Munawar Hasan’s anti-Secularism and anti-democracy agenda

A cursory reading of the op-ed in today’s Daily Jang written by the newly elected leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami Syed Munawar Hasan suggests that the Jamaat has not learnt any thing from its historical and consistent rejection by the people of Pakistan. They are still committed to a Mullah-Military Alliance against democracy, a psudo-Islamic alliance against secularism, and a pseudo-Pakhtun front in support of their allies Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

8 responses to “Munawar Hasan’s anti-Secularism and anti-democracy agenda”

  1. Reailty of Syed Munawar Hassan, Jamat-e-Islami and Betrayal – Part 1:

    An interesting debate on Atimes Forum with Jamat-e-Islami Correspondent and Munawar Hassan.

    Dear Saleem Sahab,

    With utmost sincerity and respect.

    Refer to your story:

    The questions I am putting forward is not towards you in any way. I just want to ask Respected Syed Munawwar Hassan of Jamat-e-Islami and I hope my queries will reach to the high-ups in Jamat-e-Islami's HQ in Mansoora Lahore and to the Syed Munawwar Hassan as well. As per general perception JI was a party of educated middle class but after passing away of its ‘founder and scholar’ Maulan Abul Aala Maudoodi, one of the first who quit Jamat-e-Islami was Maulana’s son Haider Farooq Maudoodi who used to hold intense debate with Bhutto whenever Bhutto was in Mansoora to meet with Maudoodi during the PNA Movement against Bhutto. In my not so very worthy and very humble opinion the Jamat-e-Islami which was once a very vibrant party of Middle Class Pakistanis became hostage to Mian Tufail Ahmed {close relative of General Ziaul Haq} and hijacked by selfish persons like Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Professor Khursheed Ahmed and Syed Munawwar Hassan and played on the tunes of Military establishment from 1988 and still playing on behalf of invisible government. There used to be a legal cell or committee who used to represent their workers on their behalf in the court of law against state oppression but there are no such cells in JI nowadays.

    As per your words from your own stories:

    Pakistan turns on itself By Syed Saleem Shahzad Aug 19, 2004

    Jihadi's arrest a small step for Pakistan By Syed Saleem Shahzad Aug 10, 2004

    “In a surprise move this week, Pakistan's federal minister of the interior {not anymore}, Faisal Saleh Hayat, listed a number of incidences in which members of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the premier fundamentalist party in the country, had been tied to al-Qaeda, and called on it to “explain these links”.

    “It is a matter of concern that Jamaat-e-Islami, which is a main faction of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal [MMA], has neither dissociated itself from its activists having links with the al-Qaeda network nor condemned their activities,” Faisal said, adding that “one could derive a meaning out of its silence” The JI's leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, subsequently denied that his party had any links with al-Qaeda or other militant organizations. “We do not believe in violence,” Qazi said. He criticized the government for making such accusations, saying it was taking directions from the US.

    Typical of those being arrested is Tariq Baig, a former president of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (a student organization ideologically born of the JI) who was picked up from his residence in central Karachi. According to witnesses, a few cars with black-tinted windows laid siege to his residence, and then heavily armed men in plain clothes took him away.

    Neighbors claim that Tariq had dissociated himself from the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba. He participated in the Afghan resistance when the ISI was motivating students to wage jihad against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. However, other sources say that he was arrested for making calls on his cell phone to people connected with militant organizations. During his press conference, Faisal cited some JI connections with al-Qaeda. He said that a woman named Malooka Khatoon, an activist of the JI, was arrested in Clifton, Karachi, on October 4, 2002. She revealed links with al-Qaeda leader and September 11 mastermind Khaled Shaikh Muhammad.

    Also, the house of former field-hockey Olympian Shahid Ali Khan had been used as a hideout by an al-Qaeda member. “And the wife of Shahid Ali Khan is a leading activist of Jamaat-e-Islami,” Faisal said.

    Attaur Rehman, an alleged leader of the Jundullah group which is believed to be behind the recent attack on the motorcade of the corps commander Karachi in which several army personnel were killed, was once the nazim (administrator) of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba in the international relations department of Karachi University.

    The deciding factor in initiating action against the JI was video footage and the interrogation report of the confessions of two doctor brothers, cardiac surgeon Dr Akmal Waheed and orthopedic surgeon Arshad Waheed, sons of renowned educationalist Hafiz Waheeduddin Khan, who laid the foundation for the country's largest teachers' association, which takes its ideological inspiration from the JI.

    The doctors themselves were members of the Pakistan Islamic Medical Association, an affiliate of the JI. The video film and report have them admitting to raising funds for militants and treating fighters in South Waziristan tribal agency, besides helping the families of Arab jihadis return to their countries of origin after leaving Afghanistan. This evidence was handed to the US consulate in Karachi by the Sindh governor, Dr Ishratul Ibad, which in turn passed it on to Washington. Washington then applied maximum pressure on Islamabad to take action against the JI.”

    MAM: If these workers were not part of Jamat-e-Islami then why there was no announcements of their sacking from your party. Almost all of them were trapped on false allegation and most of them were put behind bars under intense pressure rather on fake and trumped up charges. Audio and Video evidence are not admissible in the court of Law nor the Intelligence Reports even the judges in the proceedings were heard saying “we are under intense pressure”. But Qazi sahib was not convincing in his answers. I am no fan of Al-Qaeda/Taliban or any other such Criminal Outifts who carry their activities in the name of Jihad but when you accuse somebody then Justice is his or her right no matter what.

    Even these news clippings/links below are openly saying that the arrested workers of Jamat-e-Islami workers are innocent but no answer from Syed Munawwar Hassan and Qazi Hussain Ahmed whereas a Secular and Liberal Newspaper {almost Non-Muslim as per Jamat-e-Islami’s definition of Muslim} are pleading the case of Jamat-e-Islami:
    Defence ends evidence in doctor brothers' case By Our Staff Reporter

    Judge Feroze Mehmood Bhatti, who is conducting trial inside the Central Pirson, fixed Feb 16 for hearing final arguments from prosecution and defence attorneys after statements by defence witnesses, including journalists Riaz Ahmed and Tahir Siddiqui, who were also cross-examined by special public prosecutor.

    Dr Farooqui also placed on record a letter from Douglas Mathews, consul at the US Consulate General in Karachi, sent him through email on March 23, 2004. He also placed on record another letter in which Dr Akmal Waheed had made a request for security after allegedly receiving threats from a person in the US Consulate, Karachi.

    In his letter on Feb 10, he stated that he received a phone call on his mobile phone 0300-2506312. “The caller introduced himself as Douglas Mathews, a representative of the US Consulate, Karachi.

    Some questions about doctors' case

    KARACHI: The manner in which Dr Akmal Waheed and Dr Arshad Waheed were 'arrested' and the hitherto unknown terrorist outfit called Jundullah was 'busted' has given rise to a number of difficult questions, eroding people's confidence in the police. The two doctors, who have been implicated in the attack on the convoy of the corps commander, Karachi, were handed over to the police on Friday, according to press reports. However, it is known to many by now that the Waheed brothers had gone to see DSP Fayyaz in the office of the Crime Investigation Department on June 17. They were not allowed to return home and were instead whisked away to an undisclosed location. If not, who arrested them? Were the Jundullah people really involved in the attack on the corps commander?

    Daily Dawn dated 06-07-04
    Some questions about doctors' case
    By Arman Sabir

    As per your story:

    “Internationally famed Pakistani constitutional expert A K Brohi was the first person in Pakistan's early days to publicly reject the Koran as a source of law-making. Qazi introduced him to Maududi's writings, and he remained an Islamist until the end. Similarly, top Pakistani bureaucrat-turned-journalist (and a former editor of Dawn newspaper) Altaf Gohar, a Marxist, read Maududi while in jail, and converted to Islam, and he became well-known for his lectures on television.”

    MAM: Mr. A. K. Brohi is one of those gentlemen who used the notorious and infamous “Law of Necessity” to justify the Martial Law of General Ziaul Haq and what a sad thing to say he himself had earlier declared that the Martial Law of Yahyah Khan was wrong. He was the person who helped Zia in judicially murdering the Bhutto. In the lighter vain I furhter add that A. K. Brohi was declared Persona-non-grata on the charges of sodomy when he was a diplomat in India. How would Munawwar Sahab justify the love of Islamic General Zia which he showed towards Shatrugehen Sinha {a member of BJP, which JI hates and during the visit of same BJP’s leader Vajpai, Jamat played on the tune of Military Establishment tried to sabotage Vajpai’s visit during Mian Nawaz Sharif Govt}. As far as Altaf Gauhar is concerned he was not Islamist, Jamati, or Marxist or Secular he was only a time server and worst kind of opportunist one would ever witness, he was the one who enslaved the Freedom of Press in Pakistan and still the press is enslaved.

    The Press in Chains by Zamir Niazi.

    The Role of Jamat-e-Islami in East Pakistan {Now Bangladesh courtesy Pakistan Army}.

    The Jamat Islami-Army nexus has been a part of our history, either marginally as under Ayub Khan or covertly as under Yahya Khan or naked and deeply written into the system as under Ziaul Haq. Ayub's secularism as part of the military culture of British Indian Army was like an open book without any fine print. Even the prefix Islamic attaching to the Republic of Pakistan was dropped until restored under the writ of superior judiciary. That continued to be the case until the fateful day of 1965 when India attacked Pakistan along the international border, with Lahore as its principal target. Even in his first address to the nation within hours of the Indian invasion, Ayub went on to recite the 'Kalama-i-Tayyaba' in a stirring, emotion-choked voice. His subsequent meeting with religious parties – mainly the Jamaat-i-Islami under Maulana 'Abul 'Ala Maududi – marked the beginning of the military-mullah nexus. Yahya would not have much to do with things spiritual until the induction of retired Maj.-Gen. Sher Ali Khan into his cabinet as minister in-charge of information and national affairs. He initiated Yahya into ideological lore and saddled him with the mission of protecting the 'ideology of Pakistan and the glory of Islam'. Yahya's intelligence chief, Major-(later Lieut.) Gen. Muhammad Akbar Khan made no secret of his close liaison with the Jamaat-i-Islami especially in respect of its pro-active role in East Pakistan. The Jamaat was to go even to the extent of certifying Yahya's draft constitution as Islamic. The draft was authored by Justice A.R. Cornelius, Yahya's law minister.

    Qazi Hussain, a leader of the JI student faction at Islamia College in Peshawar, spent his formative years in battles—some of them physical—against the Left. He joined the parent body in 1970, when the JI’s branch in East Pakistan collaborated fully with the Army in its attempt to destroy the Bengali nation. Their cadres in Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet compiled lists of ‘undesirables’ for military intelligence, which were then used to eliminate the opposition. ‘Chairman Mao supports us, not you’, was a taunt they regularly hurled at the Bengali Left of the time. China and the US both supported the Pakistan Army’s brutal assault on its own people, aimed at nullifying the dramatic 1970 election victory by the Bengali-nationalist Awami League. The Army’s onslaught backfired badly. Bangladesh is the direct outcome of a military refusal to recognize the will of the electorate. In the circumstances, the Army’s self-image as the only institution that holds the country together is somewhat grotesque. The JI’s role in the 1971 break up of Pakistan had the effect of drawing it closer to the intelligence apparatuses of the rump state.

    MMA and the NSC By A.R. Siddiqi The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

    New Left Review 19 jan feb 2003 5 Tariq Ali THE COLOUR KHAKI Now each day is fair and balmy, Everywhere you look: the army. Ustad Daman (1959)

    Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, London and New York 2002, pp. 174–81.


    It is generally believed that the US wanted Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto to be removed from the political scene of Pakistan mainly on two accounts. First, for the nuclear policy that he framed and tried to relentlessly pursue and secondly, from apprehensions that ZAB was influencing the countries. He posed a serious challenge to the US interests in the region. “Tally-ho. Kill Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, “ yelled the self-proclaimed policemen of the world. During August 1976, Amercian Secretary of States, Dr. Henry Kissinger had warned Bhutto, “We will make a horrible example of you,” adding menacingly, “When the railroad is coming, you get out of the way.” The American had successfully cultivated a number of well-placed bureaucrats, PPP stalwarts and ministers who wittingly or inadvertently served as the US agents of influence. American diplomats and CIA operators not only got most of the ‘inside’ information from these ‘gentlemen’ but also utilized their good offices to ‘convey’ whatever they wanted to feed or plant. Some officers from USMAAG had also made meaningful ingresses in the General Headquarters and not only gathered the thinking in the Services Headquarters but would also drop a ‘suggestion’ here and there. Some of the US Diplomats had established direct contacts with a number of PNA leaders whom they continued to aid, support and give day-to-day line of action.

