What Youm-e-Takbeer Means For Pakistan: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 May 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
28 May 2016
• What Youm-e-Takbeer Means For Pakistan
By Yasir Hussain
• A Fantastic Fear of Women
By Farrukh Khan Pitafi
• Questions Post Mansour
By Babar Sattar
• Whither Yemen War
By Mehboob Qadir
• The Exposed Duplicity
By D Asghar
• Pakistan and India: Peace Interrupted
By Mehr Tarar
• A Lesson for the US
By Tahir Khan
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
What Youm-e-Takbeer Means For Pakistan
By Yasir Hussain
28-May-16 414
On May 28, 1998, Pakistan successfully detonated five nuclear devices in the barren wastes of Chagai in Balochistan as response to a series of nuclear test explosions by India on May 11 and 13, the same year. Since then, Pakistan remembers this day as Youm-e-Takbeer, which means the day of greatness. As a result of successful nuclear detonations, Pakistan emerged as world’s 7th country having the nuclear weapon capability.
Earlier, on May 18, 1974 India surprised much of the world by detonating its first nuclear device, in an operation code named as “Smiling Buddha” at Pokhran test site, and termed it as a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion. This so-called 'peaceful nuclear’ weapons test was done by illegally siphoning off nuclear material from CIRUS reactor, which Canada had transferred to India on the condition that it would be used only for peaceful purposes.
In response to this nuclear test, Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was established with a mission to stop further illicit proliferation of nuclear material. Today, India wishes to join the NSG whose action was the very impetus for the body’s creation.
To prevent South Asia from a nuclear arm race, Pakistan proposed various proposals including the post-1974 South Asia nuclear weapon-free zone, and the post-1998 Pakistan-India strategic restraint regime. India has consistently spurned these proposals. Fortunately or unfortunately, Pakistan’s anti-nuclear approach remained unwelcomed internationally. However, India’s subsequent nuclear tests left Pakistan with no option but to restore the balance of power in the region by establishing nuclear parity.
The complex strategic environment in South Asia has been witnessing rapid changes. The two major actors, Pakistan and India, along with their hostilities and hegemonic aspirations by latter has created a security dilemma. Owing to various territorial disputes, Pakistan and India have had a complex relationship, which is yet to come out of its precarious mode. From the very beginning, Indian leadership pursued hegemonic policies to deter and dictate Pakistan on crucial issues including Kashmir.
India’s ambition of achieving Great Power status is clear and the most proximate impediment of this power quest is Pakistan. With the help of West, India is engaged in a major arms build-up, which has already tilted balance of power in its favour. Pakistan’s conventional capabilities are increasingly becoming insufficient to maintain balance of power in the region. India has equipped itself with sea-based nuclear deterrent. Nuclear powered submarines like Arihant has already weaponised the Indian Ocean that was once a nuclear weapon-free ocean.
At the very same time, India has instigated a malicious propaganda against Pakistan’s nuclear weapon capability. Pakistan’s nuclear programme has consistently been targeted through orchestrated campaign and negative narratives based on unsubstantiated allegations. The promotion of these myths has sustained international discriminatory approach towards Pakistan particularly in the field of nuclear assistance and cooperation.
Ironically, Indian nuclear and missile build-up accompanied with its massive conventional force that underwrites its aggressive doctrine of ‘Cold Start’ has been rarely discussed. This year, on April 9, India became the first nuclear littoral State of Indian Ocean to test a submarine launched ballistic missile. This makes India the biggest and fastest proliferator of nuclear weapons in the history of the region. Given that India’s nuclear weapons programme was originally motivated more by the prestige factor, Pakistan’s nuclear odyssey was a defensive response to security paranoia, spawned by India.
In such grave circumstances, Pakistan’s conventional forces are insufficient to deter India’s threat of use of force or actual use of force. In order to maintain strategic equilibrium in hostile environment, Pakistan sees its nuclear capability as a political instrument rather than military tool. Pakistan’s nuclear capability has a history of defensive development. It had to pursue nuclear capability not by choice but by compulsion of circumstances due to growing nuclear as well as conventional asymmetry and its threat perception vis-à-vis India. In contemporary affairs, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme has been a target of harsh and unjustifiable criticism. The deliberate maligning propaganda, especially from our neighbourhood, which has introduced nuclear weapons in South Asian theatre, is unfair and biased.
