Diya - A Hero's Daughter

Text & Photos by Fauzia Minallah

Diya with her father Pervez Masih's photograph

Diya 3 and her mother Shaheen

Diya is only three, she is lost and has many questions about her father Pervez Masih. Pervez was a janitor at the International Islamic University. On the fateful day when IIU was attacked by suicide bombers, he was the hero who stopped the terrorist from entering the cafeteria for female students. Pervez lost his life, while saving the lives of more than 300 students.
He will always be remembered as a true hero by us. Diya will always be remembered as a hero’s daughter.

The Minister of Interior, Mr Rehman Malik, publicly announced that his family will recieve a compensation of approximately $10,000. So far, the family has not been contacted by anyone from his office. The IIU administration helped the family with Rs. 10.000 for the burial costs, employed his widow Shaheen as a sanitory worker and promised to help with Diya’s education. Other than that there has not been any help from anyone for Pervez’s family. The only person who has helped this hero’s family so far is a young student of Behria University, Maham Ali . She motivated her friends to donate funds for Pervez's family. She collected Rs. 52,500 and bought toys and clothes for Diya.

Maham and Diya.

We might be going through tough times, but even in this darkness there is hope. And for me that hope is in young people like Maham. She was our pillar of support by collecting funds for our effort in helping the internally displaced Pakistanis.

As a society we need to recognise our heroes, we need to rise above our prejudices and name streets, buildings and squares after Pervez Masih. So what if he was a poor Christian sanitory worker, he saved the lives of 300 Muslim students. Atleast on November 16th on the 'International Day of Tolerance', Maham was there to cheer Diya- a hero's daughter.

Here is a CNN story on Pervez Masih:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/11/pakistan.hero/

--
Fauzia Minallah

www.funkorchildart.com
http://funkornews.blogspot.com/

Pakistan faces biggest human flood since 1947

complete story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103987025

Thousands of civilians fled Pakistan's Swat Valley on Sunday after authorities briefly lifted a curfew. Pakistan's army said its war planes killed at least 180 Taliban militants within a 24-hour period in its all-out offensive in northwestern Swat Valley.

The army's casualty figures cannot be independently verified, but the U.N. warns that the fighting is producing one of the world's largest displacements of people. As they gather in makeshift camps, refugees' attitudes conflict about their plight and just who is responsible for the war that has driven them from their homes.

Across the district of Mardan, row upon neat row of tents is going up as the messy business of housing refugees from the conflict next door in Swat Valley picks up pace.

Swat Valley has become the epicenter of the power struggle between the militants and Pakistan forces. International aid agencies say 200,000 people have already escaped the widening conflict there. Another 300,000 are either on the move or trapped by the fighting.

Hundreds seeking help have overwhelmed the sprawling, century-old tuberculosis hospital that's turned into a receiving center in Mardan city. The new arrivals jostle each other in long lines. A full-throated official, or nazim, steps in as the heat bears down and patience wears thin. "It is our duty as Muslims to support you," he said to applause.

"Within two or three weeks you'll be back home and, God willing, those terrorists in the name of Taliban will be destroyed. Maximum three weeks."

read more ...

Pakistani TV Journalist Takes Camera Inside Pakistani Taliban Held Swat Valley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akocYqJMukQ&feature=related

With Pakistan's Swat Valley under Taliban control, worldwide interest about how life has changed in the region has grown. Prominent Pakistani journalist Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy recently went to investigate, spending two days in the valley to produce a documentary for the PBS television program "Frontline", which is being streamlined online at pbs.org/frontlineworld. VOA's Ravi Khanna spoke with the journalist and filed this report.

source: VOA's Youtube Channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/VOAvideo )

How to clear the mess? Article by Imran Khan

Read the article in URDU

The reason why there is so much despondency in Pakistan is because there is no road map to get out of the so-called War on Terror - a nomenclature that even the Obama Administration has discarded as being a negative misnomer. To cure the patient the diagnosis has to be accurate, otherwise the wrong medicine can sometimes kill the patient. In order to find the cure, first six myths that have been spun around the US-led “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) have to be debunked.

Myth No. 1: This is Pakistan’s war

Since no Pakistani was involved in 9/11 and the CIA-trained Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, how does it concern us? It is only when General Musharraf buckled under US pressure and sent our troops into Waziristan in late 2003-early 2004 that Pakistan became a war zone. It took another three years of the Pakistan army following the same senseless tactics as used by the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan (aerial bombardment) plus the slaughter at Lal Masjid, for the creation of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). If our security forces are being targeted today by the Taliban and their suicide bombers, it is because they are perceived to be proxies of the US army. Iran is ideologically opposed to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban yet why are its security forces not attacked by terrorists? The answer is because their President does not pretend to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism in return for US dollars and support.

Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA officer and author of the book Imperial Hubris), writing in The Washington Post in April 2007, cited Musharraf’s loyalty to the US even when it went against Pakistan’s national interests by giving two examples: the first was Musharraf helping the US in removing a pro-Pakistan Afghan government and replacing it with a pro-Indian one; and, the second, for sending Pakistani troops into the tribal areas and turning the tribesmen against the Pakistan army. To fully understand Musharraf’s treachery against Pakistan, it is important to know that almost a 100,000 troops were sent into the tribal areas to target around 1000 suspected Al-Qaeda members - thus earning the enmity of at least 1.5 million armed local tribals in the 7 tribal agencies of Pakistan.

The most shameful aspect of the lie that this is our war is that the government keeps begging the US for more dollars stating that the war is costing the country more than the money it is receiving from the US. If it is our war, then fighting it should not be dependent on funds and material flowing from the US. If it is our war, why do we have no control over it? If it is our war, then why is the US government asking us to do more?

