Friday, December 27, 2013

History creates hell

Hamoodur Rahman Commission report unsettles Pakistan, raises demands for probe into Kargil

Swapan Dasgupta NA, September 4, 2000 | UPDATED 10:44 IST

The report of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission (HRC) set up by president Z.A. Bhutto in 1971 to inquire into the Pakistani debacle in East Pakistan had a ghostly presence in Pakistan since its submission in 1974. Suppressed from the public, its purported findings were a subject of intense conjecture.

That the HRC had been harsh on the military was easily surmised from Bhutto's grandiose announcement that every copy had been burnt. Yet, the speculation refused to die. Knowledgeable circles in Islamabad insisted that at least two copies had survived. One was found in the Bhutto house in Larkana in 1979 after his execution and subsequently kept under wraps in the Ministry of Interior. The other simply disappeared.

Therefore, when INDIA TODAY published the supplementary report ("Behind Pakistan's Surrender", August 21) on Pakistan's Independence Day, the instinctive, knee-jerk reaction in Pakistani official circles was: How was the report leaked? Theories ranged from speculative deduction to the bizarre.

The debate at one level is about the shame that Pakistan has been put to.

There were suggestions that it was leaked by the Americans, sold for a consideration, pilfered by an Indian journalist from under Bhutto's pillow and intelligently culled from published sources.

Never one to mince words, Kulsoom Nawaz, wife of the imprisoned former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, taunted the Government for allowing a "state secret" to fall into "enemy hands". "One day India will publish a report on Kargil as well, recommending court martial for Pervez Musharraf," she added sarcastically.

Predictably, the motives behind the publication were questioned. Wrote The Frontier Post (Peshawar): "This Indian magazine's scoop is part of the worldwide campaign that New Delhi has mounted over ... several months to malign Pakistan." Major-General Rahim Khan, one of the 11 senior officers against whom court martial was urged by the HRC, was even more forthright.

The report, he said, was leaked "with the clear aim of embarrassing the present military Government and to malign the army as an institution." Endorsing this view, Indian Rajya Sabha member Kuldip Nayar pointed a finger at "some liberal elements in the establishment (who) wanted the people to know that all statements by Musharraf on corruption and accountability were not credible because only the civilians were targeted and no one from the military".

Hard-Hit: The clamour for the army to also come clean on Kargil is unnerving General Pervez Musharraf (right) and President Rafiq Tarar

On its part, despite an initial gaffe by Information Minister Javed Jabbar, the Pakistan Government maintained a strange reticence. On August 18, an official spokesman denied that Jabbar had called for the release of the report: "Aspects of whether the report was partially or wholly duplicated or whether it was unautho-risedly handled at any point during the past 26 years are being investigated." He said the Government would make a statement "at an appropriate stage". For the moment, the Government insisted, the HRC remained a "classified" document.

Not that anyone is waiting for an official declassification. With Major-General Rao Farman Ali, an officer exonerated by the HRC, and military historian Brian Cloughley certifying the authenticity of the published version, the debate in Pakistan has moved on to the contents and implication of the HRC report.

INDIA TODAY GROUP ONLINE, which has posted the entire report on its website, reported a 1,000 per cent increase in average traffic with the report itself recording nearly five lakh page views in a week. In Pakistan, The Dawn has reproduced the report on its website.

"The rank and file feels the leadership is dishonest."
Nur Khan, Ex-air force chief

"One day India will publish a report on Kargil."
Kulsoom Nawaz, Wife of Nawaz Sharif

"The east was lost because of blunders in the west."
A.A.K. Niazi, Indicted general

"There's no reason to believe the published report is fake."
Rao Farman Ali,Exonerated general

"Instead of excuses, the Government must publish all reports."
Mirza Aslam Beg, Ex-army chief

"Liberals in Pakistan leaked the report to sho up Musharraf."
Kuldip Nayar, Rajya Sabha member

Being the nearest thing to an official version of the 1971 debacle, the HRC report, wrote The Nation, has proved "an unsettling experience" for Pakistan. "Going through these excerpts, and that too on the day marking the 53rd anniversary of independence, was a traumatic journey through the alley of shame one would not wish for one's enemy," wrote Lahore-based civil-rights activist I.A. Rehman.

