Sunday, August 12, 2012

Conduct Unbecoming By F.B. Ali

Brigadier (Retd.) F.B. Ali  fought in the 1971 war between India and Pakistan. Here he gives his account of the events that resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and left behind a legacy of shame. 

September 2000

Conduct Unbecoming

By F.B. Ali 
Monthly 'Newsline' Karachi, Pakistan 

The Supplementary Report of the 1971 War Inquiry Commission (headed by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman) has recently been published in the magazine India Today. There is little doubt that this is

a genuine document. It is unfortunate that, even though 30 years have passed, the Commission's report has not been made public in Pakistan, and we are forced to depend on foreign sources to learn of its contents in dribs and drabs.

Why this report has been buried so deep in secrecy is a simple question to answer: it is a scathing critique of the conduct of many leading politicians and senior military officers, and recommends that many of them be tried for their actions and failures which led to the shameful defeat and dismemberment of the country. 

Since neither Z.A. Bhutto, who set up the Commission, nor any succeeding government was prepared to execute these recommendations, they were unwilling to make them public and then face the
inevitable questions and public anger. In Bhutto's case, his complicity in the break-up of the country (which must have been clear in the Main Report of the Commission) was added reason to keep the report secret.

The devastating account in this Supplementary Report of the despicable actions of a large number of senior officers in East Pakistan in 1971 could create the false impression that these strictures apply to all officers in that theatre, even though the Commission has itself cautioned against this. Even among the senior officers there were outstanding exceptions.

Major General Shaukat Riza, one of the finest officers to serve in the Pakistan army, vehemently disagreed with both the military strategy adopted as well as the policy of excessive use of force against the civilian population. He was promptly removed from East Pakistan, as was Major General Khadim Hussain Raja later, for similar reasons. Many officers, such as Lt. Colonel (later Brigadier) Mansoorul Haq Malik, refused to participate in the violence against civilians and other unethical military conduct, even though there were very strong feelings of revenge among the troops because of atrocities committed by the Mukti Bahini.

Another erroneous impression that has persisted, and which the Commission report may reinforce, is that the Yahya regime was established and propped up by the Pakistan army. That is not the truth. 

The Yahya regime was brought into power by a small group of generals and top civil servants. It stayed in power because of the strong tradition of discipline and obedience in the army. It further consolidated its position by promoting its own henchmen to senior positions while removing those who would not go along. Moreover, it ensured the loyalty of its henchmen by giving them full licence to indulge in corruption and moneymaking.

The rest of the officer corps watched with increasing disgust as the regime wallowed deeper and deeper in this filth while leading the country to disaster. It is either not well-known, or often forgotten, that it was the Pakistan army that removed the Yahya regime, as I shall relate further on. Major General M. Rahim Khan has reacted violently to the publication of the Hamoodur Rahman Report. He doth protest too much. 

Surely the Commission did not invent the details of what they term his "shameful cowardice and undue regard for his personal safety"; these were based on the evidence of persons who witnessed these events first hand. In fact, General Rahim should be thankful the Commission did not investigate the murky episode in which he had himself flown out of Dhaka to Burma just before the surrender.

I find it amusing that General Rahim shifts all the blame on Z.A. Bhutto, while attempting to distance himself from him. General Rahim was part of the inner circle of the martial law regime. After the People's Party won the 1970 election in West Pakistan, General Rahim began to establish relations with Bhutto. I was there, I saw it. In fact, he engineered a reconciliation between the regime and Bhutto, and became the link between the two as they conspired to wreck the newly elected National Assembly, in which the Awami League had a majority.

General Rahim was also one of the main contributors to the plan to use military force to crush the popular uprising in East Pakistan that would inevitably follow the scuttling of the political process. It was because of his special equation with Bhutto that the latter appointed General Rahim as Chief of the General Staff upon his return from Burma, and later on elevated him to the rank of Secretary-General, Ministry of Defence.

Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan has confirmed that the report published in India is genuine. In this report, the Commission has completely exonerated General Farman, and has even bestowed words of praise upon him.

In the interests of historical integrity, this picture needs to be balanced. General Farman was not in the inner circle of the Yahya clique, but he was a key member of the regime's Election Cell, which used extortion, intimidation, and bribery to ensure a victory for the Jamaat-i-Islami and other religious parties in the 1970 election. Huge sums of money were illegally raised and channelled to these parties.

When this attempt failed and the Awami League won in East Pakistan, General Farman initially supported the efforts of Lt. General Yaqub Ali Khan to arrange a peaceful political settlement. But when this policy was rejected by Yahya Khan and General Yaqub was sacked, Farman saw which way the wind was blowing and trimmed his sails accordingly. 

As he said to me at the time: "I was a dove, but when the doves lost out I became a hawk and showed them that I was the most hawkish of them all.” He also became one of the principal architects of
the plan to use force in East Pakistan.

In his evidence before the Commission, General Farman sought to deflect any blame that might attach to General Tikka Khan for his role in East Pakistan. The Commission's report is itself remarkably silent on his role (Tikka was the army chief when this report was written). It is well-known that Tikka Khan was fully involved in the use of military force in East Pakistan.

