Category — Pakistan

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=

By Ahmad Fraz Khan in the Dawn, May 12

Lahore, May 11: The government of Punjab has accused the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) of “playing politics and damaging provincial harmony” and asked the federal government to “reorganise the authority for better provincial representation”.

Substantiating its allegations in a letter to the federal government sent on Monday, the province maintained that distribution of water during the month of April proved the biased behaviour of Irsa and its potential negative impact on provincial harmony.

During the month, the letter said, Irsa released 4 per cent less water to Punjab than its share, which the authority itself had determined, and it released 25 per cent more water to Sindh than its allotted share. The “injudicious distribution” resulted in 44 per cent water shortage in Punjab, with Sindh’s deficit being 31 per cent.

According to the Water Accord of 1991, the letter said, Irsa should equally distribute surpluses and shortages between Sindh and Punjab.

It said the politics behind water distribution became clear when Mohammad Amin, member from Balochistan, was fired for favouring Punjab on the opening of Chashma-Jehlum Link Canal. He had voted for the opening of the canal on Feb 12 this year, and he was terminated the following day (February 13).

Since then, it said, Punjab had been at the receiving end with three of five Irsa members becoming instrumental in taking “decisions against the Punjab”.

The letter said that Punjab now had one vote against three for Sindh — one from Sindh, second is the federal seat which Gen Pervez Musharraf gave to Sindh on July 10, 2000, with an executive order and the third from Balochistan.

It said the manner in which the Balochistan member was kicked out for ostensibly favouring the Punjab position on Chashma-Jehlum Link Canal, any subsequent appointment was hardly in a position to favour Punjab’s interest. “It smacks of politics in water distribution.”

The letter said the imprudent imbalance had adversely affected cotton sowing in Punjab and the rice crop also runs the risk if no corrective measures were taken by mid-February. The injudicious releases have also jeopardised Mangla Dam’s filling this season, as Punjab has to feed its southern belt from Mangla command at a greater expense of over 40 per cent conveyance losses.

The letter said Punjab’s share on the Indus arm should be judiciously worked out and equitably distributed. http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/irsa-playing-politics%2C-says-punjab-250

The writer works for Geo TV

It was widely publicised by our interior minister, the US administration and various respectable news outlets that Hakeemullah Mehsud was killed in a US drone attack in South Waziristan. However, this scribe and two other journalists, Mushtaq Yusufzai and Samiullah Dawar, had time and again stated that the TTP leader was not dead (Jang, March 9). Independent sources have now confirmed that the TTP leader is very much alive. This recent development is an indication that many other claims by the US and Pakistani official sources regarding terrorism may be wishful thinking.

The success of the Swat and South Waziristan operations pushed the extremists out of the two areas. Consequently, extremists once holed up in the operation-hit areas slipped into the settled districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and big cities like Karachi and Lahore. The extremists’ dream to establish their writ in Punjab and Karachi will not come true, but they have succeeded in re-establishing a presence and acquire assets there in every urban centre to launch suicide attacks like the ones on the GHQ and American consulate in Peshawar.

Investigations show that planning and arrangements for suicide attacks in Lahore and Rawalpindi had originated in the same cities. More worrisome are the signs that many TTP sympathisers of some mainstream religious parties have been actively helping the militants. The extremists’ capabilities have further been bolstered by their adaptability to the changing tactics of anti-terror agencies.

The official claim that military operations have reduced terrorism is false. In fact, the operations have caused the spread of the terror network in the whole country. Before operations, militants flocked into Swat and tribal areas to dodge arrests or death in the settled areas. But the operations in Swat and the tribal areas sent them back into the cities.

Extremists from the banned Jihadi and sectarian organisations had migrated to South Waziristan to join the TTP under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud. But drone attacks and military operations rendered the TTP’s command-and-control system ineffective. Consequently, the extremists rejoined their parent organisations and gained considerable operational autonomy within the weakened TTP. Their operational independence is betrayed by the fact that Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Asian Tigers (the Punjabi Taliban) now accept responsibility for all attacks they carry out in the country. The abduction of Col (r) Imam, Sqn Ldr (r) Khalid Khawaja and English journalist Asad Qureshi is an example of this new trend.

The US is hungry for the blood of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Umar, while Pakistan struggles to get rid of Hakeemullah Mehsud. But alive, they may prove a blessing in disguise as the US and Pakistan will need them for talks at an appropriate moment. In Afghanistan, the political solution of the conflict would necessitate talks with bin Laden and Mullah Umar. If Baitullah Mehsud was alive, Pakistan would have needed him for the same purpose.

Pakistan’s policies towards the US, Afghanistan and India have actually resulted in the spread of militancy in Pakistan. Musharraf needed to but never changed those policies, which the present government continues to pursue. Besides, our education, economic and political systems are equally responsible for the mess. State institutions, mainstream religious parties and the media induced young impressionable minds towards violence in pursuit of elusive foreign-policy goals. Even today, people involved in violence abroad are portrayed as heroes. At a certain stage, they were ordered to take a U-turn, which understandably, was not possible overnight.

