Category — Pak Media Comments

(New Holland, 208pp, £9.99, ISBN 9781847734532)
Book Review in Times Higher education. UK

Reviewer: Farzana Shaikh
Associate Fellow, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London

It has become fashionable among Pakistan’s beleaguered liberal classes to try to dilute the influence of a heavily Islamised state narrative by promoting an alternative vision. Invoking the pre-Islamic history of the country’s ethnically diverse regions, it summons the idea of a Pakistani “nation” whose defining feature is not so much a shared religion – Islam – but the collective culture of communities long settled in the valleys of the River Indus.

This attempt to recast Pakistan as an “Indus Valley nation” has two objectives. The first is to settle the question of Pakistan’s national identity by identifying its “local” roots. By so doing, Pakistan appears as a nation that is heir to a distinct Indus Valley civilisation, whose appropriation of Islam is judged merely to highlight that which separated it from the predominantly Hindu societies of the Gangetic plains – differences formalised in 1947.

The second objective is to promote Pakistan as a “composite project” embraced by all communities indigenous to the Indus region without regard to their religion, race or ethnic background. The agenda is to widen the space for a more liberal-democratic and pluralist discourse in Pakistan than that allowed for by a state exclusively dedicated to Islam.

These themes find a strong echo in Iftikhar Malik’s analysis of Pakistan’s troubled engagement with issues of identity, democracy and pluralism since 9/11. Reflecting on the travails of this “modern nation in an ancient land”, he concludes that, notwithstanding significant odds, there are still some residual opportunities for “democracy, dialogue and distributive justice”. He points to feudal dynasties such as those of the Bhuttos, who were long accustomed to exercising seigneurial rights but have been forced to bow to the ballot box; to authoritarian military regimes, which have been obliged to surrender to the rule of law; and to medieval-minded religious extremists, who have been effectively contained by a nascent middle class committed to progress and tolerance.

Nevertheless, these tensions have taken a heavy toll. A widening Islamist insurgency, broken institutions, an ever-ambitious military and a virtually paralysed economy threaten the country. Their causes are complex, yet for Malik (as for most Pakistanis), the fault lies chiefly with foreign powers, notably the US and India. Their nefarious role looms large in his account of the spread of Islamic extremism in Pakistan, of the country’s failed experiments with democracy, and of the iron grip of its dominant military. Even the crisis triggered in 1971 by the secession of the country’s eastern province (East Pakistan), which led Pakistan to adopt a sharper Islamic profile, is blamed on others, namely India, for “push(ing) the Indus Valley nation into seeking greater commonality with West Asia and other Muslim states”.

This temptation to portray Pakistan as a victim whose history has been made and mangled by others is unfortunate, as it obscures what is otherwise a thoughtful exploration of this country and its many misfortunes. For Pakistan did make choices – choices that have left it today hopelessly vulnerable to the influence of foreign powers and their ideas. By choosing not to clarify its key relationship with Islam, the state fell prey to the tides of political Islam, whose roots lay beyond its borders. Equally, by choosing to elevate the cause of Kashmir above the welfare of its own citizens and pitting them in a futile conflict with India, Pakistan invited foreign interference. These facts, unpalatable though they are, need to be addressed if we are to move towards an intellectually honest interpretation of a country that demands to be better understood. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411636&c=2

LAHORE: Intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence have presented an investigation report to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani regarding an audiotape of the telephonic conversation between TV anchor Hamid Mir and an unidentified Taliban militant, a private TV channel reported on Wednesday.
Quoting reliable sources, the channel said the report submitted by three intelligence agencies confirmed the authenticity of the audio clip after a detailed investigation.
Original: “The conversation between Hamid Mir and the Taliban militant is original and has been proved by the audiotape,” the report said.
Mir is currently working as Islamabad Executive Editor for Geo News channel.
According to BBC Urdu, the Jang Group has set up an investigation committee and has announced the conducting of an impartial investigation in this regard.
A large number of websites carry the contents of the audiotape, describing it a candid conversation on the telephone between Hamid Mir and a militant.
Mir, who finds himself in the midst of a raging debate on the issue of journalistic ethics, has described the taped conversation “doctored” and “concocted”.
Separately, Senator Faisal Raza Abidi said the government had verified the authenticity of the voices on the audio tape from intelligence agencies. He said the audio clipping proved Hamid Mir’s links with the Taliban.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\20\story_20-5-2010_pg1_6