Generals Rahim and Farman were contemporaries of mine; I knew them both. They were intelligent and capable officers. In their private lives they would be considered good and decent men. That is why they must be held to higher standards, and judged more harshly for their failures (propelled mainly by ravenous ambition) than Generals like A.A.K. Niazi.

The Commission's Supplementary Report deals mainly with the events in East Pakistan. The war in West Pakistan was covered in the Commission's Main Report, which is still suppressed. I participated in these operations, and appeared twice before the Commission. I have no doubt that in its Main Report the Commission paints an equally black picture of the conduct of the war in West Pakistan, and is as scathing in its condemnation of the regime and senior military commanders who lost large areas of the country and then cravenly accepted an ignominious ceasefire.

The details of the faulty strategy that were partly the cause of this debacle are no longer of general interest. But we must not forget the essence of what transpired; we must not let vested interests whitewash the dark truth or bury it. Nations that forget history are condemned to repeat it. My experience of the 1971 war is one window into the past as it really happened.

I commanded an artillery formation in the Sialkot-Narowal-Gujranwala sector, which was defended by 1 Corps under Lt. General Irshad Ahmad Khan.

Since I was simultaneously filling several other command positions, I was able to observe all that went on in this sector. The war was initiated by Pakistan on December 3, 1971 with a few very limited attacks. GHQ had given strict orders that nothing was to be done beyond this; all the requests of local commanders to be allowed to exploit the success of the initial attacks were firmly rejected. It appears that the Yahya regime started the war in the West just to put pressure on the international community to intervene and impose a ceasefire in East Pakistan.

This did not happen, and after a few days the Indians recovered from their initial disarray and began to push into our territory. There was total paralysis in the command on our side: GHQ gave no orders, while the field commanders were content to sit and wait for directions from above that never came.

Meanwhile, every day the enemy was advancing, every day we were giving up territory, every day we were steadily losing the war. I had about 14 or 15 regiments of artillery available to me, and I made the necessary plans and preparations to mass them against the enemy advance. From December 8 onwards, I tried every method I could, official and unofficial, formal and informal, to persuade my superiors and GHQ to use this great potential of firepower available to them, but in vain.

One day, in my capacity as Commander Artillery of Army Reserve North, I attended a meeting called by General Irshad, Commander 1 Corps, at his HQ in Gujranwala. After the dismal opening briefing about more areas lost the night before, I asked General Irshad why he wasn't doing anything about this continuing loss of territory. 

He replied:
"You are worried about this territory; according to the GHQ plan I can give up all the area north of the MRL canal.” (This was many times the area we had already lost!) I was so fed up that I said rather roughly: "If you are not going to use your reserve armoured brigade why don't you give it to us so that we can try to recover the lost territory?” For a few moments he was too shocked to reply; then he burst out: "Don't forget that after the war you will come back under my command and I will write your ACR (Annual Confidential Report)."

This general spent less time commanding his corps than he did on improving the security of his HQ and living quarters. The War Inquiry Commission recommended that Lt. Gen. Irshad Ahmad Khan should be court-martialled for surrendering nearly 500 villages to the enemy without a fight.

The territory we lost in West Pakistan was given up without a fight because the army was not allowed to fight by its commanders. In the few places where we did fight, the younger officers and soldiers displayed extraordinary valour and self-sacrifice. But the bulk of the army was kept out of battle. Halfway through the war it became a common place saying among officers: if you want to fight this war, forget about the generals and do it yourself.

On December 17, after Yahya Khan announced the acceptance of the ceasefire, I was quite certain, as were most other people, that he and his government would accept responsibility for the debacle and announce that they were quitting. That evening I handed in my resignation from the army, in acknowledgment of my responsibility (shared by all other senior officers) for having silently acquiesced in the takeover and maintenance of power by these corrupt, self-seeking generals who had brought the country to this sorry state.

Next day, on December18, I was stunned to learn that Yahya Khan had no intention of leaving; instead, he announced that he was going to promulgate a new constitution. Meanwhile, angry public demonstrations demanding that the regime should quit had erupted all over the country.

There was a real danger that Yahya Khan might use troops to quell the public outcry, which would have imposed an unbearable strain on the discipline of the army, itself angry and upset over what had happened.

I became convinced that the regime had to be clearly told that it no longer had the support of the army and must go. I tried to persuade my division commander, Major General M.I. Karim, to send such a message to the government through GHQ, but, although he appeared to share my views, he hesitated to take such a step. Finally, on December 19, I could wait no longer, and took over effective command of the division from General Karim. He tacitly accepted this, and gave me valuable support throughout the succeeding events.

In this action, I also had the support of some other senior officers who felt as I did. Our position was that the regime should quit and hand over power to the elected representatives of the people, and that all those incompetent and corrupt commanders who had led us into defeat should be sacked. In practical terms, this meant handing over power to Z.A. Bhutto and his People's Party, who had won the 1970 election in West Pakistan. Even though I was by no means a fan of Mr. Bhutto's, I believed that their elected status gave them the right to govern, and obtain the allegiance of

the armed forces.

Colonels Aleem Afridi and Javed Iqbal went to Rawalpindi with a message from us for Yahya Khan: he should announce by 8 p.m. that evening his readiness to hand over power to the elected representatives of the people. In addition, all those generals who had led the army into this disaster should also quit. In case such an announcement was not made by 8 p.m. then we could not guarantee control of the situation, and any resulting consequences. 

