Category — Phaktunkawa

The writer is an economist working in Islamabad.
In his article of May 18, Mr Kashif Jahangiri repeats his claim that the current movement for Hazara province is a reaction to the “contempt” shown by Pakhtuns to Hazarewals. As I mentioned in my earlier article, this labelling is not unique to Pakhtuns and Hazarewals, and it’s also not one-sided.

While Mr Jahangiri bemoans the label of “Punjabi” and the contempt contained in it, I would remind him of labels like “Khocha,” “Akhrot” and “Phairay Pathan” that are tagged on Pakhtuns by Hindko speakers. Of course, I speak of my own experience, and I certainly have not met every Hindkowan in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa to ascertain whether they think of Pakhtuns as mentally deficient lower-life forms. I also cannot conclude on the basis of my personal experience whether these comments end at banter or are signs of deep-seated hate in the hearts of Hindkowans. Any conclusion that I draw based on my own experience and anecdotes from my friends and family would be marred by subjectivity. Although the conclusion and evidence would make sense to me, it would definitely not be good enough to be used in a debate such as this.

It is for this reason that I consider a democratically elected provincial assembly as the ideal barometer to judge whether this ethnic labelling is merely jest or entrenched ethnic hostility. And whether the supposed “contempt” and “hatred” of the Pashto-speaking electoral base is confirmed by the attitude of their elected leaders. But, as mentioned in my last article, Pakhtun-majority assemblies in the province have had no qualms about electing Hindko-speaking chief ministers. Not only that, the former NWFP has had more chief ministers from Hindko-speaking Hazara Division than from any other division of the province. Even Pakhtun nationalists have accepted Hindko speakers as their leaders.

The champions of the Pakhtunkhwa cause on televised debates, ANP stalwarts Haji Adeel and Bashir Bilour, are both Hindko speakers from Peshawar. This evidence only highlights the harmony and bonding between these two communities. The sour experiences of a few individuals cannot be used as proof of the case being otherwise, especially when the evidence in support of the harmony is undeniable and massive.

Ethnic discrimination and contempt that is of any consequence is more than just verbal. Reaction to labelling and name-calling subsides as one ages, and is an essential part of one’s growing up. Only when this labelling is accompanied by a history of bloodshed and economic exploitation does it have the potential to mobilise whole communities, ethnic groups or races into action. For instance, the term “Nigger” does not just refer to the skin colour of a race, but has a history of bondage, slavery and exploitation that makes it a slur for those against whom it is used. Its counterpart “Red Neck,” also a racist slur, does not carry the same venom as the “N-Word” because of the different experience of those it is applied to.

The Bengalis, despite being an outright majority in united Pakistan, were treated in a despicable manner in Pakistan. President Ayub Khan’s reference to them as “rats” (for which he later apologissed) was based on the “martial race” concept. Our Bengali brothers were denied of many of their constitutional and economic rights. For instance, their representation in the army was negligible, a mere five per cent of all the commissioned officers in the Pakistani army in 1965, according to the Library of Congress Country Study.

The majority in East Pakistan received a much smaller share even in development spending. If one is to divide the development expenditure of East Pakistan over that of West Pakistan, then, from 1950 to 1970, the Eastern Wing received just 40 per cent of the amount that was spent on West Pakistan. In other words, for every Rs100 spent in the minority West Pakistan, Rs40 were spent in the majority East Pakistan (source: the Planning Commission of Pakistan).

I completely agree with Mr Jahangiri when he says that the treatment of Bengalis by West Pakistanis was too distasteful to be compared with the communities featuring in our discussion. It is also for this lack of bloodshed and a lack of economic exploitation between Hindkowans and Pakhtuns that the case presented by Mr Jahangiri does not hold against rational scrutiny.

I also agree with Mr Jahangiri when he says that the dismissive approach adopted by West Pakistan in dealing with the genuine demands regarding the Bengali language was one of the key reasons for the creation of Bangladesh. Sadly, this dismissive approach was not limited to Bengali and was adopted in the renaming of NWFP as well.

