlikely idea.
The impact of the mystery of the case is not restricted to the Bhutto-Zardari family alone but to many more across the country. When major murders – such as those of political leaders we cannot afford to lose – remain unsolved, conspiracies multiply as does the sense of uncertainty and injustice which has been a constant thread running through our history. The failure to find answers means that there is greater disquiet in Sindh, the province where the PPP continues to retain its hold, and also in other places.
The failure to apprehend Benazir’s assassins is problematic for many reasons. Musharraf now occupies a place of safety in his self-imposed exile. Was he in any way involved? Was his crime restricted to deliberately denying Benazir security? We simply cannot say. But certainly, more inquiry is needed and more questions asked of a man who appears to have escaped without punishment for actions he committed while in power.
The problem goes back further. We never solved the 1951 murder of Pakistan’s first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan. The man who apparently killed him at a rally in Rawalpindi was instantly killed himself by police. Rumours of a wider conspiracy were heard then. They continue to be heard. This early history of death, violence and possible connivance from within in many ways carved out our identity as a nation. The death of dictator General Ziaul Haq in that infamous plane crash over Bahawalpur also brought out a whole volume of theories and conjecture which continues even today. It is unlikely we will ever learn the truth in any of these cases.
This lack of truth and lack of clarity is unfortunate in so many ways. Because the investigation skills of our police force are limited, their ethics even more limited and many hurdles exist to prevent them doing even what they are capable of, the consequence is that even despite multiple inquiry commissions, the orders and actions of courts, the tours of inspection teams from overseas, we as citizens never learn much about the true nature of events.
There are many other incidents scattered through our history which follow precisely the same pattern. It is this that has given rise to the idea of there being conspiracies and planned actions so as to achieve a specific goal which is then drawn out as a part of strategies which have been written up. Who writes such plans has always been uncertain. The arrival since the early 2000s of powerful militant groups on the scene and their own set of alliances has added to the range of possibilities. We can as such only wonder.
We have also learnt to accept a situation where we will never learn the full story. This also allows all kinds of interested agents to weave their own stories, plant them in minds and sometimes turn them into what we see as being real. Our world is one in which where a multitude of illusions and distorted images appear everywhere. This surreal imagery makes it impossible to determine what is real, what is a mere shadow and what is a mirage deliberately projected onto the national field by interested players in this dangerous game. The advent of social media makes it even easier to distort, insinuate and plant ideas in minds.
Major events in our history, such as the murder of Benazir Bhutto, then go beyond the impact of such killings on politics, on the assassinated person’s political party or even on the future of the nation. The bullet that leaves the gun of an assassin leaves a deep scar not only on his victim but on all of us. It shapes and creates the world we see around us. Within this world, like the scenes contained inside a snow globe, things change every time the sphere is shaken or even nudged. No one quite controls precisely what changes will take place inside that ball.
It is uncertain in the same way as whether anyone knows what a particular plan would achieve, what kind of ripples it would create or what their magnitude would be. This leaves us living in a situation of constant uncertainty and constant doubt, opening up room for the sometimes wild conjecture and conspiracies that Pakistanis have become rather well-known for. The bullet in fact shatters reality and leaves behind only a fragmented image of what was once in place.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/264145-the-mark-of-the-bullet
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/let-begin-this-note-love/d/113804