    A number of US diplomats were not only actively involved but also directed the operations against Bhutto. Jan M. Gibney, Political Officer, US Consulate General, Lahore, duly assisted by a couple of Pakistanis, was extremely active and would frequently visit a number of Politicians Maulana Maudoodi of Jamat-e-Islami and Maulan Obaidullah Anwar, Jamiat-e-Ulmai-Islam of Sheranwala Gate, Lahore. Apart from holding meetings, a wireless network had been established between the USIS-US Consulate General – Maulana Maudoodi’s residence. It was Gibney who had telephoned and conveyed to Howard B. Schaffer, Chief of Political Affairs, US Embassy, Islamabad, that notorious sentence, “The party is over. Merchandise has gone.” The US had also released PL-480 funds. Over night some Jamat-e-Islami workers were seen with pockets full of money and spending lavishly. A number of businessmen, particularly those, who had suffered due to ZAB’s economic and industrial policies, had also been prompted to contribute towards the PNA funds. As there were no party accounts being maintained as such, the contributions were received personally by some of the leaders. Justice (Retd.) Kaikaus and Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa are among those who are alleged to have made millions.

    PROFILES OF INTELLIGENCE by Brigadier Syed A. I. Tirmazi, SI (M).

    Jamat-e-Islami and Mehran Bank Scandal. {I wonder what is the opinion of Munawwar Sahib}.

    In one of the most bizarre scandal in Pakistan’s pathetic history which involves the ISI was Mehran Bank Scandal through which General Mirza Aslam Baig distributed huge amount of funds amongst those politicians who were to be used against Benazir Bhutto. Qazi Hussain Ahmed the present Ameer of Jamat-e-Islami was also one of them besides MQM, PML-N of Nawaz Sharif and other such.

    Jamaat-i-Islami Rs 5 million and Liaquat Baloch Rs 1.5 million. For further details:

    Governance sans politics By Anwar Syed.

    Why fiddle with the system? By Anwar Syed.

    We never learn from history By Ardeshir Cowasjee

    Part [1]

    Part [2]

    Part [3]

    Part [4]

    Part [5]

    The Study below was compiled in 2002 [General Election under General Musharraf Martial Law Regime]


    The MMA comprises six (now five) Islamic political parties that have sidelined their religious-sectarian differences, at least temporarily, to work together for pursuing a shared political agenda. These include the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam of Maulana Fazlur Rahman (JUI-F), the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam of Maulana Samiul Haq (JUI-S), the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan of Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani (JUP-N), and the Tehrik-i-Jafria Pakistan (TJP) headed by Maulana Syed Sajid Naqvi. The alliance has, on top of the contradiction in its ideology, failed miserably to include its manifestoes any vision of the Economy, Education, Health, other social and political problems. The only consensus with in the alliance, it seems, is not to confront the Military but the Military Government led by Musharraf and his cabinet. The army is still close to the hearts of the Rightwing groups, that’s the opinion which suggests that the Pro-JI lobby within the establishment has worked miracle for the MMA victory and unity of the most diversified sects under banner and one leader is to stop and to counter PML-N and PPP’s rising popularity and the Establishment is much worried from the much more vicious anti-establishment stance of the PPP/PML-N than MMA. So this lobby played the Anti-American slogans for MMA in Elections and it did work. These religious parties have a history of cooperation with the Military and US Establishment {Circa 1971in East Pakistan by the JI, 1977 till 11 Sept 2001 anti Bhutto campaign, Pro Zia stance during Afghan War and later Kashmir insurgency and Taliban Affairs}, so much so Qazi complained to the Musharraf about the army’s treatment of its erstwhile allies, therefore they cannot afford to antagonize the army and vice versa due to Greater American Games in Kashmir, Nepal for China through these Religious Parties. The other big reason of this unlikely unity were the details of Corruption Cases against many Islamic Leaders {Mehrangate and during the 1993-1996 PPP Government} which are with the Security Agencies of Pakistan. Some analyst still believe that the MMA victory which has shaken the Military Establishment to its very root was not expecting this as there are reports that some “agencies” had popped up the MMA to divide the vote of PPP
    and PML-N and not to give noticeable and crucial number of seats to the MMA. The govt. did support the component parties in MMA after 12 Oct 1999 Coup as the Military Govt. never banned the rallies of these parties as compare to the complete ban on Secular Political Parties. The worst was the surety, which reportedly Musharraf gave to the senior
    US officials before polls that religious parties wont get more than 5% vote.

    The two Pro-Taliban factions of the JUI are the followers of the Deoband School and have a strong following in the Pakhtoon areas of the NWFP and Balochistan. Both had strong links with the Taliban movement and supported their cause. The JI does not limit itself to a particular school of Islamic fiqh but it has been a supporter of the Taliban and Jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The JUP (N) is the follower of the Barelvi school which disagrees with the other two schools on a number of issues and it is also facing an adversary in Sindh in the shape of rabidly maniac Sunni Tehreek . The JUP was not involved with the Taliban or the insurgency in Kashmir. The TJP follows the Jafria (Shia) fiqh and has renamed itself as Islami Tehreek-e-Pakistan since TJP has been declared outlawed by the authorities and it also stayed away from Afghanistan and Kashmir, they were rather bitterly against Deobandis and Wahabi Talibans. Despite sectarian-denominational differences, they decided to work together to advocate an Islamic alternative to the existing politico-economic arrangements, underlining the supremacy of the Quran and the Sunnah. Though they emphasized supremacy of “Allah” in their election campaign, Pakhtoon ethnicity influenced their electoral performance. The two factions of the JUI enjoyed support mainly amongst the Pakhtoons (Pashtun) in the NWFP and Balochistan. Their electoral performance in these areas is mainly responsible for the MMA's electoral triumph. The JI chief is also a Pakhtoon but that party's support cuts across denominational differences and ethnicities.

    However, the JI is not in a position to pull through an electoral triumph all by itself. The support base of the JUP(N) is limited to the followers of its leader in Sindh and Punjab. The TJP does not have any known strongholds and it played only a symbolic role in the MMA campaigning by showing unity across the sectarian divide. The MMA electioneering in the NWFP and Balochistan was at two levels. At one level, its leaders and candidates focused on constituency-specific issues. Like elsewhere in Pakistan, they talked about improvement of civic amenities, construction and repair of roads and streets and development work for improving the quality of life for the ordinary folks. They promised to work for increasing job opportunities, schooling for children and ending corruption in government. They also vowed to make the administration more responsive to the needs of the people. The second level of electioneering emphasized broader themes with strong ideological overtones. This included a sharp critique of Pakistan's socio-political and economic order and projection of an Islamic alternative. They talked of the primacy of the Quran and the Sunnah and demanded the restructuring of the socio-
    political and economic order on the basis of Islamic principles. However, they did not offer any detailed plan of the Islamic order they wanted to introduce. No specific solutions were offered for any constitutional, administrative, economic or legal problem.
    America figured prominently in their election campaigning. The major focus was the US
    military operation in Afghanistan and its consequences for Pakhtoons on both sides of the
    Durand Line. The JUI was the major supporter of the Taliban and its leaders launched street agitation after the US began air raids in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

    This effort fizzled out because other political forces did not join in. Some of the JUI and JI leaders were arrested and placed under “house arrest” for a couple of months. Anti-American sentiments intensified when dead and injured Pakistani Pakhtoons or their Afghan relatives were brought to the NWFP and Balochistan. The arrest and killing of Taliban armed personnel by the Northern Alliance after the fall of Kabul perturbed them the most because a good number of them were Pakistani volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan to fight on the side of the Taliban. Some Pakistanis are still in detention in Afghanistan and at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

    The neglect of the reconstruction of post-Taliban Afghanistan by the US convinced them that Washington was interested mainly in dislodging the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that it had no sympathy for ordinary people who suffered a lot in the American air and ground operations. Another factor that contributed to anti-American sentiments was the rise of the Northern Alliance with American support, which was blamed for deaths of a large number of the Taliban and other Pakhtoon prisoners in its custody. The over-representation of the Northern Alliance in the present-day Afghanistan government is another Pakhtoon grievance. All these factors strengthened anti-American sentiments which were widely shared in the NWFP and Balochistan. The MMA understood the ground realities in the two provinces and successfully articulated anti-America sentiments amongst the Pakhtoons there. Most Pakhtoon secularists and nationalists lost badly in both provinces because they had either supported American action in Afghanistan or stayed neutral on this. Commenting on the extremely poor performance of the ANP, a leader of MMA remarked that they lost for siding with the aggressor – the US.

    It is interesting to note that foreign policy issues, including US action in Afghanistan, did
    not figure prominently in Punjab and Sindh. Some candidates did make comments on security and foreign policy issues but the election campaign focused primarily on constituency-related issues like how far the candidate would work for the welfare of the people and improve civic amenities for the community. The main reason was that these two provinces were not directly affected by American military operations in Afghanistan or by the predicament of the Afghans in the post-Taliban Afghanistan. The third important element of Pakistan politics, the Army, figured in the election campaign of the MMA. The military regime of General Pervez Musharraf was subjected to sharp criticism
    for “betraying” the Taliban and for facilitating American military operations in Afghanistan. The military regime was also criticized for letting American military and FBI personnel function in Pakistan. Their resentment against the military government made them vocal champions of democracy and participatory governance. They talked of constitutionalism, fair and free elections, and return of military to the barracks. Rejecting
    the amendments made by the military government in the 1973 Constitution, they demanded its restoration minus these amendments.

    They highlighted their electoral performance to distinguish themselves from the Taliban, arguing that they appeared on the political scene though the ballots, not by the bullet, and therefore, they believed in dialogue and persuasion for implementation of their political agenda, including Islamization of the polity. Though the three leading factors of Pakistani politics – Allah, America, and the Army – promoted unity amongst the MMA partners and facilitated their electoral triumph, these factors might undermine internal cohesion and good governance after the MMA assumes power in the NWFP and Balochistan. The MMA will have to tone down its rhetoric on Islamization and relations with the US and adopt a down-to-earth approach towards domestic affairs, especially the army, and foreign policy. They may also have to accommodate some non-MMA elements for smooth functioning of their governments. This is likely to force them to dilute their domestic agenda. A failure to do so may entangle them in so many political controversies and confrontations that they will find it difficult to pursue their domestic and foreign policy agendas.

    Furthermore these religious parties had shown a dismal performance in 1997 election in particular and all the other elections which are held in Pakistan since 1947 was also not good. They also failed miserably to counter US led campaign against Afghanistan in Pakistan as these parties could not stir the people against the govt. as one was expecting but the continued US bombing on Afghanistan, Camp X ray in Guantanamobay Cuba and very biased and extremely prejudiced treatment of the West vis-à-vis Muslim Community
    finally culminated in the landslide victory of MMA in NWFP and Baluchistan in particular and a visible presence and growing influence in other provinces as well. The rumor has it that a lobby within the Establishment has achieved this to upset the Musharraf Regime. The main theme on which the MMA fought the elections was Anti-
    US rhetoric, and surprisingly after the August meeting with Musharraf of Qazi and Noorani, the anti Musharraf rhetoric also vanished and now the slogan is supremacy of the Parliament. If the US attacks Iraq {which it already has though not fully} in near future then these parties which have an organized cadre of workers and funds to run an effective campaign and anti-US rhetoric to change the atmosphere then it will be a big problem for the govt. which is already in hot water due to minute majority and charges of pre-poll rigging, during poll rigging by EU, PPP, PML-N and even the MMA and above all forward blocs and horse trading galore. Some cynics also said that the Military Establishment had decided after 9/11 to have these Islamists inside the system rather than
    outside where they cant be approached and corrupted and that’s why there was so much efforts by National Alliance, PML-Q, and other proxies of the establishment but too much success of MMA went up it heads, maybe there are some Pashtoon elements in Establishment who wanted to provide solace to the disgruntled Pashtoon elements who are angry with Karzai so they adopted a far fetch plan to blackmail or take even Americans for a ride by cobble together a diversified alliance like MMA.

    There are still some Adventists in the govt. who think that Hikmatyar can topple Karzai and MMA has strong links with the old guards. If Musharraf let the MMA allows forming the NWFP and Baluchistan govt. then it would be a big pain in the neck of the Govt as USA operations are mostly concentrated in these two provinces. Ultimately any such govt. in both of these provinces would be sympathetic towards absconder Taliban or may be even Al-Qaeda. The only situation which now is visible would be an all out effort to break the MMA as happened in the Past by igniting any controversial religious issue in the Parliament which obviously wont be acceptable to this diversified clan called MMA.