Pakistan has repeatedly assured that it strictly abides by the concept of credible minimum deterrence and its nuclear programme is only aimed at maintaining peace and stability in South Asia. Pakistan has no desire to engage in nuclear arms race with any country; however it will utilise all its available resources to defend territorial integrity from external threats.
Pakistan’s defence has become impregnable due to its nuclear weapon. That’s why, On May 28, Youm-e-Takbeer is observed across the country with to commemorate the historic nuclear test at Chaghi. It is a reminder of the struggle and great odds that Pakistan overcame to build a nuclear weapon, despite strong countervailing pressure from the elite nuclear states.
Yasir Hussain is PhD scholar in English Language Education.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/28-May-16/what-youm-e-takbeer-means-for-pakistan
----
A Fantastic Fear of Women
By Farrukh Khan Pitafi
The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has spoken. Women should be kept in their rightful place. Their husbands are legally allowed if not obliged to ‘lightly’ beat them. What this mild beating would look like, the CII refrained from explaining. Whether dragging them by their hair, pulling their nails, slapping them or waterboarding them would fit the bill is not clear. Perhaps, the CII in its infinite wisdom should elaborate further. And there are other questions that merit an answer. For instance, why stop at beating wives? Shouldn’t the permission be extended to beating daughters, sisters and mothers? They are inferior, right? They asked for it by choosing to be born in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Muhammad Khan Sherani, the CII chairman, is the proverbial pound of flesh exacted by his party chief, Maulana Fazl ur Rahman, that scheming master of manipulation, the powerhouse of political support. A few days before Sherani opened his mouth I was feeling sorry for Fazl ur Rahman because Imran Khan always insults him by calling him names. Now, I don’t. I feel sorry for my helplessness and that of this country’s one half of the population. The better half.
If truth be told, the moment Sherani appeared on television to break the news, I could feel how disappointed the daughters of this nation must be. The heartbreak. The anger. The betrayal. They must be wondering how easily an elderly man had schemed to throw them all under the bus. Without even noticing the realities of life. The country that has the honour of electing the first woman prime minister in the Muslim world now sought to ban them from public life. From most professions. And legally allow one citizen of the country to torture the other.
The warped mindset of the CII
The sad thing is that he used our faith as justification. Little did he and his colleagues realise that if Islam has flourished for over 14 centuries, it is mainly due to its ability to mould to the realities of life without losing its core values. In Islam, this is called Ijtihad or interpretation. The modern state, its constitutionalism, emphasis on gender and general equality has evolved recently. Sadly, Sherani’s thought has not. Otherwise how can one fail to see that beating wives, trying to domesticate women, blaming them for social woes can never be part of any great faith’s core values. If you ask me why the Muslim world is ailing today, it is just because of men and women like Sherani who play right into the hands of Islam’s detractors.
‘Gentle beating’ of wife is no violence, says CII chief
The only solace is that the CII’s recommendations are not binding. So I would have chosen to ignore them totally had it not been for the indecent haste of the electronic media to show Sherani’s unfiltered ramblings to the entire country. In this country where we have lost over 70,000 citizens to terrorism, this was a serious development. Such men are given time and opportunity to brainwash the country. It is as if none of the media decision-makers have daughters. Crime against women is already prevalent in our society. Make it legal in any shape and you will have countless deaths every single day. The second worrying reason is the rise of Fazl ur Rahman in the wake of the Panama papers controversy. When the government felt that the entire opposition was ganging up against it, it sought the help of the man who was threatening to bring it down over the woman protection bill only a few weeks ago. He obliged. The head of Sherani’s party operates this way. That’s how he convinced former president Asif Ali Zardari to install Sherani as the CII’s head in the first place. That is how he convinced the current prime minister to give Sherani an extension. That is what I have been reminding the moderate forces throughout the Panama papers controversy. But nobody listens. Why would they? None of the opposition parties stood with the government to defend the women protection bill in the aftermath of Mumtaz Qadri’s hanging.
The opposition has the right to try bringing the government down. It is the government’s right to fight back. But no one should compromise on the rights of half of the country’s population. Whoever does that deserves a ‘light beating’ at the very least. Pakistan is signatory to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any violation will not go unpunished.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1111571/fantastic-fear-women/
----
Questions post Mansour
By Babar Sattar
May 28, 2016
Pakistan’s formal reaction to the killing of Mullah Mansour in Balochistan seems to have three strands. One, we allege that by killing Mansour the US has scuttled the Afghan peace process. Two, we are sad at repeated breaches of Pakistan’s sovereignty. And three, we are weary of the grand conspiracy in which our friends and neighbours have joined hands to embarrass us by killing Mansour on our soil.