Osama Khalid to lodge FIR against Hamid Mir
LAHORE: Osama Khalid, son of former Inter-Services Intelligence official Khalid Khawaja who was murdered by relatively less-known terrorist group the Asian Tigers on April 23, has said that he will take legal action and register an FIR against Geo News anchor Hamid Mir over what he called “playing an instigative role in his father’s murder”, a private TV channel reported on Wednesday.
Talking to the BBC Urdu, Khalid said the unidentified Taliban in the audiotape was Usman Punjabi who used an alias of Muhammad Omar while talking to various journalists.
Mir, who is in the midst of a raging debate on journalistic ethics, called the taped conversation “doctored”.
Original: Osama rejected Mir’s claims, saying the audiotape was original and he would prove it in court.
“Hamid Mir instigated the militants to murder my father,” he said, adding he would soon register a case against Mir for murdering his father.
He also requested the Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to take suo motu notice of the incident.
Kicking: Osama also demanded a judicial inquiry into the matter, and asked journalists to kick the “black sheep” out of the profession.
The audio clip had Mir divulging dirt on Khawaja, ostensibly to the Taliban militant who was to cross examine the former ISI official.
The person on the other end asks Mir for information on Khalid Khawaja. Mir goes on to link Khawaja to the CIA, an international network of Qadianis and an American named Mansur Ejaz. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\20\story_20-5-2010_pg7_20

ISLAMABAD: The ripples caused by the emergence of an audio tape on the web last week of an alleged telephone conversation between a prominent Pakistani journalist and a Pakistani Taliban militant has blown into a full-fledged controversy, with the journalist and television anchor now completely denying his involvement and many others calling for a high-level investigation to establish truth.

Hamid Mir, who finds himself in the midst of a raging debate on the issue of journalistic ethics, has moved a step further from describing the taped conversation as doctored or concocted to completely denying that it was his voice. And for all this he is blaming the country’s top civilian intelligence service, the Intelligence Bureau Directorate which, according to him, was part of a larger game to malign him and a few others.

Shocking as it is, the telephone conversation revolves round the alleged dubious role of an Islamic hardliner and former ISI operative Khalid Khwaja, and that too when he was still in the captivity of a little known militant group Asian Tigers. The man posing himself to be Hamid Mir is heard accusing Khalid Khwaja of being a notorious double agent, who had been working for everyone from the American CIA to Qadianis, and having played a dirty role in the Lal Masjid episode.

The large number of websites where this audio tape is currently available describe it as a candid conversation on telephone between Hamid Mir and a Punjabi Taliban. Some have gone to the extent of accusing Mr Mir to be one of the instigators for what happened to Khalid Khwaja, as within days of this supposed conversation a video of Mr Khwaja was released in which he had made similar “confessions” of his involvement in the Lal Masjid saga, and of working for CIA. Within days of this video tape, Mr Khwaja was shot dead and his body was thrown on a road in North Waziristan.

However, Hamid Mir says he neither has anything to do with such a conversation, nor he can even think of getting involved in such an affair. He has also denied the content of a statement, purported to have been issued by the Taliban, who denied this telephone conversation but at the same time blamed the telephone company PTCL for illegally recording telephones of its subscribers.

In fact, talking to Dawn in his office on Tuesday Hamid Mir claimed that the entire tape recording and its uploading on the website was the work of IB and that too at the behest of President Zardari and the government to malign him as, according to him, he has been a bitter critic of President Zardari and others in his programmes.

Mr Mir claimed that the IB had used a special gadget through which they could change the voices. “They took my voice sample and changed it to look my voice through the special gadget,” he said. He warned that more such tapes involving some other journalists and politicians would surface in near future.

Mr Mir further claimed that he had been informed about this purported tape before time by Interior Minister Rehman Malik. “The interior minister took me to his Parliament House chamber on Thursday and told me that an audio tape had been prepared to implicate me in some terrorism-related issue,” he said, adding the minister also told him that his life was in danger. “The minister even advised me to keep some guards with me,” he said.

Mr Mir claimed that the audio tape was first released on a blog being run by some people belonging to the ruling PPP.

In the tape, Mr Mir is purportedly heard asking an unknown Taliban member to interrogate Khalid Khwaja over his links with the CIA and his role in the Lal Masjid siege. The journalist also narrates some incidents to prove that Khalid Khwaja was a CIA agent. In the conversation, Mr Mir tells the unknown person that Khalid Khwaja had arranged his meeting with an alleged CIA man Mansoor Ijaz in Islamabad. Similarly, Mr Mir has also narrated an incident as to how on the request of Khalid Khwaja he arranged a meeting of the widow of an alleged Al Qaeda man, Abdul Rehman ‘al-Kennedy’, with her son in the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) in Rawalpindi, and that later it was revealed that the woman was a Canadian national and also a CIA agent.

When asked about the contents of the controversial tape, Mr Mir said that in the recent past he had talked about Khalid Khwaja in detail on telephone only with an office-bearer of the PPP. He, however, denied that he had had any meeting with Mansoor Ijaz in Pakistan. He, however, confirmed the other part of the tape and admitted that he had “arranged a meeting of a woman with her son at the CMH on the request of Khalid Khwaja.” But, he said, later he came to know that one of the sons of the woman living in the US was working for the CIA and not that woman as claimed in the audio tape.

Mr Mir said he had met Mansoor Ijaz only once in New York in 1995 where he had gone as part of the delegation of the then prime minister Benazir Bhutto. “Mansoor Ijaz had come to see Ms Bhutto, but instead he met Asif Zardari,” he said.