In the wake of the famous U-turn, Pakistan needed to engage the extremists in a constructive dialogue to explain the emerging scenarios which caused reversals in internal and external policies. They must have been rehabilitated in the society as useful citizens. But on the contrary, they were divided into categories of “good” and “bad,” arbitrarily arrested and were subjected to military operations. In reaction, they began hating Pakistan more than India, and started to avenge their betrayal by targeting this country. Now this problem is becoming more difficult as enemy secret services, especially India’s, are relentlessly indoctrinating extremists that Pakistan was responsible for all their problems and therefore must be the first target. New literature under this philosophy is being prepared and distributed among all organisations.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s enemies are brainwashing and inducing Al-Qaeda members to first take on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to liberate these lands from American stooges. The strategy asks them to take on the US and the West later on. Under this plan, people from this region are trained and transported to Yemen via Iran. This plan is all set to make the situation worse for Saudi Arab and Pakistan, not for the US and its allies.

The Americans, who got a bloody nose in Afghanistan, may soon leave the country without any remorse. But after packing up, the US will face no consequence in the near future. In that scenario, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their affiliates will train their guns on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which will then have to fight their own citizens. To avoid this eventuality, the two countries need to bolster mutual consultations on the issue. They also needed to chalk out a reconciliation plan with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by following in the footsteps of Libya.
But the questions are: Why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot reconcile with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, respectively? How is this reconciliation possible?These questions will be taken up in the next column. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=238407

By Tariq Naqash in The Dawn, May 8

MUZAFFARABAD, May 7: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court disposed of a petition on Friday, challenging the appointment of Justice Reaz Akhtar Chaudhry as Chief Justice of the AJK Supreme Court, “as he stood removed from this office under the report of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), rendering the office of top judge vacant”.

The petition was filed by advocate Karam Dad Khan on March 27, 2007, but the Supreme Court had confiscated the same from the HC registrar’s office on the following day. However, on April 15, this year, the apex court’s acting CJ, Manzoor Hussain Gillani, sent the case back to the HC.

In his decision, after preliminary hearing, HC CJ Ghulam Mustafa Mughal held that since Justice Reaz Akhtar stood removed from the office of CJ from the day when SJC had made recommendations to the chairman of AJK Council (Prime Minister of Pakistan) to this effect, there was no point in issuing a writ of quo warranto. http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/ajk-high-court-disposes-of-writ-challenging-appointment-of-chief-justice-850

MUZAFFARABAD (APP): The Supreme Judicial Council of Azad Kashmir has summoned the Secretary to President AJK to appear in person before the council and submit the record of April 4 letter written by the President, ordering withdrawal of a reference against the deposed Chief Justice Reaz Akhtar Chudhary and his subsequent reinstatement.
The Supreme Judicial Council summoned the AJK President’s secretary on Friday during the hearing of a petition filed by AJK Bar Council members Raja Sajjad Ahmad and Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan under section 42-F, read with section 45 of AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974. The SJC directed the Secretary to President and other three respondents to produce the record of the President’s letter and reportedly filling up a reference against Acting CJ Manzoor-ul-Hassan Gilani, HC Chief Justice Mustafa Mughal and ad-hoc SC Judge Justice Ibrahim Zia.
The Secretary to AJK President could not produce any record before the Council rather objections were raised, which were turned town while Khawaja Farooq Ahmad Advocate on behalf of the SC Judge Justice Khawaja Shahad clarified before the Council that the respondent has no such record.
The other two respondents also did not appear nor any of their representatives could produce such record. The Council then directed the Secretary to President to appear in person before the court and produce record on Saturday. http://thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ts&nid=1131

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 leaders of the South Asian countries have just gone through another pleasant but sterile Saarc summit meeting in the beautiful mountain kingdom of Bhutan.

Once again, the leaders called it a ‘landmark’ meeting, though there was nothing of note except that Bhutan was hosting the summit for the first time. The summit declaration was as ambitious as any, but if the past is any precedent, it will remain a mere expression of good intentions.

It is this dismal track record that has encouraged the perception that Saarc is a mere talking shop, unable to achieve meaningful headway in implementing its declarations. At the root of this malaise, lies the continuing hostility between Pakistan and India.

While many of its faults could be removed through the revision of its charter and the reordering of its priorities, unless member states demonstrate greater political will and eschew narrow national interests, Saarc will remain the weakest link in the chain of regional organisations that girdles the globe. This pervading atmosphere of mistrust was poignantly acknowledged by the host, Prime Minister Jigme Thinley, when he warned that “fractious and quarrelsome neighbours do not make a prosperous community”.

The summit’s declaration called upon the leaders to ensure that the organisation lived up “to the hopes and aspirations of one-fifth of humanity”. It also adopted the Thimphu statement on climate change, besides unveiling a poverty reduction fund. Leaders signed agreements on trade and environmental protection.

But as in the past, the smaller states were not too thrilled to observe India-Pakistan ties dominating the summit. The Maldives president demanded that the two countries ‘compartmentalise’ their animosities, so as not to impede regional cooperation.