    To be on warpath against the Central Govt. the would be Provincial Govts. of MMA in both the provinces would take some cosmetic measures to implement its agenda and try to satisfy its voters, like Friday as weekly holiday , doing away with co-education, put a halt to obscenity in the print and electronic media and reform interest based banking. The implementation of some of the measures would inevitably trigger protests and alarm the Civil and Military establishments and culminate in Governor Rule.

    The MMA is also not in a very easy position as JI, and JUP on Shia Issues are not as rigid
    as their counterpart JUI factions are so either they would have to make some compromises which will ultimately end up in damaged reputation or have to quit the would be provincial govts. to avoid loosing the support of the voters who want results now.

  2. Reailty of Syed Munawar Hassan, Jamat-e-Islami and Betrayal – Part 2:


    Western diplomatic circles foresee problems every which way the MMA goes. If it comes
    to power (at all) in the Provinces, they say, it may be tempted to pull the rug from underneath Musharraf and his US Allies in the country. If it doesnot, it will still form a government in the Frontier and possibly Baluchistan too that are key to US Military Operations in Afghanistan. To counter this maybe the Pashtoon-Baluch differences would be exploited to serve the selfish ends of the Establishment and US allies. The Washington based National Democratic Institute (NDI) for International Affairs was of the view that political parties lack confidence in the Judiciary which could be a forum for redressing the issue of the Supremacy of the Parliament against the govt.’s desires. Surprisingly the NDI never took the Notorious LFO for a task, which is the most controversial item of Musharraf Regime in the three years. But the Human Right Watch (HRW) report made its reservation very clear regarding LFO and general State of Affairs in Pakistan. HRW even urged G. W. Bush for democratic reforms in Pakistan and link dollar aid as a motivation force for restoring civilian and constitutional rule.

    Several other foreign correspondences termed Musharraf’s Reform as “General Making Turkey out of Pakistan. They were also of the view that the active persecution of the Islam undertaken by Turkey’s military establishment would never be tolerated in Pakistan. Despite so much support to the US the US National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice made it clear that we object to some of the move he made. Major US newspapers had predicted that “Miscarriage” of democracy is due after October 10 Election. The New York Time went to the extent to quote that Musharraf has loosened its grip on Kashmiri Militants to intercept any potential for criticism. Another view was that much before the election that Musharraf Regime is rigging the election, they even mentioned the use of Secret Services in the process.

    GENERAL REACTION ON MMA VICTORY {Intellectuals, Liberals, Academics, Media Managers and NGOs}:

    Maulvis are part of our society and one should keep this in mind that during General Zia’s Dark Period the media produced truly great plays, which made headlines even in India. The Clerics have come into power by vote, why there is so much alarm when they have come through legitimate means, rigging or no rigging. So much so they have declared that they will not follow “Taliban Brand of Islam”, and that women’s right to property and employment will be safeguarded. These American should be taught a lesson as they have started terming every wrong towards Muslims. However you can differ with MMA on their definition of morality. People should also understand that Liberalization of the airwaves for example, is not about wearing western clothes on television and inducting women anchors. If the MMA start to promulgate some unacceptable laws and policies, society will continue to do what it has always done—- resist.

    One of the intellectual said “women must not be misled by the talk of the religious parties that they are concerned about preserving and protecting women’s honour and dignity and that they want women to have Rights give to them by Islam. The “Islam” that is being talked about is not Quran’s Islam but patriarchal Islam, which relegates women to a segregated, secondary and subordinate place”. The way one is perceived depends upon the way we dress. The suppression of this most fundamental aspect of individual personality is a form of pure oppression. It is like being in Cuba or Iran. None of the parties in MMA have ever supported women’s right or the rights of minorities and some have actively been involved in provoking or carrying out violence against minorities. MMA’s type seek to control through ideological means, argues one expert. “As such, they are more interested in our minds than money or anything else. Through this they can wield considerable influence, not only on art, culture and NGO activism but also on the nation’s mindset. The fact that the MMA is a product of times that are radically different from those of General Zia seems to have generated a fair bit of optimism among the cultural elite, including its more cynical cadre.

    The difference is that today, that if they extend their necks beyond a certain point, they will be slaughtered. Giving the MMA leaders what they deserve has the best chance of slowly steering Pakistan out of the current conflict between (loosely defined) Islamism and progressive and predictable path of constitutionalism that it has been grappling with for so many years. It must be pointed out for the record that when the Meerwalla Incident took place, and CNN, SKY NEWS, FOX NEWS, STAR NEWS, and BBC exploited the jaded appetites of television viewers all over the world, there wasnot even a whimper of sympathy let alone a condemnation from any of MMA leaders, the so called champions of Fair Treatment towards Women as per Islam. What could these Mullahs have in store for the right of women in this country?

    But whatever one may say but one should respect the MMA the only people take a stand on what they believe in. And also one doesn’t have to worry so much even the Americans are not that worry on the victory of MMA since Washington has been negotiating with them since much before the existence of MMA, remember Qazi, Fazal and other’s visits of USA in mid and late nineties. Both the referendum and election came post 9/11 and public opinion in the two provinces bordering Afghanistan in April as it appears to have been in October. Indeed, there should have been greater resentment then because the campaign was at a greater level of intensity in that period. Yet one finds that forces commonly identified with extremism and sectarianism have emerged with greater electoral backing than ever before in Baluchistan and NWFP, making inroads in the other provinces as also, clearly this phenomenon is attributable to the strong anti-US sentiments among large section of the people. The manipulation and horse-trading put credibility in doldrums, which was already in erosion since last three years of failed policies.

    The more far fetch idea was that if in the event of Musharraf’s departure, or a right-wing coup in the army, the US will move fast to secure our nuclear weapons before they are disappeared. The MMA understands this, and their fears are probably correct. None of the parties in MMA have ever supported. One should also not believe that the triumph of MMA in Pakistan and other religious parties in Turkey is the demise of Liberalism and Secularism, it is simply a reaction of US led policies in Afghanistan and Middle East and it will pass by the passage of time. However the Musharraf govt. played a big part indirectly in bringing up the MMA in NA in such a noticeable majority due to regime’s hell bent attitude of rigidity towards PPP/PML-N and other secular forces.There is also a clear-cut message from voter (at least presently) in this election that is the Baluchistan and NWFP have comprehensively moved towards Islamic Politics. Punjab and Sindh largely show status quo. Ethnic politics and pseudo nationalists have suffered a setback. The longer the real political power is withheld from public representatives, the higher

    will be the level of Public Alienation from the ruling setup and greater the challenges to the Federation. The real test is of the MMA, in view of country’s international and economic commitments, MMA will have to show flexibility for cohabitation and smooth running of the govt. Overnight, a solution of the long festering Kashmir dispute cannot be found nor it is possible to eliminate Riba immediately. Therefore such steps should be taken as do not deal a sudden jolt to the country’s security and economic interest and also make transition to political administration as smooth as possible. The MMA hasn’t defined its policy vis-à-vis Health, Social Security, Poverty, Extremism, Water Resources, Pensioners, and Culture and Tourism. But the catch is that the MMA will not be acceptable to the most powerfull player in the game— the Pentagon. After 9/11 the Ameircans have shown a mortal fear of anything Islamic.

    They have started equating all Muslims with Terrorism and have come under the spell of a so-called Clash Civilization theory by Huntington. The Christian World is arrayed against Muslims, and the crusade is (a Freudian slip of tongue on the part of G. W. Bush) on. As such pentagon would not like the MMA to be given a share in Power even in NWFP and Baluchistan what to talk of Centre {Bag of dirty tricks has been opened rampantly by the CIA and anything is possible even the assassinations}. Americans and the West would do what they did in Turkey where Turkish Military dismissed democratically elected govt. under American pressure and the same thing happened in Algeria where matter are worse since 1992 Elections which had brought Islamists in power but never allowed to run by France and America by pressurizing the Algerian Army who gave country a blood bath. Pakistani Military has the traumatic experience of disregarding democratic aspiration of the people in the past. It defied a much heavier mandate in 1970 of the people of East Pakistan what to talk of MMA’s mandate. The establishment has reaped what it had sowed by not allowing a breathing space to PPP and
    PML-N now they have big trouble at their hands in the shape of formidable MMA in NWFP and Baluchistan and noticeable majority of the same in the center. The MMA seems to be here to stay and like army, could be a part of any future political setup, which will take place in the country. The MMA has an abidingly powerful grip on the popular imagination in the NWFP and parts of Baluchistan and some urban centres in Sindh and Punjab. A way must be found to blunt some of their antagonism.


    Except Jamat-e-Islami no other group in MMA has any idea about these donor agencies and their ruthless policies. The JI being a very organized party has many Economists in their Shoora like Former Senator Khursheed Ahmed and Jamat Islami can also provide active well-planned protesting force against any objectionable policy of these agencies otherwise they have no idea about the working.

    The Reforms which the IMF and the World Bank is trying to enforce in the name of Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) have ruined Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Honduars, Kenya, Nigeria, and Far Eastern Tigers of Super Economy. Time and again the Finance Minister Mr. Shaukat Aziz (a would be Senator of PML-Q) and Dr Ishrat Hussain (Governor State Bank of Pakistan) have claimed through articles and TV talk shows in Preppy English and Ivy League Manners in Designers suits to hoodwink the General Masses that the Economy is safe and the three years of Reforms have saved the country but then why People are not happy and everybody is complaining of Unemployment and Rising Cost of life. If that was not enough the IMF has hired a former SBP governor Dr Yaqoob who was in the so-called Clean Cabinet of Musharraf after 12 Oct but sacked due to unknown
    reason and he is complaining about Banks performance when he himself was responsible
    of the failure of Bankers Equity Ltd, Indus Bank, Platenium Bank and and not taking action against the responsible of Mehran Banks! He could not be absolved from the Crime of Foreign Exchange Reserves flght from Pakistan at the eve of Nuclear Blasts (during Nawaz Sharif Regime 1997-1999) and that too of those who were from Govt/Establishment and half hour after that he freezed the FCAs and still those Pakistanis
    who saved their life time savings are nowadays runnig from pillar to post to have their life time savings back in the shape of Green Bucks. That is the integrity of IMF which has hired a banker who himself was involved in mismanagement and several of his toadies of Foreign Multinational Banks were hired in 1997, 1999/2000 respectively in Nationalised Commercial banks in the replacement of low paid Pakistan based Bankers and yet after 5 years he is again complaining of Non-Profit in Pakistani Banks from the mighty desk of IMF. So who created this mess at the first place. These Finance men and other ‘technocrats’ who have made it in the World Bank and the IMF, but who remain unfulfilled for not having exercised raw political power in their homeland, are always more impressed by caretaker regimes and military dictatorships than by anything with a democratic colouring. In a democracy they have no place but through the good graces of an unelected dispensation they can hope to attain high political office. Which is why high-flying members of this tribe can be seen rushing to Pakistan, keen to save the country, whenever a government falls. Military rule is not a function of the military alone. Whole classes of collaborators have flocked to the army’s standard whenever it has
    seized power.

    Half of the King’s Party and supporters of the reforms are those very politicians who were part and parcel of the so-called Corrupt Politicians Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Nawaz Sharif during the governemtns of much maligned Lost Decade of Dr. Ishrat Hussain’s brand which he so vehemently condemns in the English dailies of Pakistan. Should we expect that after another 10 year there would be another Adventurist to lambast the would be Politicians who would be forming the Government in the near Future with the help of Forward Block of every Political Party in Pakistan like PML-N, PPP, MQM, MMA etc.etc.