The two officers met with General Gul Hassan, Chief of the General Staff, and asked him to convey this message to Yahya Khan. Gul Hassan went to General Hamid, the Chief of Staff, who said he would arrange for a meeting with the President at 7 p.m. General Hamid then went into a flurry of activity. He called several army commanders to see if they could help to restore the situation, but they all expressed inability to do anything. Major General A.O. Mitha, another stalwart of the regime, tried to get some SSG (commando) troops for action against our divisional HQ, but was unable to obtain any.

The failure of these efforts, and the obvious absence of any support in the army, left the Yahya clique with no option. Shortly before 8 p.m., the broadcast was made that Yahya Khan had decided to hand over power to the elected representatives of the people.

After this announcement General Gul Hassan and his friend, Air Marshal Rahim Khan, the air force chief, in consultation with G.M. Khar, a PPP leader, arranged for Z.A. Bhutto's return from Rome, where he was sitting out the crisis, apparently because he was not sure about his personal safety if he came back. When Bhutto arrived on the 20th, Gul Hassan and Rahim told him that the military was behind them, and it was they who had removed the Yahya regime. That night Mr. Bhutto made a broadcast to the nation, in which he announced the retirement of all the generals in Yahya Khan's inner clique, saying that he was doing this "in accord with the sentiments of the armed forces and the younger officers.” He also made Lt. General Gul Hassan the army chief, and confirmed Rahim Khan as the air force chief, though they did not last long when they proved insufficiently pliable.

Bhutto made no attempt to purge the armed forces of the rotten layer at the top, even though he must have known how discredited these officers were in their own services, especially with the War Inquiry Commission hearing evidence of their misdeeds, which were becoming generally known. It suited him to have weak commanders who depended on him for their positions and lacked the respect and support of those under them. But he readily acquiesced in Gul Hassan's removal of a few remaining upright and competent generals, namely, Major Generals Shaukat Riza, Ihsanul Haq Malik

and Khadim Hussain Raja.

Then, in August 1972, Bhutto retired me and five other officers who had been the principals in the removal of the Yahya regime. He publicly accused us of having engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the elected representatives of the people from coming into power in December 1971!

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had a glorious opportunity when he became President. The people of Pakistan were shaken to the roots of their national psyche. They looked longingly for a leader to guide them back to the right path; they were prepared to make a new beginning as a cohesive people ready to work together again to achieve the vision that had created their homeland 25 years ago. All they needed was a leader who felt the same pain and yearned for the same goal.

But at this great crossroads in history, the man of the hour was found pitifully wanting. His lack of vision, meanness of spirit, and pettiness of mind, all led him to see this historic moment as just an opportunity to grab personal power. Even the use of this power was affected by his limitations: witness, as one of his first acts as President, the arrest and public humiliation of persons against whom he harboured personal grudges.

When it became clear that Bhutto was not going to remove the incompetent and corrupt officers still remaining in the senior ranks of the military, a wave of anger spread among the younger officers of the army and the air force. Many of them began to talk about changing the government if this was the only way of purging the armed forces. This talk became serious among the brightest and bravest of them, who felt most deeply the shame inflicted upon the armed forces and the country in 1971, and for whom the profession of arms was an honourable calling in the service of the nation.

The moving spirit in the army was Major Farouk Adam Khan, while in the air force it was Squadron Leader Ghous. They got in touch with Colonel Aleem Afridi, who contacted me. The gnawing sense of responsibility that I felt for the existing situation would not let me stand aside; I decided to explore whether I could undo what I had done, even though I knew the risks and difficulties that the undertaking involved.

Matters had not gone beyond the serious discussion stage when a traitor in our midst, Lt. Colonel Tariq Rafi, betrayed us to the generals. Early in 1973, a large number of army and air force officers were arrested in a particularly brutal fashion, confined under very harsh conditions, and tried by courts martial at Attock and Badaber. Bhutto saw this as an excellent opportunity to teach a lasting lesson to anyone else in the armed forces who might think of acting against him.

In spite of a superb defence led by Mr. Manzur Qadir, the outcome was a foregone conclusion: all the accused were convicted and many of them were given long prison entences, including life imprisonment for Aleem Afridi and me. Manzur Qadir was ill but continued to defend us, even though we could barely pay enough to cover his expenses (his normal fees were totally beyond our means), and lived for long periods in primitive conditions in the Attock rest house, as did his colleagues, Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Aitzaz Ahsan and Wasim Sajjad.

The emotions that drove these young officers to contemplate such a drastic step, involving grave risks, and then stoically suffer such harsh consequences, were poignantly expressed by Major Saeed Akhtar Malik in his address to the Attock court martial trying him for his life. 

He said:

"When the war became imminent, I took leave from the PMA and joined my unit, with thanks to the CO who requisitioned my services. The next day the war started. But instead of glory, I found only disillusionment. The truth was that we were a defeated army even before a shot was fired. This was a very bitter truth. With each corpse that I saw, my revulsion increased for the men who had signed the death warrants of so many very fine men. Yes, fine men, but poor soldiers, who were never given the chance to fight back, because they were not trained to fight back. When they should have been training for war, they were performing the role of labourers, farmers or herdsmen, anything but the role of soldiers. This was not 'shahadat.' This was cold-blooded murder." 