Nevertheless, Thimphu’s idyllic setting did succeed in thawing the ice between the two countries, when it was announced at the end of the tête-à-tête between Prime Ministers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh that they had agreed to revive, without preconditions, the dialogue that had been kept suspended since the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Both sides termed the meeting as “very positive”, with Foreign Minister Qureshi gushing that the meeting was “warm, cordial and engaging”. He also claimed that all issues, including Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek, were on the table. According to him, Gilani assured Singh that the perpetrators of Mumbai would be brought to justice. In view of the trust deficit between the countries, their foreign ministers were tasked with bridging the gap to “take the process forward”.

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao was more circumspect. She told the media that the two leaders held good talks in a “free and frank manner”, but that Singh expressed concern over the slow progress of the Mumbai trials in Pakistan, adding somewhat ominously that Singh had been “very emphatic that the terror machine needs to be controlled, needs to be eliminated”.

The agreement to resume the dialogue process is a positive development. But the mere resumption of ‘talks to have talks’ is not an occasion to go overboard. After all, the two countries have been talking to each other for the past 60 years, formally and informally, within and outside established formats. Talks are a means to an end, not the end itself. So, the Thimphu announcement has to be treated with caution.

In any case, it should not be forgotten that since the foreign secretaries’ meeting in Delhi earlier this year, India had been signalling its readiness to resume dialogue, but outside the format mutually agreed upon between them as far back as June 1997. Pakistan’s stand, on the other hand, had been that the dialogue needed to be conducted within the established formal, structured format. What led Pakistan to abandon its stand?

After all, India has always been willing to talk; what has been lacking is the commitment to resolving differences. This was painfully evident in the failure of the talks between the Indus water commissioners, which was followed by Indian statements to the effect that Pakistan’s concerns on water were a “gimmick” and a propaganda device, lacking substance and reality.

Even during the Washington nuclear security summit last month, Singh chose to dwell on Pakistan’s transgressions and failures in his meeting with Obama, while Foreign Secretary Rao accused Pakistan of using terrorism as a policy tool, adding that India should not be expected to resume talks until Pakistan was able to “cease its encouragement of terrorist groups that were targeting India”.

What then explains this apparent volte-face, if Qureshi’s claims are to be taken at face value? For one, New Delhi has made no secret of its disappointment with what it perceives is a change in the Obama administration’s attitude to the region. Instead of piling pressure on Pakistan, Washington is now appreciating Islamabad’s efforts and seeking its cooperation, especially in the unfolding post-exit strategy in Afghanistan.

More importantly, since this envisages a planned US drawdown from Afghanistan, but not any diminution of its presence in the region, Pakistan’s role will continue to figure in all American calculations. This explains the anxious flurry of diplomatic overtures by India to Russia and Iran (even Saudi Arabia), to work in concert with them on Afghanistan, which is likely to remain an object of desire not only for Pakistan, but for others, as well.

No less important has been the impact of the Obama administration’s ‘counsel’ to India to resume the dialogue process with Pakistan. How else can Pakistan be persuaded to devote its resources and energies to the western front? Voices have also been raised in India itself, indicating that it cannot achieve global player status while remaining recalcitrant and prickly in its own region.

These developments call for the Pakistani leadership to respond to India’s gesture with maturity, because the resumption of talks does not necessarily represent a change in India’s strategic approach to Pakistan — it is only a tactical modification. Of course, this should not mean the weakening of our resolve to achieve a cooperative relationship with India, but to paraphrase Lenin, we must not confuse form with substance. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/saarc-and-dialogue-650

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=

MUZAFFARABAD, May 4: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir cabinet endorsed on Tuesday Prime Minister Raja Farooq Haider’s action of filing a reference against non-functional chief justice Reaz Akhtar and urged President Raja Zulqarnain Khan to either fall in line or face action by the parliamentary party.

“The cabinet endorses and fully supports efforts of Raja Farooq for reforms in the superior judiciary and considers the filing of reference (against Justice Reaz) a timely and appropriate action under the constitution and law,” said a resolution adopted by the cabinet.

A meeting of the cabinet presided over by the prime minister criticised a reported suggestion by the AJK president during his meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari “for initiation of extra-constitutional measures in AJK such as dissolution of the government and elected institutions”.

“We demand and expect from the (AJK) president that he will fulfil his obligation to improve and protect institutions by following the constitution and law and to withdraw his earlier extra-constitutional measures,” the cabinet said.