When contacted, president of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) Pervez Shaukat refused to comment on the issue, saying they would come out with some statement in the next few days after holding consultations with other office-bearers.

Legal Notice

Meanwhile, Hamid Mir has served a legal notice on Publisher of Daily Times Salman Taseer who also happens to be the Governor of Punjab, Editor Rashid Rehman and Staff Reporter and Chief Executive Officer Business Plus Mian Ehsanul Haq demanding to pay general damages of Rs250 million as a compensation for allegedly damaging his reputation, along with a written apology within 14 days that should also be published in the newspaper in a similar manner and prominence as the alleged defamatory report was published.

“Our client vehemently denies the conversation made in the alleged communication as fabricated and concocted one,” the legal notice served by Advocate Assad Ullah Jaral on behalf of Hamid Mir said for publishing, what he claimed to be a libellous report titled: “Hamid Mir’s terrifying indiscretions,” along with transcript of alleged communication in the newspaper on May 10, 2010.

Besides on May 17, 2010, a private channel Business Plus also aired the same ‘negative propaganda’ against Mr Mir, the notice said, adding the act of defamation in the television programme and news bulletin was deliberate.http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/anchor-claims-damning-tape-doctored-950

VIOLENCE on university campuses may be an age-old phenomenon in Pakistan but of late it seems to be taking place with disturbing regularity. Much of the violence has centred on universities in Punjab, though other campuses elsewhere have not been immune. The Islami Jamiat Tulaba has drawn plenty of flak — and rightly so — for its strong-arm tactics on campus. Yet it is only one among many student groups responsible for disturbing campus life and further degrading the moribund academic standards in our universities. Matters are aggravated and become more worrisome when members of the faculty or university administration get involved in student politics or try to settle scores by backing opposing student organisations.

A tussle among faculty members at Bahawalpur’s Islamia University appears to be one of the factors that triggered violence between two student groups in February. The brawl between a group with religious affiliations and another student outfit left several people injured and caused considerable damage to university property. Though the bad blood between the two groups may have stemmed from a desire to dominate campus life, the university administration claims that one of the outfits was provoked into violence by elements within the faculty. Due to the violence many of the students involved have been fined while others have been expelled. The engineering college has been closed since the clash and attempts to restart academic activities have been unsuccessful.

The case illustrates the intensity of the blow that is dealt to education when violence erupts on campus. In the present situation, it will be difficult for many students to make up for the precious academic time that has been lost due to the university’s closure. No doubt, students and teachers have every right to air their grievances. But this must be done in a peaceful manner. Meanwhile, firearms on campus and the presence of outsiders in university hostels — believed to be the case in Islamia University — must not be tolerated. The university administration must ensure that only students have access to hostels while the elimination of weapons from the nation’s campuses will greatly improve the academic environment. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/campus-battlegrounds-850

SOMEHOW for all the signs that there could be no escape from implementing the NRO verdict, the government keeps prevaricating. The Prime Minister who, being the chief executive is duty bound to ensure that the court orders are carried out, is the main government functionary trying to find grounds for the futility of doing so. Speaking to the office-bearers of the Lahore Press Club, who called on him on Sunday, he seemed to advise the Supreme Court to summon the NRO architect, meaning thereby General Musharraf, without realising that the judgement already puts him in the dock for transgressing the limits of Article 6 of the Constitution. It would be interesting to recall that it was the PPP government that sent him abroad after giving him a grand guard of honour.
Mr Gilani had better ask his Law Minister to approach the apex court to summon Musharraf before it. He should also keep in mind that the beneficiaries of the bad law cannot be left out of the loop of accountability. Besides, as Mr Gilani himself stated, outside forces were behind the shameful NRO deal i.e. the Americans, British and some of our friends in the Gulf and that also makes them architects. He would have to spell out how to deal with them.
The Prime Minister told the LPC members that the Federal Law Minister would explain the government position to the Supreme Court. Mr Babar Awan has been known to the world for making the angriest and most questionable remarks about the area of competence of the court and the non-feasibitily of implementing its judgement, and it would be quite interesting to see how he faces the Bench. Mr Gilani’s mantra of ‘respect for the judiciary’ has assumed a funny ring now since the only thing that this could imply is that he is faithfully and honestly obeying its orders!
The reality speaks differently. His paying lip service, while effectively defying them despite the fact that the responsibility under the Constitution devolves on him, does not exonerate him. Besides, the despatch of PM’s Advisor on Information Technology to Switzerland raises many an eyebrow. That Mr Gilani should be sending him there, it seems, to find how the Swiss courts would react in case the government were to write a letter to them to reopen the cases against President Zardari, is highly unbecoming, to say the least.
At the same time, PML-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif, in an address at London, has talked of attempts at creating conditions that could result in a clash between the government and the judiciary. He named both Zardari and Gilani as being equally responsible for ensuring accountability of the NRO-affected people. The upshot of the scenario, which reeks of scandalously undemocratic ways of saving the skin of the plunderers of national wealth, is that the Supreme Court’s verdict must be studiously followed in an attempt to cleanse the body politic of corruption, if we want to see the country flourish.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/18-May-2010/The-NRO-debate

The writer is a graduate of Boston University.
Pakistan-India relations since independence have revolved around mutual distrust, uncertainty, disappointments, tensions and fear of conflict.