Myth No. 2: This is a war against Islamic extremists ó an ideological war against radical Islam

Was the meteoric rise of Taliban due to their religious ideology? Clearly not, because the Mujahideen were equally religious - Gulbadin Hekmatyar (supported by the ISI) was considered an Islamic fundamentalist. In fact, the reason the Taliban succeeded where the Mujahideen warlords failed, was because they established the rule of law - the Afghans had had enough of the power struggle between the warlord factions that had destroyed what remained of the country’s infrastructure and killed over 100,000 people.

If the Pushtuns of the tribal area wanted to adopt the Taliban religious ideology then surely they would have when the latter was in power in Afghanistan, between 1996 and 2001. Yet there was no Talibanisation in the tribal areas. Interestingly, the only part of Pakistan where the Taliban had an impact was in Swat where Sufi Mohammad started the Shariat Movement. The reason was that while there was rule of law (based on the traditional jirga system) in the tribal areas, the people of Swat had been deprived of easy access to justice ever since the traditional legal system premised on Qazi courts was replaced by Pakistani laws and judicial system, first introduced in 1974. The murder rate shot up from 10 per year in 1974 to almost 700 per year by 1977, when there was an uprising against the Pakistani justice system. The Taliban cashed in on this void of justice to rally the poorer sections of Swat society just as they had attracted the Afghans in a situation of political anarchy and lawlessness in Afghanistan. It is important to make this distinction because the strategy to bring peace must depend on knowing your enemy. Michael Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that the US is facing the same Pushtun insurgency that was faced by the Soviets in Afghanistan. According to him, as long as NATO is in Afghanistan, the Taliban will get a constant supply of men from the 15 million Pushtun population of Afghanistan and the 25 million Pushtuns of Pakistan. In other words, this Talibanisation is not so much religion-driven as politically-motivated. So the solution to the problem in the tribal belt today does not lie in religion and “moderate” Islam but in a political settlement.

Myth No. 3: If we keep fighting the US war, the super power will bail us out financially through aid packages.

Recently, the Government’s Adviser on Finance stated that the war on terror has cost Pakistan $35 billion while the country has received only $11 billion assistance from the US. I would go a step further and say that this aid is the biggest curse for the country. Not only is it “blood money” for our army killing our own people (there is no precedent for this) but also nothing has destroyed the self-esteem of this country as this one factor. Moreover, there is no end in sight as our cowardly and compromised leadership is ordered to “do more” for the payments made for their services. Above all, this aid and loans are like treating cancer with disprin. It enables the government to delay the much needed surgery of reforms (cutting expenditures and raising revenues); and meanwhile the cancer is spreading and might become terminal.

Myth No. 4: That the next terrorist attack on the US will come from the tribal areas.

First, there is an assumption, based purely on conjecture, that the Al Qaeda leadership is in the tribal areas. In fact, this leadership could well be in the 70 % of Afghan territory that the Taliban control. More importantly, given the growing radicalisation of the educated Muslim youth - in major part because of the continuing US partiality towards Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - why can it not follow that the next terrorist attack on the US could come either from the Middle East or from the marginalised and radicalised Muslims of Europe, motivated by perceived injustices to Islam and the Muslim World.

Myth No. 5: That the ISI is playing a double game and if Pakistan did more the war could be won.

If Talibanisation is growing in Pakistan because of the covert support of ISI in the tribal areas, then surely the growing Taliban control over Afghanistan (70 % of the territory) must be with NATO’s complicity? Surely a more rational understanding would be to see that the strategy being employed is creating hatred against the US and its collaborators. Aerial bombardment and its devastating collateral damage is the biggest gift the US has given to the Taliban. According to official reports, out of the 60 drone attacks conducted between 14 January 2006-April 8 2009, only 10 were on target, killing 14 alleged Al Qaeda. In the process almost 800 Pakistani civilians have been killed, while many lost their homes and limbs.

Despite its military surge effort, the US will eventually pack up and leave like the Soviets, but the “do more” mantra could end up destroying the Pakistan army - especially the ISI which is being targeted specifically for the mess created by the Bush Administration in Afghanistan.

Myth No. 6: That Pakistan could be Talibanised with their version of Islam.

Both Musharraf and Zardari have contributed to this myth in order to get US backing and dollars. Firstly there is no such precedent in the 15-hundred years of Islamic history of a theocracy like that of the Taliban, outside of the recent Taliban period of rule in Afghanistan. However, as mentioned earlier, the Taliban’s ascendancy in Afghanistan was not a result of their religious ideology but their ability to establish order and security in a war-devastated and anarchic Afghanistan.

In Swat, the present mess has arisen because of poor governance issues. Also, it was the manner in which the government handled the situation - simply sending in the army rather than providing better governance - that created space for the Taliban. Just as in Balochistan (under Musharraf) when the army was sent in rather than the Baloch being given their economic and provincial rights, similarly the army in Swat aggravated the situation and the present mess was created.

What Pakistan has to worry about is the chaos and anarchy that are going to stem from the radicalisation of our people because of the failure of successive governments to govern effectively and justly. Karen Armstrong, in her book The Battle for God, gives details of fundamentalist movements that turned militant when they were repressed. Ideas should be fought with counter ideas and dialogue, not guns. Allama Iqbal was able to deal with fundamentalism through his knowledge and intellect. The slaughter of the fundamentalists of Lal Masjid did more to fan extremism and fanaticism than any other single event.

Pakistan is staring down an abyss today and needs to come up with a sovereign nationalist policy to deal with the situation. If we keep on following dictation from Washington, we are doomed. There are many groups operating in the country under the label of “Taliban”. Apart from the small core of religious extremists, the bulk of the fighting men are Pushtun nationalists. Then there are the fighters from the old Jihadi groups. Moreover, the Taliban are also successfully exploiting the class tensions by appealing to the have-nots. But the most damaging for Pakistan are those groups who are being funded primarily from two external sources: first, by those who want to see Pakistan become a “failed state”; and, second, by those who wish to see the US bogged down in the Afghan quagmire.

What needs to be done: A two-pronged strategy is required - focusing on a revised relationship with the US and a cohesive national policy based on domestic compulsions and ground realities.