Who was responsible for this? I was responsible! But more than me someone else was responsible. People who get paid more than me were responsible. What were some of these men, these callous, inhuman degenerates, doing when their only job was to prepare this army for war?

Were these men not grabbing lands and building houses? Did it not appear in foreign magazines that some of them were pimping for their bloated grandmaster? Yes, generals, wearing that uniform (he pointed at the court's president) pimping and whore-mongering!

High on the roll of honour of those great patriots who suffered and sacrificed for this country must be inscribed the names of Majors Saeed Akhtar Malik, Farouk Adam Khan, Asaf Shafi, Ishtiaq Asif, Farooq Nawaz Janjua, Nadir Parvez, Munir Rafiq, Iftikhar Adam, Sajjad Akbar, Tariq Parvez, Ayyaz Ahmed Sipra, and Nasrullah Khan; Captains Sarwar Mahmood Azhar and Naveed Rasul Mirza; Lt. Colonels Muzaffar Hamdani, Iftikhar Ahmed, and Afzal Mirza; Colonel Aleem Afridi; Brigadiers Wajid Ali Shah and Ateeq Ahmed; Squadron Leader Ghous, Wing Commander Hashmi and Group Captain Sikandar Masood.

To the reader whose eyes have just skipped over the last paragraph I would say: Pause a moment. These are brave men who fought for you and your children and your country, not only against the foreign enemy but also against the dark night of tyranny that was descending over this land. Even though they did not succeed, at least they tried, when so many others just sat and  watched, or wrung their hands, or joined the victors. The least you can do is pay them the tribute of reading their names. Equal honour is due to our families, especially those whose husbands and fathers spent long years in prison. Effectively reduced to widows and orphans, in a hostile environment created by a powerful government that branded their men as traitors, they refused to be cowed down or give up. They waged constant battle in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion, all the while sustaining us with steadfast support. Without it many of us could not have survived.

I was instrumental in bringing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto into power in December 1971. This had an immediate effect upon the career of one Brigadier Zia-ul- Haq, who had recently returned from Jordan (where he had been a military adviser) under something of a cloud for his involvement in the crushing of the PLO by King Hussein. Bhutto made Zia's friend and patron,  Gul Hassan, the army chief, who promptly promoted Zia to the rank of Major General. 

As a junior general, Zia was picked to be president of the Attock court martial. Bhutto took a strong personal interest in the progress of the Attock trial and required Zia to provide him with regular briefings; these private sessions gave Zia the opportunity to convince Bhutto of his personal loyalty. Bhutto wanted very much to have a few of the Attock accused sentenced to death. Zia assured him that he could manage to do this in my case and Aleem Afridi's. So sure were they of this that the gallows in Campbellpur Jail was prepared, and we were both moved next to the jail so that as soon as the court passed the sentence it could be immediately carried out. However, to accomplish this, Zia needed the votes of some of the younger officers on the court, but they did not agree.

Having failed to get me hanged, Bhutto continued to pursue me with a vengeance. When he learnt that 'life imprisonment' meant, in practice, 14 years behind bars,he had the rules changed so that such court-martial sentences really meant imprisonment for life. As required by prison regulations, all the Attock case prisoners were moved to jails near their homes except me.

When my wife questioned this, she was told that all decisions in my case were made by Bhutto. She then tried through Nusrat Bhutto and others close to him, but to no avail. So I spent about 4 1/2 years in solitary confinement far away from home. Finally, after Zia-ul-Haq dethroned Bhutto, I was moved to Kot Lakhpat Jail. Shortly thereafter, Bhutto arrived there as my neighbour, housed barely a 100 yards away. We were both in solitary confinement, but he was in a death row cell while I was in an A-class suite.

After the Attock trial, Zia assiduously built upon the foundation he had laid there to convince Bhutto of his fealty. When the time came, Bhutto picked him to be the next army chief, even though he was the junior-most of the five contenders. Not one of these other generals, any one of whom Bhutto could have picked instead of Zia, possessed the ruthlessness required to have him hanged later on. But it was Zia whom he picked. But for his early promotion in 1972 and the resulting opportunity provided by the Attock court martial to establish a personal equation with Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq would never have become army chief. If he had not been so chosen, Zia would not have become President of Pakistan. Perhaps then he would not have been riding in that plane over the Bahawalpur desert.

I sit in a faraway land, and it is but rarely that I view the events of the past unfold as if on a dim stage. Sometimes the side curtains move, and it seems to me that in the shadows there, I catch a glimpse of the grinning face of History's Black Jester.