There are some obvious questions that perturb the average Pakistani who doesn’t possess the ability to comprehend the secret wisdom that feeds our national security and foreign policy in general and our Afghan policy in particular.
What is our policy towards Afghanistan? Do we treat the government headed by President Ashraf Ghani as the legitimate authority in Afghanistan or do we see the Afghan Taliban as legitimate representatives of the people and state of Afghanistan?
If we accord recognition to the government of President Ghani, can we pursue a policy that treats the Afghan Taliban as legitimate stakeholders in Afghanistan when the Afghan government calls them terrorists and asserts that “there are no good or bad terrorists”?
What is our policy towards the Afghan peace process? Has our stated policy for some years not been that we are not sponsors of Afghan peace but are merely trying to facilitate an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led process as a friend and neighbour?
Did President Ghani not stand in the Afghan parliament after a Taliban attack in Kabul in April that claimed 64 lives and state that “we no longer expect Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table…we expect them to launch a military operation against their sanctuaries and leadership based on their soil…if they can’t target them they should hand them over to our judiciary”?
If the words and action of the Afghan government exhibit its lack of interest in the Quadrilateral Coordination Group led peace process focused on bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table and if the US president has clarified that they killed Mansour since the Taliban aren’t willing to give up their agenda of violence, is the QCG process being pushed by Pakistan still Afghan-owned and Afghan-led?
What is our policy towards the Afghan Taliban? When there exists something called the ‘Quetta Shura’, when the Taliban elect their amirs on Pakistani soil (and they live and die on Pakistani soil), when our foreign affairs adviser admits that we exert some influence over them (even if not control), and when we deliver them to a QCG meeting, can we tell the world with a straight face that we have a porous border and these folks sneak in and hide amongst millions of Afghan refugees?
Will we continue to push for a marriage between the Afghan government and the Taliban when the Taliban don’t want it and the Afghan government doesn’t want it and the sole superpower that bankrolls the Afghan government and has been fighting the Taliban since 9/11 doesn’t think it will happen?
Are we pushing for reconstitution of the Afghan government with the Taliban being granted a seat on the high table because we know what is best for Afghanistan and its people and what is the best way to secure lasting peace in a country that has remained immersed in unending war for three and a half decades, even if the Afghans don’t agree?
Or are we throwing our weight behind the Taliban because we believe that the Afghan government in its present form is unsustainable? Or that sooner or later the US will lose interest in Afghanistan and in a free-style intra-Afghan fight the Taliban will prevail and control provinces bordering Pakistan (even if not all of Afghanistan) and we don’t want them to be mad at us when that happens?
Have we cultivated a relationship of suspicion with successive US-backed Afghan governments since 9/11 that have been pushed closer to India and developed deeper ties with our eastern foe because we are afraid of being in a nutcracker with enemies on our eastern and western borders? And so does courting the Afghan Taliban seem the best way to prevent an Indo-Afghan alliance against Pakistan?
If we were one of the three countries that recognised the Taliban government in Afghanistan in the 90s and the Taliban wouldn’t listen to us back then (and even refused handing over Baloch leaders), and if we are the only country offering them a sanctuary today and they still won’t listen to us, why do we think they will listen to us tomorrow if they succeed in establishing control over Afghanistan or provinces bordering Pakistan?
If we have come to realise that nurturing terror-outfits as strategic assets is a bad idea, if the TTP and its cousins pose an existential threat to Pakistan and our military has been engaged in fighting pitched battles with the TTP, and if the TTP and Al-Qaeda swear allegiance to the Afghan Taliban, why do we believe that Taliban control over Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan will be good for our security?
If we tried cutting deals with TTP groups that blew up in our faces, and pushed the idea of talking to our ‘misguided TTP-brethren’ who killed our soldiers, policemen and children alike, which ultimately led us to the conclusion that the TTP and other such terror groups must be fought to be neutralised, why then are we proposing a different solution to the Afghan government faced with the Afghan Taliban also killing Afghan soldiers and civilians alike?
Even if we think that the US and Afghan governments can’t win against the Afghan Taliban, and we don’t want to fight the Taliban because we don’t want to make enemies out of them, how does that add up to hosting them in Pakistan being a good idea? If the Taliban are the real voice of the Afghans, and their fight with the Afghan government is an intra-Afghan matter and we have no dog in the game, why should they need a sanctuary in Pakistan or be mad if don’t offer them one?