The cabinet, however, praised President Zardari for “dismissing and discouraging” all proposals and suggestions calling for extra-constitutional actions in AJK. It expressed the hope that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would soon implement recommendations of the Supreme Judicial Council calling for removal of Justice Reaz Akhtar. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/ajk-cabinet-warns-of-action-against-president-550

Across fields of cotton and baked mud in the village of Garhi Khuda Bakhsh in southern Pakistan rises a white marble mausoleum with Mughal-style cones that shim-mer in the heat. Inside lie four bodies — a father and his three children — all murdered over a 30-year span. The father was hanged by a military dictator, one son poisoned and one son shot, both by unknown assailants. The daughter was still building the mausoleum when she, too, was assassinated. Her killing was captured on live TV, yet who did it remains a mystery, as well as how.
Benazir Bhutto was Pakistan’s most important political figure, the leading female politician in the Islamic world, an Oxford and Harvard graduate who was the West’s best hope of tackling terrorism. Yet 2½ years on, and despite a $5m United Nations commission of inquiry, her murder remains unresolved.
Almost every Pakistani has a theory about who did it; practically nobody expects to find out. Pakistan’s history is dotted with unexplained political assassinations, but this time there was an unexpected twist. Bhutto’s widowed husband ended up as president, with all the government apparatus at his disposal. One might think that for once there was a good chance of establishing a culprit. Instead he had called in the UN to investigate, claiming “This thing is bigger than us.”
I had my own reasons for wanting answers. I’d known Bibi, as friends called her, since 1987, when her kind wedding invitation to a 21-year-old led to me falling in love with her country and starting a life as a foreign correspondent, covering both her spells as prime minister. I was with her on the truck in Karachi the first time they tried to kill her: two bombs killed 150 people, but she survived.
Ten weeks later, just after 5pm on December 27, 2007, they succeeded. As Bhutto left an election rally in Liaquat Park, Rawalpindi, she stood up through the sunroof of her armoured car to wave. Moments later she was dead, blood gushing from a wound to her temple, as a suicide bomber exploded himself in the crowd.
Bhutto’s action had been foolhardy when she knew there were people out to kill her, and her death sadly unsurprising in a family that has sacrificed everything for politics. What was less explicable was what happened next.
“Everything was manipulated,” says Athar Minallah, a leading lawyer who sits on the board of the Rawalpindi hospital where Bhutto was taken. “The evidence was washed away and no autopsy or investigation allowed. As a lawyer I can’t come to any conclusion, but it’s all too sinister to believe there wasn’t mala fide in this.”
In the 20 years I knew Benazir I had been both captivated by her and infuriated by her, once even deported by her. But I had also personally witnessed the lengths gone to to stop her by what she called “the Establishment”, the old guard of Pakistan’s military and intelligence, which at the time of Bhutto’s death had ruled the country for 32 of its 60 years. Despite being warned off by friends in the Pakistani media, I travelled from London to Dubai, Karachi to Kabul, Waziristan to Washington, asking questions from those involved, many of whom had never spoken out before.
If ever there was a death foretold, this was it. Bhutto’s days were numbered from the time she decided to end eight years in exile in Dubai and return home, following a deal with President Pervez Musharraf backed by the US and Britain. Under the deal, corruption charges against her, her husband and senior members of her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) would be dropped, enabling them to contest elections. In return they would allow Musharraf to remain president. But neither trusted the other, and the military ruler had sworn he would never allow her back in power.
“We might as well have painted a bull’s-eye target on her head,” admitted a British Foreign Office minister involved in the negotiations.
Her closest friends begged her not to go back. “I said, ‘You’ve been prime minister twice, why do this?’ ” said Peter Galbraith, a former UN envoy to Afghanistan, who had been a friend since 1969, when a primly dressed Bhutto arrived at Harvard aged16 and went to dinner at his parents’ house.
Mark Siegel, a Democrat strategist who co-wrote her last book, said goodbye to her in the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton in Washington. As he turned back to wave, he recalled the scene in The Graduate of a rain-soaked Anne Bancroft standing bereft after realising that her lover, Dustin Hoffman, is in love with her daughter. “I had this terrible feeling,” he said.
In London before her return, Bhutto told me she knew the risk. “I know there are people who want to kill me and scuttle the restoration of democracy,” she said. “But with my faith in God and the people of Pakistan, I’m sure the party workers will protect me.”
She then flew to Dubai to say goodbye to her daughters, Bakhtawar and Asifa. On October 16, the day before she was due to fly to Pakistan, she was warned by UAE and Saudi intelligence of a plot to kill her. She immediately wrote to Musharraf naming three suspects: Pervez Elahi, then chief minister of Punjab; General Hamid Gul, the retired head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); and Brigadier Ejaz Shah, the former head of the Intelligence Bureau (IB). But there was no changing her mind. “The time of life is written and the time of death is written,” she insisted.
When the plane landed at Karachi and Bhutto came down the steps, she could not hold back the tears. Huge crowds had lined the streets. Waving from the top of a special bus, she was transformed, her face alive, so different to the Bhutto of the last few years in exile, gorging on ice cream and reading self-help books. I understood then why she had gone back.