We should seriously think as to why it`s so, especially when both countries gained independence from a single colonial power through a political process, negotiated between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. While we often hear people from both sides say, had the two countries been one, we would have been a force to reckon with, both in might and economy, I wonder why India and Pakistan can`t draw strength from each other as friendly and stable neighbours, sharing a common past, heritage and civilisation.

Bilateral disputes between them remain unresolved, their cooperation bounded by severe limitations. India thinks Pakistan is an irritant impeding India`s emergence as a key player in the world economy and Pakistan feels that India has been trying to destabilise Pakistan since partition.

Unlike the past when Kashmir was the sole issue with maximum emotive appeal, today we have mutually impinging interests, of an unusually urgent kind, such as the issue of India blocking the waters of the western rivers, against the spirit of the Indus Water Treaty. If we don`t attend to the crisis, it will come and haunt us a few decades down the road when the Himalayan glaciers recede because of global warming.

Despite domestic sensitivities, Pakistan and India should realise that peace between them is imperative. They can no longer afford an armed conflict because it can easily escalate into a nuclear conflagration. The use of force for the settlement of bilateral disputes must be ruled out by both countries. The real challenge lies in building up trust and confidence, establishing a strategic restraint regime, developing mutually beneficial cooperation and making meaningful progress towards the resolution of all outstanding disputes for a genuine and lasting peace. Force and propaganda should no longer be considered viable for securing the objectives of foreign policy. Instead what should be considered feasible is a `tactical adjustment` aimed at clarifying intentions and promoting goodwill.

The meeting between the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan in March 2010 served as an icebreaker in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks. The subsequent revival of talks led to genuine optimism for resuming the composite dialogue and finding breakthroughs on all issues. There is a growing consensus among parties, individuals and independent experts that the potential for possible headway has increased significantly. They feel that achieving a breakthrough is not as important as preventing a breakdown!

Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani had a cordial meeting in Sharm-el-Sheikh, they exchanged courtesies in Washington and the recent bilateral meeting in Bhutan has paved the way forward for peaceful resolutions. Singh, often seen as a dove, carrying the emblem of peace, has already de-linked peace talks from progress on terrorism, hence talks are not being held hostage to Pakistan combating perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.

The meetings have set the stage to seek deeper entrenchment in a sustained peace process, to try and agree upon an agenda, procedure and comfortable venue for talks. We must recognise that the details stage of negotiation is invariably more difficult and time consuming than the formula stage and will require the participation of experts. What is needed is precision, confidentiality and objective consideration of national interest. The momentum of negotiations can falter for a number of reasons, even if the government is committed to progress. Therefore it`s not a bad idea to have both symbolic and artificial deadlines.

Initiatives like `Aman ki asha` and subsequent people-to-people interactions may revitalise the peace process and have made a strong case for hope. A healthy exchange of ideas and opinions through a culture of debate and dialogue can make both sides adaptable and responsive and will give both countries leeway to bargain for mutual concessions. Cultural, religious and ideological tolerance will help explore and expand channels of bilateral negotiation.

For most of their history, India and Pakistan were locked into public postures that made negotiations impossible without jeopardising the domestic position of their leaders. There was profound mistrust of each other`s intentions and both countries employed threats as a tool. Today there are solid grounds for optimism about the future because peace seems obtainable through a cooperative pursuit of common interests.

Peace between India and Pakistan would mean that soldiers who have borne the greatest brunt will be surrendering postures in defence of which they have lost brothers; settlers will be relinquishing control over land in which they have sunk roots; exporters might lose important markets and workers may lose their source of income. When a settlement of great political sensitivity is eventually reached, it will still have to be packaged to obscure and minimise the most sensitive concessions. There should be no vagueness and no inconsistencies and the deal should be defensible at home.

The media on both sides can play an instrumental role in facilitating talks and driving negotiations forward by providing reassurances to each country that what is being said is heartfelt and both parties are genuinely interested in negotiating a peace-deal. The media can assist in the construction of an agreement by helping people understand the depth of a conflict that has obstructed relations for more than 62 years.

Our ultimate goal should be to ensure a secure and prosperous future for our people by addressing issues that are common to all South Asian neighbours such as poverty, healthcare, food security, water and energy shortages, terrorism and environmental problems. We need to pool resources, share knowledge and work towards a common strategy to earnestly address and resolve these critical concerns. What we need is visionary leadership, unflinching commitment and firmness of intent. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=238937

One hears that the government is currently pondering the amount of extra time General Kayani should be given as head of the army. Should it be one, two or three years?
If life were fair, the prime minister, a gaddi-nashin, would have been making a living interceding with God on behalf of devotees. Nevertheless, Mr Gilani will need his special nexus with God to get the government out of the deep hole in which it finds itself as the seemingly inevitable clash with the judiciary draws nearer. To be fair to Mr Gilani, he would prefer not to be a part of the fracas, it being entirely a matter concerning Mr Zardari, but he has no option. As he said some time ago, “We swim or sink together.”