    There is no clear cut policy on IMF and World Bank Reforms from the so-called Secular, Democratic, Progressive and Religious too Parties so should we also expect that they would lend their some members in the name of Forward Bloc to continue these Draconian Reforms of these donor agencies in the name of Natioanl Interest. How can one call it a National Interest when people are not happy. Should we also expect that these Religious and not so Religious Political and Secualr and not so Secular Political Parties would alter Islamic and Secular Democratic Principles/Manifestoes to jump on the bandwagon of the would be Future Consensus Government. Mr. Klaus Enders (Visiting Head of IMF Six-Member Review Mission), who recently met Minister for Finance, Shaukat Aziz, was told that President Pervez Musharraf will himself ensure that his economic and financial policies were not reversed. If the assurance for not reversing the reforms were so important then what was the need of General Election 2002 in which the Political and Religious Parties promised Moon, Milk and Honey with the people and who would agree with these reforms of these donor agencies which ensures the Sky-Rocketing Utility Prices (Electricity, Gas, Water, Telephone and Living a life for example the Power Rates were raised 16 times by this Military Regime in three years. The reason behind this unusal delay of summoning of National Assembly Session was the Search of Puppets (which they have found in Jamali) to enforce these Draconian Reforms which any Politically Mature Political Party would not like to enforce as these would be contrary to their Election Program which has promised that Pakistan would be Hong Kong with in no time. A similar had delay had took place in 1988 as well in the interest of ‘continuity’ the first Benazir government was arm twisted by both the US State Department and Pakistan’s Establishment into endorsing the candidacy of Ghulam Ishaq Khan for the office of the President. Next, she was forced to appoint Sahibzada Yakoob Ali Khan foreign minister to ensure continuity of the then US-Pakistan Afghan policy. And then she was also forced to own an agreement with the IMF which was signed by the outgoing interim government of GIK. The then US Ambassador to Pakistan Mr Robert Oakley was heard heaving a sigh of relief when the PPP finally came through and voted Ghulam Ishaq Khan into the Presidency for the next five years. Mr Rober Oakley expressed his opinion on the matter at a small dinner hosted by his Economic Counsellor . During the dinner several Pakistanis present there argued heatedly with Mr. Oakley over
    the IMF prescriptions imposed on the new government. The Ambassador who was nicknamed by his detractors in the Pakistani Press as the ‘Viceroy’ had taken the position
    that IMF’s prescription was the panacea for all the economic ills with which Pakistan was afflicted, therefore, according to him the new government would be far better off owning the SBA agreement signed by GIK government. Many had disagreed with him with some passion on the grounds that no developing country in the world so far had benefited from these prescriptions. He named Turkey. Now we know how the economy of Turkey fared after 1988. History, indeed, is repeating itself. And as we all know nobody learns from history Freedom to make this choice should be the privilege of the incumbent government rather than that of the previous or outgoing one. .

    The issue is that some of the previous government for example in finance, may be added on to the incoming government with the result that the key economic issues would be dealt with like they have been during the last three years. Is this why people went to vote?


    The continuity chorus rings loud and sonorous for all to hear. General Musharraf says he will support the new government, and adds the usual qualification about continuity of reforms. In the first instance, there is an urgent need to put the record straight, at least on the economic front: there are no reforms taking place. The only new thing happening is that the programs (and conditionalities) that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) have tried so long to institutionalize are now being applauded by the government without reservations. So when continuity is mentioned, rest assured that continuity of policies almost two decades old is what is meant.

    As the tedious wait for a government to be put together extends into its second month, it becomes even more important to understand the importance of this talk of continuity. On the one hand, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) and the People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPP) dispute the Legal Framework Order (LFO). On the other hand, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q has no intention of disputing anything now in place. But the extremely important issue of continuity of economic policies seems to have been lost.

    While the MMA and the PPP are content to employ run-of-the-mill rhetoric about the economic problems and hardships facing ordinary Pakistanis, they have little knowledge, and apparently, concern, about the very nature of policies that are fast pushing more and more people into the mire of poverty. Indeed, the PPP has made it clear that it will continue to be supportive of both the international financial institutions (IFIs) and the US on both the foreign and economic policy fronts. Although the MMA has made much of the issue of US presence and bases in Pakistan, it is likely to back down on its demand relating to these for expedient reasons. To it continuity of the economic agenda can only be a secondary concern.

    It is another matters, however, that if either of these two parties were to sit in the opposition, they would likely oppose IFI-dictated policies tooth and nail. It is unfortunate that such a stance would not be based on any principle, but tied to the expediencies of circumstances and therefore one has to be content with what one gets, especially given our political parties’ unwillingness to resist the so-called neo-liberal economic order.

    That being so, it is important to understand why this particular economic agenda is a problem. It is clear that at least some people think that continuity of the military’s economic agenda is desirable. After all, everyone in the glamorous world of global capitalism seems to be extending kudos to Finance Minister Shakat Aziz.

    But simply, the IMF is maintaining its decades-old principled stance that fiscal stabilization is the key to growth and poverty reduction. Fiscal stabilization is necessary because a high budget deficit is unviable over even a relatively short period of time, as recent history has proven in Argentina. The rest of the story is fairly simple. The burden of generating revenue falls on the poor because the state that is levying taxes comprises elite groups that most definitely will not tax themselves. Export-oriented commodities are given precedence over food security.

    And since the priority of defence spending, debt-servicing and high-level government overheads is almost a foregone conclusion when the budget is drawn up – again mostly because of the unchangeability of the status quo – it is by raising prices of utilities and basic commodities, selling off public assets, and slashing public sector jobs that the deficit can possibly be contained. And so more of the same continues to happen in the name of poverty reduction (because poverty reduction must be preceded by growth, which must be preceded by fiscal prudence, austerity and stabilization).

    The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) continues to be quoted as the document that outlines the country’s defining economic strategy for the foreseeable future. IMF representatives are quoted as having said after October 10 elections that there will be some leeway in the final shape that the PRSP takes, and that the new government will not
    simply be forced to toe the military line. This claim fits in nicely with a history of meaningless rhetoric, especially since the interim-PRSP (I-PRSP) has already outlined a
    policy matrix detailing specific fiscal targets for the next three years.

    The I-PRSP also speaks of numerous other troubling plans, including that of corporate farming, extension of the mega water project syndrome, and further liberalization of the agricultural markets. There are already medium-term agreements that have been signed with the IFIs binding the government to implement such policies in the near future. The whole paradigm at work is intensifying. For example, there are more and more instances of hasty privatization taking place such as that of the United Bank Ltd. It would be unrealistic to think that the incoming government will have anything very radically different in mind. Pakistan’s PRSP is spiced with rhetoric about participation and inclusiveness. PRSPs are also being prepared by over seventy country governments that are debtors of the IMF and World Bank. In almost all cases, there is little evidence to suggest that there is anything in the way of a substantial shift away from the long-standing adjustment paradigm.

    In some ways it is shocking that this uniformity of approach has not been challenged in our political discourse. On the other hand, perhaps one should not be surprised at all given the manner in which our political process continues to be manipulated by external forces and self-centred elites within the country.

    But the question that must then be answered by the MMA, PPP and even the obeisant PML (Q) is how they will face up to the challenge of increased rich-poor polarization that is bound to ensue if this economic policy agenda remains unchanged. Remember that politicians and democracy itself have been dragged through the mud by the military and their political collaborators over the past three years. It will not take long for the people to start putting the blame on the politicians again when it becomes clear that higher foreign exchange reserves can not cover up the structural deficiencies of the economy. It is the establishment that continues to perpetuate economic inefficiency, disparities, rent-seeking, and corruption. People cannot support policies that legitimize these bad ractices and allow for more failure. The history of policy adjustments over the past two decades is a history of failure.

    Socio-economic disparities are the sign of a sick economy, and potentially of a very sick society. And the inability, or worse still, unwillingness, of those with the means to challenge such a situation is a definite indicator that the sickness is at an advanced stage. Because our sovereignty is now circumscribed by the political and economic interference of the US and the IFIs, there is even a greater need to understand the predicament.

    The fact that everyone seems to be ignoring is that the military’s ability to introduce sweeping amendments and ordinances to consolidate its role in politics in the name of policy and reform continuity is premised on the stamp of approval it gets for the economic policies prescribed by the IFIs and western governments. The interplay between Pakistan’s reinduction into the gentlemen’s club of global power politics and the close relationship between the military and the IFIs has be seen and understood in perspective. Political parties need to recognize the importance of resisting the dictates of the IFIs. They need to do so even if they are not particularly committed to the welfare of the Pakistani people. They need to do so because it will help their own cause.

    There is a major vacuum in the policy discourse within the country and in the world for that matter. If we choose to live with this, we are accepting the fact that decision-making about our lives is not in our hands. If and when the PRSP comes to the parliament and if and when the parliament has the time and inclination to focus on it – it is essential that he issues relating to our economic future be debated seriously. We are being carried along by the global tidal wave of neo-liberalism and if we do not take a stand on it now, we may lose whatever little grip we still have on our fate and future.

  3. Reailty of Syed Munawar Hassan, Jamat-e-Islami and Betrayal – Part 3:


    How did Ejazul Haq, son of the pious General Ziaul Haq, and Humayun Akhtar Rahman, son of the powerful General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, become tycoons overnight? The infamous “Mehrangate” should not be forgotten to know the antics of Pakistani politics. These are the politicians who are better called “make or break” the govt and that is happening even now.



    Former Director General (DG) of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General (Retd) Hameed Gul’s anti-American rhetoric in post-retirement phase makes headlines off and on in national news media. It is interesting that when he was DGISI, US ambassador attended the meetings of Afghan Cell of Benazir government. In fact the major decision of Jalalabad offensive in 1989 was made in one of those fateful meetings. To date there has been no evidence (no statement by any other participants of those meetings or by General Hameed Gul himself) that Mr. Gul made any objection to the presence of US ambassador in these meetings, which had wide ranging impact on national security. It is probable that Mr. Gul was at that time a top contender for the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) race, therefore he didn’t wanted to be on the wrong side of the civil government. When he was sacked, then he found the gospel truth that US was not sincere.Another example is of former Chief of Afghan Cell of ISI, Brigadier (Retd) Muhammad Yusuf. For five long years, he was a major participant in a joint CIA-ISI venture of unprecedented scale in Afghanistan.

    During this time period, he worked with several different levels US officials and visited CIA headquarters in Langley. In his post-retirement memoirs, he tried his best to distance himself from the Americans. His statements like, ‘Relations between the CIA and ourselves were always strained’, ‘I resorted to trying to avoid contact with the local CIA staff’, ‘I never visited the US embassy’ and vehement denial of any direct contact between CIA and Mujahideen shows his uncomfortability of being seen as close with the Americans.

    “Pakistan’s former foreign minister Agha Shahi in a conversation with Robert Wirsing said that in 1981 during negotiations with US, he gave a talk to a group of Pakistani generals on the objectives of Pakistan’s policy toward US. He stressed the importance of non-alignment and avoidance of over dependence on superpowers. Few days later one of the generals who attended Shahi’s briefing met him and told him that Americans should be given bases in return for the aid.

    “General Zia and DGISI Akhtar Abdur Rahman had very cordial relations with CIA director William Casey. To offset that uncomfortable closeness with Americans, Zia and Akhtar were portrayed as holy warriors of Islam and modern day Saladins. According to one close associate of Akhtar, ‘They (Casey and Akhtar) worked together in harmony, and in an atmosphere of mutual trust’. The most interesting remarks about the death of CIA Director, William Casey were made by Brigadier Yusuf. He states that, “It was a great blow to the Jehad when Casey died”. He did not elaborate whether by this efinition one should count Casey as Shaheed (warrior who dies in battle in the cause of Islam). It will quite be amusing for Americans to know that one of their former CIA director is actually a martyr of Islam.”


    In December 1979, when Soviet troops rolled in Afghanistan, President Carter unveiled his doctrine.The salient features of his doctrine included assembly of a Rapid Deployment Force (RDF), increased naval presence on Indian Ocean, a collective security framework in the region and a commitment to the defence of Pakistan by transfer of significant amount of weapons and dollars. Pakistan was under the military rule of General Zia. Zia shrewdly played his cards knowing that Carter was on his way out and he may get a better deal from the incoming Reagan, which proved right. Military again making all vital decisions of national security did not have the strategic vision. Zia in an interview taunted the Americans stating that, When you lost in Vietnam, you went home and cried. When the Soviets got kicked out of Egypt, they decided to go after Libya… Is America still the leader of the free world? In what respect? I hope it will soon restore its countervailing role, abandoned after Vietnam Rhetoric was the same as his predecessor martial ruler Ayub had used about two decades ago.