The officialdom of East Pakistan was also resisted by the Bihari minority at that time. But, as Mr Jahangiri would agree, the dismissal of that legitimate demand was a wrong incurred by the Bengalis, a wrong that cannot be justified by the citing of the Biharis’ opposition. Similarly, the minority opposition to the name Pakhtunkhwa should not have been used to incur a similar wrong on the Pakhtuns.

One has to acknowledge the fact that the name Pakhtunkhwa has been approved by the assemblies of the province in question, both with and without ANP majority, and thus is much more than a mere “unreasonable” demand by Pakhtun nationalists. Furthermore, the name Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is a result of a series of compromises on the part of those who had been demanding “Pakhtunkhwa.”

One of the earliest criticisms of the abbreviation “NWFP” was done by the founding fathers of Pakistan. The historic 1933 pamphlet Now or Never, which called for the creation of Pakistan, refers to “Afghania Province.” Chaudhry Rehmat Ali decried the name NWFP by saying “It is wrongful, because it suppresses the social entity of these people.”

The rejection of “Afghania” (the first “a” in “Pakistan”) was followed by the rejection of “Pakhtunistan,” and then “Pakhtunkhwa,” both names acceptable to and demanded by a majority of the province, but denied due to minority opposition. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa was actually a suggestion from those who opposed the hyphenated name and its acceptance and showed magnanimity on the part of the Pakhtuns. But their criticism, rather than appreciation for their agreeing to it, is mind-boggling, to say the least.

The demand for smaller provinces is a justified demand, for which our Constitution does have provisions. These four provinces were created to administer the population back in 1947. Given the massive rise in our numbers since then, the creation of smaller provinces makes sense even on an administrative level.

But, unlike Mr Jahangiri, I would not dub the Sooba Hazara movement as a reaction to the label “Punjabiyaan.” I would not define this outpouring on the streets and calls for complete shutter-downs as a reaction to mere name-calling. Furthermore, there are Awans, Gujjars, Abbasis and Jatts in Hazara who do not have a Pakhtun lineage and for whom the “denial of true identity” argument used by Mr Jahangiri, does not hold. Given that, I am confused as to what Mr Jahangiri means when he says “…it is the rejection of the identity of Hazarewals that is being exploited to flare up emotions.” How is the slur “Punjabiyaan” a rejection of the identity of Awans, Gujars, Jatts, and other non-Pakhtun Hazarewals?

There is a fair chance that for the campaigners of the Sooba Hazara movement, getting a province means a true realisation of their identity, which is neither Pakhtun nor Punjabi, but Hazaraewal. Maybe they feel that with their own separate province they would be able to get a higher level of development and prosperity. More power to them if that is the case.

A non-violent and peaceful democratic struggle is the only way for the achievement of their goals. Their efforts would be a fine addition to the history of democratic struggles in Pakistan, and would make this country a stronger federation, as well as a more mature democracy. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=240210

ABBOTTABAD/MANSEHRA: Activists of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Wednesday staged protest rallies in support of a separate province for Hazara.
The rally in Abbottabad was led by JI Central Secretary General Liaqat Baloch, leaders of the Hazara Tehrik action committee including Mushtaq Ahmad Ghani, Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob, Abdur Razak Abbasi and Dr Azhar Jadoon.
The JI secretary general said it would lead to a revolution in the country if the Hazara province was not created forthwith. He added the JI would support the Hazara Tehrik long march towards Islamabad and receive the participants at Jhari Kas.
Liaqat Baloch flayed the Awami National Party (ANP) for promoting regional and ethnic politics. He asked the government to remove drawbacks in the 18th Amendment and establish Hazara province through another amendment.
Earlier, speaking at a rally in Mansehra, the JI leader said the ANP never accepted existence of Pakistan and it was striving for greater Pakhtunistan after deceiving the PPP leaders. Younas Khattak, Dr Tariq Sherazi, Syed Junaid Qasim, Hadayatullah Shah, Maulana Qudratullah Qadri, Rafique Rehman Qamar and others also spoke on occasion.
Liaqat Baloch said his party was in favour of more provinces in the country and would launch a movement for it.“It is the need of the hour that rulers listen to the voice of people and create a separate province of Hazara as more provinces can strengthen the federation,” he said.
The JI leader said that the rulers should refuse to take dictates from the US, but lamented that they were following the policy of divide and rule. Earlier JI staged a rally, which started from Markaz-e-Islami and culminated at Markazi Chowk.
www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=240191