The Swiss cases are not the only cause of friction between the government and the judiciary. If, or rather, when the Supreme Court finds out about the amount of commission, the extent of advance payment and other details of the rental power projects (RPPs), of which it has taken suo motu notice, there will be hell to pay. The ethos of the Supreme Court is very different from that of Mr Zardari. Actually, there is a vast divergence between them on just about every issue, including their respective takes on right and wrong and what is permissible or reasonable and what is not. In brief, their perspectives are antithetical and a rupture, therefore, appears very likely.

Another development, which could impact negatively on the conduct of the war against the Taliban, is the question of General Kayani’s extension. That he should be given one is generally agreed by all, especially many of those who serve with him in the army. Ordinarily, extensions are considered unnecessary because no one is indispensable. However, that cliché has proved wrong by the absence of Benazir Bhutto and the presence of Mr Zardari in her stead.

One cogent reason for Kayani to remain is that, having been tasked to draw up the military’s response to the threat posed by the Taliban and India and to such Indian doctrines as ‘Cold Start’ and ‘Two-Front Wars’, it is only logical that he stays on to implement it. Thus far, Kayani’s operational plans have been successful far beyond expectations, although success against the Taliban has been marred by collateral damage to civilian property and lives, lack of a determined effort to resettle the displaced population and an inability to provide assured security to the inhabitants of the areas supposedly cleansed of the enemy. And although all that, the military says, is not its job, frankly no one buys such nice distinctions. There is no use clearing a field of weeds if nothing is made to grow on it. Whether the military feels aggrieved or not, it had better address these issues lest Kayani be equated with the victorious Protestant general whose troops caused such desolation and suffering that when he was removed many rejoiced.

One hears that the government is currently pondering the amount of extra time General Kayani should be given as head of the army. Should it be one, two or three years? And that will probably depend on who else the government has in mind. And also whether it prefers to serve out its own term with Kayani or would also like to appoint his successor.

Given the proclivity of the current regime to keep its options open, which is another way of not having to deal with the issue immediately, one suspects that it may opt to grant him only another year. That would be a pity for a number of reasons in addition to the importance of continuity of command: the excellent rapport that Kayani has forged with allied generals; the trust that he has engendered among them and with his own troops; the strategy that he enunciated and recently sold to NATO in Brussels; and, of course, the likelihood of another operation in North Waziristan. However, to my mind, Kayani needs to stay most of all because removing a commander in the midst of a war sends the wrong message to friend and foe alike and, more importantly, because he appears uniquely suited for the job at this juncture of our troubled history in view of his personality, temperament, ability, aptitude and experience.

These plusses easily outweigh the heart burning his extension may cause among his peers. They also outweigh fears that he may grow too big for his boots. In any case, that is misreading the man. And, as this is the near universal view about him, not everyone can be wrong. The snag is that General Kayani will not personally raise the issue nor, rumour has it, will he accept an extension unless it is long enough to allow him to implement his plans for the army.

The selection of an army chief, or the question of his extension, is nearly always in Pakistan the subject of intense controversy. What should be and is elsewhere a relatively routine matter dictated by need, and not wish or favour, is not so here. Mr Gilani (or is it Mr Zardari?) has the opportunity to lay such speculation to rest by being forthcoming on the issue and acting quickly to quell the uncertainty. And, hopefully, they will, because one recalls with no pleasure the antics of politicians when it came to choosing General Waheed’s successor after he refused an extension; and earlier after General Asif Nawaz’s untimely death. In the case of the former, it was virtually the only subject of discussion at every Islamabad gathering for weeks and, in the case of the latter, one recalls being offered celebratory sweets by supporters of a general who eventually did not make it. Things should not be allowed to reach such a pass. It is hardly an unforeseen event.

In many respects, therefore, 2010 is a crucial year. It will probably determine Mr Zardari’s fate and, if things do not go well in the war, also Pakistan’s future. Should one be downhearted? No!

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\14\story_14-5-2010_pg3_2

They must be unprofessional or badly trained and poorly armed new entrants; otherwise the dacoits in Punjab form a formidable force. They carry sophisticated weapons, and should they run into the police, in the ensuing encounter, they don’t do badly.

That eight of them were bludgeoned to death, with stones and sticks, by the villagers somewhere in the district of Toba Tek Singh, on Sunday night, is unthinkable unless one believes they must have been extraordinarily down on their luck, or they were not dacoits at all. Comprehensively covered by the media, their story is both a narrative of the deteriorating law and order in the country and an affirmation of the fact that the public would prefer to deliver its own jungle-justice than to approach the police.