If the Afghan Taliban and its sub-groups such as the Haqqanis are seen by the world as terror outfits and the US claims overbroad authority under UN resolutions to attack such groups (the resolutions supposedly also oblige member states like Pakistan to ban them), is it advisable to host the Taliban on our soil, creating an opportunity for the US to attack them when here – only to mourn the breach of our sovereignty after the event?
When our proof of conspiracy and world bias against us is that the US elected to kill the Taliban supremo when in Pakistan as opposed to when he was in Afghanistan or Iran, we come out looking very silly. When we refuse to accept responsibility for the world’s most wanted lounging around in Pakistan but want the world to respect our sovereignty and let them be when here, we further confirm that our concept of our rights and responsibilities as a nation-state is messed up.
And when we blame petty officials and corruption within Nadra for verifying the ID card and passport of Mullah Mansour as an explanation of how he ‘blended in’ and stayed under the radar we end up fooling no one but ourselves.
We can approach our growing state of isolation and encirclement with the narrow conspiratorial mindset that brought us to this pass in the first place. Or we can re-imagine our national security and regional policy with a view to building bridges and freeing up resources and energies to address everyday real-life challenges of this populous nation to make its existence sustainable and future prosperous. What’s it going to be?
Babar Sattar is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/123363-Questions-post-Mansour
----
Whither Yemen War
By Mehboob Qadir
27-May-16 769
After a swift and unexpectedly successful march on the capital city Sanaa early last year, Houthis emerged as the new predominant force in Yemen, creating serious security concerns in neighbouring countries, particularly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the UAE and Oman. Tremors were so powerful as to force an unusual scramble by the KSA and UAE to invoke GCC defence pact provisions and send out frantic appeals to Pakistan and other countries to dispatch troops to help them fight in Yemen. This was an extraordinary panic call, as Pakistan’s armed forces have never fought a friendly country’s war in another friendly country. Pakistan considered the Houthi uprising a local rebellion unworthy of its military intervention. Prudently, Pakistan decided to help through diplomatic efforts, while assuring Saudi Arabia, a long time ally, a guaranteed defensive intervention should her integrity be threatened. Even this declaration was quite out of the ordinary under the circumstances and could be stressful for Pakistan as things are evolving ominously in the Middle East. Resorting to diplomacy was a sensible move. Pakistan’s remarkable composure incensed the UAE whose irate foreign minister had implied ‘dire consequences’.
Houthis posed a direct and immediate threat to Saudi Arabia’s stability, delicate ethno-tribal balance and her critical naval vulnerability at the Bab al Mandab Straits, therefore had to be dealt with resolutely and vigorously. Aden had to be the next whose fall could effectively jeopardise international shipping and intern good part of the Saudi navy in the Red Sea. Saudi Naval fleet is effectively split into two and is anchored in inland naval bases in Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Both these narrow bodies of water have their bottlenecks respectively at Bab al Mandab and Hormuz. It has no serious blue waters naval deployment capability even if her navy was able to break out into the open. Houthis had created a real crisis and it should have been anticipated by Saudi defence experts.
However, insufficient strategic calibre and absence of a proper sense of what-could-happen prevented them from a resolute scramble to make a short shift of the puny threat posed by the ragtag Houthi militia. It wasn’t difficult but they were short of the needful military and political acumen. In modern history Saudi wars have been fought by the US and Europeans while Saudis have proverbially sat back and drawn deep on their shisha and sipped long their bitter cups of coffee. To begin with, Houthis had overstretched themselves militarily by capturing Sanaa without the ability to sustain their victory or beat back a determined counter attack. The action was basically meant to intimidate sitting government into coming to terms with them. Had the Saudi forces moved with speed in time, in a double pincer manoeuvre from the sea and the direction of Najran-Sharoura , converged on Sanaa and blocked Houthi escape eastward before the pincers closed, they could have eventually boxed them into northwestern Yemen with nowhere to go except the negotiations table. They did not heed this friendly advice and are now paying the price. The ISIL and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have moved into the void left by disintegrating Yemeni state.