The writer is an accountant living in Dublin

This refers the article by Mr Imran Khan published in The News (May 14) in response to my article previously published on these pages. It occurs to me that Mr Khan has totally misunderstood the issue by picking up the thread from the wrong end. The issue is not confined to ethnic labelling only. The primary issue is that of stripping the people of Hazara of their identity by calling them “Punjabiyan”. While I strongly believe that Punjabis are equally respectable as anyone else on this planet, I know for a fact that the reference “Punjabiyan” is made in the Pashto-speaking areas quite often in a contemptuous way. This attitude of people in the Pashto-speaking areas is particularly painful for those from Hazara who are of Pukhtun origin. For them, it is difficult to accept when the people of their own race try to outcast them for the wounds caused by your own people always leave dirty scars. It was particularly this issue that I had highlighted in my article which I feel is one of the main causes behind the reaction of the people of Hazara. I had mentioned that the common perception amongst the Hazarewals is that they are being singled out by the Pukhtun nationalists due to the key role they had played in the historic referendum of 1947. The objective of my article was also to highlight the fact that the renaming of the province was not the main issue. If the people of Hazara had accepted the renaming of Haripur, Abbottabad and Mansehra, why would they object to the new name of the province just for the sake of it, particularly those who are themselves Pukhtuns? Mr Khan has referred to some famous racial divides – the Irish and the English, the Pukhtuns and the Muhajirs, and, the Bengalis and the West Pakistanis. None of these serves as the right parallel to the problem of Hazara. In all these cases, there were two different races involved. Even otherwise, I am not sure if we should follow these examples as a lot of blood was lost in these divides. The reference to various chief ministers of the province hailing from Hazara is also not relevant. Just to close out on this, Hazara has been a strong base for the Muslim League and has been the reason for their government in the province. The Muslim League has chosen chief ministers from Hazara to keep its ground intact. However, I don’t think it has any relevance to the present issue. Mr Khan has also provided statistics to substantiate the claim that the region of Hazara has been adequately looked after in developmental terms. Without going into the details of those statistics, I am not sure if development alone can do the trick. The argument regarding the development of the Hazara region itself requires us to find out and address the real cause behind the demand for a separate province that now carries the cost of a few lives. If development were sufficient to keep the people together, then East Pakistan would not have become Bangladesh. I present to you some developmental statistics for East Pakistan that are from the book The Agony of Pakistan (page 115) written by Sir Zafarulla Khan, our first foreign minister who later became the president of the UN General Assembly and then the president of the International Court of Justice. * East Pakistan’s revenue receipts increased from Rs169m in 1947-48 to Rs1,789m in 1969-70. During the same period, the revenue receipts of Dacca Municipality increased from Rs1.6m to Rs16.3m and that of Chittagong Municipality from Rs0.75m to Rs15m. * In 1947, there were no jute mills in East Pakistan. By 1970, it had 55 jute mills processing 3 million bales of jute. * Between 1947 and 1970, the number of post offices in East Pakistan doubled from 3,000 to 6,000 and telephone connections increased from 3,000 to over 50,000. * Between 1947 and 1970, the length of high-type roads in East Pakistan increased from 240 miles to 2,400 miles and low-type roads from nil to 1,400 miles. * The handling capacity of Chittagong port was increased from 0.5m tons in 1947 to 4.7m tons in 1969. An additional port established in Chalna had a handling capacity of over 2m tons. * In 1947, there were only two small airports (Dacca and Chittagong). By 1970, there were a number of small airports and airstrips while the Dacca Airport was upgraded to handle jet planes. * Of the total developmental loans of Rs15,266m made available by the government of Pakistan between 1947 and 1970, more than 55 per cent went to East Pakistan. * Between 1960 and 1969, of the total revenues of Rs8,0451m contributed by East Pakistan, an amount of Rs3,884m (48 per cent) was refunded to it as provincial allocation. During the same period, of the total revenue of Rs22,371m contributed by West Pakistan, an amount of Rs4,000m (18 per cent) was refunded to it as provincial allocation. * The only steel mill was established at Chittagong and the only newsprint plant was set up at Khulna. The above-mentioned facts clearly failed to impress our Bengali brothers who parted ways with us. Their problems did not arise in1971. The seed of Bengali nationalism was planted in the early years of Pakistan when processions were taken out in East Pakistan against the adoption of Urdu as the national language. Our dismissive approach complicated the issue and provided opportunities to our enemies who exploited the emotions of our brothers. We should not repeat the same mistakes. As a result of strain between any two sections of a society, howsoever distinct, the people of each section start receding to their respective nuclei. In the next phase, they try to detach themselves from the part they consider as the source of pain. The region of Hazara is now moving towards phase two. This is a sensitive matter and needs careful attention, particularly considering our history and the present state of affairs. The objective of my article was to raise an issue and to jolt minds, hoping that better sense would start prevailing. We should accept our problems and try to address them, rather than going for a cover up approach. Some of the comments made by the participants in a TV show recently and some videos that can be found on Youtube of the speeches made in the processions that were brought out by people in favour of Hazara province clarify the point further that it is the rejection of the identity of Hazarewals that is being exploited to flare up emotions. I had mentioned in my post to The News published on May 13, 2010 that I support the view that all Divisions should be made provinces. However, it should be done for the purpose of administrative ease only. Dividing a province on the basis of ethnic differences may lead to further subdivisions and no one knows where it will stop. We need to consider the future implications of any such move. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=239856