President Obama, unlike President Bush, is intelligent and has integrity. A select delegation of local experts on the tribal area and Afghanistan should make him understand that the current strategy is a disaster for both Pakistan and the US; that Pakistan can no longer commit suicide by carrying on this endless war against its own people; that we will hold dialogue and win over the Pushtuns of the tribal area and make them deal with the real terrorists while the Pakistan army is gradually pulled out.

At the same time, Pakistan has to move itself to ending drone attacks if the US is not prepared to do so. Closure of the drone base within Pakistan is a necessary beginning as is the need to create space between ourselves and the US, which will alter the ground environment in favour of the Pakistani state. It will immediately get rid of the fanaticism that creates suicide bombers as no longer will they be seen to be on the path to martyrdom by bombing US collaborators. Within this environment a consensual national policy to combat extremism and militancy needs to be evolved centring on dialogue, negotiation and assertion of the writ of the state. Where force is required the state must rely on the paramilitary forces, not the army. Concomitantly, Pakistan needs serious reforms. First and foremost we have to give our people access to justice at the grassroots level - that is, revive the village jury/Panchayat system. Only then will we rid ourselves of the oppressive “thana-kutchery” culture which compels the poor to seek adjudication by the feudals, tribal leaders, tumandars and now by the Taliban also - thereby perpetuating oppression of the dispossessed, especially women.

Second, unless we end the system of parallel education in the country where the rich access private schools and a different examination system while the poor at best only have access to a deprived public school system with its outmoded syllabus and no access to employment. That is why the marginalised future generations are condemned to go to madrassahs which provide them with food for survival and exploit their pent up social anger. We need to bring all our educational institutions into the mainstream with one form of education syllabus and examination system for all - with madrassahs also coming under the same system even while they retain their religious education specialisation.

Third, the level of governance needs to be raised through making appointments on merit in contrast to the worst type of cronyism that is currently on show. Alongside this, a cutting of expenditures is required with the leadership and the elite leading by example through adoption of an austere lifestyle. Also, instead of seeking aid and loans to finance the luxurious lifestyle of the elite, the leadership should pay taxes, declare its assets and bring into the country all money kept in foreign banks abroad. All “benami” transactions, assets and bank accounts should be declared illegal. I believe we will suddenly discover that we are actually quite a self-sufficient country.

Fourth, the state has to widen its direct taxation net and cut down on indirect taxation where the poor subsidise the rich. If corruption and ineptitude are removed, it will be possible for the state to collect income tax more effectively.

A crucial requirement for moving towards stability would be the disarming of all militant groups - which will a real challenge for the leadership but here again, the political elite can lead by example and dismantle their show of guards and private forces.

Finally, fundamentalism should be fought intellectually with sensitivity shown to the religious and heterogeneous roots of culture amongst the Pakistani masses. Solutions have to be evolved from within the nation through tolerance and understanding. Here, we must learn from the Shah of Iran’s attempts to enforce a pseudo-Western identity onto his people and its extreme backlash from Iranian society.

The threat of extremism is directly related to the performance of the state and its ability to deliver justice and welfare to its people.

Source: The News

Distt. Buner locals form more lashkars to fight militants

picutre source: related Dawn.com news story

Second time in 2 years, the local tribesmen have taken up arms against the Pakistani Taliban to resist their forced entry into the Distt. Buner.

Last year, close to 400 local residents were killed, when they barricaded the mountain pass and river crossing at Khogan, to the Disst.Buner from the Swat valley, then a strong hold of Maulana Fazlullah and Mangal Bagh's militia's.

The locals formed up militia's to keep the Taliban out, and not provide the Army an excuse to come in the scenic Buner. They are of the view that Army's presence gives TTP an excuse to barge into the area, and vice versa. The local residents vowed not to let their hometowns become a battle field between the two.

Local Police is the only law enforcement agency that is trusted by the residents of Buner, as is evident from yesterday's clashes in which two policemen and two locals were killed, jointly fighting off the TTP militia at Koghan.

This time around, Dawn Newspaper reports that seven militia's of 100 each have been formed by the locals, administered by the influential elders, to hold key strategic positions. Last year they were able to thwart TTP advances and managed to keep the area military free, but only after a toll of 100's of deaths.

Current events, have already kicked off as a bloody standoff between the locals and TTP from Swat. This time around Army has increased its presence in the area already, and seems less prepared to let the civilians fight off the Taliban all by themselves.

For Dawn News Report, please click here

Manawan Police Academy Attack responsibility accepted by Baitullah Mehsud

In a news report carried today by Geo TV at 06:30 PM local time, Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has accepted resonsibility for yesterday's attack on Manawaan Police Academy.

Citing it as 'revenge' for the drone attacks. Futhremore a Shura of militant commanders has been formed to carry out further such organised attacks in Pakistan & Afghanistan.

Swat deal and western pressure

Excerpts from a letter to the editor:

The West in particular and some people within Pakistan are opposing the pact with the TSNM, saying we should not stop fighting the militants. First, Soofi Muhammad cannot be seen as a militant, given his peaceful protest camp in Timergara and, now, the very impressive effort to promote peace in Swat. After nearly a year and a half of turmoil, the poor people of Swat have breathed easy and are even celebrating the occasion -- we must not betray them again.

Second, Jonathan Steele is a veteran British journalist who has been covering Afghanistan since the time of the Soviet invasion. There are many important arguments given in his article, based on long experience of the country.

For instance, the self-evident title becomes more lucid by the following paragraph: “Nato faces tougher challenges than the Russians (did). Twenty years ago, Taliban did not exist, suicide bombing was not in vogue, and the Afghan army and police were more effective.

....

..., it is up to us to save Pakistan, above all, and, after that, help the West to whatever extent we can. One has lost track of the number of senior western officials who have been saying aloud that there is no military solution to the Taliban problem and are themselves advocating peace talks with the Islamist militia.

Why should we be pressured to keep fighting an unwinable and endless war and get fatally injured? What is sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose as well.