-------------------------------------------------------
Following the 1971 war, Brigadier Furrukh B. Ali was retired by Bhutto in 1972 and spent five years in prison after the Attock conspiracy trial. He moved to Canada in 1979 and worked in the civil service there. Married with two children, F.B. Ali now leads a retired life in Toronto.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Science for the ummah | DAWN.COM

Science for the ummah | DAWN.COM:

Science for the ummah
 | 2 days ago
    278
Recently an enterprising Pakistani engineer claimed to have invented a car that is powered by water.
Excited by the news, Pakistan’s, nay, the whole Muslim ummah (and some North Korean’s) favourite scientist, Dr. Qadeem Khan, endorsed the invention and demanded that the automobile be called ‘Islamic car.’
Of course, there was the usual whining from liberal fascists/scum/extremists who ridiculed the glorious invention as a product of ‘pseudo-science’ and technical quackery.
But we all know how these elements want the Muslim ummah to continue being subjugated, dominated and exploited by Western secular Judeo-Christian science.
Little do they know that ever since the reign of the great caliph, General Ziaulul Haq, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is leading the way in the development, growth and potential dominance of ‘Islamic Science.’
No, this has nothing to do with those ancient Muslim philosophers, astronomers and chemists who were just too influenced by the science and scholarship of ancient wine-drinking Greek idolaters.
This is about the real Islamic Science and it has already managed to stun the jealous secular Western Judeo-Christian world with a number of some stunning inventions. In theory at least.
Here are some of them …
The Al-Car
Since car hoti hai (it’s a she), the Al-Car cannot be taken out on the road without a cover. Drivers are required to use their instincts to navigate and if they are pious, angels are likely to help them in this regard.
The Al-Car does not use conventional fuel. It uses water. But since Pakistan does not want to harm brotherly country Saudi Arabia’s oil economy, the inventers of Al-Car have made sure that it only runs on Aab-e-Zamzam that is only available in brotherly Saudia.
At first the Al-Car will only be made available to the ummah. That is, of course, only to the men of the ummah. However, there will be ample space for women in the trunk.
Pakistan plans to unveil – unveil in the figurative sense, of course – this auto marvel as soon as the government dishes out a billion dollars to the inventor and releases Arsalan Iftikhar so this young dynamic Muslim entrepreneurial genius can help the inventor build a profitable (interest-free) production plant.
Preferably in Monte Carlo – after it has been conquered by General Zaid Hamid and after its population is converted (live on TV) by Mujahidan Mayan Khanam.
Genie Energy (and/or Electricity from Jinns)
This just has to be the most exciting and unique project of holy science: Deriving electricity from genies (jinns).
This brilliant theory was first presented by a brilliant Somalian alchemist, Dr. Mabuto bin Kambata in 1985 AD.
After being ridiculed by secular Western Judeo-Christian scientists and pagan African witch doctors, bin Kambata escaped to Pakistan where he was given sanctuary by Khalifa Ziaulul Haq.
Bin Kambata soon convinced Ziaulul to hold an international seminar and conference on Islamic Science.
With lots of Saudi aid to kill but not enough electricity, Ziaulul agreed and the conference was held in Islamabad. Over a thousand modern-day alchemists and scientists from the Muslim world were invited – except Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy – he’s such a Western secular Judeo-Christian spoilsport.
The highlight of the conference was, of course, a model of Dr. Mabuto bin Kambata’s generator built to summon jinns and derive vital volts of electricity from them.
The generator works after it is plugged in a socket holding electricity that has been converted from AC (Ahmadi Current) to MC (Muslim Current).
But one has to be careful. The generator can sometimes also summon non-Muslim jinns who, if they are not converted (live on TV) by Mujahidan Mayan Khanam, cannot be used to generate electricity.
Such jinns can, however, be used to abduct Hindus with the help of flying carpets.
Renowned ummah scientists like Dr. Amir Liaqat (MBBS/PhD/DDT)  and Dr. Ali Azmat have said that Pakistan will have over a thousand Mabuto Generators by 2013 AD.
It will be sad though that Dr. Mabuto himself would not be around to celebrate this joyous moment.
He died in 2001, electrocuted while using a hairdryer in his bathtub. The malicious involvement of AC (Ahmadi Current) was suspected.
Halal-o-Meter
While the secular Western Judeo-Christian scientists are busy wasting time, money and effort on measuring earthquakes and tsunami waves, we have invented the Halal-o-Meter.
Invented by the famous and pious TV-chef-cum-preacher, Farkhunda bint-e-Dalda (aka Qaum ki Sabzi), the Halal-o-Meter is an innovative instrument that measures the level of alcohol (or lack of) in perfumes, toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.
With so many secular Western Judeo-Christian products out there, the Halal-o-Meter can be a terrific asset for the true believer. All he/she has to do is dip the meter in the mouthwash/perfume/toothpaste/etc.
If the product has alcohol, the meter will start to beep loudly and an electronic voice will appear frantically bellowing ‘Haraam, Haraam!’
Ms. Farkhunda believes millions of Muslim souls can be saved from eternal damnation with this instrument because to her there’s no bigger sin for a Muslim than to use mouthwash and perfume that has alcohol.
She says that the government should put all its effort and money into building such instruments and make her the sole distributer.
She says the government can measure the number of souls that are saved by this instrument by measuring the amount of money she will make. She promises she will be a Sharia-compliant millionaire.
The Adulterilator (and/or the Automatic Adulteress Crusher)
Concerned by the rising cases of adultery (by women), gallant and brave (but nimble-tongued) Pakistani physicist, Sangsar Abbasi, has claimed to have invented a ‘smart stone throwing machine.’
Calling it the Adulterilator, Sangsar says the machine (made from wood from fine Saudi date palms) has special sensors that can detect adulteresses (and even potential adulteresses) and throw stones and boulders at them.
When some liberal fascists asked why is the machine only made to detect adulteresses and not adulterers, Sangsar convincingly explained that Muslim men were by nature innocent and it were the women who were the main culprits, especially those who went about without hijabs or burqas.
When some liberal fascists refused to buy his rationale, Sangsar appealed to the CJP to take suo moto action against the buggers. And which, he did, terming the buggers’ scepticism as harmful to the constitution.
HAARP Repulser
HAARP is The United States’ High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program – an ionospheric research programme jointly funded by the US Air Force, the Navy, the University of Alaska, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and the secular Western Judo-Karate villains.
Yes, the same programme that caused the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the 2011 Japanese earthquake and the 2011 Imran Khan tsunami.
Many scientists of the ummah, especially in Pakistan, believe that the HAARP project is largely aimed against Muslim regions. It wants to destroy Muslim populations by distorting and manipulating extreme weather conditions.
But, alas, a group of Übermensch ummah scientists in Pakistan have created a powerful project to counter HAARP.
This project is called BURRP. A blast from this ingenious God-given technology successfully repulses the malicious effects of HAARP – and indigestion. Brilliant, no?
First camel on the moon
A group of Pakistani aeronautical engineers (actually weathermen) claim that they have found a way to go to the moon.
They say that since the secular Western Judeo-Christians have already managed to put a man on the moon, they will go a step further by landing the first camel on the moon.
‘This will also be in line with our Arab aesthetics and tradition,’ one engineer explained.
He said that unlike the Americans who used rockets to take their astronauts to the moon, they will do no such thing.
When asked exactly how they plan to put a camel on the moon if not with the help of a rocket, the engineer smugly suggested: ‘The camel is the rocket!’


Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com

'via Blog this'

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Exclusive: Drones "inhumane", dead al Qaeda man's family says - Yahoo! News

Exclusive: Drones "inhumane", dead al Qaeda man's family says - Yahoo! News:

Exclusive: Drones "inhumane", dead al Qaeda man's family says

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - The brother of al Qaeda's second-in-command, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike, said Washington's use of the remote-controlled weapons is inhumane and makes a mockery of its claims to champion human rights.
U.S. officials said on Tuesday that Libyan-born al Qaeda operativeAbu Yahya al-Libi was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan, in what was described as a major blow to the militant group.
The attack is likely to fuel an increasingly fierce debate about the legality and morality of the drones, which have become one of the chief U.S. weapons against al Qaeda but which opponents say stretch the definition of the legitimate use of lethal force.
"The United States talks human rights and freedoms for all, but the method they used to kill him is savage," Abu Bakr al-Qayed, brother of al-Libi, told Reuters on Wednesday in a telephone interview.
"The way the Americans killed him is heinous and inhumane," he said, speaking from the town of Wadi Otba, south of the Libyan capital. "We are in the 21st century and they claim to be civilized and this is how they take out people."
"Regardless of my brother's ideology, or beliefs, he was a human being and at the end of the day deserves humane treatment," he said.
For years considered a covert Central Intelligence Agency program, the unmanned aircraft can be remotely piloted from thousands of kilometers (miles) away and can fire missiles at targets at the push of a button.
White House officials say there is nothing in international law that forbids the use of the drones and that, by killing dangerous insurgents, they are making Americans safer.
That view has been challenged by authorities in Pakistan, who are angry because many of the strikes have happened on their soil, and by rights campaigners.
Civil liberties groups argue that the strikes are illegal because they take place outside an active battlefield, meaning the rules of law which allow a combatant to kill their opponent do not apply.
RADICALISATION
The United States and security analysts say al-Libi was a veteran militant and leader of operations for al Qaeda, a group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities as well as dozens of other acts of violence.
His brother offered a more nuanced account, describing how al-Libi had gone from being a chemistry student in Libya to hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan's North Waziristan region.
He said his brother, also known as Mohammed Hassan al-Qayed, had been radicalized by his treatment under Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader killed in an uprising last year. Gaddafi's security forces routinely arrested anyone who strayed from officially approved Islam.
"We come from a great line of students of religion, we are a religious family and we all studied Islamist jurisprudence at school. I am an Islamic studies professor," al-Qayed, 57, told Reuters.
"He was a very bright student and always had high marks and he wanted more out of his studies, so was forced to leave Libya... The last time we saw him was in 1990 when he left to study abroad because he was oppressed in Libya due to his beliefs."
"The last time we spoke to him was in 2002, and since then we only know what's happening with him through the media," the brother said.
"I never heard him speak of killing innocent people and don't believe he would ever condone it. He was a Muslim, and we don't kill people without reason."
"My brother was attracted to his ideology because he was oppressed and we were all oppressed and saw great suffering from Gaddafi's regime."
In what one analyst said was a retaliation for al-Libi's killing, a bomb exploded outside the offices of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi early on Wednesday. There was only slight damage.
Al-Qayed said he knew nothing about the attack in Benghazi. Asked if he expected any reaction inside Libya to his brother's killing, he said only: "I don't know, but the Muslim is the brother of the Muslim."
He appealed to Pakistan's government and humanitarian agencies to find his brother's body and bring it back to Libya "so we may bury him here as a martyr."
(Reporting by Hadeel Al-Shalchi; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Michael Roddy)