According to a news report, fearful of dacoits – two of the dacoits had reportedly surveyed the area of their operation a day before as cloth vendors – the villagers were keeping a night vigil. So, as soon as dacoits were through with their operation, loot and plunder and a gun wound to a resisting person, the villagers surrounded them and then killed them. Police arrived late, as happens routinely.

Of course, there is some politics to this ugly incident also; while the PML (N) MPA from the area insists that the victims were through and through professional dacoits, his PML (Q) rival maintains they were not dacoits but wayfarers through that village, who were ambushed and killed in cold blood by the villagers with the help of police.

But what is certain is that instead of handing over the alleged dacoits to the police, the villagers delivered their own mob justice. And, they are not the first to do this. Over the last several years, every now and then, incidents of people taking the law into their hands and lynching alleged thieves and robbers in full public view are quite common.

In fact, some of the most spectacular incidents of mob justice, delivered on the spot by putting the accused on fire or clubbing him to death, have taken place in Karachi, the country’s most cosmopolitan city. Then, there are also cases of blasphemy, often fake and concocted, which stir up a violent reaction, leading to arson and carnage.

No amount of argument or justification can condone the crime of delivering street justice. However, what drives the people to vent their rage in this manner is a question that needs deeper examination. Invariably, behind every such act lurks the ever-widening trust-deficit between the public and the police.

A case in point is last week’s people assault on a police post in Korangi whose officers had let go a woman – her two alleged accomplices had fled before the people caught her – incurring public outrage. The public is growing angry with the ineffective and corrupt police force. Add to this the fact that hardly 10 percent of the accused earn punishment in a court of law – speaks of the poor investigation and prosecution by the concerned police officials.

Even otherwise, as the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has noted, vigilante justice, delivered by the villagers of Toba Tek Singh, is reflective of the deeper brutalization of our society. So much evil and wrongdoing is condoned and tolerated on a day to day basis that we tend to grow increasingly insensitive to the sufferings of others. But that should end.

In this case, the Punjab government must initiate a proper inquiry and punish the guilty. Those who took part in the drama of delivering justice in the village of Toba Tek Singh must be brought before the court and if found guilty, should be punished. Allowed to go unchecked, an incident of mob justice can turn out to be prologue to a Revolution, which, good or bad, is invariably bloody.http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1055460&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate=

The writer is a freelance columnist.
Published: May 6, 2010 By and large, the SAARC Summits were nothing more than talk shops where the attitude of successive Indian governments impeded the desire for progress in the region – a proposition that can only be achieved if there was peace between India and Pakistan. However, this time more than half of the members present at the 16th SAARC Summit, hosted by Bhutan, were quite optimistic about the prospects of peace between the two nuclear power neighbours.
Nevertheless, after 62 years of animosity both India and Pakistan should have learnt that the negotiating table was the best option, whereas in the present times war would mean total destruction of the two neighbouring states. Indeed, successive democratic governments in Pakistan have tried to move forward with India on the critical issue of Jammu and Kashmir but failed because of a particular group in India that exerts immense pressure on its administration forcing it to back pedal on the issue every time the talks begin with Pakistan. For example, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto tried his best to talk to Sardar Swaran Singh, and then Benazir Bhutto with Rajiv Gandhi. Similarly, Mian Nawaz Sharif also made an attempt to improve relations with New Delhi when he invited Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Lahore.
Unfortunately, all the efforts of the Pakistani democratic leaders have failed to bear fruit just because the Indians did not have the political will, and their weak governments could not afford to jeopardise their political future by striking even a fair deal with the Pakistani government. Thus, it was no surprise when Manmohan Singh came under severe criticism, after he met with PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, that he was left with no choice but to renege on the promises he had made with Pakistan’s PM at the NAM Summit.
Surprisingly, this time the Indians who had been shying away from talking with Pakistan on various flimsy grounds succumbed to the pressure exerted by the US administration and the European Union. Needless to say that the Indians have substantial economic interests with the US and EU, and therefore were unable to withstand the leverage that exists with them. While it will be prudent to adopt a policy of wait and see with the Indian government, keeping in view their past track record of lies and deception, yet it would be sagacious for the Pakistani government to take two steps forward for every step taken by the Indians in the right direction.
The Indian PM has, once again, agreed to start negotiating with Pakistan on all contentious issues, including the outstanding problem of Kashmir. Yet some Indians have tried to drag their feet by claiming that they were not ready to resume the composite dialogue between the two countries. The mere fact that Mr Singh has agreed to visit Pakistan on the invitation of the Pakistani PM has raised a glimmer of hope for those who believe in peace as being the only option for the two countries.
Moreover, it is expected that before Manmohan Singh visits Pakistan he will try to convince his people about the gains that both the neighbouring states can achieve by resuming the peace talks. There is still tremendous potential for trade between the two countries and the present visa regimen, which is coercive in nature, can also be relaxed that will help to establish the much needed trust lacking mainly due to India’s anti-Pakistan policies. At the same time, the Government of Pakistan can also relax certain conditions that will help to establish the mutual trust essential to resolve the issues that have dodged India and Pakistan for such a long time.
Nevertheless, to establish mutual trust leaders of both countries will have to make concrete efforts to educate their citizens, instead of fanning the fires of animosity. It would be much better if the Indian administration was able to rein in the extremists in their country. Delhi should remember that a vast majority of the Indians are still living without the basic amenities of life, and peace with Pakistan would mean that they could divert the resources to areas like provision of clean drinking water, sanitation, education and basic health. The same formula could be applied by the Pakistanis who could divert substantial amounts of money for the betterment of the poor who live below the poverty line. Only if the leadership in both the countries could realise the dividends that peace will provide to their citizens, it should be an incentive to move towards a goal that would lead to a peaceful settlement on all outstanding issues. It must also be remembered that peace between India and Pakistan will also provide immense economic opportunities to the other six member states of SAARC.
During the SAARC Summit, several heads of states have expressed their views on this issue and tried to nudge both India and Pakistan so that they should move faster on the road to peace. They were willing to play any role that was assigned to them for this purpose. This does not mean that peace was round the corner, but it sent a very loud and clear signal to both Singh and Gilani that the demand for peace was not only gaining ground in India and Pakistan, but it was also a demand by their regional neighbours that could help alleviate the sufferings of the poor. However, the question will remain that whether Gilani and Singh were listening attentively, the coming weeks and months will provide the leaders of SAARC with the answer. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/06-May-2010/SAARC-cries-for-peace