The fundamentally flawed Saudi military doctrine combined with inexperienced defence and foreign affairs leadership created an unfavourable decision-making environment at a moment of grave national crisis. As a result, despite overwhelming military superiority and availability of a strategic window of opportunity, Saudi and allied forces completely bungled their Yemeni campaign. They had the opportunity to cordon off and eventually surround the Houthis in under two weeks and then bring them to negotiating table for a political settlement from a position of strength. They also would have prevented spaces abandoned by the Yemeni state and left by the Houthis from being occupied by the ISIL and AQAP fighters, as also effectively prevent external intervention or reinforcements from reaching Houthis. They could do none of these nor make their national territory any safer from the mounting Houthi threat. Their spluttering air campaign and disjointed attempts at para-drops and limited offensives have not paid off. In fact their pussyfooted military reaction emboldened the Houthis so much that recently the latter shelled Najran and Jizan, two major Saudi border towns, setting up a panic displacement of Asir region population inwards.
There is an eager anticipation in the air that Sanaa might fall soon to the GCC coalition forces. Fall of the capital city will be like the fall of Grozny or Kabul. Like the Chechen and Taliban fighters it will free Houthi rebels to resort to bush warfare all over the countryside, and that is their strong point. The war in Yemen will invariably be prolonged and complicated.
Houthis are not alone in keeping Saudis sleepless at night. Their economy is melting down. Iran has just been unshackled and KSA’s eastern provinces are in sectarian ferment. The ISIL in the neighbouring Syria and Iraq are aggressively pursuing their murderous agenda, and are no friends of Saudis. Dreaded Saudi internal security steel mesh is not as effective as it used to be. There are big holes where sharks have started to slip in and out. They have a huge expatriate work force, which has seeped into all walks of Saudi life, fully aware that they are indispensible to the Saudi state and society. By the same token they are also aware of the chinks in the lumbering state apparatus. Up to now they were kept under check by a combination of coercive police power, highly restrictive inter-city movement and severe penalties for jumping an employer. Expats had some of their basic civil liberties denied like the right to assembly, speech and affiliation whose breach could result in jail, deportation and monetary penalties. In all it was a system devised to exploit and keep this rootless working mass bonded.
This dragnet is about to shatter. It is evident that due to stuttering Saudi military strategy and inability to assess the real dimensions of dangers to the state security including an inexplicable precaution to appear politically correct in dealing with the Yemeni crisis they have lost the initiative to Houthis decisively. The Yemeni president had made a written request to Saudi Arabia to help repel the Houthi attack. Following Houthis is a much greater menace: the ISIL and the AQAP. Considering Iran’s newly gained liberty of action in the region, the overall scenario is becoming bleaker, and eventually will be beyond the compass of Saudis to handle. Yemen is to the KSA what Afghanistan is to Pakistan.
Initiative is still with the Houthis, which is what matters in war and should worry the Saudi strategists. Rebels have been proactive since quite some time, and next lot might start raiding deep inside Saudi territories. This will cause two different but mutually reinforcing effects. Militarily it will tend to partially reverse the front on the fixed Saudi forces slicing it dangerously at different places. Socially it would be even more unsettling. It can force population in bordering areas to shift helter-skelter inwards in larger numbers. A major displacement can seriously jeopardise Saudi Arabia’s internal security system resulting in breakdown of law and order. Uncommitted locals, disaffected expats and proxies might take advantage of the slipping grip of the police and intelligence agencies. If such a thing happens, that will be the beginning of the end of an otherwise composed and apparently stable Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ensuing anarchy can be anybody’s guess, and its ramifications for the region could be really devastating.
Mehboob Qadir is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan army
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/27-May-16/whither-yemen-war
-----
The Exposed Duplicity
By D Asghar
28-May-16 325
In my humble and flawed opinion, US President Barack Hussein Obama may have been to Pakistan in his college days, he visited India very recently, but he is perhaps still uninformed about the ‘double-role’ phenomenon in our parts of the world. Perhaps someone in the Central Intelligence Agency at Langley, Virginia, or perhaps his aides at the White House should have him spend some time on YouTube or Netflix, going through a long list of Bollywood and Lollywood blockbusters. The ambiguity may dissipate about how two people can look alike, while they may or may not be related to one another.
The list is very long, and the space quite limited, but to stress my point I’ll only name a few of the classics: Ram aur Shyam, Sita aur Geeta, Bairaag, Duplicate, Don, Dhoom 3, and very recently, Fan. I am utterly convinced that if Obama samples just a few of these over the weekend at Camp David, with plenty of Pop Corn, Vitamin Water and some concentration, things will start to make more sense to him. By the following Monday, he would realise how a person by the name of Wali Muhammad can be mistakenly assumed as Mullah Mansour.