The writer is an economist working in Islamabad
This is in response to Mr Kashif Jahangiri’s article ‘The real Hazara problem’ which appeared in The News on May 6, 2010. The incidents of discrimination that Mr Jahangiri has mentioned in his article must be condemned; discrimination – be it ethnic or religious – is wrong. But to generalise the entire Pukhtun community on the basis of wrong behaviour shown by a few individuals is also wrong, just like it is unfair to brand all the Muslims as terrorists based on the actions of a few.

According to the hypothesis proposed by Mr Jahangiri, the current movement for the province of Hazara is a reaction to the “contempt” doled out to Hazarewals by Pukhtuns. I disagree with Mr Jahangiri and my disagreement is based on two reasons. First, this ethnic labelling is not unique to Pukhtuns and Hazarewals, and also, it is not one-sided. Second, the intensity of this “contempt” is not as high as suggested by Mr Jahangiri.

Linguistic differences provide the basis for ethnic identities, and using these differences to make ethnic jokes is a common practice around the world. In Pakistan, ethnic labelling exists between all linguistically different communities that are living side by side. Even in the more politically correct society of the United States, jokes based on Spanish-American accent, for instance, are part of the popular culture. This does not stop at different ethnicities; in many cases different dialects of a language become the basis for similar pun. For instance, within the Pathans, the linguistic differences between the Pukhtuns, Pashtuns and Pashteens often become a source of humour and labelling, and in many individual cases the difference has boiled into discrimination as well, similar to what Mr Jahangiri has described.