    Ayub had said in 1960, The English-speaking world ought to feel a special responsibility to assist Pakistan in attaining a reasonable posture of advancement. It is not just a claim. It is in fact the dictate of history. Both military rulers with their peculiar vulnerability were trying to get a short-term benefit of military assistance totally oblivious to the long-term consequences. The obsession of getting at least one state of the art piece of military equipment for psychological boost and to use as a symbol of US commitment in Pakistan to India took precedence over more complex and tricky issues. If F-16 fighter jets were asked in 80s as a price of Pakistani cooperation, in 1959, supersonic F-104 fighters were considered down payment for Badaber air force facility. In 1985 Pakistan gave its shopping list of military equipment. Pakistan’s priority must be to develop the necessary infrastructure in Balochistan and N.W.F.P…Together with raising an additional eight to ten divisions and the replacement of its obsolescent aircraft and tanks.32 One is reminded of the earlier shopping lists of Ayub Khan in 50s. In the beginning, Zia tried to get some legally binding agreement from US regarding Pakistani security but quickly abandoned the idea and settled for military aid only. US ambassador Arthur Hummel knowing the level of Pakistani leadership had firmly stood his ground. He later recalled, while they pushed the idea of a commitment on India and NATO type treaty, they knew very well they wouldnt get anything like that. They were genuinely concerned about provoking the Russians. Zia’s Foreign Minister Agha Shahi was aware of the limitations of US-Pakistan understanding but some of Zia’s hawkish generals had different views. They were not averse to the idea of providing bases to US. They were probably thinking that such direct commitment might prevent sudden abandonment of Pakistan at the time of serious crisis of national security. They had not learned from the experience of Badaber. In addition, they have not come to grips with the changed international defence scenario. The advanced satellite technology had made the aerial surveillance obsolete. Later as Vietnam and Somalia experience has shown that the decision of engagement and
    disengagement of US troops in any conflict area will be based on US national interest and not the interest of the client state.

    The biggest advantage, which Pakistan got during the relationship with US during the 80s, was effective and fast track acquisition of nuclear technology. The Reagan’s strong anti-Soviet policy overrode the concerns of non-proliferation lobby. In fact, US administration worked as a spokesperson for Pakistan as far as nuclear issue was concerned. They argued that by augmenting Pakistan’s conventional force strength, Pakistan might be dissuaded to give up nuclear option. Many efforts of non-proliferation
    groups in Washington were effectively thwarted by Reagan administration. They were also privately advising Zia government on how to keep low profile about tricky nuclear issue. On November 2, 1984, State Department’s nuclear specialist, Ambassador Richard Kennedy at a press briefing in Washington, D.C. said that, fears about Pakistan’s nuclear program are grossly exaggerated and Pakistan was still a long way from nuclear weapons capability.

    Kennedy expressed his full faith in Zia by stating that, we accept President Zia-ul-Haq’s categorical statement that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is devoted entirely to power generation. Foreign and defence relations have impact on domestic issues. Zia’s decision to hold elections in 1985 was not based only on domestic concerns. Upto 1983, Reagan administration have effectively kept the liberal, pro-democracy lobby away from Pakistan. Democrats started to assert themselves. In 1983, a bipartisan vote in Congress created National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was aimed at improving the human rights record and democratic record of countries receiving US aid. Potential complications in the absence of a some kind of democratic process in Pakistan were conveyed. In 1984, Dean Hinton was appointed ambassador to Islamabad. He had pushed for and played a key part in the holding of elections in El Salvador during his ambassadorial stint there.35 The non-party elections of 1985 were influenced by the international environment as much as the unrest of 1983 especially in rural Sindh. In 80s, when the ruling group was basking in the glory of unlimited gifts from around the world and flurry of foreign visitors (including military personnel, spies, arms dealers, journalists, academics, diplomats, aid workers), the myopic leadership never thought of a day when they will be running mad from one corner to another to try to avoid being declared as Rogue” and terrorist country. They failed to recognize the limitations of relationship between two unequal partners. They conveniently forgot that Kashmir and India were problems of Pakistan not of US and there will be very limited if any support by US on this issue.


    September 11 attacks in America changed General Musharraf’s government from an international pariah to a staunch ally overnight, deja vu of General Zia in 1979. The nature of crisis was quite different. It was crystal clear that US being directly hit are going to retaliate with massive force. The initial very angry but sometimes irresponsible statements by President Bush and his cabinet members genuinely created fear among the leaders of many smaller countries who may come in the line of fire. The nature and legitimacy crisis of Musharraf government meant that he alone would be making one of the most difficult decisions of Pakistan history. It is quite natural that there will be two opinions about the decision, one in favour and one against. The debate between doves and hawks is as old as human civilization. That discussion is now mainly academic. The most important thing now is the future discourse. It will be a dangerous folly by the government to keep pursuing a policy, which started around the events of September 11.
    Now that the initial US revenge heat is passed, there may be more room for maneuverability for Pakistan. There is no denying the plain fact that it is not only the extremist religious minority, which is against continued cooperation with US. There is a general consensus of population that close cooperation with US is not in the best national interest of Pakistan.


    A fair distance has to be maintained and in private, decision-makers at All levels should convey the point to US. Surely, US will exert pressure of various sorts to get maximum cooperation from Pakistan. There are some signs that US may be listening. Few months ago, statements from various military commanders were for hot pursuit of fleeing Taliban in Pakistan but now things seem quite on that point. Informed debate and public awareness about the potential difficulties of the policy should be encouraged. Public in general also have to grasp the fundamental fact that they cannot have everything and that there are limitations for Pakistan. Links with US, crisis in Afghanistan, increasing heat in Kashmir, stand off with India on borders and economic and internal stability is issues of grave concern For Pakistan’s overall security and cannot be tackled by rhetoric and ideological rattles.

    The first attempt should be to limit direct US armed forces personnel role on Pakistani soil. This is the single most important and most explosive factor, which can have wide ranging effect on internal situation of Pakistan. Recent events of faulty US intelligence in Waziristan agency should be taken seriously. At this point there is clearly a divergence of US and Pakistan’s priorities. US may be obsessed with the remnants of Taliban but that is not Pakistan’s major problem.

    The issue of fleeing Al-Qaeda suspects should also be seen in perspective. Such operations are not done with pomp and show. Effective human intelligence and small-scale surprise search operations with the help of locals is key. Use of local tribal and Pakistani paramilitary forces with minimum display and use of force should be the foundation of this policy. Lt. General Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai’s meetings with tribal elders from Waziristan are a move in right direction. If colonial masters like Herbert Edwards, Abbott and John Nicholson could achieve their objectives one hundred and fifty years ago, Pakistani military and bureaucratic officers should perform at least the same if not better (Corps Commander of Peshawar is Lt. General Muhammad Jan Orakzai, member of a tribe which resides in border area). In tribal areas, traditionally, local clan politics and money had played a much larger role than any lofty ideology.

    Everybody supports action against violent militant sectarian organizations but brushing everybody who sports beard or offers prayer regularly with the label of extremist will be counterproductive. People who differ with government policies have their right to express their opinion as long as it is not violent. This should be seen as a cushion against more extremist and violent backlash. Hot pursue of extremist Islamist elements has its cost to Pakistani society. Recent suicide attack in Karachi is an example of that. Response to such tactics has to be very careful and calculated looking at the long-term fall out for Pakistan and not on the advice of US. The knee jerk response of trying to get more foreign help to curb such activities may have exactly the opposite effect.


    It was pathetic to see that in the immediate aftermath of Karachi bombing several key government officials cried for foreign assistance. Sharing of information and intelligence gathering is one thing but having Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents roaming in Pakistani cities with local law enforcement agencies can have devastating effect on Pakistan in the long run, further polarizing and militarizing the society. Similarly, the routine rounding up of people belonging to different religious parties after each act of sabotage and few months later releasing them will not solve the problem. Improvement in human intelligence methods and patient work to narrow down to the suspicious small ring can help more to curb such outrages with minimal fallout. It will be very important for Pakistani policy makers to study Algerian and Egyptian dilemma. The vicious cycle of sabotage by extra-state pressure groups and state reprisals should at best be avoided. One should never forget that when the American bull leaves the china shop of the area, it is Pakistan who has to deal with all the broken glass.

    The lessons of policies of the last two decades in Afghanistan and Kashmir should not be forgotten so quickly. Nuclear capability of Pakistan is an area where Pakistani and US interests are different, in fact opposite. For Pakistan, nuclear capability is the life insurance for its security. For United States, it is exactly opposite. From US standpoint, Pakistan is a very unstable and vulnerable state with strong Islamist tendency. Presence of nuclear weapons in such a state is threat to US. national interest. In case of disintegration of central authority or coup by a rightist group, the weapons may pass into hands, which may not be friendly to US With this thought process at the high US policy making bodies and think tanks, it will not be surprising to find that US has a contingency
    plan for such a situation, that is to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear capability. This is a game of very high stakes and requires a very high degree of preparedness, a recognized chain of command and extremely innovative policy making on part of Pakistan. The acquisition of nuclear technology by Pakistan despite arm-twisting efforts by international community especially US also disproves the myth that smaller countries are totally dependent on the goodwill of a superpower to achieve its defence and security goals. A determined leadership (whether civilian or military) and a strong public pressure about the issue not allowing any compromise can achieve results which otherwise seem impossible. Innovative ideas and constant update with involvement of different segments of society is must as ground reality has dramatically changed and old formulas may not be applicable to rapidly changing security scenario. Now US war machine is right there in Pakistan’s backyard. Presence of US troops and military hardware in Afghanistan and acquisition of new bases in Central Asian Republics has changed the landscape dramatically. In addition, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have opened their doors to various ethnic and linguistic groups. Many Afghan-Americans and Pakistani-Americans are being recruited for human intelligence. Urdu, Persian and Pushtu speaking Americans from different communities are being hired to streamline the intelligence gathering.

    Another important area of difference between two countries is Kashmir issue. US is for status quo as far as Kashmir is concerned. Any attempt either by India or Pakistan to change the situation through force will be resisted by US. The events of last 10 years have proven that point. Intense diplomatic pressure on Pakistan when it surprised Indians
    at Kargil and pressurizing India to sack one of the Corps Commanders who moved troops too dangerously and current back channel moves to force India to cool off are all measures towards a status quo situation at least in short term. When Pakistan decided to support guerrillas in Kashmir, they did not learn from the mistakes of Afghanistan. Guerrilla warfare is one aspect of the struggle and the ultimate victory is political not military. Euphoric about the experience of Afghanistan and heavy religious tones of the freedom movement of Kashmir prevented Pakistani policy makers to seriously study other more successful guerrilla movements of the past. The classic example is Vietnam.

    After a sanguine war with the US and paying a devastating price of utter destruction by superior weaponry of US did not result in the mess which Afghanistan found itself after the departure of Soviets. The fundamental difference was that the ultimate leadership of Vietnamese struggle was political. Military operations were a crucial part but not the only instrument. In addition, the military operations were more in an organized form and not by independent mutually hostile militant groups. In Kashmir, just like in Afghanistan, a free for all training to a plethora of groups whose motives, intentions, aims and objectives were divergent with no hold bar approach resulted in much fragmentation of the struggle. In addition, apart from tying down a large segment of Indian security forces by a prolonged guerrilla operation, Pakistan didn’t have the phased plan of what to do next. No attention was paid to the already existing and newly emerging fault lines, which resulted in an effort, which was haphazard. Long drawn planning, looking at the military, international, diplomatic and economic aspect was not done. The most damaging effect of this lack of a strategic planning was repeated international embarrassment for Pakistan. As a general rule, military mind is averse to diplomatic maneuvers to achieve goals. Ill thought policies and behavior of key decision-makers severely compromised Pakistani stand.

    Few examples will prove this point. During Geneva negotiations according to the accords, all parties have to terminate assistance to their clients in Afghanistan. When US Defence Secretary Frank Carlucci asked Zia how he was going to tackle the issue, Zia replied, lie to them like I have been lying to them for the past ten years. Publicly, Pakistan has been denying any support to the Kashmiri guerrillas but in local and international press one sees all the evidence. The militant groups in their publications were giving all the details of the operations by Pakistani and other foreign fighters. Even high-ranking intelligence officials regularly visited the training camps. Similarly during the height of Kargil crisis, Pakistan was denying that none of its troops were involved in fighting while at the same time was awarding gallantry awards in dozens to the soldiers.