If the US president has no time for sub continental classics, then perhaps someone in our security apparatus has to stop wasting their valuable time on what we considered as ‘formula script’ of yesteryears. It just makes us look like poor actors in front of the entire world. I do not know the letter S of the heavy word of ‘security’, but I do know a few simple things that my tiny brain can comprehend.
A security paradigm is intertwined with internal situation of a country and its foreign policy. The policy has to be robust and constantly in check in order to cope with the events of the ever-changing world. Debates rage on how the US at one point created Taliban in the 1980s and used Pakistan as a conduit to aid and train the Mujahedeen of those days. What most people, including the big shots on television, and perhaps the czars of our security, tend to overlook is that was then and this is now. We are nearing almost 40-plus years of that time.
Besides, it is the US, and it can afford to shift gears at any given point, but poor folks who remain stuck on this argument are definitely in the time warp and it is not helping in this day and age. The other very simplistic fact that I would like to present to readers is: foreign relations is diplomacy, diplomacy and nothing but diplomacy. It is a trade, at times, of mutual or divergent interests, with a promise of either financial or tactical gain. Next, folks who are trained to see things in either black or white cannot be in charge of foreign policy, because foreign policy is political manoeuvring with counterparts with tact, charm and style. It is grey, and at times, very grey, which is neither black nor white. Simply speaking, the legacy of 1980s has brought us to the brink of near isolation.
Many gifted analysts have opined on the events of last week, where a drone killed the Afghan Taliban head, Mullah Mansour, in Balochistan. Folks on social media and TV programmes are pretending like ostriches with their ludicrous assertions and laughable assumptions. What makes this drone strike different is that it has exposed some serious fault lines within powers that run this poor country.
The interior minister was stuck in the ancient script of Ram aur Shyam, and kept playing the ‘Wali Muhammad’ card. So much so that Taliban openly admitted that their leader Mullah Mansour was killed, and their Shura (council) announced his successor. Perhaps to his defence, his government may plead that this was the line he had to take as he had no other choice. To the ones who presented those lines to him to deliver almost after three days of such an important event, perhaps they need some refresher in a simple act of coordination. When the hapless minister repeats the ‘same page’ mantra every now and then, and it surely seems that in this case it was nothing but sheer embarrassment.
The poor public that is still stuck in conspiracy theories of how this was another attempt to malign our ‘innocent’ country need a shot of caffeine to awaken their senses. It is the same messed-up attitude that has brought us to this place. I remember when Osama bin Laden was killed, there was a blanket denial by majority of our countrymen. We never heard or read any apologies from the talking heads who yelled off the top of their lungs with utmost certainty, calling the bin Laden death a total bluff.
I would leave you with this simple thought to ponder on. If post-APC there was going to be no distinction between the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Taliban, and the resolve was reached to cleanse the land of all such characters, how is it that Quetta is the place where their shura allegedly convenes and nominates their new leader? Then please do not be surprised when a drone takes out someone that is considered a high value target within the same province.
D Asghar is a Pakistani-US mortgage banker.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/28-May-16/the-exposed-duplicity
----
Pakistan and India: Peace Interrupted
By Mehr Tarar
28-May-16 497
While the rational ones regarded it as what it was, the hardliners, opposition, and hawks on both sides did not lose a moment to deride the fine print of the five-point press release issued jointly by the foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India on July 10 at Ufa in Russia. The 55-minute meeting between Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, of which the two also became permanent members, gave rise to the expected hullaballoo in media and political circles of Pakistan and India. While Pakistan blasted Sharif government for “evasion of important issues”, Modi Sarkar (government) was lambasted in India for making “U-turns” in Ufa on its Pakistan policy.
Strange it is, to say the least, that there is so much noise about a meeting that should be nothing out of the ordinary between the heads of two sovereign states that are intrinsically connected to one another in terms of geography and regional alignments, even if the uneasy, often bloodied, timeline of history is to be overlooked. That, in my opinion, is the biggest problem that affects the status quo — taut, thorny and complex as it is — between the two neighbours, who look at each other with more suspicion than Japan viewed the US after being nuclear-bombed.