While the jokes and banter part is acceptable in most cases, and cherished as diversity, problems arise when this difference becomes the source of outright discrimination at a community level. Living in Dublin, Mr Jahangiri must be aware of the history of the differences between the Irish and the English, and how much blood had been spilled because of that. The Rwandan genocide that resulted in the death of almost a million people was also a result of distrust between two communities. In our own history, the discrimination against the Bengalis became the main reason for the creation of Bangladesh. Similarly, Karachi’s Pathan-Muhajir riots of the 60s, that planted the seeds of ethnic disharmony in Karachi, are a sad example.

So, how have these two communities – the Pukhtun majority and the Hindkowan minority – fared in the former NWFP? If the case presented by Mr Jahangiri is correct, then a discriminatory Pakhtun majority must have been a hurdle towards the political aspirations of the Hindko-speaking minority. The Hazarewal politicians must have found it really hard to argue their case in the Pukhtun-dominated provincial assembly. But when one looks at history, nothing of that sort has happened. In fact, since independence, the Hazara division has had the honour of claiming the highest number of chief ministers than any other division in the former NWFP. These include Sardar Bahadur Khan (1955), Muhammad Iqbal Khan Jadoon (1977), Pir Sabir Shah (1994), and Mehtab Ahmed Khan Abbasi (1999). Incidentally, all four of them belonged to the Hindko-speaking minority. If, as suggested by Mr Jahangiri, the Pukhtuns had strong contempt towards Hindko speakers, then this achievement would not have been possible through democratic means.

A discriminatory Pukhtun majority should also have leveraged its numerical strength to hog most of the provincial resources, leaving little for the Hazarewals in terms of development spending. But the reality, when measured in terms of various indicators of economic development, is that the Hindko-speaking districts of Hazara have a much higher level of development than the provincial average. The Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) for 2006-07, conducted by the Federal Bureau of Statistics, reveals that in the former NWFP, 26 per cent of the households reported to have ‘RBC/RCC (concrete) roof’, with the Pushto-speaking area of Battagram at 15.9 per cent. In contrast, the Hindko-speaking districts of Abbottabad and Haripur reported 45 per cent and 51 per cent concrete roofs respectively, i.e. twice the provincial average. These statistics are comparable to Sialkot at 47.64 per cent and are much higher than those for districts in southern Punjab, for instance, Multan at 19.22 per cent, Bahawalpur at 11 per cent and Rajanpur at 2 per cent.

Similarly, Haripur and Abbotabad boast 67.76 per cent and 61.44 per cent access to tap water respectively, which is much higher than the provincial average at 44.19 per cent. This comparatively higher level of development, which, no doubt, reflects a better quality of life, is confirmed through a variety of other indicators pertaining to health, literacy and sanitation. Had there been well-entrenched hatred and discrimination against the Hazarewals, they would not have been able to achieve this level of development as a minority.

Mr Jahangiri also mentions the use of the word “Khariyaan” i.e. hindko speakers of Peshawar city, as a derogatory term used by the Pathans. Well, if that was true then how is it possible for Khariyaan such as the Bilours, Haji Adeel and Syed Aqil Shah to become the top leaders of a nationalist Pukhtun party? As I understand politics, leaders are defined by their popularity and acceptance; followers would not follow someone whom they consider ‘inferior’. For instance; did Malcolm X even stand a chance for membership in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)? If one is to extend this KKK analogy to this situation, then these black Khariyaan have risen to level of Grand Dragons in this Pashtun Ku Klux Klan. Paradoxical indeed, if one is to accept Mr Jahangiri’s assertion.

But instead of acknowledging the prominence of these Khariyaan in Pukhtun nationalism, Mr Jahangiri disapproves of the Bilours, terming them non-Pukhtuns pretending to be Pukhtuns. I must say that this argument uses a logic that is very antiquated and defies modern sensibilities. If a Pukhtun lineage does not stop a Tareen, Tanoli, Jadoon, or Swati to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Awans, Gujars, Jatts, and Abbasis of Hazara in the name of the Hindko language and Hazarewal identity, then by the very same principle, the Khariyaans of Peshawar have every right to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Pushto-speaking Pukhtuns in the name of Pukhtun identity. The notion of lineage-based identity and the consequent generalisation of races based on their bloodline is an old and obsolete concept. The rejection of the name Pukhtunkhwa, by the descendents of Ahmad Shah Abdali’s soldiers that is the Jadoons, Tareens and Tanolis is living proof that when it comes to ethnic loyalties, successful cultural assimilation can leave bloodlines and lineages to be pretty much meaningless.