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Interview With Anwar Iqbal of Dawn Television

Interview With Anwar Iqbal of Dawn Television:

Interview With Anwar Iqbal of Dawn Television


Interview
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 17, 2009


QUESTION: So I have to get it going – very brief because I know you don’t have that much time.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
QUESTION: So it’s about your visit to India.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Are you going with an initiative for restarting the India-Pakistan talks?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m going with the hope that has been ignited in the last weeks that India and Pakistan will pursue a dialogue again, and it was a very promising meeting between Prime Minister Gillani and Prime Minister Singh, the follow-on meeting between Prime Minister Singh and President Zardari, which suggests that there is an interest and a seriousness on the part of both governments in trying to work toward resolution of some of the longstanding differences.
I have always believed, and you may have heard me say in many meetings of my friends in the Pakistani and American community, that Pakistan’s future is unlimited. The potential for economic growth and for influence in the region is, in my view, as great as any country’s. But there has to be a commitment to trying to focus on the internal developments of Pakistan, and that requires dealing with and trying to resolve some of the outstanding concerns.
QUESTION: With India?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, with India.
QUESTION: And according to the media report, you’re going to conclude two agreements during this visit: for nuclear plants and for selling 126 fighter jets to India. Do Pakistanis have reasons to fear the outcome of your visit?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Not at all. And we don’t yet have any agreements resolved between us, but my goal in going to India is to work with the Indian Government on a range of issues – agriculture, health, education, strategic cooperation, climate change, clean energy, just a very vast array of concern. And I think that all of these issues are ones that are important not only to Indians, but, I would argue, also to Pakistanis. Trade between India and Pakistan, if were ever able to come to that point, would benefit both countries. Cooperation across borders on matters having to do with agriculture, education, so many other issues would be mutually beneficial.
So the point of our trip is to certainly broaden and deepen our relationship with India. And I will be coming to Pakistan in the fall and be looking to do the exact same thing with Pakistan.
QUESTION: But whenever somebody says that they would want India to play a leading role in the region, and you said that this week, the Pakistanis fear that perhaps it would translate to a subservient role for Pakistan and will lead to bullying by Afghanistan. How would you allay these fears?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is certainly not at all what is intended. I think that what we see now in the region is a very courageous, sustained effort by Pakistan against the internal miscreants, those who would destabilize the Pakistani Government and democracy, who kill innocent people, who are – they are not at all part of Pakistan’s future.
And so what Pakistan is doing is, in my view, very important, as Pakistan tries to stabilize your democracy so that you can build on development. Actual economic development was going well. There were a lot of positive steps. And some of the government’s policies are working out well. There seems to be a growing acceptance of how Pakistan is doing with the global economic recession. But the constant threat from the internal terrorists is one that has to be dealt with in order for Pakistan to grow and flourish.
So I see what is happening in Pakistan as a necessary set of steps to get Pakistan to the point where the future is unlimited. With India, I think India has had steady growth. They’ve had a very clear set of goals that they’ve been able to pursue because they are a largely stable and internally secure country now. That’s what I want to see for Pakistan. And then I think you can be in a friendly competition for jobs and for prosperity and for growth and for education statistics.
I often say that when Pakistani Americans come to the United States, they are among the most successful people in our country, and they are among our professionals and our business leaders and our academics and in every other walk of life. I would hope to see a day when Pakistanis would have the same opportunities in their own country, and that’s what I would like to work toward with you.
QUESTION: You actually, help found an organization called the Pakistan Foundation.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: What are your expectations from the Pakistan Foundation?
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s interesting because – as you know, because we have some mutual friends, there are so many Pakistani Americans who are very successful financially. They still have family in Pakistan. They travel often back to Pakistan. They have a very deep connection to their homeland. And I thought it would be important to try to convince Pakistani Americans to be putting forward financial resources to work back in Pakistan.
And I know; I have friends who have done that. They’ve built schools, they’ve built health clinics, but to do it in an organized way. So we created the idea and then turned it over to the Pakistani Americans and the Pakistan Government, which was very interested. And so people are raising money and identifying projects.
We also reached out to Pakistani American doctors and asked if they’d be willing to serve and care for the internally displaced people, because of the fighting against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and all of their allies. And so we have Pakistani American doctors taking vacation, going to Swat or Bunair or other places to provide medical care.
So I think that there is an opportunity for Pakistani Americans to feel more committed and connected to the future that you are building in Pakistan.
QUESTION: Now, the anti-Americanism in Pakistan. We know that both governments are committed to fighting terrorism, and there is a realization in Pakistan too – that this is a war that they need to win. But this somehow does not convey to the people there. They don’t trust the US and still have a lot anti-American feelings. So how do you overcome this problem?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I hope that more and more people in Pakistan understand that President Obama and I have no other interest than providing assistance to the Pakistani people, and, increasingly, Americans – not just the Pakistani Americans, but other Americans want to help the people of Pakistan. We are not in any way making decisions, interfering or dictating. That is not our intent at all. But we want to be helpful because we see this courageous fight that you are waging. We know how hard it is because we are fighting the same enemy. We have been attacked. We know what that means.