Pakistan and India must have a line of dialogue, a solid process, which in the words of senior Indian National Congress leader, Mani Shankar Aiyar is “uninterrupted and uninterruptible.” Without any ifs and buts. Suspicion, mistrust, and ‘betrayals’ of the uncomfortable past hold strongly as the backdrop to any Pakistan-India dialogue or overture. However, in 2015, in the global scenario of diplomatic breakthroughs and dialogue-based moving-forward — July 14 Iran nuclear deal being one of the biggest examples of the old world order giving way to a new one — there is no alternative to a bilateral dialogue that is sustainable and sustained. And this must continue notwithstanding the tensions on the Line of Control; the oft-over-the-top sabre-rattling of some hyper-jingoistic politicians forced to give a sensational line when microphones are thrust in their faces, flashlights blinding their eyes and vision; and war-mongering slogans of heads of banned militant organisations.
Both countries must keep talking to one another without knee-jerk reactions to any obvious or alleged misdemeanour. Whenever there is prolonged silence between the two neighbours, I’m reminded of that Gil Kenan animation blockbuster Monster House of whose owner the neighbourhood children are terrified of while making a pandemonium outside his house, which is asserted to be a living monster. You gotta face the reality: Pakistan and India need to talk to one another.
The last few months have seen a constant exchange of verbal bravado between Pakistani and Indian politicians, with threats of counter-terrorism and nuclear retaliation thrown in for bad effect. The much-hyped meeting of the foreign secretaries, which took place earlier this year, resulted in nothing more than mere silence, thus making the Ufa meeting, of forced civilities and fake smiles, a tiny thaw in the ice that goes for Pakistan-India dynamic on any hot day. Much was read of the fine print that did not exist, and too little was comprehended of what the talk signified: simply an intention to resume dialogue.
Not much has changed while one channel-surfs or scrolls down the timelines of major newspapers. Accusations and counter-accusations fly faster than Sania Mirza’s volleys on her Grand Slam victory day, and media in both countries have a field day lamenting the other’s lack of scruples and blame-shifting. India’s R&AW is involved in orchestrating acts of terrorism in Pakistan: Pakistan’s civilian and military establishments and media state in indignant unison. And Pakistan is dragging its feet in bringing Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi, the Lashkar-e-Taiba chief, and the alleged perpetrator of the Mumbai attacks, to justice: India states in undisguised anger.
While much is being ranted about Pakistan’s another alleged volte-face right after the Ufa declaration of cooperation in the Lakhvi trial, what needs to be done is wilfully ignored by media that needs to keep the TRPs going, and the opposition leaders who need a stick to hit the incumbent governments with. The two sovereign states must work on chalking memorandums of understanding that would make cooperation, intelligence-sharing, evidence-collection and presentation of witnesses mandatory for the two sides. Mere sloganeering and joint pressers would not induce a change in a dynamic where terrorism is a huge issue not only affecting Pakistan and India but also the entire region.
Peaceful coexistence of Pakistan and India is not merely indispensable it is inevitable. While they do not claim uniformity in terms of size, population and resource-capability, there are certain issues that beset both on myriad levels: poverty, unemployment, inflation, poor healthcare, infrastructural weaknesses, gender-discrimination, shoddy legal system, and human-rights violations. And that, invariably, brings into focus the huge military budgets of both developing countries that if cut drastically could help stabilise economies where millions still live under the poverty line.
The SCO summit, the 2016 SAARC meet, and other such regional platforms are a great meeting-point to discuss plans that focus on economic development of Pakistan and India, and the other member countries. Both Sharif and Modi governments are focused on economic progress, and that could be the common ground for a dialogue that is sustainable in the long term. While the issue of Kashmir is like an open wound that has remained untended, and other issues like Sir Creek, Siachen and water disputes remain unaddressed, the Ufa meeting opens a door for more substantive dialogue for solutions to long-standing issues.
As Pakistan foreign affairs adviser to prime minister, Sartaj Aziz explained, “...the meeting was not the formal start of any dialogue process. Rather, it has served an important purpose to achieve an understanding that Pakistan and India should reduce tensions to constructively engage in a structured dialogue on all issues of bilateral and regional interest, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir.” In an attempt to elucidate the viewpoint of Sharif government, and placating the concerns and anger of opposition parties, media and political analysts, it does not take rocket science to understand the timing of his statement that came in the wake of the joint press-release at Ufa. I fail to understand the reasoning behind this though; I mean, to say that Kashmir would not be on any and every agenda on the table between Pakistan and India, even if not announced, is like saying Pluto does not exist.