I would conclude by saying that the higher development levels of the Hindko-speaking districts of Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa, the frequent election of minority Hindkowans to the chief ministership of a Pukhtun-majority parliament, and the key leadership positions of Hindkowans in the ANP, provide ample proof of the cultural harmony that exists between Hindko speakers and Pukhtuns in Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa. This harmony is an achievement, the equivalent of which is very hard to find in Pakistan. It also is an achievement that cannot be discredited through mere anecdotal evidence. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=239198

By Ikramullah
The writer is the president of the Pakistan Nation Forum.
There was a bomb blast in Peshawar on Friday killing more than 50 innocent people and injuring over 100. This was followed on Saturday by another blast near GHQ in Rawalpindi killing some security personnel, besides injuring a number of civilians in the most sensitive security zone of Rawalpindi. What follows when and where is anybody’s guess. After the defeat of the Taliban in Swat, it is clear that the stage has already been set for a military operation in FATA to put a final end to their strategic design, which was to destabilise Pakistan.
It is significant that at this critical juncture when the armed forces need total and undivided support of the whole nation, so vital for the success of the critical impending operations in South Waziristan, the political horizon in the country seems muddled with the haze of confusion and uncertainty in the shape of deep divisions amongst the four provinces on every major issue. The law and order situation has resulted in the postponement of the by-elections in two national and two provincial constituencies of the Punjab. If this continues, the holding of general or even mid-term elections, is a far cry. This does not augur well for democracy taking roots in Pakistan, much less any indicators of its forward march under the so-called Charter of Democracy (COD). According to independent political observers, the COD lost its spirit with the assassination of PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto and which is no more than a piece of paper.
Right at this moment when the nation is at its most critical crossroads, appears the ghost of Prince Hamlet on the horizon of Pakistan in the shape of the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) as a bolt from the blue, shattering the nation as if by a storm.
I have never seen this nation so deeply divided. Without going into the merits/demerits of this so-called Enhanced Aid Package to Pakistan tripling the present assistance by USA in the civilian sector with the conditions attached it has become a major bone of contention.
The recent core commanders’ meeting held under the chairmanship of the COAS found it necessary to express their deep concern over the clauses included in KLB connected with Pakistan’s national security. This indicates that the defence forces, responsible for the territorial integrity of Pakistan and even more important the command and control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, were not taken on board during the processing of the bill which has taken more than a year in preparing the final draft for approval by the US Senate and the House of Representatives. It is now awaiting the formal signature of the US president before it becomes a law, as a result of the bill resuming the new title of a US Act of Congress. It is no secret that the incumbent leadership as well as our ambassador in Washington were involved in the preparation of various drafts that were amended several times with joint consultations. Therefore, let us not kid ourselves with the claim that KLB is a purely US Congress Legislation which has nothing to do with Islamabad. No one will buy that.
In a meeting with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani in Lahore the other day, I pointed out that it is not just out of fear of the bill impinging upon the nation’s sovereignty, but primarily because it imposes strong checks on the country’s security and nuclear capability. I, therefore, strongly recommended to the prime minister that the bill should be placed before Parliament for scrutiny, so that the Congress is apprised of the sentiments of the Pakistani nation with regard to the implications of the three certifications that Secretary Clinton is required to provide to the Congressional Committees. The Parliament is the only and best possible democratic forum to finally decide the fate of the Bill. And also fix responsibility for the role and influence exercised by some major players during its preparation. This is a defining moment for Parliament upon which may depend the future course of our democratic journey towards the goal of a modern, independent, democratic and Islamic welfare state.www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/11-Oct-2009/A-defining-moment-for-Pakistan