    If one cannot adequately camouflage the covert actions, then it is essential to come up with a better public posture option. Such policies only diminish the stature of the country, the result of which is that the enemy will not believe when even a genuine offer of reconciliation is made. More important than that is the fact that evens the friendly countries will keep a distance and will not endorse such embarrassing postures. When international environment changes, just like the present scene, it becomes very difficult to pursue these policies without the risk of being totally isolated. Since September 11, US is seeing Kashmir in a totally different light. Pakistani and US interests are totally divergent on this issue now. For Pakistan, Kashmir is the core issue to be resolved between India and Pakistan. US acknowledges that Kashmir is a source of potential conflict between two nuclear neighbours and needs to be addressed but the guerrilla groups with strong links to Islamist groups and presence of foreigners in their ranks are seen as a source of potential trouble in the area. As both India and Pakistan are stubborn on their point of view with no signs of flexibility, US will make sure that the guerrilla question be addressed first. Pakistan probably is and very soon will come under more pressure to break the link with guerrilla groups and decrease the tactical support of military operations of the groups in Indian held Kashmir. Pakistani policy makers have to think through about what to do next which can have both short and long-term consequences.

  4. Reailty of Syed Munawar Hassan, Jamat-e-Islami and Betrayal – Part 4:


    Pakistan’s ISI was used as a “go-between”. The CIA covert support to the “jihad” operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, –i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be “successful”, Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the “jihad”, which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union. In the words of CIA’s Milton Beardman “We didn’t train Arabs”. Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the “Afghan Arabs” had been imparted “with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA” 6 CIA’s Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Ousmane bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): “neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help”. 7 Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA. With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a “parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government”. 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and Intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. 9 Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

    ‘Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan’s military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia’s ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,’ During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984…. `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.’ Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.


    The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA’s covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. 11 In this regard, Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, “the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the World’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979… to 1.2 million by 1985 a much steeper rise than in any other nation”:12 CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin
    laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests … U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence
    there.’ In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn’t really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,’… `I don’t think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout…. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.


    In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World’s opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime.

    The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.14 With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 — coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics– reached a record high of 4600 metric tons.15 Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. The ISI’s extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic “jihad” out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus essentially “served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia.” 16. Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington’s strategic interests in the former Soviet Union. Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also “handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions…” 17 And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that “half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI” 18 In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan’s ISI. 19 In other words, backed by Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia. No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women’s rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of “the Sharia laws of punishment”. Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Ousmane bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI’s “most wanted list” as the World’s foremost terrorist.

    While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America’s war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI –operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has –since the Soviet-Afghan war– supported international terrorism through its covert operations. In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad –featured by the Bush Administration as “a threat to America”-is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organizations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity.


    Pakistan’s Agenda in Supporting the Afghan Mujahideen:

    “The United States intentionally groomed Pakistan, despite being aware of its client’s increasing radical Islamic orientation, as the leading regional power in Afghanistan. It was a myopic policy”.

    Beyond those common interests, Islamabad had its own separate reason for supporting the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan: Pakistan’s traditional national interest in maintaining a supportive regime in Kabul to provide Pakistan with strategic depth in its conflict with India. That interest was buttressed by the resentment of Zia’s Islamic supporters at home and in other Muslim countries (led by the Saudis) at the fact that the atheist Soviets had seized control of a neighboring Muslim state. Even under the Reagan Doctrine, who aimed at reversing Soviet gains around the world, the United States didn’t share those long-term Pakistani goals. However, Washington lacked a coherent approach of its own to a post-Soviet Afghanistan. The result was that Pakistan, led by Zia’s military-mosque nexus, with the ISI as one of its manifestations, was able to advance its parochial interests through cooperation with the United States, a power that was promoting a broader and somewhat blurry global agenda. While the two players could find a common strategic and ideological basis for cooperation in Afghanistan, Washington found itself falling into the trap of permitting the Pakistani “tail” to wag the American “dog.” (That scenario has occurred in other client state-superpower relationships, such as the ones between the United States and Israel and the Soviet Union and Cuba. The dangerous 1962 and 1973 showdowns between Washington and Moscow occurred as a result.) 30 In the case of the Pakistani-U.S. relationship, however, there were a long interval between the peak of U.S.-Pakistani cooperation and the manifestation of the dangerous outcome of the tail-wags-the-dog scenario.

    The latter transpired on September 11, 2001, 12 years after the Soviets had withdrawn from Afghanistan and at a time when the relationship between Washington and Islamabad had already waned. The outcome was not really a “blowback,” to use the term pundits frequently use to describe unintended consequences of certain policies. The United States intentionally groomed Pakistan, despite being aware of its client’s increasing radical Islamic orientation, as the leading regional power in Afghanistan. It was a myopic policy. The same militant anti-Western and antimodern environment, nourished by the Saudi-backed military-mosque nexus in Islamabad and its satellites in Afghanistan and elsewhere, was responsible for such barbaric acts as forcing religious minorities to wear distinctive badges and smashing ancient Buddhist monuments. It had already promoted terrorism against American citizens around the world. U.S. leaders should have taken that record into consideration. The Reagan Doctrine, which relied on local military powers to counter the Soviets, made it possible for the Pakistanis to become the dominant force in the anti-Soviet Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan and allowed them to support their favorite guerrilla groups through the ISI. The ISI also coordinated the flow of other foreign aid, including the recruitment of foreign Muslim volunteers and graduates of the local madrassas.31 All of that, of course, was instrumental in achieving the American goal of bogging down the Soviets in Afghanistan.
    But it also helped to strengthen the power of the ISI and the other elements of the destructive military-mosque nexus in Pakistan. One can argue that the “tail” started to wag the “dog” sometime in 1986 when there were clear indications that the Soviets wanted a face-saving formula for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    It was then that Zia, whose original stated goal was to reduce the threat of Soviet expansionism, started advancing a more ambitious agenda. “Victory by the resistance, he believed, could produce for the first time an Afghan regime genuinely friendly to Pakistan, which in turn could enable Pakistan to gain ‘strategic depth’ against India, long a goal of Pakistani Islamic planners,” according to Dennis Kux, a former U.S. diplomat who served in Pakistan. Zia also hoped that a new government in Kabul would “reflect his own Islamic leanings far more than any previous regime had, and far more than the Pakistani president had been able to impose on his own country.”

    The pressure to advance that ambitious agenda in Afghanistan, as well as to develop Pakistan’s nuclear military program, continued after Zia’s death and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The ISI and the military took the lead, aided by support from radical Muslim groups. That trend persisted despite frequent U.S. objections and some resistance from the civilian governments of Prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Islamabad’s efforts led, first, to the temporary control of Kabul by the Islamic radical leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and then to the 1994 victory of the Taliban, dominated by Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, whose members also control a large area across the border in Pakistan.

    The Taliban defeated a coalition of Uzbek, Tajik, and Hazara opponents (the Northern Alliance), which had ties to outside players, including Russia and Iran (and, to some extent, India and China). Alongside bin Laden, Pakistan was the main sponsor of the Taliban as it marched to Kabul.33

    Pakistan Backs the Taliban:

    “Despite denials by Musharraf and his aides, Pakistan’s ISI continued to provide military and financial assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan even after September 11, 2001.” Some experts and journalists have suggested that the Taliban and the terrorism that arose in Afghanistan occurred because the United States “neglected” and “turned its back” on Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War, which supposedly led to the chaos in that country. The fact is that the United States did make an effort to cobble together a united front following the Soviet withdrawal and did consider helping with economic reconstruction. But that effort failed largely because of deliberate interference on the part of the Pakistani intelligence establishment. There was a “Pakistani-instigated chaos, but the U.S. contribution to it was not central,” argues Afghanistan watcher Robert Kaplan. Out of the Pakistani-instigated chaos came the Taliban. “The problem has not been U.S. neglect but Pakistani interference, under both democratic and military regimes.” Why did the Pakistanis interfere in Afghanistan? “Because they require an Afghan puppet state to supply them with strategic depth for their conflict against India,” explains Kaplan.34 In retrospect, one can raise serious questions about aspects of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, especially the willingness to permit the Pakistani military and the ISI to control the assistance to the insurgents and the decision, under the pressure of cold warriors and a pro-mujahideen Congress, to continue funneling arms to the mujahideen even after the Soviet withdrawal.

    The American support through Islamabad tipped the balance of power in the Afghan civil war in favor of Pakistan and its allies among the Pashtuns, while weakening the military and political influence of other ethnic groups allied mostly with Iran, Russia, and some Muslim republics in Central Asia. But lack of support in Washington and abroad would have made it impossible for U.S. policymakers to work out a compromise solution with Russia and Iran and their allies in Afghanistan, and with Pakistan, to form perhaps a decentralized political structure with spheres of influence for each outside power.

    The only other alternatives would have been direct military intervention by the United States or permitting the Pakistanis to establish control over most of the country. The atter
    alternative, a Pax Pakistana in Afghanistan, became the policy by default.35 despite denials by Musharraf and his aides, Pakistan’s ISI continued to provide military and financial assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan even after September 11, 2001.36 Islamabad still regarded Afghanistan as a strategic ally and ideological associate.

    Afghan training camps and Afghan recruits helped to prepare the next Pakistani-instigated insurgency against the Indians in Kashmir and to spread radical Islamic ideas and institutions around the world, through “jihad-international” brigades, some of which were tied to the al-Quad network. It is doubtful that the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan and its policy of turning the country into the center of international terrorism could have occurred without the support of Pakistan. “We are fighting a jihad and this is the first Islamic international brigade in the modern era,” bragged Gen. Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI, to a journalist in 1999. “The communists have their international brigades, the West has NATO, why can’t the Muslims unite and form a common cause?”37 Two years later, members of that Pakistani backed jihad international hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of Americans and others. On December 13 other members of those brigades attacked India’s parliament in a plot to kill its leadership.

    Musharraf Pursues “Talibanization” with a Human Face:

    “Musharraf can be described as a new and improved Zia adapting an ambitious agenda to changing circumstances”.

    In a January 12, 2002, televised address to the Pakistani people, a confident Musharraf seemed to be taking more dramatic steps in the direction of once again aligning his country with the United States and the West, rejecting terrorism and theocracy, and criticizing those who “pervert” Islam to advance their interests. He announced the banning of five of the most radical Islamic groups and ordered hundreds of their members rounded up. Many of the madrassas were to be closed down or brought under government control, and other religious institutions, including mosques, would be monitored and warned not to promote terrorism. “The day of reckoning has come,” he announced. “Do we want Pakistan to become a theocratic state? Do we believe that religious education is enough for governance? Or do we want Pakistan to emerge as a progressive and dynamic Islamic state?” He added that radical Islamists “did nothing but contribute to bloodshed in Afghanistan,” leading to “disruption and sowing seeds of hatred.” And he asked, “Does Islam preach this?”

    This much-analyzed address was hailed by officials and commentators as an indication that, after reorienting his foreign policy toward the United States, Musharraf was now going to take dramatic steps to Westernize and secularize Pakistan à la Turkey. Indeed, several analysts went so far as to compare Musharraf to modern Turkey’s founder, Kemal Ataturk, 39 and to argue that his address “set a new course for the Muslim world.”But Musharraf is no Ataturk dedicated to demolishing the religious and expansionist foundations of the ancient regime and establishing a new nationalist and secular identity for his country.

    If anything, one can compare Musharraf to some of Turkey’s last Ottoman rulers, who tried to accommodate domestic and outside forces that aimed either to change the status quo or to secure the ambitious intertwining of the nationalist and religious goals of the empire. Indeed, Musharraf’s rise to power marked what can be regarded as the most recent attempt by members of the military-mosque nexus to preserve the achievements of Zia and his successors: veto power of the military, ideological supremacy of the radical Islamic groups, control of Afghanistan through the Taliban, mounting pressure on India in Kashmir, and development of a nuclear weapons capability. In that context, Musharraf can be described as a new and improved Zia adapting an ambitious agenda to changing circumstances.

    Starting in the early 1990s, there were indications that changes in the regional and global balance of power were threatening the achievements gained by the militarymosque exus. The power of OPEC had been eroded, weakening the economic and diplomatic status of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s benefactor and its top lobbyist in Washington. Worsening relations between Beijing and Washington made it difficult for Islamabad to accentuate Pakistan-China ties in bargaining with the United States. The strengthening of the human rights lobby in Congress produced growing criticism in Washington of the rising influence of anti-democratic and radical Islamic forces in Pakistan and, of course, its fundamentalist ally in Kabul.

    The preoccupation of the Clinton administration and Congress with enhancing the nuclear nonproliferation regime spurred new moves to punish Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons (as well as purchasing related technology from China). Pakistan’s support for the Muslim insurgents that attacked the town of Kargil in Kashmir in May 1999; Islamabad’s backing of the despicable Taliban regime, which Washington accused even then of harboring bin Laden’s terrorist network; 41 and Islamabad’s decision to detonate a nuclear bomb in May 1998 led to enormous U.S. pressure (in form of diplomatic and economic sanctions) on Pakistan. That, in turn, led to a reaction by Pakistan’s military-mosque nexus.