The Nation, May 6
ISLAMABAD (Online) – Backdoor diplomacy between India and Pakistan has been restored and in this regard a 10-member delegation headed by former army chief General Jahangir Karamat left for India on Wednesday.
The delegation includes Sherry Rehman, Ahsan Iqbal, Jahangir Badr, Najamuddin, Humayun Khan, Shafqat Mehmood and Aziz Ahmed Khan.
According to a private TV channel, Track-II diplomacy between both the countries has been restored after the deadlock that ensued following Mumbai attacks. The governments of US and UK have played a key role in this regard, as per sources.
Sources further reported that the delegation was divided in three groups: one group, headed by the former army chief, would deal with Kashmir issue; the second was on the issue of trade; and the third group would deal with terrorism.
Diplomatic circles are giving much importance to these initiatives because the process of backdoor diplomacy had started in the second term of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and continued gradually but stopped after the incident of 26/11 it was stopped. The resumption of dialogue after such big hurdles is a good sign, the circles believe.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//Politics/06-May-2010/Backdoor-diplomacy-restored

The Nation, May 6

FOREIGN Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi finally seemed to be making the right noises on Kashmir when he informed the National Assembly that Kashmir was the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy and Pakistan desired a peaceful solution to the dispute in keeping with UN Resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. If this means a reversal of the confused Musharraf policy on Kashmir and its attempt to delink from the UN Resolutions, then the present policy is to be welcomed. Presumably the government has once again understood that Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir stems and acquires legitimacy from the UN Security Council Resolutions.
Unfortunately, there are some serious misgivings that also arise in the context of the present government’s policies in relation to Kashmir and India. To begin with, the Foreign Minister’s reference to the “changed ground realities” of Kashmir is the same ominous phrase so often used in the past by leaders determined to shift away from the principle of self-determination. Of course, nothing remains static anywhere so similarly the ground realities in Kashmir keep shifting but there is a constant that has not changed and that is what Pakistan should be highlighting but what the FM has failed to do and that is the fact that Kashmiris today are as adamant to reject Indian occupation as they have been since 1948. Generation after generation of Kashmiri youth continue to sacrifice their lives to rid themselves of India’s brutal occupation. So while the tactical ground realities are constantly in a state of flux, the strategic macro level reality of what the Kashmiris want for their future and continue to reject remains unaltered.
As for the FM’s reference to the composite dialogue being an Indian term of reference, with Pakistan seeking a comprehensive dialogue, the point is that having accepted this nomenclature Pakistan was able to conduct multi-tier dialogues on critical issues simultaneously, including the Kashmir and nuclear issues. Now the Indians clearly want to put all that aside, including whatever progress was made – and certainly there was some – and commence anew dialogue format where they will decide the agenda. Our FM, who spoke vociferously in defence of India’s PM and their innocence on the waters issue, now seems to be preparing to sell us this new Indian dialogue ploy. Clearly he is unaware of the fact that India has just made its intention public of purchasing 126 fighter planes to add to their already massive weapons arsenal to, as the Indian Air Chief put it, “bolster India’s war fighting capability.” So where is the peace that the Indian leadership “desires” according to the Pakistani FM? It is time we awoke to the reality of India’s aggressive designs towards Pakistan and the Kashmiris as reflected in their policies today. Equally important we must never forget that Kashmir remains the essential core issue between the two antagonist states.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/06-May-2010/Kashmir-the-core-issue