The Indian Express, Sept 26
NEW DELHI: One reason why Pakistan doesn’t appear to be sincere in its against t Lashkar-eToiba founder and Jamaatud-Dawa chief Hafiz Sayeed is slowly emerging.
It’s been learnt here that some of the LeT’s top commanders, spearheading its violent campaign in India, have now joined the Pak Army’s campaign against the Taliban.
Sources said they have been moved from Punjab in Pakistan to set up and lead Army-sponsored armed “vil- i lage defence committees” in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP).
Sources said LeT commanders Sad Baba, Asad Khan, Bilal, Gazi Sultan and Huzefa have moved to NWFP where the Pak Army is encouraging local tribesmen and their el- i ders to form armed groups to fight the Taliban. l Local tribesmen are said to have told the Pak Army not to deploy its forces because their presence helps build support for the Taliban. Hence, the committees.
This anti-Taliban resistance has a parallel with the “Sunni awakening” in Iraq, where tribesmen took on al-Qaeda militants in Anbar province and elsewhere.
The village defence groups rely on tribal customs and i widespread ownership of guns to raise traditional private armies — interestingly, these are also called Lashkars — each with hundreds of volunteers from local tribes.
These armies, launched last autumn, are not aimed at preventing individual acts of terrorism — suicide bombings etc — but to create a local defence system that prevents the Taliban from setting up an “extremist mini-state” in the lawless north-west.
Such Lashkars have already been established in Bajaur, Dir and Buner in NWFP .
The biggest anti-Taliban Lashkar had been set up by Sulthankeil tribe in Khall town with 10,000 local recruits who came along with their weapons.
Sources reveal that the LeT’s support for setting up and leading these tribal groups has two main reasons.
One, the LeT belongs to a different ideological sect, theologically opposed to the Taliban and an armed rebellion against the Pak army.
Two, LeT’s commanders are experienced in guerilla warfare and most of them have been operating in Kashmir or directing terror acts in various cities across India.
Security agencies monitoring Lashkar operations have found that the geographical location of many of these LeT commanders is being concealed via “spoofing” of their satphones.
“When a satellite phone is spoofed, it means its Lat (latitude)-Long (Longitude) is misrepresented by highly sophisticated sensors thus preventing surveillance,” a senior official told The Indian Express.
The official alleged that there were instances where the service provider was “giving inaccurate information.”
“We worked on two numbers, one belonging to an LeT commander and another used by a Hizbul man. Both were spoofed and in both cases we knew the actual location of the users. The service provider gave us the correct information about the Hizbul man while it misled us on information about the phone used by the LeT.” http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2009/09/26/ArticleHtmls/26_09_2009_001_007.shtml?Mode=1

The Daily Times, Sept 10
PESHAWAR: Awami National Party (ANP) said on Wednesday there was no justification for holding a referendum on the NWFP renaming issue as demanded by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and thus the ANP rejected it, saying only the constitutional committee of the parliament could decide the issue.

The ANP said the Nawaz League’s criticism of the ANP and its attitude towards Pakhtuns was condemnable. “Nawaz League is the enemy of Pakhtuns and still following the policies of Ranjeet Singh,” said ANP Provincial President Afrasiab Khattak while addressing a press conference along with party leaders Arbab Tahir Khalil, Arbab Najeebullah, Arbab Tajuddin and others.

Khattak said the renaming of the province was an important issue and the provincial assembly had already unanimously passed a resolution demanding the province be renamed Pakhtunkhwa.

The ANP leader said the issue was under consideration in the parliament’s constitutional committee working for constitutional reforms. However, he added, the PML-N leaders made the issue public instead of solving it within the constitutional committee and started giving public statements on issue.