The report's findings, declared Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairman Afrasiab Khattak, "contains material sufficient to bring unmitigated shame and anguish to the people". The full report, he demanded, echoing even those who have questioned the motives behind publication, must now be made public.

At one level, the discussion on the report has centred on the actual happenings in 1971. Lt-General A.A.K. Niazi, identified as one of the villains of the piece by the HRC, has offered himself up for court martial, declaring that the debacle in the east arose from the failure of the army to hold its ground in the west.

Major-General Rahim Khan, indicted for his "cowardice", said the HRC document was "engineered by Bhutto". Arguing in the same vein, another indicted veteran, Major-General Ghulam Omer, said the HRC report was prepared by a bunch of "non-technical people".

These protestations of innocence haven't gone down too well. The larger question being asked in Pakistan about the report is: What has the army learnt from 1971? The answers haven't been too flattering for Musharraf's military regime.

In a hard-hitting indictment of his colleagues, Air Marshal Nur Khan, former air force chief, said, "There were disasters after disasters and the army always pretended nothing had happened. They were protecting lies. They claim to be fighting for Islam but the rank and file believes the leadership has been dishonest. This is simply criminal."

Referring to the HRC's observation that the army suffered a "moral collapse", he said, "You cannot live with a lie for ever. You have to clean the pus in its body and only then will the army become a moral force. Otherwise you will remain a mercenary army."

In more concrete terms, Nur Khan called for a high-powered commission comprising army officers and civilians with impeccable credentials to probe Pakistan's "national disasters". These included the 1965 war fiasco, the 1971 surrender, the Ojhri camp disaster and the Kargil misadventure. This suggestion was endorsed by former army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg.

Others added their own list of army misdemeanours. In an editorial, The Nation noted, "There have been no inquiries of this kind into military actions such as the law and order operations in Baluchistan and Sind, and operations in Siachen and, lately, Kargil." It's the persistent demand in the media that a commission must be appointed to investigate Kargil that seems to be unnerving Musharraf.

With reports indicating that nearly 500 Pakistani soldiers and countless civilian porters from Gilgit and Baltistan died in Kargil and were buried in unmarked graves, there is a clamour for the army to come clean on its role. The term "rogue army" is being bandied about. In resurrecting a grisly past, the HRC has ended up haunting the present. It has unwittingly forced Pakistan to come to terms with itself.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan - The Washington Post

Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan - The Washington Post:

Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan

ARIF ALI/AFP/Getty Images - Pakistani security guards stand alert outside the U.S. consulate in Lahore on Aug. 12, 2013. The U.S. intelligence community’s “black budget” shows that the United States has ramped up its surveillance of Pakistan’s nuclear arms.

By Greg Miller, Craig Whitlock and Barton Gellman, Published: September 2 E-mail the writer

The $52.6 billion U.S. intelligence arsenal is aimed mainly at unambiguous adversaries, including al-Qaeda, North Korea and Iran. But top-secret budget documents reveal an equally intense focus on one purported ally: Pakistan.

No other nation draws as much scrutiny across so many categories of national security concern.

Latest from National Security

U.S. officials lay out Syria objectives during Senate hearing

Anne Gearan and Ed O’Keefe6:09 PM ET

They say any strike would seek to hold the Assad regime accountable, “degrade” its ability to launch attacks.

Secret intelligence files show growing distrust of Pakistan

Greg Miller, Craig Whitlock and Barton Gellman SEP 2

Stark assessments of the purported ally contained in the documents belie U.S. officials’ public statements.

To hunt bin Laden, satellites watched over Abbottabad

Craig Whitlock and Barton GellmanAUG 29

Satellites aimed dozens of receivers over Pakistan to collect intelligence as the mission unfolded.