In his letter, Mr Ahmed has noted that the government did a U-turn after releasing Dr A.Q. Khan no sooner than the West expressed its annoyance. One only hopes that Islamabad doesn’t reverse its decision about the Swat agreement after it has had time to deal with the lawyers’ long march and sit-in the next month.

If the people’s trust is lost once more, the consequences will be disastrous.

ABDULLAH
Karachi

DAWN.COM | Letters to the Editor | Swat deal and western pressure

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Swat accord is not surrender

By Kunwar Idris . Sunday, 22 Feb, 2009

Supporters of Maulana Soofi Mohammad peace march on the street of in Mingora, outskirts of Swat valley.— Reuters

A day after President Zardari conceded in an interview with an American television channel that the Taliban had established their presence across large swathes of Pakistan, the government of the NWFP, with his approval, recognised the presence of the militia in Swat - one which could not be eradicated even by military action.

Only time can tell whether this recognition will work to advance or check the aim of the Taliban which, in Zardari’s words, is ‘to take over the state of Pakistan and our way of life’. The instant merit of the agreement between the provincial government and Maulana Sufi Mohammad, however, lies in bringing to an end the sufferings to which the people of that once idyllic valley have long been subjected.

The jubilant crowds on the streets of Swat were celebrating not the advent of Sharia law but the return of normality — let there be no mistake about it. The ovation given to Sufi Mohammad was not because of recognition of him as a harbinger of a new order but as a messenger of peace.

Even if he is unable to persuade his Taliban son-in-law Fazlullah to lay down his arms and abide by the agreement, Swat’s worst nightmare, it seems, is over. If the political administration now acts sensibly and promptly, Fazlullah’s marauding men will no longer be able to raid music shops, harass women or burn down schools.

The reaction of Pakistan’s allies — the US and Nato — quite predictably has been sceptical. Both would have preferred Pakistan to press on with its military campaign. They suspect that the ceasefire would only provide a respite, giving the terrorists time to regroup and mount their assault again.

The allies, however, have conveniently overlooked the ground reality that the army operation was alienating the population without exterminating the fanatical fighters.

Thus even if the agreement fails to take hold, the ceasefire provides an opportunity to the government to muster popular support more than it does to the terrorists to refurbish their armoury. The loss of life and earnings that people of all vocations have undergone seems to suggest that they would rather put up with the present system howsoever corrupt or unjust than suffer all the more while waiting for an elusive Islamic order.

In any case the agreement between Maulana Sufi Mohammad and the NWFP government stipulates no more than a judicial system based on the Sharia laws to be introduced in the former princely states of Swat, Dir, Chitral, the protected area of Malakand and Hazara Kohistan.

The executive authority and all other regulatory and developmental functions will continue to vest in the provincial and federal governments under the same laws as are applicable to the rest of the country.

The judicial system envisaged in the agreement is hardly any different from what was in vogue in the former princely states before they were made districts. It was informal, inexpensive and expeditious even if harsh and not always just. Such was the experience of this writer as resident political agent and adviser of Chitral state as also of his colleagues in Dir and Swat.

The formal introduction of Sharia courts now that the states have become districts must not be viewed as Talibanisation of their society or institutions. For all purposes other than the trial of criminal cases and adjudication of civil disputes they will continue to administer justice as is done in other districts of the country.

It needs to be clearly understood that the three states and other parts of Malakand and Hazara divisions are not tribal societies nor wild territories in the sense that next-door Bajaur and Mohmand or further Khyber, Kurram, Orakzai and North and South Waziristan are.

It was wrong to have grouped them as Pata, i.e. provincially administered tribal areas, for they are not tribal as are the federally administered agencies collectively called Fata. Between Pata and Fata there is little affinity or communication. Even the language and social norms differ. Swat has cultural and lingual links with settled Mardan but none with the Mohmands, for instance.

Likewise, Sufi Mohammad’s Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi predates the Taliban phenomenon and had no connection with it — until recently. It was the agony caused by the expense, delay and corruption inherent in the operation of the unfamiliar and complex laws of Pakistan that persuaded him to launch a mass campaign for the enforcement of Sharia law in Dir much before 9/11. As the campaign dragged on, Sufi Mohammad’s son-in-law Fazlullah from his base in Swat established contacts with the Taliban and the movement took a violent turn.

Despite this connection which surely brought the TNSM arms and money, it remains essentially an independent movement confined to Dir and Swat. The occupation of Pakistan and the destruction of America do not appear to be its goal.

It would not have gathered the momentum it has if our local councils instead of indulging in politics had attended to the needs of the common people and had spared them the torture of prolonged litigations. The provisions of the local government law relating to the care of the poor and settlement of disputes at the village level had all along remained a dead letter.

Pakistan stands much to gain and its allies in the ‘war on terror’ have little to lose if the Sharia courts bring tranquillity and tourists back to the Swat valley and the mountains beyond that are among the highest in the world. Sharia law is not new to the area but violence is. As political agent in the 1960s, this writer presided over both Chitral’s Sharia system and its secular judicial council only to wonder now whether the people living under Pakistan’s elaborate judicial system could ever be as law-abiding, tolerant of dissent and content in poverty as were the Chitralis then. Swatis were not much different.

Given a just and non-intrusive but firm administration they can be the same again. Advice from Ijlal Hyder Zaidi who had long served in the region and was later Benazir Bhutto’s adviser should help. Talking to the mullahs and militants undoubtedly has its risk but it is one worth taking for the survival of Pakistan and peace of the region. The liberals and militarists will surely live to fight another day.