    The October 1999 military coup by Musharraf brought an end to the fragile democracy in
    Pakistan and strengthened the hands of the Taliban’s allies in Islamabad, including the ISI, the radical religious groups, and forces pushing for the expansion of ties with the jihad international, the “liberation” of Kashmir, and the acceleration of the nation’s nuclear program. The latter goal was the development of an “Islamic bomb” that would not only enhance Pakistan’s position vis-à-vis India and the United States but would also provide the Muslim world with an answer to the Western, Hindu, and Jewish (Israeli) bombs.42 According to U.S. sources, one of the major reasons Musharraf and the military decided to oust Sharif was “the fear that he might buckle to American policy and
    reverse Pakistan’s policy toward the Taliban.”43

    Musharraf and his allies were not calling for the “Talibanization” of Pakistan, but the policies they were advancing (either directly or through the use of political and military subsidiaries and “rogue” operations) were based on using the Taliban’s Afghanistan as both a strategic and an Islamic backyard, where training camps and arms depots could be used to promote the Pakistani-Islamic cause in Kashmir and around the world. According to recent news reports, that effort included cooperation between Pakistani nuclear scientists and the al-Qaeda network-although it is not certain whether Musharraf knew personally of that collaboration.44 There were no signs that Musharraf’s policy was strengthening Pakistan’s position in Washington in the months preceding September 11. President Clinton gave Musharraf’s regime a diplomatic cold shoulder; during a South Asia tour, Clinton spent five days in India and only five hours in Pakistan.45

    The new Bush administration continued the process of marginalizing Pakistan and establishing more solid ties with India, as part of a strategy to contain China and expand ties with India’s huge democracy and emerging market. All this occurred against the backdrop of growing U.S. tensions with radical Islam and Washington’s strengthening of ties with Israel and secular Turkey, which only helped to highlight Pakistan’s pariah status. There was no indication -strategic considerations, economic ties, ideological commitment, cultural bonds-that Washington needed to continue to maintain Pakistan as a client state. Conversely, Pakistan seemed to be losing its leverage over U.S. policy, a clear reversal of what occurred during Zia’s years. The relationship between America and
    Pakistan was being normalized. The dog was in control. In fact, the dog was discovering that it had no need to regularly wag that particular tail.

    The Pakistani Tail Tries to Wag the American Dog Again:

    “Pakistan was spreading terror to Kashmir; strengthening the Taliban, the world’s most anti-Western regime; and acquiring weapons of mass destruction”.

    Following September 11 and Washington’s pressure on Pakistan to back the United States in the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Musharraf and other Pakistani officials complained that the United States had “abandoned” them after the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989. “We were left high and dry, and it started to settle on the people that we were ditched,” Musharraf told an American group. That was an exaggeration. A clear U.S. realpolitik position, based on an accurate reading of U.S. interests at the time, should have led to adoption of a policy of “constructively disengaging” from Pakistan, while trying to advance in South Asia a new strategic agenda based on strengthening America’s ties with India. In that context, Pakistan, as a client state, should have been presented with a clear choice: adapt your policy to the goals of your American benefactor or end up paying the costs of your refusal-being truly “ditched” by Washington.

    Instead, Washington’s interests were sabotaged by an uncontrollable client state, ruled by a military dictatorship in the process of establishing a theocracy and mismanaging its corrupt economic system. That client state was spreading terror to Kashmir; strengthening the Taliban, the world’s most anti-Western regime; and acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Such developments pointed to a major dilemma that the United States faces when it has to manage its relationship with a client state in a unipolar international system. During the Cold War, the bipolar system produced systemic pressures on the two superpowers to restrain their respective client states. The United States and the Soviet Union sent signals to each other that helped to set diplomatic and military “red lines,” which forced each superpower to place restrictions on its client states. For example, the United States, facing Soviet pressure, stopped Israeli military advances in Egypt in 1973. Similarly, the Soviets, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, acceded to the pressure of the Kennedy administration.

    If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed in 1991, it is quite conceivable that it would have set similar “red lines” on U.S. support for the Pakistani-backed insurgents in Afghanistan, leading perhaps to the creation of a neutral regime in Kabul or to the division of the country into spheres of influence, which would have given Islamabad no choice but to abandon its grand strategic designs. In short, in a unipolar system, a client state may be able to exert more influence on its global benefactor in the short term and the midterm,
    Pakistan did for a while, creating conditions for the Taliban victory in Kabul. From this
    perspective, September 11 should have accelerated a process of marginalizing Pakistan.
    The Bush administration decided, not only to target Pakistan’s strategic and ideological ally in Kabul, but also to destroy the entire jihad-international network that Pakistan’s military-mosque nexus (in cooperation with its allies in Saudi Arabia) was nourishing. At the same time, the U.S. offensive against terrorism should have strengthened the hands of regional players that opposed Pakistan’s strategic goals and religious mission, including the Northern Alliance (fighting the Taliban) and Russia, the Central Asian republics, India, and Iran. Washington’s goal turned out to be the ouster of the Pakistan-backed government in Kabul and its replacement by a broad-based government that would be acceptable to those other powers as well as the United States.

    Ironically, that outcome was more or less what the Soviets had been pushing for after their withdrawal from Afghanistan-and the United States and its “ally,” Pakistan, had resisted. (Bin Laden and his associates would not have found a refuge in such a “neutral” Afghanistan.) After September 11, Pakistan seemed to be the big loser with no other choice but to accept that outcome. The alternative would have been to irrevocably alienate the United States, thus enabling India to formalize its position as the dominant power in the region and perhaps even provoking the Americans to give New Delhi a green or yellow light to unleash its military power on Pakistan (with only China balancing India).

    From a systemic perspective, September 11 helped to form a new balance of power, reestablishing the “red lines” that had disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet superpower and impelling Washington to restrain its Pakistani client state.

    Pakistan Invokes Frightening Specters:

    “Musharraf proved to be an opportunistic politician advancing his interests vis-à-vis the Americans as they took the first steps in their war on terrorism”.

    Hence, it is not surprising that Musharraf’s policies since September 11 have been aimed at resisting those pressures and at trying to maintain the status quo that had benefited Pakistan. Musharraf didn’t have at his disposal any assets that would help him to strengthen his leverage on U.S. policy, and he certainly had no military power to prevent the United States from attacking Afghanistan and using Pakistan’s airspace and territory to do so. His only remaining option was to warn the Americans that their interests could be damaged if they refused to accept his demands. He demonstrated his ability to advance that strategy by using various signals to threaten the Americans that unless they modified their goals in the war on terrorism, including the attack on Afghanistan, they would have to deal with two nightmare scenarios: (a) a political backlash from the angry “street” in Pakistan (and across the entire Muslim world) that would lead to the collapse of the “moderate” and “pro-Western” Musharraf and his replacement by a radical Islamic
    regime and (b) a Pakistani version of Israel’s “Samson Option,”in which a Pakistani regime, facing unacceptable pressures from the United States and India that threatened its
    core national interests and survival, would have no choice but to flex its nuclear military power, even if that led to a nuclear confrontation in South Asia.

    The latter nightmare scenario also suggested that if Musharraf resisted the pressure to threaten to use nuclear weapons, he would be ousted by in a coup by more radical Islamic elements in the military who would do so, or the country might collapse into a civil war with various competing warlords getting access to the nuclear arsenal. Some of it might even fall into the hands of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.At a minimum, Musharraf proved to be an opportunistic politician advancing his interests vis-à-vis the Americans as they took the first steps in their war on terrorism. He succeeded in exploiting the unrest in Pakistan and the terrorist acts by anti-Indian Muslim groups. The latter probably had some assistance from elements in the Pakistani military and political establishment (with some level of “deniability,” although the spin advanced by Musharraf and his supporters was that the ISI and some “cells” in the military were out of control and acting like “rogue” institutions). Moreover, the nuclear scenario seemed to be an outgrowth of the new Pakistani nuclear doctrine toward India that was adopted by Pakistan’s military-political leadership and based on pressuring Washington to tilt the regional balance of power back in favor of Pakistan.
    The Pakistanis needed to persuade Washington that any Indian attack, even a limited one, on Pakistan could turn into a major war, a notion that “intends to keep the Indians off balance and to keep the United States worrying that there will be a major war between the two nuclear-armed adversaries in South Asia if Washington does not stay India’s hand.” The Indians clearly have an advantage over Pakistan in conventional weapons; India has more than 1.3 million active-duty soldiers compared to barely 600,000 in Pakistan, and India also has more than a two-to-one advantage in combat aircraft as well as more tanks, artillery, and ships.50

    Since India could defeat Pakistan in any conventional war, Pakistan’s threat to use nuclear weapons (again, similar to some extent to the Israeli “Samson Option”) was intended to send the message to the Indians and the Americans that once a conflict starts it is difficult to confine it. Moreover, while the Indians might try to confine the conflict to a conventional war, “it is the other side’s decision about how to respond” that will determine the final outcome.

    Musharraf Fails to Achieve His Goal:

    “Islamabad advocated only weakening the regime and destroying al-Qaeda while leaving in place “moderate” Taliban forces.”

    Muharraf’s strategy of resisting the U.S. policy (backed by Russia and India) aimed at bringing an end to the Pakistani-supported power arrangements in Afghanistan seemed to be producing some results in the early stages of the U.S. military effort. The Bush administration initially responded positively to Islamabad’s calls for using diplomatic means to capture bin Laden and his associates. Even after the United States attacked Afghanistan, reports from Washington reflected a willingness to suspend military operations during the holy month of Ramadan and devise restrictive war aims in Afghanistan based on Pakistan’s insistence on not eliminating the Taliban presence. Islamabad advocated only weakening the regime and destroying al-Qaeda while leaving in place “moderate” Taliban forces, consisting of “defectors” from the movement, that would play a role in a new postwar government in Kabul.It seemed as though U.S. officials were once again permitting the Pakistani tail to wag the American dog. Washington flirted with permitting a government that was indirectly responsible for the terrorism inflicted on America to impose a veto power on U.S. decisions, thereby ensuring that Pakistan would not end up with a regime in Kabul dominated by the unfriendly Northern Alliance. But the Bush administration decided to continue pursuing the war during Ramadan and gave a green light to Northern Alliance forces to move toward Kabul. Musharraf again tried to reduce his losses by demanding that Kabul be “demilitarized” and that the Northern Alliance forces “must not” hold it.53

    Moreover, as revealed in reports in the New York Times and elsewhere (including Seymour Hersh’s exposé in the New Yorker), Islamabad continued to provide help to the
    Taliban forces fighting against the United States and its allies in Afghanistan. U.S. officials admitted that “one month after the Pakistan government agreed to end its support of the Taliban, its intelligence agency was still providing safe passage for weapons and ammunition to arm them.”54 According to those reports, hundreds of Pakistani military officers and ISI agents provided support to the Taliban forces and helped to evacuate 5,000 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Many of them were airlifted out of the northern Afghan city of Kunduz just before it fell to the Northern Alliance.55 At the same time, contrary to the nightmare scenarios floated
    by Musharraf, the Pakistani “street” did not erupt following the defeat of the Taliban, and there were no indications that Musharraf’s hold on power was in danger.

    So much for his implied threats of a potential “radical implosion” of Pakistan.After failing in that rearguard effort to preserve Pakistan’s dominant influence in Afghanistan and prevent the elimination of Islamabad’s Taliban ally, the Pakistanis next turned to securing their interests vis-à-vis India. Even if one doesn’t accept Indian allegations that some of the al-Qaeda fighters evacuated from Afghanistan by the Pakistanis were infiltrated into Kashmir, or that Pakistani agents assisted the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament, there is no doubt that a lack of response by India to the continued terrorism in Kashmir and the attack in New Delhi would have been perceived as a major blow to Indian national security interests and as a victory for Pakistan. It certainly would have created the impression that U.S. diplomatic pressure, driven by considerations of Pakistani concerns, had made it impossible for the Indians to react to a terrorist attack in New Delhi in the same way that the United States responded to similar attacks in New York and Washington. In short, by threatening a nuclear escalation, Islamabad was pressing Washington to veto possible Indian military action against Pakistan.