A 178-page summary of the U.S. intelligence community’s “black budget” shows that the United States has ramped up its surveillance of Pakistan’s nuclear arms, cites previously undisclosed concerns about biological and chemical sites there, and details efforts to assess the loyalties of counterterrorism sources recruited by the CIA.

Pakistan appears at the top of charts listing critical U.S. intelligence gaps. It is named as a target of newly formed analytic cells. And fears about the security of its nuclear program are so pervasive that a budget section on containing the spread of illicit weapons divides the world into two categories: Pakistan and everybody else.

The disclosures — based on documents provided to The Washington Post by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden — expose broad new levels of U.S. distrust in an already unsteady security partnership with Pakistan, a politically unstable country that faces rising Islamist militancy. They also reveal a more expansive effort to gather intelligence on Pakistan than U.S. officials have disclosed.

The United States has delivered nearly $26 billion in aid to Pakistan over the past 12 years, aimed at stabilizing the country and ensuring its cooperation in counterterrorism efforts. But with Osama bin Laden dead and al-Qaeda degraded, U.S. spy agencies appear to be shifting their attention to dangers that have emerged beyond the patch of Pakistani territory patrolled by CIA drones.

“If the Americans are expanding their surveillance capabilities, it can only mean one thing,” said Husain Haqqani, who until 2011 served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States. “The mistrust now exceeds the trust.”

Beyond the budget files, other classified documents provided to The Post expose fresh allegations of systemic human rights abuses in Pakistan. U.S. spy agencies reported that high-ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officials had been aware of — and possibly ordered — an extensive campaign of extrajudicial killings targeting militants and other adversaries.

Public disclosure of those reports, based on communications intercepts from 2010 to 2012 and other intelligence, could have forced the Obama administration to sever aid to the Pakistani armed forces because of a U.S. law that prohibits military assistance to human rights abusers. But the documents indicate that administration officials decided not to press the issue, in order to preserve an already frayed relationship with the Pakistanis.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council said the United States is “committed to a long-term partnership with Pakistan, and we remain fully engaged in building a relationship that is based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”

Continued
1
2
3
4
5
Next Page

'via Blog this'

Daily Kos: Fox News doc says women should pay more for health insurance because they have breasts, ovaries

Daily Kos: Fox News doc says women should pay more for health insurance because they have breasts, ovaries:

Nope. (Crooks and Liars)

No. I refuse to engage you, crazy Fox News person.

A Fox News medical expert on Tuesday argued that President Barack Obama's administration was wrong to force gender equality for health insurance rates because men "only have the prostate," while women "have the breasts, they have the ovaries."

It's bad enough to have future serial killer Keith Ablow on the teevee dispensing creepy psychological advice with all the finesse of a monkey wielding a hatchet, I'm not going to listen to some other Foxian bozo argue that women should be charged more for health insurance because they's got more parts.

It's not that I don't have a strong stomach for these things, either, which is why it's no particular stretch to listen to Fox News blowhard not-Steve-Doocy opine that women should be charged more because they live longer, or to Gretchen Carlson observing that women should get a discount because men tend to wait longer to see the doctor and end up having more expensive problems, or we could even go with the old bit about how duh, women are the ones having the babies so they naturally use more healthcare—but what's that, the good doc here isn't going to go with even that one, he's so wedded to the womens has parts argument?

Carlson pointed out that women were blamed for maternity costs, "but men and women have babies together."
"I agree with you that it's a shared responsibility," [Fox News Medical A-Team contributor Dr. David Samadi] said. "But just the way the system are -- in my field, we only have the prostate. Women have the breasts, they have the ovaries, they have the uterus. They get checked in every part."

OH MY GOD NO. I am not doing this. I am not going to even list off the reasons why this statement made by an actual as-seen-on-teevee-medical-doctor-hi-doctor-nick-expert-guy is stupid, because it does not deserve even that much. I am instead going to simply observe that it is something that somebody actually said, and again use the occasion as proof that the showFox & Friends is a secret, long-running plot to make America paste-eatingly stupid via osmosis.