DAWN.COM | – NWFP | Swat accord is not surrender

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Progressive Youth Front (PYF) Karachi Protest Demo on Saturday 21st February

Progressive Youth Front Karachi calls on civil society, activists, and particularly the youth of Pakistan to protest the ongoing injustices in Swat. We believe the recent Nifaz-e-Adl to be an unnecessary capitulation to forces that have held ordinary and civilian Swatis hostage. Much like the brutal and indiscriminate military operation could never solve the crisis of militancy, the Nifaz-e-Adl promises only a temporary reprieve. The decades-long neglect of the human rights of Swatis will not be addressed by this agreement. If it has any popular resonance, it is only because people are frightened, and tired of war and curfew. In that sense, a renewed military offensive promises to play into the hands of the militants. We call on the government to push instead for a ceasefire, backed by the promise of a free and fair referendum on the question of judicial reform. In the meantime, we express our full solidarity with our progressive brothers and sisters in Swat, whose resistance has been doubly suppressed, both by the bombardment of the military and the machinations of the Taliban.

As a youth organization, we want to, in particular, call attention to the devastated state of the schooling system in the district—for which both the military and the Taliban bear responsibility. Any sustainable solution to the problem of militancy in the region has to include a comprehensive plan to restore and improve the provision of education in Swat.

(About PYF: Progressive Youth Front Karachi is a revolutionary youth organization that believes in a secular and truly democratic Pakistan. We reject the inequalities and poverty that ravage our society, and will continue to organize for a more humane, just, and equal Pakistan.)

Protest demo against “demolishing of educational institutes, Taliban fundamentalism, drone attacks on innocent people of swat, Bajhor, military operation of US imperials and local agents†.

Please come and show your solidarity with innocent people of swat and all area of Pakhtoon kawa.

Programme schedule
Date; - 21 February 2009

Day: - Saturday
Time: - 3:00 p.m.
Venue:- Karachi Press Club (KPC)
Please contact for details
Adanar,
0308-2497022.
Sherbaz,
0333-3280945.

Bazid Khel Villagers up in arms against Taliban

Sometime ago, it was in the news that a Union Council Nazim is leading an uprising against the Taliban along with the villagers of 'BazidKhel' near Bara.

I wonder that this courageous act is getting any attention at all? Its a one-of-a-kind valiant effort of one village to stand-up to intolerable reign of terror unleashed by the Taliban.

A story by Daud Khattak, on one of the mailing lists goes as follows:

* Committees organise patrols by volunteers to guard against possible attack to avenge killing of nine Taliban

By Daud Khattak


PESHAWAR: The hujra (community guest house) of a union council (UC) nazim is abuzz with activity in Bazidkhel village, on the outskirts of Peshawar, where villagers had killed nine Taliban last week.

On February 4, the villagers had killed nine Taliban, who had come in two cars from the neighbouring Bara tehsil of Khyber Agency to abduct UC Nazim Fahimur Rehman, who is behind the villagers uprising against a Taliban group from Khyber Agency.

Following the Talibans killing, their groups chief had warned the people of Bazidkhel, through his illegal FM radio, of a bloody revenge.To guard themselves against a Taliban attack, the villagers have taken up arms and have started patrolling the streets of the village, 20 kilometres from Peshawar. Speaking on his FM channel, the groups chief had warned the villagers to hoist black flags on their houses, to show they were not involved in the killing of the nine men, or face a bloody revenge.

Volunteer groups: However, the villagers defied the threat and formed volunteer groups to patrol the streets to guard against a possible attack. A six-foot-high wall has been constructed just behind the main entrance of the UC nazims hujra. This wall has been completed to avoid an abrupt assault from the front entrance, said Rehman. On the roof, labourers were busy erecting a boundary wall, usually used by villagers to take cover during a clash.

Praising the courage and cooperation of the villagers, Rehman said, Let them attack and we shall come out with a tougher response.With an AK-47 assault rifle slung over his shoulder and his cell phone constantly ringing, Rehman claimed he had the support of the people from 28 union councils. Nearly two dozen armed men sat in the compound of his hujra. Others guarded the front gate while another group sat alert on the rooftop. Rehman was happy with the cooperation and support provided by the government and the police. Were going to meet the NWFP governor on Monday, said the bearded nazim, in his late 30s.He said Bazidkhel and the surrounding areas were known for their long-standing blood feuds but the groups attack threat has brought us together. He said all tribesmen had set aside their personal enmities and had joined hands to face the common enemy.

The local Taliban chief had said the nine men had gone to the village to attend a condolence meeting. However, the UC nazim claimed he had received threats from the group in Khyber a week before the February 4 killings. Rehman said the group had a support base in Bazidkhel before the February 4 incident. However, all the people were now united against the group, he added.

Locals said night patrols had been increased in the area and committees had been formed to oversee patrols by volunteers. Cell phones had been distributed among the village elders and heads of the committees for coordination and quick reaction to any eventuality, they said.

Dialogue with Taliban not an option............

While it seems to be a good idea that Government should re-start negotiations with Pakistan Tehrek-e-Taliban (PTT), I have found an increasing opposition to this idea especially among my Pukhtoon friends.

Came across this article by Mateen Saeed ( a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy & a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo), written in response to Masooda Bano's article urging a settlement of the violence in NWFP thorugh dialogue.

This article is reflective of the same thinking. It is a parallel view to currently prevailing view, I guess coming from a Pukhtoon analyst, should be given an ear.

I start by quoting him from his email posted in a mailing list,

Masooda Bano's suggestion/formula seems practical if Indian model of Bandit gangs surrenddering arms to CM or high ups is kept in mind. Masooda Bano might have in mind great Bandit queen Phoolan Devi, who was latter elected member of indian assembly, all her crimes pardoned etc. Problem with Taliban is neither they are Bandits nor any affectee of Talibans has ever levelled any such charge. They are puritans but their purification is confined to female activities, music, barber shops etc. Although they are very sensitive about nizam adle but if we compare their adminstration of justice with the justice great Sultani Daku, Muhammad Khan Daku and many alike personalities delivered during their reign of terror, one wonders either it will transform into an effective judicial system or will wipe out with the elimination of Taliban monstors. Another problems with talibans is they are sensitive only about speedy justice, on the other hand, problems of majority in this so-called land of pure are health , pure water , communication , inflation, employment and host of other problems. What solution our great puritans ( Talibans) have for these issues.