  5. Reailty of Syed Munawar Hassan, Jamat-e-Islami and Betrayal – Part 5:

    Strange Islam Pakistani Mullah practice because a
    clause in Hasba Bill completely absolve The Pakistan Army and several other agencies out of the ambit of so-called Hasba Bill, to do whatever they like. The authors of this Black Law want to snoop around the common man and dictate as to how one should live his
    life even in his bathroom but strange isnt it that Hasba’s author did not dare to even mention Army in their Bill. If that was not enough the so-called Liberators of Muslim Ummah i.e. MMA particularly the Jamat-e-Islami leader have met with a Powerful US Lawmaker Senator Joseph Biden to help enforce the Hasba Bill. These Mullah are so shameless that on one hand they talk againt West, Secularism, Liberalism and on the other hand they cross all the barriers and go
    the USA to get the clearance for this Black and
    Pro-Taliban and Pro-Dark Ages Hasba Bill.

    Top MMA Leader Tries to Convince Pentagon, NSC on
    Hardline Islamic Law

    Special SAT Report

    WASHINGTON, July 19: As the guest of a Christian
    organization which calls itself “a Think Tank with Legs”, the Chief Minister of Pakistan’s North-western Province, NWFP, Akram Khan Durrani, has used the legs of the think tank to reach the Pentagon and Washington’s thinking elite.

    And the Opposition religious coalition, Muttahida
    Majlis Amal (MMA), leader has been preaching the US decision-makers a word or two about the controversial Hasba Act, the recently passed law which, critics say, means Talibanization of Pakistan. It is being introduced by the Provincial Government to appeal to its conservative constituency in the backward province before the Local Government elections later this month.

    It is the Law against which the Federal Government of General Pervez Musharraf has petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan claiming it was against the Constitution and should be declared null and void. The
    MMA says it will contest forcibly in the SC.

    “Yes I visited the Pentagon and gave them a copy of the Hasba Act,” Durrani (above) told the South Asia Tribune on Saturday night, explaining that it was not at all odd that he was trying to convince Washington that the Act was not meant to Talibanize the Pakistani society.

    Durrani has been in Washington from July 9-19 as guest of Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) which, according to its web site, was “created to develop sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide, and to inspire and equip emerging leaders with faith-based methodologies of engagement.”

    Founded by Robert A. Seiple, the first-ever US
    Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious
    Freedom, “IGE uniquely combines strategic analysis with an operational component that seeks solutions to complex political and religious problems in difficult parts of the world.”

    “In this age of widespread religious conflict,
    pluralism, and change, finding such solutions requires a deep understanding of geopolitical realities as well as an approach that is “shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves,” the web site of IGE says.

    To meet this challenge, IGE partners with governments, religious organizations, scholars, practitioners, and international advocacy groups to take on innovative projects that strike at the root of religious intolerance and educate emerging leaders to take religion seriously in their consideration of international affairs.

    “We’re a “think tank with legs,” or if you’re feeling less poetic, a “think-and-do-tank.” What does that mean? We recognize that thinking is simply our initial step. We’re also committed to praying and acting on the basis of our thought and research,” the IGE web site explains.

    Chief Minister Durrani has been in Washington with his three sons, one Principal Officer and an Interpreter, all hosted by IGE for 11 days in the US capital and New York. “I had a wonderful trip, my children also saw America and we had good meetings with National Security Council and Pentagon officials. I gave every one a copy of the Hasba Act,” Durrani told the South Asia Tribune.

    The religious leader from the radically Islamized
    province has been trying in all his meetings to
    convince the Americans that his party was not as
    radical as perceived and they could do business with the Americans on the same terms as any one else.

    But as a slip of his tongue in one of the TV
    interviews, Durrani claimed that after he explained the provisions of the Hasba Act to Pentagon officials, they almost approved it and gave a green light to go ahead. But he quickly stopped making the remark to other media channels and when he was specifically
    asked by South Asia Tribune whether he was able to convince the Pentagon, he was non-committal and said it was for Pentagon to give their opinion.

    He was asked whether the Hasba Act, now in the Supreme Court of Pakistan after it was challenged by the Federal Government as violative of the Constitution, would still be pursued if the Court ruled against the
    MMA, and whether MMA would accept the Court decision, Durrani was a little uncomfortable answering the question saying “Let us think positively as our legal brains have studied the Act in detail and they can successfully argue that it does not come into conflict with the Constitution.”

    Durrani was, however, almost sure after his round of meetings with think tanks and NSC/Pentagon officials in Washington that his Government in NWFP would not be dismissed by General Musharraf because of the Hasba

    “I did say that we will wreak havoc if Governor’s Rule was imposed, but I am sure that stage would never be reached as we have worked with the Center on many sensitive issues in the past and reached a mutually acceptable solution,” he said.

    But Durrani could not convincingly respond to the
    question that by bringing up the Hasba issue at this stage, the Opposition MMA had actually played into the hands of the Musharraf Government and diverted the focus of national politics from the up-coming unity talks and a possible alliance between the MMA, PPP and
    PML-N on the more basic issue of getting rid of a
    military dictator.

    “We are talking to the Opposition parties for a joint struggle at the Federal level but provinces can legislate and opposition to local laws does not mean we would stop talking to each other at all levels,” he said.

    Yet the fact is that MMA has hijacked the national agenda by introducing and passing the Hasba Act in a hurry which prompted other major parties including PPP to sharply attack the MMA and condemn it. No one would have been happier than General Musharraf with this political move.

    And MMA itself is almost in a win-win situation
    because if the Hasba Act is enforced, they will have a new Islamic Police at their command which can ultimately be used politically against the Center and other political opponents.

    On the other hand, if the Act is not allowed by the Supreme Court or if the NWFP Assembly is dismissed, MMA would emerge as “martyrs of Islam” and would be able to recruit more supporters for its hardline policies.

    As per Newsreports in national dailies and GEO TV’s programs which carried news and programs regarding Chief Minister NWFP [Pakistan] Akram Khan Durrani’s [member of Religious Parties Alliance] US Visit where he met senior policy advisor on South Asia Jonah Blank and Senator Sanatorium at Capital Hill. Earlier,
    Mr Durrani met Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Peter Floury at Pentagon where he visited various sections. During his meetings with US authorities, Mr Durrani explained policies of the MMA government. Addressing members of Brooking Institution
    [According to Mullahs this institute is Zionist in nature], he said that a government of the people was in place in the NWFP. He said that common man had easy access to MMA government and minorities and women were being given special care.

    Since last many decades these numskulls Mullah declare anybody an agent of Zionists, USA, and CIA, if he/she belongs to MQM, PPP, PML-N and they since 9/11 declaring Musharraf and Co an agents of Zionists, I wonder what was in the mind of Pro Taliban Mullah Chief Minister NWFP when he was ‘briefing’ the brains and strategists in the US Defence department which as
    per a news article overwhelmingly Zionist. Recently these MMA cutthroats [provincial minister of MMA] in a GEO TV Talk show have openly declared that PPP and their members have temperd and altered the interpretation Quran, whereas the MMA Central recently joined and attended PPP-PML-N /ARD [Alliance for
    Restoration of Democracy] meeting for Local Bodies Election, strange Islam these MMA Mullahs practice.

    Look at the crowd below who are sitting in US Defence Department and these Mullahs were briefing them on Hasba Bill and Islam. If PPP, PML-N AND MQM are hypocrites [Munafiqeen] for being Secular then where has gone the Islam of Mullahs and MMA.

    The Israeli lobby has many “thinktanks” that provide future advisors to the various administrations, both Republican and Democrat. During the Clinton Administration, the Israeli lobby provided officials from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy like Martin Indyk. During the Bush Jr Administration,
    many of the officials the Israeli lobby provided are from their Republican “thinktanks,” like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

    1). Richard Perle—-One of Bush’s foreign policy
    advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970’s after the National Security Agency (NSA)
    caught him passing Highly-Classified (National
    Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.

    2). Paul Wolfowitz—-Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.

    3). Douglas Feith—-Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close
    associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

    4). Edward Luttwak—-Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an
    Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his
    articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war
    against Iraq.

    5). Henry Kissinger—–One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger’s evil past, read Seymour Hersch’s book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos),
    Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor’s mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia’s Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic’s Advisor. He consistently advocates going
    to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It’s like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal.

    6). Dov Zakheim—-Under Secretary of Defense,
    Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

    7). Kenneth Adelman—–One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or stupidity, he
    actually called Arabs “anti-Semitic” on Fox News
    (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

    8). I. Lewis Libby —–Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff. The chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Mark Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his
    last days as president.

    9). Robert Satloff—-U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

    10). Elliott Abrams—–National Security Council
    Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based
    “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively
    deceived three congressional committees about his
    involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews
    in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.

    11). Marc Grossman—–Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

    12). Richard Haass—–Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He
    was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the
    Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

    13). Robert Zoellick—–U.S. Trade representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq.

    14). Ari Fleischer—-Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch
    Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very
    extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

    15). James Schlesinger—–One of many Pentagon
    Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s
    Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another
    extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

    16). David Frum—–White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumps together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

    17). Joshua Bolten—-White House Deputy Chief of
    Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former
    legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish

    18). John Bolton—-Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear
    program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).

    19). David Wurmser—-Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East
    Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

    20). Eliot Cohen—–Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

    21). Mel Sembler—–President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those
    with financial problems.

    22). Michael Chertoff —-Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department.

    23). Steve Goldsmith—-Senior Advisor to the
    President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also serves as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President.
    He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

    24). Adam Goldman—–White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

    25). Joseph Gildenhorn—–Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

    26). Christopher Gersten—–Principal Deputy
    Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary, Linda Chavez, and reportedly very pro-Israel. Their children are being raised Jewish.

    27). Mark Weinberger—–Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy.

    28). Samuel Bodman—–Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

    29). Bonnie Cohen—–Under Secretary of State for Management.

    30). Ruth Davis—–Director of Foreign Service
    Institute, who reports to the Office of Under
    Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

    31). Lincoln Bloomfield—–Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

    32). Jay Lefkowitz—–General Counsel of the Office of Budget and Management.

    33). Ken Melman—–White House Political Director.

    34). Brad Blakeman——White House Director of


    Durrani meets US senator Bureau Report

    July 16, 2005 Saturday Jumadi-us-Sani 8, 1426

    Zionist Influence On The US War Machine

  6. Munawar Hassan is fascist thug.
    Jamate Islami murdered 3 million East Pakistanis, and 3 million Pakhtoons.
    Murda bad Mudaudi fastiyat
    Murdabad Munawar hassan and other murderers of Pakistani workers and revolutionaries

  7. Jamate Islami murdered 3 million East Pakistanis [Shaheryar Ali]

    Dear Shaheryar Sahab,

    Where was Munawar Sleeping when Mawdudi's son was revealing truth about the Jamat-e-Islami.

    'MMA was created by ISI' RECORDER REPORT [Courtesy Business Recorder 2005]

    MULTAN (February 16 2005): Farooq Maudoodi son of founder of Jamaat-i-Islami, late Abul Aala Maudoodi, has said that Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) had been created by ISI and it is a part and parcel of the military government and cannot part ways with President Pervez Musharraf. Talking to a group of journalists here on Tuesday he said: “Qazi Hussain Ahmed met the then ISI chief, General Ehsan-ul-Haq, then called on General Pervez Musharraf and later met US ambassador, then flew to United States. As soon as he returned, MMA was formed like IJI (Islami jamhoori Ittehad).”

    He said that IJI was organised by ISI and funds were also provided by it on the assurance of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who had also played a key role in IJI. “Now he is playing major role in MMA.”

    Bitterly criticising the MMA, Farooq said that the role of MMA is evidence of its loyalties with military regime. It had approved the 17th constitutional amendment which is in favour of the present regime.

    He said: “Where has the MMA movement gone while its leadership is claiming that it would continue till the achievement of objective of 'Uniform'?”

    Farooq said that Benazir knew very well about MMA and she had some reservations about it. He said that ISI has complete record of MMA leaders and they cannot escape. He said that politics ended in 1958 when Ayub imposed martial law. He said that plundering of evacuee trust property (Auqaf) and politics of clerics destroyed the politics of the country.

    Regarding deletion of column of 'religion' from Passport, he said that it was a good step and Ulema should have welcomed it but they made it part of their agitation to hoodwink the innocent Muslims.

    Farooq said that some bad things were added in the constitution by Zia-ul-Haq, which must be excluded, which had bred many ills.

  8. secular_pakistani said:

    The easiest way to commit a crime in Pakistan is to do it in the name of Islam.

    Grow a beard, speak against America, shout Allah-o-Akbar and then do what you like.

    Not only will you be successful in your endeavour, you will also be considered a hero by more than half the population and by self-styled intellectuals showing up daily on this tv channel or that.