We also see how the vast majority of Pakistanis just want a better life for themselves and their children. So if we can be helpful in helping to provide schools or textbooks or health programs and physicians, nurses, things that will actually help improve the daily lives of the people of Pakistan, that’s what we are interested in doing.
QUESTION: You once said that America too – made mistakes in Pakistan. What were those mistakes and how would you avoid them?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that if you go back and look at the history between the United States and Pakistan, we were not always as sensitive or understanding of the needs of the Pakistani people. We were not always constant in our support and our friendship for Pakistan. We encouraged Pakistan to create the forces that fought against the Soviet Union occupation in Afghanistan and then left you to deal with the aftermath. So it’s been, I would argue, a relationship that hasn’t been as constant and as effective as we would want it to be.
Now, we will continue to make mistakes. I mean, we are just human beings; we know that. But we want to be as honest in admitting them as possible, learning from them, and then trying to move forward. We weren’t as supportive of Pakistan’s democracy as we could have and should have been in the past.
But our goal now is to be there as a constant friend and a country that Pakistan, not just the government, but the people can rely on to build up more trust and understanding between us, and to be of assistance when asked by Pakistan.
QUESTION: And do you have complaints against Pakistan too – particularly when you see that the Pakistani people, the Pakistani administration, and the Pakistani media fail to understand your point of view, they fail to appreciate your sentiments?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it requires time. We have started a much deeper engagement with Pakistan on all levels. We’ve even established a trilateral relationship between the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to try to work through some of the common problems we face. I hope that there is a growing awareness that President Obama and I care deeply about the future of Pakistan, and particularly want to reverse some of the misconceptions and perceptions that existed in the past.
So I hope that we’re going to be given a fair hearing. I hope that people will look at us and say there is something different here, it’s not the same old, same old attitude.
I know that President Obama, when he spoke with you, talked about how much he loved Pakistani food. I --
QUESTION: And do you?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I echo that. I am also a fan.
But it’s more than that. It’s a sense that the people of Pakistan are working hard for a better future. And we want to be of help. And we have no – we have no claims, we have no interest other than assisting you in achieving the kind of sovereignty and self-determination and very solid democracy, and then results for people. I mean, democracy in and of itself is only the means to an end of a better life, so that every child has a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential to get an education, to get the healthcare he or she needs, to have their parents have jobs with rising wages and dignity. I mean, that’s what all people are looking for, and the people of Pakistan deserve that.
QUESTION: Drone attacks. I think it was Senator John Kerry, who stated they are making more enemies than they are killing. Do you agree with this comment?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t comment on any matter that is of that nature. But I think that what we see is what’s happening on the ground with the Pakistani army and the sacrifices that they’re making. And I think that it’s important that we pursue joint efforts against those who would murder innocent Pakistanis, innocent Americans, innocent Indians, people who were just going about their daily lives and have no reason to be targeted the way that they are.
So our goal is to see you and help you in whatever way is appropriate to defeat the enemy who wants to totally, radically change Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yesterday, you said in your speech that there was some good Taliban in Afghanistan, I mean, you didn’t use the word, good Taliban, but indicated that. Are there good Taliban in Pakistan and can they be engaged too?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that would be up to the Pakistani Government to determine, but it does seem to us that people get caught up in these organizations, sometimes because they’re paid, sometimes because they’re intimidated, sometimes because they think there is – that they mean something other than what they do. And for those who are willing to put down arms against the Pakistani Government, who are willing to renounce violence and try to work to achieve a better life for themselves in connection with the democracy that Pakistan is, I certainly think that it would be appropriate for Pakistan to consider that.
But I am reminded that Pakistan did try that. Pakistan tried to, in a very open way, reach an agreement with the Taliban and their related organization. And I’m told they didn’t keep it. I mean, they didn’t abide by it. They resumed their aggressive behavior, their violence, their terrorism. So I think that it’s up to the Pakistani Government, of course, to decide what’s appropriate for Pakistan.
QUESTION: President Obama (inaudible), in an interview, he talked about (inaudible) --
SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s okay.
QUESTION: Talked about Taliban issue – sorry, just --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, no problem.
QUESTION: There are some in Pakistan who say that Indians are using Balochistan to interfere in Balochistan. Will you discuss this with the India? In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that Kashmir is one issue that needs to be resolved. And now, your administration does not seem to talk about it. It seems that they no longer see Kashmir as an issue that needs to be resolved.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m going to raise everything that we believe is of significance with the Indian Government. I believe that it is in India’s interest for Pakistan to be stable, democratic, free of terrorism. I think that the disputes between India and Pakistan, which are historical and long-standing, should be looked at with fresh eyes, and there should be an effort to build some mutual trust. And from what I hear, it was a very good meeting between Prime Minister Singh and Prime Minister Gillani.
The United States stands ready to support the steps that India and Pakistan may take together, but we know that the only way these matters can be finally resolved is between the two countries, but it’s not just the government, but the people. And so we will encourage that, but we know that it has to be left to Pakistan and India for there to be any resolution.
QUESTION: So Kashmir is still seen as a dispute that needs to be resolved?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it certainly should be on the agenda of discussion between India and Pakistan.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It was good to talk to you. Thank you.

'via Blog this'