Complete story at: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=160963

Excerpts:

Dialogue and peace deals with Taliban have been a recipe for disaster for the Pakhtuns. Take for example, the peace deals that were signed with the Taliban in North Waziristan. Despite their existence, killings are happening there, women are barred from applying for CNIC cards, female education and music are banned, and the entire tribal leadership has been killed or made to flee from the area. Furthermore, safe passage is provided often to sectarian terrorists to Kurram and Orakzai agencies and we all know what has been happening there. Journalists who have observed the negotiations and deals claim that usually there are two agreements – one written, the other verbal. The written agreement, if implemented, would in fact restore the writ of the government. The verbal version however is that both sides agree not to disturb the other which means that the Taliban can in fact do as they please as long as they don’t target the security forces. Unfortunately, it is the verbal one that is usually implemented.


and.........

How can one possibly have a dialogue with a person who believes that Shias must be killed and who has actually killed many Shias? How can one negotiate with someone who enjoys beheading people, and has beheaded people — like the Swat Taliban who every day announce on their FM radio the names of all those that they behead?

plus.......

In my view it is the less-informed analysts who are pushing for dialogue with the Taliban – the ordinary Pakhtun are most certainly not in favour of this. I may be criticized for this but I will also say that it is the less-informed analysts who seem to be making the same mistakes that contributed to the disasters of our past. Before the fall of East Pakistan, many non-Bengali analysts in the media were saying that soon the situation would be controlled and we know what happened then. I should also point out that I have come across many nationalist Pakhtuns who are so frustrated and angered that they would rather deal with the Taliban on their own or wouldn’t mind allying with other entities which display less of a reluctance to deal with this scourge head on.

Complete story at: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=160963

Insurgency in Swat - An analysis

Here's an analysis of the Swat situation by Abdullah Saad (http://abdullahsaad.com), a must read:

Part 1, Part 2

Numbing statistics

By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi
THE statistics are numbing and mind-boggling and should make any Pakistani sit up: in 2008 the country saw 2,148 terrorist attacks, which caused 6,825 casualties — 2,267 of them fatal.

Suicide attacks alone killed nearly 1,000 people — 967 to be precise — and wounded or maimed for life over 2,000. Of the 63 suicide attacks countrywide, the highest — 32 — occurred in the NWFP, killing and wounding over 1,000 Pakistanis; 10 in Punjab (201, dead, 580 injured), and 16 in Fata (263 dead, 497 injured).

Compiled by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, these statistics do not include those who fell in ‘operational attacks’. According to the think-tanks’ report for 2008, more than 5,500 people were killed or injured in operational attacks (a minimum of 3,182 dead and 2,267 wounded).

What is scary is the steady rise over the years in the number of terrorist attacks and the consequent increase in casualties. In 2006, terrorist attacks left 907 dead and 1,543 injured; in 2007 there was a quantum jump in the figure for the dead — 3,448.

If to those killed in acts of terrorism we add those who died in operational attacks, sectarian and factional clashes and US drone attacks, the total number of civilians and security personnel killed in 2008 comes to a morbid 8,000, with the number of the injured approaching 10,000. The grand total for 2008, thus, comes to 18,000 Pakistani people getting killed or injured in acts of political violence.

Is the world aware of this Pakistani trauma? Going by the doubts cast on our commitment to fight terrorism and the ‘do more’ litany one doubts if we have been able to inform the world what this country and its people have been going through for years. In fact, it appears as if, barring US Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Richard Lugar in America and Foreign Secretary David Miliband in Britain, very few top personalities in the policymaking apparatus in the western world seem to be aware of Pakistan’s plight and the scourge which terrorism has become for us Pakistanis in our daily lives.

Our post-Mumbai diplomatic effort has not been all disaster. It did indeed succeed in convincing the world diplomatic community that Islamabad was not involved in the Mumbai crime. However, Pakistan’s advocacy of its case was characterised by diffidence. It failed to show our justifiable anger over India’s attempt to obfuscate the issue, and often we appeared to be pleading rather than telling.

Has India suffered anything even remotely resembling Pakistan’s trauma as seen in the cold statistics above? The answer is no, but the world evidently doesn’t think so. What the world does is to view the situation in terms of the ‘safe haven’ which is supposed to exist in Fata and elsewhere for the Taliban. That deprives us of the sympathy we deserve.

Read full opinion at DAWN - Opinion; January 26, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

US sponsored 'democracy': An interesting analysis

zaid hamid talks abt involvement of cia in pakistani affairs... he also mentions how deep does this involvement go... he describes how pakistan shot itself in its feet by helping usa against Taliban... when pakistan started refusing to act on US orders coz they got proofs tht cia n raw r destabilising pakistan in the wake of this american defined war on terror... talks abt indian sponsored govt. in balochistan... he further talks abt barahamdagh bugti's relationships with indian agency... n much more... he talks abt media war being staged against pakistani ppl... many secrets revealed... a must see!!

Be ready for more: US media warns of more attacks

US media warns of more attacks

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Sept 4: The US administration is officially refusing to comment on a cross-border raid into Pakistan that killed at least 15 people, but unnamed US officials are confirming that American troops entered Pakistan to target extremists and may continue to do so.

“In regards to the reports about that incident, we have not commented, and I won’t today,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters on Thursday. “I’m just not going to comment on the incident in any way.”

At the State Department, Secretary Condoleezza Rice made almost identical comments, saying: “I don’t have anything for you on Pakistan except to say that, obviously, we are working very closely with the civilian government there, the newly democratically elected, civilian government.”

Asked why was she reluctant to comment on the reported US strike, Ms Perino replied: “All I can tell you is that I am going to decline to comment on reports about that incident.”

But the US media, from newspapers to television and radio stations, are all quoting senior US officials as saying that American commandos entered Pakistan on Wednesday to attack an Al Qaeda target near Angoor Adda.

They also warned that the United States might conduct similar raids in future as well if it had “actionable intelligence” about the presence of Al Qaeda or Taliban commanders in a certain area.

US media warns of more attacks -DAWN - Top Stories; September 05, 2008

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Pakistan: A 'sovereign' state

ISI’s functions to be discussed in US

WASHINGTON, July 27: The government’s attempt to change internal functions of the ISI comes amid intense pressure from Washington to rein in the so-called rogue elements in the agency.

Diplomatic sources told Dawn that this issue would figure prominently in the talks Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would be holding in Washington during his visit that begins officially on Monday.

According to the sources, while the Americans trust the senior Pakistani leadership, they believe that there are people within the ISI who still back militants, almost seven years after Pakistan joined the US-led war on terror.

The Americans also blame the so-called rogue elements in the agency for facilitating cross-border movement of the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants into Afghanistan.

In an article on the prime minister’s visit on Sunday, Washington Post noted that the US administration’s patience with Pakistan’s inability to end cross-border infiltrations into Afghanistan was running out. The newspaper said that the prime minister and his aides “should expect a testy reception on both ends of the Pennsylvania Avenue,” meaning the White House and Congress. “I’m not sure they’re ready for what they’re walking into,” said a senior administration official while talking to the Post.

Pakistan’s new civilian leadership, like its military predecessor, rejects all insinuations about the ISI’s alleged role in the militancy as incorrect but appears willing to discuss with the Americans measures for reforming the ISI. One of the proposals, that may also be included in a detailed notification expected to be issued in Islamabad soon, calls for taking away two major functions from the agency: internal security and coordination in the war on terror....
more on the following link

ISI’s functions to be discussed in US -DAWN - Top Stories; July 28, 2008

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Difference between 1-man rule n democracy

US has intensified Fata strikes: WP

Ecerpts only. Source: Dawn

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, March 27: The United States has escalated air strikes against Al Qaeda fighters operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas fearing that the new government in Islamabad may object to future strikes, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
....
Officials interviewed by the Post for the article said Washington wanted to inflict as much damage as it can to Al Qaeda’s network now because President Pervez Musharraf may not be able to offer much help in the months ahead.
....
The Post noted that neither the US nor the Pakistani authorities officially confirmed US missile attacks on Pakistani territory, which would be an infringement of Pakistani sovereignty.
....
Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told the newspaper that policy makers in Washington were aware that “Musharraf’s days are numbered, and so they recognised they may only have a few months to do this. Musharraf has . . . very few friends in the world -- he probably has more inside the Beltway (Washington) than in his own country.”

The report claimed that after months of prodding, the Bush administration and the Musharraf government this year reached a tacit understanding that gave Washington a freer hand to carry out precision strikes against Al Qaeda and its allies in the border region. The issue, however, is so sensitive that neither side is willing to discuss openly, the report added.

According to the Post, the goal of the new US strategy is partly to try to get information on senior Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, by forcing them to move in ways that US intelligence analysts can detect.

“It’s not a blitz to close this chapter,” a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the newspaper. “If we find the leadership, then we’ll go after it. But nothing can be done to put Al Qaeda away in the next nine or 10 months. In the long haul, it’s an issue that extends beyond this administration.”

The report said that the Bush administration’s effort to uproot Al Qaeda also has benefited from shifting loyalties among residents of the border region. Some tribal and religious leaders who embraced foreign Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters as they fled from Afghanistan in 2001 now see them as troublemakers and are providing timely intelligence about their movements and hideouts.

Experts interviewed by Post, however, warned that the new US strategy could backfire if missiles take innocent lives.

“The [tribal] Pashtuns have a saying: ‘Kill one person, make 10 enemies,” said Mr Johnson. “You might take out a bad guy in one of these strikes, but you might also be creating more foot soldiers. This is a war in which the more people you kill, the faster you lose.”

look mush tunay kia haal ker diya mulk ka... may Allah guide u....

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Invasion of terror

By Babar Sattar

The debate on Pakistan's security policy that lists the country's available options as refusing to function as America's foot soldier in the war on terror versus willingly fighting America's war in our tribal areas is simplistic and misleading. There is no gainsaying that Pakistan needs to fight its own fight against extremism. But that must be distinguished from the US war on terror in Afghanistan, the paramount objective of which is to attack and decapitate Al-Qaeda and Taliban in a manner that they are unable to execute attack on western soil. And if the war strategy results in destabilizing Pakistan or delaying the possibility of peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, that could be acceptable damage for the United States. Pakistan's war on extremism, on the contrary, needs to focus on curbing the drift of portions of its own population to extremist ideologies that manifest themselves in the form of indiscriminate violence, undermine the life and liberties of moderate citizens and threaten the writ of the state.

The Bush Administration's war strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas is not working. The Musharraf regime has been a loyal ally to the Bush Administration, but the alliance has had a deleterious impact on Pakistan's internal security situation. The actions of the militants against the state and the citizens of Pakistan are immoral and completely unjustifiable. But in allying itself closely with the US, the Pakistani state and the armed forces have come to be seen as stooges of the west, which have cost them their credibility and moral authority as agents and representatives of the people of Pakistan. Pakistan must realize that its slavish pursuit of the US diktat vis-à-vis the war on terror has become an obstacle in the way of waging an effective war against extremism within Pakistan.

As a matter of foreign policy, Pakistan needs to distance itself from the US war on terror. So long as the Pakistani state, its armed forces and law enforcing agencies are fighting what is largely perceived as an alien war, there will be no popular support for such an effort. But redefining the foreign policy will have to be accompanied with (i) de-legitimization of the role played by jihadi outfits in our security policy and military strategy, (ii) reform of the decision-making mechanisms that produce such policies, (iii) overhaul of the state political structure that supports vital policies that have no popular mandate and denies minority groups a stake in the system, and (iv) addressing the brand of thinking and ideology that justifies violence and suicide attacks against fellow Muslims in the name of Islam.