But her security people were worried. The jammers promised by the Pakistan government to impede remote-control bombs were not working. Bhutto refused to go behind the special bulletproof screen in her bus that would separate her from her people. Eventually, she went to the armoured compartment on the lower deck to work on her speech. It was nearly midnight and we had been on the bus nine hours when the first blast came, throwing us to the ground. Moments later came a second, much larger, blast. There was silence, then screams, sirens and little pieces fluttering down like black snowflakes: bits of charred skin.
Bhutto had no doubt who was behind it. She emailed Mark Siegel on October 26: “Nothing will God-willing happen. Just wanted u to know if it does I will hold Musharraf responsible.”
She also called Musharraf. “He told her, ‘I warned you not to come back until after the elections,’ and threatened her, ‘I’ll only protect you if you’re nice to me,’ ” said Husain Haqqani, a former Bhutto aide who was living in the US and is now Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington.
Instead of stepping up her security, it was reduced. She was even told not to travel in vehicles with tinted windows, as this was against the law of the local government.
She appealed to the American and British officials who had helped negotiate her return. “I called everyone,” said Haqqani. “I even got the US ambassador in Pakistan, Anne Patterson, to visit her.” It did not go well. “Patterson wasn’t nice to her,” said Bhutto’s cousin and confidant, Tariq Islam. “She harped on, ‘You must not talk against Musharraf.’ The Americans never trusted her. It was a marriage of convenience.”
In November, Bhutto returned to Dubai for a few days. Her daughters believe she knew then she would not see them again. “She kept on telling us life is in God’s hands,” said her youngest, Asifa, interviewed for Bhutto, a film about her mother’s life that opens in June. “It was going to be my 18th birthday in January, and she said she wanted to wish me happy birthday in advance,” said her older daughter, Bakhtawar. “I said, ‘Don’t wish me in advance, wish me then.’ ”
The next morning, after her mother left, she found a be-ribboned box containing a silver jaguar head on a pendant. A note wished her “Happy birthday, all my love, Mummy”.
Back in Pakistan, on December 26, the day before the Rawalpindi rally, she addressed a public meeting in Peshawar and a suspected suicide bomber was caught trying to get in. That night her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, called her, begging her to let him campaign in her place. “I pleaded with her, ‘You stay home and I’ll go do the rallies. You’re the mother.’ But she said, ‘What can I do? I have to go and meet my people.’ ”
In the early hours of December 27, she was visited by General Nadeem Taj, the head of the ISI, the agency that in the past had done all it could to stop her becoming prime minister, from printing propaganda leaflets to creating a new political party. What he told her is unknown. Despite the late night, Bhutto was up early sending emails, including one to Peter Galbraith asking him to contact his friend, the Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, to send some of his jammers.
Back at her Islamabad home for a light lunch, she called her political secretary, Naheed Khan, to sit with her. Naheed had worked for her for 23 years and accompanied her through beatings, tear gas and arrests. Bhutto told her some American politicians would be coming that evening. Convinced that Musharraf was planning to rig the elections, Bhutto had collected information of a secret ISI rigging cell based in a house in Islamabad, which she planned to present to the Republican senator Arlen Specter and the Democrat congressman Patrick Kennedy.
Around 2pm, the two women climbed into her armoured, white Toyota Land Cruiser with an entourage of five men, including Makhdoom Amin Fahim, who had led her party while she was in exile, and Senator Safdar Abbas, Naheed’s husband and also a long-time aide.
As they left manicured Islamabad for the dusty streets of Rawalpindi, passers-by waved at the motorcade. In front was a blue police van and a black Mercedes containing her security chief and other officials. Behind were two pick-up trucks of her bodyguards.
Once they reached Rawalpindi and saw people massing, Bhutto stood up as usual. “ ’Pindi was hard for her,” said Naheed. Her father was killed in ’Pindi jail and she was too much excited. It was a huge gathering, we weren’t expecting, and such a charged crowd.”
As they drove out of the back of the park with dusk falling, the gates were opened. The crowd flooded out and gathered round her chanting “Jiye Bhutto” [long live Bhutto], “wazir-i-azam Benazir” [prime minister Benazir]. She stood up, climbing on the seat so that she could be seen.
Then they heard shooting. “Suddenly I felt some pressure, she had fallen on me,” said Naheed. She sobs as she recalls cradling Bhutto’s bleeding head. “She was completely unconscious, her blood seeping over me. That scene is still going on in front of me two years on,” she said.
All those in the car, and her spokeswoman Sherry Rehman, in the car behind, insist that Bhutto fell first, then a bomb went off. “As soon as she ducked down, after three to four seconds there was a bomb blast,” said Naheed. Safdar checked Bhutto’s pulse. “There was nothing.”
A bodyguard shouted “Move the car!” but the left tyres had burst in the blast. The backup car had mysteriously disappeared, so the bodyguard carried her into Sherry Rehman’s 4×4 and they rushed to Rawalpindi general hospital.
“I thought she was already dead,” said Zahid, the driver, showing the back seat of the Jeep where the bloodstains are still visible. “She was unconscious and bleeding from the left side of her neck and top right of her skull.”