In the changing regional and global dynamics of diplomacy, reconciliation and resolution of issues the status quo between Pakistan and India must have an alteration based on mutual trust, sustained dialogue and a willingness to cooperate on issues entailing cross-border firing and terrorism. It is about time that elected governments started acting like governments, and not bickering PTAs of an elementary school. Concessions do not connote softness; an eagerness to find solutions do not denote a desire of appeasement; and a willingness to carve out a new narrative amidst the scars of a painful past do not imply escapism. Inflammatory statements must be treated with the caution and grace becoming of two sovereign states, and conscious restraint should replace reactions that are out of proportion, bordering on superciliousness.
Conscious of the past, rational and farsighted nations resolve issues living in the present while focused on a future that must be in line with the realities of a world where friends are not forever, and neither are the enemies.
Mehr Tarar is the Executive Editor, Daily Times
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/28-May-16/pakistan-and-india-peace-interrupted
----
A Lesson For The US
By Tahir Khan
May 28, 2016
The killing of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansoor in an American drone strike on May 21 has almost murdered the hopes for peace in the region. Many in Pakistan and Afghanistan believe that the Obama Administration has been naive to kill the Taliban leader and then simultaneously ask the group to settle matters on the negotiation table. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had the same message for the American and Afghan leaderships in October last year — Pakistan was prepared to help revive the stalled Afghan peace talks but cannot force the Taliban to negotiate against their will.
The question remains: who will convince the Americans that it might help their cause if they listened to others? The US should directly take the blame this time for decreasing drastically the likelihood for the peace process to go ahead and succeed. It needs to contemplate whether its use of military might over the past 15 years wills someday be able to solve the problem in Afghanistan or will it exacerbate it. Does the US think that the killing of the Taliban chief will force the new chief to surrender? This will never happen as policies will not be made by Maulvi Haibatullah alone. The Taliban Rehbari Shura or the Leadership Council will also play a role in this regard.
Does the US expect Pakistan to help its cause while it continues to rain missiles on Pakistani soil, and that too in Balochistan where the country is in the process of implementing a part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor? The drone attack has also raised serious concerns over the expansion of the US secret drone campaign into Balochistan. Pakistan’s National Security Council is scheduled to meet soon to mull over a strategy to deal with the emerging situation following what is seen as an aggressive posture by the US to deal with the Afghan issue.
The Americans will have a hard time justifying the drone attack, as there are many who think this action will further complicate diplomatic efforts to encourage the Taliban leadership to sit face-to-face with President Ashraf Ghani’s regime. Just weeks before the US action, a beleaguered President Ghani had himself shut the doors on the peace process. Afghans need to understand that Pakistan, China or any other country are not responsible for violence that occurs within Afghanistan and that the key to resolve matters lies only with Washington and Kabul. They need to pave the way for a political dialogue with the Taliban. Pakistan and China can only try to convince the Taliban to use the political option or offer a venue for the talks. The concessions that have been demanded by the Taliban can only be granted by the US and Afghanistan. It is not for Pakistan and China to decide on the reopening of the Taliban office in Qatar; it is not these two countries that have the power to release Taliban prisoners; it is not their responsibility to move the UN Security Council to remove travel curbs on Taliban leaders. All these concerns have to be addressed by the US and Afghanistan.
On May 26, the US State Department’s spokesperson asked the new Taliban chief to join the peace process at a time when the group was mourning the death of Akhtar Mansoor. However, for the Taliban, the first priority would certainly be to normalise the situation within the group and address the impact of Mansoor’s killing on their activities. Their focus would remain on reorganisation as they have now elected two new leaders in less than a year. The Taliban would also be focusing on developing a strategy that ensures that the death of their leader does not have negative implications on the ongoing fighting season.
Their new set-up also includes Sirajuddin Haqqani as the first deputy chief as well as Mullah Yaqoob, the elder son of Mullah Omar. They are expected to take a tougher stance over the peace process compared to Mansoor, according to Taliban leaders. Maulvi Haibatullah may only prove to be a symbolic leader with the real powers lying with Haqqani and Yaqoob. Taliban leaders close to Haibatullah say that it would not be an easy task to convince him to look into the option of entering a political dialogue. Therefore, the US and other stakeholders will have to ponder over their options before again trying to force the Taliban to join the peace process through drone strikes.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1111563/a-lesson-for-the-us/
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/youm-e-takbeer-means-pakistan/d/107445