Ashley Tellis -- senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- recently made a statement before a US congressional subcommittee wherein Pakistan's current approach toward extremist groups was elaborated, among other things. In our present context, at least this portion of the statement merits to be quoted at length: "As things stand today, it is possible to identify five distinct extremist groups that ought to be the legitimate target of Pakistani law enforcement and military operations: (i) sectarian groups, such as the Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria, which are engaged in violence within Pakistan; (ii) anti-Indian terrorist groups that operate with Pakistani military and ISI support, such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Harkat ul-Mujahideen; (iii) the Pakistani 'Taliban' groups, consisting of the extremist outfits in the FATA, led by individuals such as Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan, Maulana Faqir Muhammad and Maulana Qazi Fazlullah of the Tehrik-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammad, and Mangal Bagh Afridi of the Lashkar-e-Islami in the Khyber Agency; (iv) the original Taliban movement and especially its Kandahari leadership centred around Mullah Mohammad Omar and believed to be now resident in Quetta; and, finally, (v) Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, meaning the non-South Asian terrorists currently ensconced in the FATA region.

"Since September 2001, President Musharraf has pursued a highly differentiated counterterrorism policy that has involved treating each of these targets differently. He systematically suppressed mainly those domestic terrorist groups like the Sunni Sipah-e- Sahaba and the Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria that had engaged in bloody internal sectarian violence but, more importantly, had subverted critical state objectives. By contrast, he largely ignored the terrorist outfits operating against India in Kashmir and elsewhere: although he has controlled their infiltration into Kashmir in recent years, this restraint has not extended to either abandoning or eliminating them in the manner witnessed, for example, in the case of the more virulent anti-national sectarian entities operating within Pakistan. Fearful of Washington's disfavour, Musharraf has attacked Al-Qaeda resolutely, if not always effectively. Although the Pakistani Taliban did not exist as realistic threats in 2001, Musharraf has also combated them vigorously and as best he can. Musharraf has approached the original Taliban in a manner more akin to the Kashmiri terrorists and has avoided targeting them comprehensively; he has especially overlooked their leadership now resident in and around Quetta."

If this information and analysis is accurate, it identifies a crucial flaw in our security planning: the patrons of our security policy continue to believe that militant groups can be recruited and relied upon to realize the state's strategic goals and further that they can be clustered in neat compartments and accorded disparate treatment. There are at least three fatal flaws in this mode of thinking. One, experience suggests that the jihadi project was misconceived since its inception: non-state actors harnessed in the name of religion might function as effective tools for a while, but they eventually acquire a mind of their own and cannot be decommissioned or reprogrammed when the goals or the strategy of the state change.

Two, in the contemporary world there is zero tolerance for non-state actors. Thus in theory it might make sense to keep the possibility of our erstwhile foreign policy vis-à-vis Kashmir and Afghanistan (with a role of 'mujahideen') alive, nurturing or tolerating any dormant jihadi cells can only have disastrous consequences for the country. Three, the possibility of connections between various militant groups cannot be ruled out even when they are pursuing different goals. For the underlying narrow-minded religious ideology used to induct and brainwash these zealots, that preaches violence and relies on hate mongering, is a shared heritage of all such groups.

While Pakistan has been the frontline state in the war on terror, there is not one popular political entity in the country that backs this war, not even the king's league. We have had a parliament for the past five years, that has had no role in devising Pakistan's policy vis-à-vis the biggest strategic and internal security challenge facing the country. In 2006 the whole world was debating whether reconciliation and peace deals with the local tribes was a good idea, except Pakistan's 'sovereign' parliament. The consequence of a one-man decision-making arrangement is that our armed forces are fighting a war that is neither supported by the nation nor regarded as just. There is no political party that has had to publicly defend this war and thus there is not even an informed debate in the country regarding its pros and cons and the alternatives that Pakistan could pursue.

Winning the war against extremism is not going to be easy. Once we begin to think about our problem of extremism in isolation from the war on terror, there are some tough decisions we must make: we must abandon our jihadi enterprise; we must undertake madressah reform boldly and deliberately; and we must provide security, freedom and public space to the intellectuals and scholars who are capable of challenging bigoted ideologies pandered in the name of religion and confront the ideological roots of violence. But none of this can happen so long as our security policy continues to be made by a handful of individuals who are neither representative of the popular will nor accountable to it. We thus need to start by ensuring that the country pursues a security and foreign policy that is backed by popular mandate. And to that end we need to make our parliament relevant once again.

NATO Genocide in Afghanistan

The NATO website lists its killings in Afghanistan. These killings are also reported in the world media, often with a shameless tone of gratitude as if NATO forces are engaged in wiping out cannibals. In 2007 alone, NATO helicopters and precision guided munitions bombed and killed over six thousand "Taliban." Read the following recent attacks, which the NATO itself reports, and smell the scent of genocide.

Read the whole article http://abukashif.blogspot.com/

US undermined Pakistani Democracy: Imran

[Following is the Interview of Imran Khan with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now TV, you can also watch Real Video Stream or listen Real Audio Stream or just MP3 Download ]

AMY GOODMAN Why are you here in US?

IMRAN KHAN Well, basically, the Pakistani- American community here, they invited me here to explain the other point of view. There’s a government point of view, Musharraf’s government point of view, and then there’s the other point of view. And they wanted me to explain it to the U.S. lawmakers, to make them understand two things. One is, that they should not back one man, a dictator, against the forces of democracy of Pakistan. Secondly, that a new strategy is needed in this war on terror because at the moment, terrorism is spreading with leaps and bounds. And unless we have a new strategy, the existence of Pakistan is at stake.

AMY GOODMAN Why is the United States relevant to that?

IMRAN KHAN Well, for two reasons. One, that the U.S. is involved in Afghanistan. Secondly, the U.S. feels Musharraf is the best bet, the US Administration they feel that hes their best bet in fighting terrorism.

AMY GOODMAN Your feeling about that?

IMRAN KHAN I think it is the biggest mistake. It is the biggest blunder the U.S. is committing. Because you could only win the war ... read more