At the hospital, doctors tried to resuscitate her. Sherry Rehman describes the chaos of bloodied, injured and dead victims being brought in and party workers crowding the building. Rehman found Naheed and Makhdoom Fahim in a state of shock. “The hospital wanted us to get the body out,” she said. “The whole place was heaving with people. Makhdoom and I created a diversion by driving out so they could get the body out without supporters realising. It didn’t occur to us to demand the medical report. I was sure she was shot, I heard the shots, then our heads being shoved down in the drill we’d had since Karachi, then the boom of the bomb. We never thought anyone would contradict this.”
In Dubai, Bhutto’s family had been watching on television. “All we knew was something had happened,” said Zardari. “I said, ‘Arrange a plane.’ When I came back into the room, the TV was announcing she was dead.” Bhutto’s body was placed in a makeshift plywood coffin and taken to the nearby military airbase of Chaklala.
Around 1am, the family arrived, and both they and the coffin were flown to Moenjodaro in the southern province of Sindh, to drive through the night to Bhutto’s ancestral home town of Naudero. In keeping with the Muslim tradition, she was buried the next day.
On December 30, just three days after her death, Zardari summoned a meeting of the party’s central executive committee. He asked their son, Bilawal, to read out a handwritten letter from Bhutto to the PPP. It stated: “I would like my husband, Asif Ali Zardari, to lead you in this interim period until you and he decide what is best. I say this because he is a man of courage and honour.”
Zardari told me afterwards he had no idea she had drawn up such a will. “The day her remains came to Naudero, a person came from Dubai and said, ‘I have this document Madam left with me.’ ” He said he did not know the person.
It was dated October 16, two days before Bhutto returned to Pakistan. “That was the day she’d been warned not to go back,” Zardari said, “and she wrote that letter to Musharraf showing apprehensions about certain people.”
In a shrewd move, Zardari named their son, Bilawal, as co-chairman, adding Bhutto to his name to make him Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and said he would take over the leadership when he was old enough. Bilawal was then only 19, and starting his second term at Christ Church college, Oxford. He freely admitted he was more interested in Facebook and movies than politics.
Still in shock, nobody on the party’s executive questioned the document. Afterwards, Fahim, the party’s former leader, who had expected to take over, told me he was astonished that Bhutto would hand the party over to Zardari. Known in Pakistan as Mr Ten Per Cent, his alleged corruption was thought to be largely responsible for the demise of both Bhutto’s governments.
Torn apart with grief, Naheed was also too stunned to say anything. “She never mentioned it [the will] to me, nor had I seen it,” she told me.
Back in Islamabad, the Musharraf government appeared to be in panic. Within an hour of the attack the scene had been washed down with high-pressure hoses, wiping out almost all the evidence. Saud Aziz, then chief of Rawalpindi police, said he issued these orders after receiving a phone call from a close associate of Musharraf. The interior ministry said they were worried about “vultures picking up body parts”.
This was in stark contrast to what had happened after two assassination attempts on Musharraf in the same city, when the area had been sealed off for weeks.
With the country in chaos, there was an unseemly rush to announce the cause of death and to name an assassin. At 5pm on Friday December 28, less than 24 hours after her death, Brigadier Javed Cheema, the interior ministry spokesman, held a press conference. He said the hospital report showed Bhutto had been killed by striking the lever of the sunroof as she ducked to avoid the bomb. “There was no bullet or metal shrapnel found in the injury,” he said.
He also said intelligence services had intercepted a call from Baitullah Mehsud, head of the Pakistani Taliban, proving he was behind it. A transcript was later made available — though no audio tape — on which the militant leader is self-congratulatory and gives away his location. A week later, journalists including myself were called in to our respective embassies to be told that MI6 and the CIA had authenticated the transcript and were convinced Baitullah had carried out the attack. The former Pakistani cricket captain-turned-politician Imran Khan was incredulous. “The day after the murder they produce a tape of Baitullah saying, ‘I’m sitting here, tomorrow I’ll be having breakfast. Well done, boys.’ Is this a joke? The guy is being hunted down, on the run. Would he be talking like that?”
Baitullah insisted he was not responsible. “I strongly deny it,” he said via his spokesman, Maulvi Omar. “Tribal people have their own customs. We don’t strike women.”
In years of reporting on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, never once had I known them not take responsibility for something. Moreover, Bhutto had told me that after the Karachi attack Baitullah had sent a message saying: “Identify your enemy. I’m not your foe.”
Meanwhile, footage had emerged in which a clean-shaven man in dark glasses was clearly visible waving a gun and firing three shots. A TV station had filmed bullets lying on the ground. Other footage showed Bhutto’s chief bodyguard, Khalid Shahenshah, gesticulating strangely from the stage as Bhutto left.
Aside from Bhutto, 22 others were killed in the attack. Family members told Pakistani media that some had bullet wounds. But no autopsies were carried out, even though they are required by law.
I started my own investigation in the sprawling port city of Karachi on the basis that whoever had tried to kill her there on October 17 was probably the same person that eventually got her.