Khattak said NWFP, FATA and PATA were no names. “It’s only Pakhtunkhwa but attempts are being made to make it controversial,” he said. Khattak said the PML-N made a demand for a referendum on the issue. “I propose referendums be also held on the name issue in Punjab and Sindh as only one language is not spoken in a province,” he said. He said there are a large number of Seraiki speaking people in Punjab and therefore referendum should also be held there.

Khattak said no referendum was held when Lyallpur was renamed to Faisalabad and Montgomery to Sahiwal.

The ANP leader said the largest political parties had also acknowledged the name Pakhtunkhwa and the name is no longer controversial. Khattak said the people of the province supporting the Nawaz League should review their party affiliation as “PML-N is the enemy of Pakhtuns.” He said the name Pakhtunkhwa was the demand of the people of the province.

Khattak said the name Afghania was also acceptable as it was given to this region by the founders of Pakistan. The ANP leader said Abasin was the name of a river and Khyber the name of an area and therefore could not be accepted as name of the province.

“We can only accept Pakhtunkhwa or Afghania,” he said. Khattak said the ANP is cooperating with the parliament’s constitutional committee and wants to solve the problem within this constitutional body. “And if it could not solve the issue, we’ll stick to our stand and demand,” said the ANP provincial president. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\09\10\story_10-9-2009_pg7_11

PESHAWAR: NWFP Assembly’s former deputy speaker Ikramullah Shahid has challenged the use of name ‘Pakhtunkhwa’ instead of NWFP by government officials in the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and requested the court to declare that such name should not be used for the province till amendment was made in the Constitution.

Advocate Ikramullah Shahid filed a writ petition some three days back in the PHC, wherein he cited various advertisements that appeared in local newspapers in which different government departments had used ‘Pakhtunkhwa’ as name of the province. Referring to advertisements that appeared on the occasion of Independence Day, the petitioner stated that the secretaries and high-level officials of the departments concerned had committed gross violation of the Constitution, which not only fell under the abuse of the official authority but was also an example of misconduct by the public servants. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\09\10\story_10-9-2009_pg7_12

REIGNITING what lately had appeared to be a settled issue, Nawaz Sharif has demanded that a referendum be held in the NWFP on the renaming of the province. Mr Sharif’s demand flies in the face of an overwhelming majority in the NWFP Assembly, which has passed a resolution endorsing the name Pakhtunkhwa. Moreover, while a constitutional amendment has yet to be passed, the nomenclature has already been amended at the centre informally with everyone from the president to the prime minister to federal ministers referring to the NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa. Overlooking the near unanimity, Mr Sharif has instead apparently opted to focus on shoring up support for his own party in the Hazara region, a traditional PML-N stronghold that is Hindko-speaking. But even on that count, the PML-N leader may be misguided. The 1998 census shows that Mansehra is evenly divided between Pushto- and Hindko-speakers, while in other districts such as Haripur and Abbottabad a significant Pushto-speaking population too now resides. Moreover, there is the fact that in the NWFP generally Pushto is the mother tongue of three-fourths of the population. Why then should the people of the NWFP continue to live under a colonial-era name? Names matter to identity, something we have seen very recently with Gilgit-Baltistan, an appellation that has been hailed by the people of the erstwhile Northern Areas. Looking at the other federating units — Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh — there is also the question of why the NWFP alone should have a name with no regional identity.

The problem, then, isn’t about a referendum — Pakhtunkhwa is supported by the majority and the people’s elected representatives — but why Mr Sharif would want to impede the process of changing the name of the NWFP at all. Since his return to the country, Mr Sharif and his party have done a fair bit to challenge the perception that the PML-N is a one-province party, most noticeably by reaching out to Balochistan and sounding a conciliatory note to the smaller provinces during the ongoing NFC discussions. By digging in his heels on Pakhtunkhwa, however, Mr Sharif is unnecessarily reinforcing old perceptions and needlessly alienating a province. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/renaming-nwfp-999