'via Blog this'

Monday, September 2, 2013

The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah - Daily Times, Pakistan

The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah - Daily Times, Pakistan:

VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah — Yasser Latif Hamdani

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

'via Blog this'

Welcome to the Hotel Mohenjodaro – The Express Tribune

Welcome to the Hotel Mohenjodaro – The Express Tribune:

ALERTS

How to stem and rescue our hockey

Welcome to the Hotel Mohenjodaro

By Ali Usman

Published: April 20, 2011

Hotel Mohenjodaro is based on Ghulam Abbas’ short story ‘Dhanak’. PHOTO: IJAZ MAHMOOD/ EXPRESS

LAHORE:

“No Muslim can even conceive killing religious leaders or bombing mosques,” was said by rightwing writers and critics when one of the Urdu literature’s finest storywriter Ghulam Abbas wrote “Dhanak” in the mid 1960s, and read it at a meeting of Halqae Arbabe Zauq in Lahore.

The picture of Pakistan created in Abbas’ story was considered far-fetched and unimaginable at that time. It was said that the story was an insult to people’s religious beliefs and Abbas had to be escorted out of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) where he read that story.

The years have passed, the grim prediction has come true, and the story that was not included in any of Abbas’ collection has now been adapted into a mesmerising play by Shahid Nadeem.

Hotel Mohenjodaro, Ajoka’s play based on “Dhanak”, was staged before packed audiences at Alhamra Art Council in Lahore on April 19. The story of the play is about Pakistan being taken over and run by mullahs, who have come into power and have changed the fabric of the society. Music, entertainment, the English language, modern dresses and many other things are banned by them in the name of Islam.

The songs featured in the play, like “Band Karo Sab Band Karo”, “Hum Rokain Gay”, “Janat Kay Mazay Hum Lootain Gay” and “Marna Halal Hai, Jena Haram Hai”, aptly depict the way these mullahs govern the country. Though it was written decades ago, the story is quite relevant today. Watching the play, one can’t but help think about the public lynchings and executions in Swat and the suicide bombings across the country. The play shows how themullahs prepare a force of young people in madrassas (religious schools) and use them to take over the country.

An ameer (head of the state) is chosen without elections and he then nominates all other officials. Things go on the same track till the mullahs themselves differ on which sect of Islam should be followed by the state. Thus start the target killings of various religious leaders, followed by anarchy in the country. The play concludes with the sounds of war planes, suggesting an attack from another country.

Shahid Nadeem, who has adapted the story into a play said: “The story seems to be so close to the present day’s ugly reality that it is hard to believe that a writer could have foretold it with such uncanny accuracy. It seems to be an account of a television reporter from one of the troubled tribal areas or from the scene of a devastating suicide bombing.”

“Unfortunately and tragically, the intellectuals and analysts are in the same state of absolute denial, not much different from the conservative writers and their cohorts in the 1960s. They still want us to believe that society is not facing any serious threat. They still announce that ‘No Muslim can kill his brethren or bomb mosques’ even if the killers and bombers are trained in the madrassas next door. Well, like the concluding scene of the story, the sounds of the war planes in our skies can be clearly heard and they are not friendly planes.”

Madeeha Gauhar, artistic director of Ajoka, said: “We have been ending this play on different scenes. When the Marriot blast happened in Islamabad, we ended it on that scene. Then we ended it on the blast at the procession of Ashura in Karachi, and then we ended it on the suicide blast at the shrine of Data Ganj Bakhsh in Lahore. There is no ending to it. We all hope that we manage to change the ending of this play.”

The cast of the play included Furqan Majeed, Usman Zia, Asif Hussain, Imranul Haq and Sarfaraz Ansari, who played the role of the ameer exceptionally well.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 21^st, 2011.

'via Blog this'