That bombing was Pakistan’s most lethal terrorist attack, yet I was shocked to find from the local police chief that there was no investigation under way. It wasn’t even clear whether it was a suicide bomb or a car bomb, though a retired army colonel who lived round the corner sent me photographs of a burnt-out car that had its chassis number scratched off so it could not be identified.
Many of those who died were “Martyrs for Benazir”, young party volunteers who formed a human chain round the bus and prevented the bomb getting nearer. One was 25-year-old Intukhab Alam. I went to see his widowed father, Mahmood Yunis, 70, in Muhammadi Colony, Liaquatabad, one of the poorest parts of Karachi. He cannot believe the government is not investigating Bhutto’s death. “My son was a small person, but she was a great leader,” he said. “No Zardari can take her place.”
Someone else with little time for Zardari is Benazir’s niece Fatima. It was eerie going to see her: she lives in 70 Clifton, the house of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, her grandfather and Benazir’s father. He was the first Bhutto to be murdered, hanged by his former army chief, General Zia, in 1979.
Fatima was just 14 in September 1996 when her father, Murtaza, the elder of Benazir’s two brothers, was gunned down on the street, along with six of his men. The murder scene was also washed clean before investigators could arrive.
Fatima and her stepmother, Ghinwa, Murtaza’s second wife, invited me to stay for lunch. They talked of the rivalry between Zardari and Murtaza, who they told me kept a cartoon of his brother-in-law genuflecting to the Sultan of Oman in the guest toilet. It is clear who his wife and daughter believe responsible for his death. “The orders could have only come from the highest levels,” said Fatima. Her Aunt Benazir was prime minister at the time.
Bhutto’s friends and family say she was devastated by Murtaza’s death. Her cousin Tariq Islam accompanied her to the morgue in Karachi. “We went to the cold room where his blood-soaked body was and she collapsed, put her head between his feet and cried and howled, ‘You’re my baby brother, don’t do this to me.’ ”
Bhutto, who was prime minister at the time, called in a Scotland Yard team to investigate and asked Islam to be the liaison person. “Even though it was her government, they were stymied at every turn,” he said. “They wanted to see the scene, but within hours it had been pressure-washed. They wanted to see the vehicle in which Murtaza’s body was flung and taken to hospital but were told it had been taken to a garage.”
Six weeks after the murder, a coup took place and Benazir was ousted as prime minister. Scotland Yard was sent home.
Zardari was detained for allegedly being involved in the murder, as well as a number of corruption cases. He was released from jail into exile in 2004 by Musharraf and acquitted on the murder charge in 2008 owing to lack of evidence.
Last December, 18 police officers also alleged to have been involved in Murtaza’s murder were all acquitted. Some had been highly promoted. “Shoaib Suddle, the police chief who was there on the night, was made head of the IB,” said Fatima. “Zardari’s defence lawyer in the case is now attorney general.”
Similarly, following Benazir’s death, nobody has lost their job despite clear lapses in security and failures to investigate. Bhutto’s security chief, Rehman Malik, who disappeared with the backup car, is now interior minister and Zardari’s closest adviser. “My enemies are talking nonsense that I ran away,” he said when I asked why he left the spot. “I wasn’t a security officer that I had to be there. I’m not a guard or a gunman.”
Musharraf’s interior secretary, Kamal Shah, is still in his post, though it was his ministry that put out the version of events Bhutto’s friends and family dispute. Saud Aziz, who ordered the roads to be washed, was transferred to Multan, the prime minister’s constituency, but was suspended last week following the UN report.
Then there is the unexplained shooting of Benazir’s bodyguard Khalid Shahenshah, who was also in the car the night of her killing. I tracked down his best friend, Mohammed Yarwar, a former US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent, who met me in a house full of caged snakes on a busy Karachi road. A student activist for the party, Shahenshah ran a grocery store in Connecticut and seems a strange choice as chief bodyguard. “We hung out in New York,” said Yarwar. “He had a connection with Zardari and got to know Benazir because he would drive her when she visited.”
Shahenshah was heading security at Bhutto’s residence in Karachi, Bilawal House, when, on July 22, 2008, Yarwar got a panicked call from one of his guards, who was outside his friend’s house. “He was screaming, ‘There’s firing going on!’ ”
The guard later told him that Shahenshah had arrived home and got out of his car outside the gate. A small car approached with three men inside who began firing. “They shot 62 rounds, of which seven bullets hit Khalid,” said Yarwar. The car was later abandoned. Yarwar denied rumours that it was a gangland killing. “There was no proper investigation,” he said. “People say he might have known something about Benazir’s death. If he did, he never told me: all he ever said was that she was definitely shot. But I don’t like it. I’ve quit the PPP. ”
Fear is tangible when I start asking about Benazir’s death, something the UN commission noted, describing themselves as “mystified by the efforts of certain high-ranking government authorities to obstruct access”.
In Rawalpindi I went first to Liaquat Road, where Benazir was killed. The spot is marked by a garish painting of her on a red background surrounded by what look like pink bathroom tiles. In front lay a dried-up wreath. Behind a few barricades was a cabin where five policemen were sitting around drinking tea under a lightbulb hanging from a wire.
When I started to take photographs they became animated, telling me to go away. They noted down my driver’s numberplate, after which he refused to take me anywhere else.
I hailed another cab to take me to Rawalpindi’s police headquarters and found the charming chief police officer, Rao Iqbal. When I asked what was the usual procedure after a bombing, he said: “Our priority is to get life back to normal and remove all the rubble, but after collecting the evidence, not before.” Why did this not happen after Bhutto’s death? “The orders may have come through the mouth of CPO Saud Aziz, but it was a government agency that ordered the washing, not a policeman,” he replied, adding: “In my view it should not have been washed.”
As a result, they collected only 23 pieces of evidence, in a case where there would normally be thousands. One of the pieces was her car, and that had also been washed of any evidence. The UN commission pulled no punches, stating: “The failure of the police to investigate effectively Ms Bhutto’s assassination was deliberate.”
Police did find the blown-off face of the suicide bomber, who they say was a 15-year-old boy, on a roof. And to my surprise they told me they have five suspects in custody picked up in 2008, and five more they plan to arrest. They believe they were recruited from madrasahs and part of a team sent to target Bhutto in different cities — but they did not seem to be interested in who had sent them.
The lack of evidence has made it very difficult to establish how Bhutto died. Under pressure, Musharraf called in Scotland Yard to investigate her death. They backed his government’s version that Bhutto died after hitting her head, rather than from an assassin’s bullet. Yet every single person in her car insists she fell before the blast.
I went to the hospital hoping to see Professor Mussadiq, who led attempts to resuscitate Bhutto. I was first refused entry, then told he was at the Holy Family hospital. When I got there, they told me he was not at work. Eventually I met one of the other doctors who attended her; he would only speak off the record.
“Our main concern was saving her life, not what caused the injury, because that is done in an autopsy,” he said. “We all thought she had been shot.”
Because she was an emergency patient, the medical team had made no official report, just clinical notes. They were horrified then when the interior-ministry spokesman held the press conference in which he cited their report, attributing the cause of death to hitting the lever of the sunroof.
“They were very perturbed,” said Athar Minallah, the lawyer who sits on the hospital board. “When they couldn’t revive her, they told the police chief three times there needed to be an autopsy. He was constantly on the phone to someone else and refused, even though by law it’s mandatory.”
If how Bhutto died cannot be properly established, it seems unlikely we will ever find out who did it. In August last year, Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban suspect, was killed by an American drone.
The person fingered by Bhutto, Musharraf, now lives in exile in London, accompanied everywhere by six Scotland Yard officers. Before Christmas I met him at a dinner at the home of a mutual Pakistani friend, where he lounged on the sofa, drinking whisky, smoking a fat cigar and handing out £50 notes to the singers.
When a reporter asked him if he had blood on his hands, he retorted that the question was “below my dignity”, going on to say: “My family is not a family which believes in killing people. For standing up outside the car I think she was to blame — nobody else. Responsibility is hers.”
The UN disagrees. “Ms Bhutto’s assassination could have been prevented if adequate security measures had been taken,” states the report. Describing the government protection as “fatally insufficient”, they point out that there were few police present to guard her, and that those posted on roofs to watch for threats did not even have binoculars.
Ask most Pakistanis who killed Benazir and they ask who benefited. A Google search on Zardari turns up Zardari jokes, Zardari corruption, Zardari assets and Zardari killed Benazir as among the most common searches. Bhutto had told friends that she would not let her husband be involved in politics again. The plan was for him to stay in Dubai. They had lived separate lives for years. He argues this was because in 20 years of marriage, he spent 11 years in jail. But when he was released, instead of Dubai he went to New York, ostensibly for medical treatment.
Her closest friends say the will is in her writing, and they believe she wanted to keep the party in the family, in the South Asian tradition. “She thought it would split into factions otherwise,” said Bashir Riaz, who knew her all her life. But they are at a loss to explain why, when Zardari became Pakistan’s president in September 2008, he did not begin an investigation.
I put this to Zardari when I went to his house in Islamabad. “The stature of Bhutto called for an independent, transparent and above-board investigation so no accusation of bias could be made,” he said. “This is bigger than us.”
He showed me a framed copy of the will. “This was the joker in the pack,” he said. “Whoever killed her wanted a weak PPP minus Benazir. They thought they would get their own choice.”
His interior minister, Malik, claimed the government are now investigating and will soon release their own report. “We are after just one more person, then the circle will be complete,” Malik said.
“I don’t want nine people strung up to avenge her death — it’s the whole system,” said Zardari. “Only when we’re prospering and we’re Singapore will she be avenged.”
Fine words. Last week, Pakistan’s parliament voted to repeal a constitutional amendment used by military dictators to give themselves sweeping powers. But it remains a nation besieged by bombings and power cuts where militant leaders go free, even holding public rallies, and intelligence agencies make people disappear. When a government delegation went to Washington last month it was clear that the army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, was the real power. This is the same army whose generals suggested to Zardari last time Bhutto was prime minister that he replace her because they didn’t like saluting to a woman. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7111333.ece