The Dawn, May 6

SHAKESPEARE brushed aside semantics by asking, “What’s in a name?” But Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi attaches a lot more importance to the issue. He made it clear in the National Assembly on Tuesday that Pakistan had returned to its “historical” stand on Kashmir. He also said that the dialogue with India will not be referred to as a “composite dialogue” but will henceforth be a “comprehensive dialogue” as Pakistan had originally wanted it to be called. He, however, hastened to add that the eight points specified in the previous format would continue to be addressed as before. One should not worry about these changes in nomenclature as long as they do not indicate a turnaround in the positive thrust in Pakistan’s foreign policy as it has evolved over the years. The fact is that if there is to be peace in South Asia, India and Pakistan must learn to seek peaceful and durable solutions to their disputes. Kashmir — described as the core issue — needs to be addressed and in such a way that the people of the state are included in the peace process, whatever the mutually agreed format. It would be impossible to go back to the specific modalities stipulated in the UN resolutions of 1949 apart from the underlying principle that the wishes of the people should be kept in consideration. The settlement that is agreed upon must have the confidence of the National Assembly. But would it not be unrealistic to expect the two sides to sit at the negotiating table under the media limelight? This would inevitably force them to play to the gallery. That would scuttle the peace process even before it has been resumed.

There are many issues that need to be sorted out between India and Pakistan if the political climate in the region is to be made conducive for amicable talks. Thus Afghanistan, terrorism and the water issues that affect the two countries directly call for a regional understanding as they are so closely related. Islamabad and New Delhi should waste no time in initiating their dialogue so that confidence-building gets under way. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/kashmir-policy-650

The Business Recorder, May 6

EDITORIAL (May 06 2010): The next round of talks with India may not be in the framework of the Composite Dialogue, but all eight subjects, including Kashmir that formed its agenda, would be on the table. The assurance was given the other day by Foreign Minister Qureshi in his statement in the National Assembly, as doubts swirled about in the Capital that the Composite Dialogue forum has been sacrificed in barter for the much sought after Gilani-Manmohan Singh meeting in Bhutan.

Even if so – and that is quite likely given the minister’s claim that the phrase ‘Composite Dialogue’ had an Indian origin – the most critical subject on the agenda of the Composite Dialogue, Kashmir, would be discussed head-on with the Indians. Pakistan is returning to its “historical and principled” stand after “wavering” by the Musharraf regime for 7-8 years when ‘reliance was put on the back-channel diplomacy, without taking parliament into confidence’.

Whether Foreign Minister Qureshi’s stance, so vehemently taken on the floor of the National Assembly, was a disapproval of back-channel diplomacy or an explanation for abandoning the Composite Dialogue forum, one could guess and say it was both of it.

Back-channel diplomacy was General Musharraf’s hobbyhorse, and if former foreign minister Kasuri’s recent disclosures are any guide, quite a bit of “progress” had been made towards resolving the Kashmir dispute. Kasuri says 90 percent of the spadework had been completed and a “final Kashmir settlement was just a signature away, once India and Pakistan decided to pull the file from the rack”.

But where is that back-channel file? Is there a back-channel file at all “beyond Musharraf’s pronouncements of unreciprocated unilateral gestures of flexibility?” And, who will pull it off the rack? Former foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmad would like to know. Qureshi denies if there is such a file in the Foreign Office.

And, according to Shamshad Ahmad, “that is what always happens when shady deals are struck at non-institutional levels”. Not only General Musharraf’s back-channel diplomacy negatively impacted Pakistan’s known position on Kashmir, it also triggered debate for options other than Settlement of the Kashmir dispute under the UN resolutions.

So much for the back-channel diplomacy, which to say the least, was hardly an honest way of dealing with an issue of momentous importance to millions of Kashmiris and a billion of others in South Asia. Of course, a few CBMs were put in place but they too have gone with the wind as harsh ground realities catch up.

As for the Kashmir and other issues, with India everything seems to be back to square one, leaving Foreign Minister Qureshi with no option but “to recover from the damage done to Pakistan’s case then”. May be, given Pakistan’s present difficulties, there are ‘friendly pressures’ to adjust with India, and to concede its interference in Afghan affairs.

May be the Indian pliability, as exhibited in the Bhutanese capital, is driven by the same incentive and consideration. In that backdrop one may err on the side of believing that the bonhomie witnessed on the margins of the 16th Saarc summit was essentially a transitory thaw.

Having relegated Kashmir to the backburner of back-channel diplomacy, India, of late, is sparing no effort to turn Pakistan into a bone-dry desert, as we see helplessly from across the border. Here, too, Pakistan is becoming a victim of a kind of back-channel diplomacy by agreeing to successive rounds of meetings and talks, in defiance of the Treaty, which clearly defines as to what constitutes a dispute to be resolved by third-party arbitration.

The fact is that both the problem of Kashmir and the violation of Indus Waters Treaty by India have a strong international context; they bypass the United Nations. We need to look afresh into this aspect of our disputes with India and invoke international law at the world forums. No doubt, it would be a long haul task but this is the only right way to deal with India. www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1053008&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate=