• RSS
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin

Thumbnail Recent Post

Recent Comments

  • Sit amet felis. Mauris semper, velit semper laoreet dictum

    Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Quisque sed felis. Aliquam sit amet felis. Mauris ...

  • Esha Deol

    Esha studied in the Jamnabai Narsee School, excelled at football, then went on to attend Oxford University and obtained a Masters Degree in Media Arts and Computer Technology. She also learned classical dance forms from her mom, the daughter of Jaya Chakraborty.

    Category name clash

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Quisque sed felis. Aliquam sit amet felis. Mauris semper, velit semper laoreet dictum, quam diam dictum urna, nec placerat elit nisl in ...

  • Test with enclosures

    Here's an mp3 file that was uploaded as an attachment: Juan Manuel Fangio by Yue And here's a link to an external mp3 file: Acclimate by General Fuzz Both are CC licensed. Lorem ...

  • Block quotes

    Some block quote tests: Here's a one line quote. This part isn't quoted. Here's a much longer quote: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In dapibus. In pretium pede. Donec ...

Showing posts with label AHMED QURAISHI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AHMED QURAISHI. Show all posts

Taseer’s real killers

Posted by eadposting - -

Written by: Ahmed Quraishi Salmaan Taseer was a good Pakistani, a self-made businessman who did not use his politics to create illegal wealth or stash it abroad like most other politicians. He revolutionised telecommunications, introducing wireless telephony, Internet and cable television to Pakistan. In college in Britain, as Ambassador Zafar Hilaly recalled on this page, Mr Taseer read the Quran.
A week before his murder, he accused India of involvement in terrorism in Balochistan and defended Pakistan’s moral support to Kashmiris. The day he died, he was wearing a chain around his neck with Ayat-ul Kursi, one of the most inspirational verses from the Holy Quran. Despite being a liberal, he was not a ‘westernised extremist’ and never indulged in attacks against religious Pakistanis throughout his political career. He criticised a law written by legislators and lawyers, but did not question Islam’s death penalty for proven blasphemy. Showing support to a poor Pakistani Christian woman with young children who was not an intentional blasphemer was a humanitarian act, and very Islamic. He certainly was not a blasphemer.
Pakistan must prevent three different parties from hijacking the debate over the anti-blasphemy law and over Mr Taseer’s murder. One is our own religious extremists. Two is our own westernised liberal extremists. And the third party is foreign governments and media whose statements complicate the internal debate instead of resolving it.
Unfortunately, there is no credible face in the Pakistani government that could step forward and put the issue in perspective. The anti-blasphemy law is not directed at Pakistani Christians. The anti-blasphemy law traps more Muslims in its net than Christians, as the recent case of a conviction of a mosque imam and his son indicates. This does not mean the law should not be amended or repealed. It must be either amended or repealed because it is being abused. For example, the 45-year-old mosque imam and his 20-year-old son were convicted for life this month because they dared remove a poster on their shop window advertising a religious event that contained Quranic verses. It is ridiculous. What mosque imam would commit blasphemy?
The real problem over the law is between an extremist westernised minority of Pakistanis, who ridicule religion, and between another extremist religious minority, that takes religion to extreme. The extremist westernised minority wants no religion at all and keeps talking about European secularism, which is misplaced in Pakistan. This provokes the religious extremist minority into paranoia and pushes them to extremes, as in the case of the 26-year-old bodyguard who murdered Governor Taseer. Caught between the two extremes are the majority of moderate, peaceful Pakistanis.
The US and other western governments make matters worse by openly siding with the extremist westernised minority in Pakistan, provoking reaction. Also, some of the foreign support is self-interested. Some of the foreign governments are using Mr Taseer’s murder and the impassioned debate over the law to revive the falling legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan. Linking our internal debate with a disastrous foreign war is dangerous. Our debate over the law is similar to the US debate over abortion at one time that sharply divided the American public opinion and led to some violence. Outsiders must not be allowed to interfere in this debate.
The impression that foreign support is behind Sherry Rehman’s motion against the anti-blasphemy law provoked the other extreme. And her move to remove capital punishment for blasphemy is inconsistent with Islamic injunctions. It is an extremist position that does not appreciate and understand the religious sympathies of most Pakistanis which are legitimate and require no apologies.
On the other hand, Islam has blossomed for fifteen centuries without our made-in-Pakistan anti-blasphemy law, which contains procedures for trial, witnesses and conviction that are man-made and have nothing to do with religion. No one in Pakistan dares to commit blasphemy and this law creates the false impression of prevalence of blasphemy cases in our country. Most Arab and Muslim countries specify death penalty for proven blasphemy but do not have a law like ours. Leaders of religious political parties know these facts but chose to play politics and mislead gullible Pakistanis because they used this debate for popularity and recruitment.
Our overriding concern in this debate is to unite Pakistanis and stop a situation where Pakistanis go to war with each other because of two extremist minorities. We must stop anyone fanning this divide and try to bridge it with reason. Incitement to kill or to ridicule religion from either side must be sternly dealt with. We need to remind our people that a bigger travesty of our religion is to find a minister of Hajj, himself a clergyman, stealing pilgrims’ money. This debate can be redirected.
[ Read More ]

Military’s role

Posted by eadposting - -

Scenes of ordinary people embracing soldiers and taking out their wrath on everything representing failed politicians happened for the second time in a few weeks. An uprising led by middle and lower-middle class citizens welcomed the Egyptian military’s deployment on the streets. Rioters obeyed orders given out by military officers. In sharp contrast, the same rioters pounded every symbol of the politicians, beginning with the police and its intelligence apparatus that protected an incompetent political system. Unlike Tunisia, Egypt has a robust and plural political culture controlled from the top. And yet not a single politician from any party dared join the protestors. Nor did the demonstrators demand the politicians to come out. In this context, how the Egyptians embraced the soldiers who came out to restore order is important.
Desolate Pakistanis flooded by water in far-flung parts of Balochistan and Sindh also embraced military rescuers while stoning the cars of visiting politicians. This does not mean people want military rule. The Egyptians want their military to ditch the corrupt elite and side with the creative, educated and honest people. Egyptians want their military to ally with them against a failed political system. This simply shows the military institution in countries with underdeveloped political systems have a role. The system cannot evolve on its own because we are not Sweden or England and conditions do not simultaneously exist for democracy to produce the same results here as it does in its European home turf. But democracy is a good system and we need it, albeit with local conditioning. In our case, a strong hand that inspires confidence and enforces discipline in the shape of a strong federal government is necessary for evolution. What is needed is military’s support for change and not a direct military rule. But the lead – both for change and governance – must come from the educated middle and lower middle class Pakistanis.
Tunisians and Egyptians begged their military to break its traditional ties to a political class that is tested, tried and failed. Similarly, Pakistan’s military establishment has grown too comfortable with a corrupt and incompetent political elite. Over five decades, our military establishment developed dependencies on elite politicians. This mutual dependency prolonged incompetence and corruption. The mutual ties became so strong that a former military chief who launched a coup in 1999 in the name of change ended up restoring to power the worst of the worst in Pakistani politics.
Look at what the Tunisian military has done. Key ministries of interior, defence, finance and foreign affairs were entrusted to technocrats and independent figures without any political affiliations. The new faces include an internationally acclaimed Tunisian filmmaker, a web designer and blogger, and political activists. The military, bowing to public pressure and possibly internal pressure as well from the rank and file, moved from the first hours to arrest corrupt relatives of the deposed president who were pulled out from airport departure lounges. The military did not hesitate in issuing arrest warrants for a president who looted public wealth. No deals were cut with foreign governments to house exiled corrupt Tunisian leaders. Even the tainted president of France found it difficult to grant asylum to close relatives of the former Tunisian president. This is not to say that the Tunisian military are walking angels. Some of its recent actions might turn out to be half-hearted. But whatever it managed to do in a few days is just a daydream in Pakistan.
Like the existing failed political system in Pakistan, many arguments can be made in favour of Hosni Mubarak. He stabilised Egypt and allowed its middle class to prosper and progress. But his government is incapable of unleashing the full potential of his nation. The common thread between Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan is the middle class. The Pakistani middle class and the business class are responsible for most of the innovation in the country in the fields of culture, sports, music, film, education and science over the last two decades. The same is true for Tunisia and Egypt. Our existing political system is a roadblock in our progress. The required changes are nearly impossible to undertake from within the system. Our politics has degenerated into armed conflict. Political parties have become instruments for creating and sustaining linguistic divisions. They are unable to recognise that the fourth and fifth generation of Pakistanis is the most assimilated and integrated since independence. Technical issues like water-sharing and dams are politicised and foreign powers keep the ruling elite busy in ‘imported debates’ on religion vs secularism and whether the Afghan war is ours or not. It is not that Pakistanis are hopeless. It is a corrupt political system that pushes them toward these self-created divisions.
Pakistan’s military can play a major role in sustaining democracy in the country by ditching a failed political class. Tunisians have done it and the Egyptians are next.
Written by: Ahmad Qureshi
[ Read More ]

Egyptian independence

Posted by eadposting - -

The most remarkable aspect of the Egyptian regime is that it has managed peace with Israel and relations with the United States for a quarter of a century without allowing either one of them to meddle in Egyptian internal affairs. Yes, the Egyptian intelligence cooperated with CIA-run torture programmes known as ‘rendition’ after 9/11. But despite being the second largest recipient of American aid after Israel, for three decades Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and its military foiled American efforts to reshape Egyptian politics and refused to oblige the Americans on plans to turn the Egyptian army into a glorified regional police force for the US military.
The only leverage the Egyptians had over the US was their knowledge that Washington needs Egypt to protect Israel’s western flank, and to meet Israel’s domestic energy needs from Sinai’s oil and gas reserves at preferential rates. Egypt delivered on this count, took the aid money but thwarted every American effort to establish itself inside Cairo’s power corridors. This is a remarkable achievement. For two decades, Pakistan has been unable to match this. American aid to Pakistan has been far below what the country has lost just in the past eight years – up to US$ 64 billion in revenue and opportunity losses, not to account for the price paid by Pakistan for America’s Afghan jihad. And yet Pakistan’s political and military ruling elites have felt they are obliged to allow Washington to shape Pakistan’s political governments and policy options. The biggest example of this is the 2007 deal that gave birth to the incumbent coalition government in Islamabad.
Mubarak is supposed to be a bigger foreign stooge than our own variety and yet, he never allowed foreign meddling in his country, not even in his defeat, declining all ideas and plans for him to move to Germany or Saudi Arabia. He moved to a house in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. So far, he has stuck to his vow that he will die and be buried in Egypt and that he won’t escape for safety in some haven in Jeddah, Dubai, London or New York.
For Pakistan’s ruling elite, these cities have become alternate capitals of Pakistan.
Egypt was taking American aid but refused to accept American meddling. In 2008, then US Central Command Chief David Petraeus pressed the Egyptian army to transform itself into a counterterrorism force so the US could use it for firefighting in the region. The new Egyptian strongman Field Marshal Hussain Tantawi along with Mubarak and other generals refused to play ball. Despite massive corruption, the Egyptian ruling elite never produced proxies who serve Washington and then escape to greener pastures on the American lecture circuit.
When President George W. Bush rolled out his democracy agenda in the Middle East after 9/11, Mubarak was instrumental in failing it (along with the Saudis). He just won’t have it. Mubarak refused to allow the Americans to establish direct contact with Egyptian politicians or engineer any kind of internal change.
Egypt made peace with Israel but only because Egyptian nationalists were disappointed at what they saw as stabs in the back by Arabs and Muslims (for example, rich Arabs refused to bail out the Egyptian economy enough despite the fact that Egypt fought Israel in four wars on behalf of all Arabs. Egypt was also shocked to see Pakistan in 1956 supporting the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, and harbored similar grievances against Turkey and Iran.) All of this shaped the psyche of the Egyptian ruling-elite and intelligentsia and helped push Egypt toward peace with Israel under American guarantees.
There were many occasions when there were frictions between Cairo and Washington over one thing or the other and the mainstream US media was unleashed – as usual – to ridicule, harass or intimidate Mubarak and Egypt. But Mubarak won’t have any of it. The point is not to glorify Mubarak. The point is to highlight the Egyptian elite’s sense of independence and pride even when they were corrupt and seen by their own people as pro-Israel touts.
Compare that to Pakistan. Every regime, from Benazir Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif to Pervez Musharraf to Asif Zardari, has handed over Pakistani citizens to foreign governments without an iota of national pride.
Some of them moved to Jeddah, Dubai, London and New York. Most of them have their wealth and properties abroad. Mr Musharraf introduced a new element to this shameful history when he launched Pakistan’s first political party on foreign soil, in London and Dubai. And now, most Pakistani politicians consider it kosher to conduct important political meetings outside Pakistan. Mr Zardari has introduced another first: high-level meetings with foreign governments that relevant Pakistani government departments, like the Foreign Office, know nothing about. We have ambassadors and national security advisers who are appointed to protect the interests of foreign governments.
Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian regime made peace with Israel but never allowed any foreign power to come and abuse Egyptians or bomb them using CIA drones. This honour exclusively belongs to Pakistan’s ruling elite.
[ Read More ]

Forget Davis

Posted by eadposting - -

American military officials are telling their Pakistani counterparts they want to save the Pakistani-American relationship. The way to do this, they say, is to ‘forgive and forget’ the Raymond Davis debacle, one of the worst scandals to hit the Central Intelligence Agency in years. The notion of saving Pak-US ties is good. But the Pakistani government and military would do a disservice to the nation by sweeping a number of urgent issues under the carpet in the name of salvaging our ties with the United States. Instead of putting Pakistani military under pressure, our American friends need to help save these ties by correcting dangerous imbalances in the bilateral relationship. A fair and full trial for Mr Davis would be a good place to start.
It is also time for the Washington establishment to understand it can’t secure its interests in Pakistan by simply relying on proxies inside Pakistani government or by invoking the Pakistani military. Their actions and policies should also pass the test of Pakistani public opinion.
The Pakistani and American military leaderships met at a resort in Oman last week, which is a couple of hours by plane from Karachi. Credible sources in Islamabad confirm that US military commanders who met General Kayani tried to push him to come down hard on ISI and portray the Davis terror scandal as an ISI attempt to harm Pak-US ties. Some of the American commanders tried to portray the public outrage in Pakistan over Davis and other CIA assets in the country as ISI-engineered. Others are trying to allege that this outrage is limited to religious parties. All of this indicates a dangerous American disregard for Pakistani opinion.
It is also hilarious. If the American assessment is correct, the Pakistani popular outrage is all ISI’s fault. CIA’s advocates have the audacity to accuse ISI of exploiting the media. Someone should draw our American friends’ attention to five years of intense anti-Pakistan campaign in the US media, meant to destabilise Pakistan in every possible way.
A second mischaracterisation the Americans are peddling now is that Mr Davis was simply monitoring dangerous groups. The initial debriefings of the American prove he was not just a spy but a military intelligence operative whose assignment included mounting operations and not just collecting information. His contacts with anti-Pakistan terrorists strengthen earlier information about CIA elements helping terrorists targeting Chinese engineers and Pakistani interests in Balochistan. Information and piles of circumstantial evidence also show CIA elements abetting a range of anti-Pakistan insurgencies across western Pakistan, all of which emerged after our American friends firmly landed in Afghanistan in 2002.
CIA needs to be held accountable for all this. It must explain why its hired gun was in contact with the same terrorists who recently killed two retired ISI officers and who have mounted spectacular attacks in Lahore and Peshawar killing a maximum number of ordinary Pakistanis.
A third issue is the role of President Zardari, his interior minister and his Washington envoy in facilitating the entry of hundreds of US operatives into Pakistan over the past months. It is clear that the US government and CIA rely on proxies to further its agenda in Pakistan. This must come to an end. The personal interests of individuals in the Pakistani government must never trump national interest. The Oman meeting indicates the goal now is to sweep all these urgent issues under the carpet in the name of saving Pak-US relationship.
Contrary to the eloquent pronouncements of senior US officials, Washington is not interested in any long-term relations with Pakistan. The American focus is temporary and limited to its regional interests in Afghanistan, India and China. Only a few days ago the US mainstream media was awash with US official leaks threatening Pakistan of termination of relations. We should not kid ourselves about US intentions, the noise of the small pro-US lobby inside Pakistan notwithstanding.
Mr Davis must be tried and we must strike at the heart of the entire anti-Pakistan enterprise in the region which has been active for nine years. The opening provided by Mr Davis must not go to waste.
 By: Ahmed Quraishi
[ Read More ]