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'

Monday, April 16, 2012

When Manmohan Singh comes to Islamabad – The Express Tribune

When Manmohan Singh comes to Islamabad – The Express Tribune:

When Manmohan Singh comes to Islamabad

Published: April 15, 2012
The writer teaches physics and political science at LUMS. He holds a doctorate in physics from MIT
The coincidence between President Asif Ali Zardari’s sprint to Delhi last week, and the $10 million head-money on Hafiz Saeed announced by the US could be purely accidental. But this action certainly refocused Indian attention on the alleged Mumbai attack planner, who heads the pantheon of jihadi ‘heroes’ that now freely parades across Pakistan. In such circumstances, holding the olive branch before PM Manmohan Singh surely required guts. The scepticism to Zardari in India was, of course, predictable.
It is easy to pooh-pooh the visit. Mr Zardari is not a popular president or a clean one, and the PPP is unlikely to survive the elections scheduled in a few months from now. Plus, he wields no power on issues that India considers critical: nuclear weapons, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. Most importantly, he can do nothing to rein in the anti-India jihadist network, a matter that belongs squarely to the army’s domain. Moving against Hafiz Saeed is not an option. Zardari cannot forget Memogate — which he somehow survived but Ambassador Husain Haqqani did not.
And yet, a weak and embattled government did something refreshingly good for the country. According India, the MFN status for trade and related commercial activity is sure to be a game-changer that could bring peace and prosperity to the region.Ignoring the angry howls of the Difah-e-Pakistan crowd, the government for once listened to the country’s majority — most Pakistanis do want trade with India even though they consider it a threat.
Still better news is that the Zardari-Singh joint communique says “practical, pragmatic” solutions will be sought for disputes. Showing his willingness to put Mumbai 2008 on the back-burner, Singh accepted Zardari’s invitation to Islamabad. This is exactly the way it should be; frequent high-level meetings are the best confidence-building measures.
But what should the two sides talk about? Surely, there are many issues but here are the top five on which progress is both necessary and, more importantly, possible.
Firstlet both countries agree to immediately vacate the killing ice fields of Siachen. This insane war at 22,000 feet has claimed hundreds of lives on both sides; 138 Pakistani soldiers and civilian contractors are still being searched for after a mountain of snow crashed on them last week. Maintaining control over a system of Himalayan glaciers has come at a dreadful cost to human lives and resources, and has also irreversibly polluted a pristinely pure environment. But to what end? There are no minerals in Siachen; not even a blade of grass can grow there. This is just a stupid battle between two monster-sized national egos.
Secondlet them talk about water — seriously. But please have the Pakistani side well-prepared for solid technical discussions. This means having real experts with facts at their fingertips. They must know about spillway design, sediment control, DSLs, drawdowns, sluicing, etc. I have seen too many duffers represent our side at Pakistan-India meetings where water inevitably comes up. Their lack of knowledge becomes painfully apparent and the Indians start smirking.
In water matters geography has favoured India; every upper riparian state can control outflows and India could be potentially unfair to Pakistan. But, although there are frequent allegations to this effect, are they really correct? The Indus Waters Treaty, negotiated in 1960, has so far kept matters on an even keel; neutral experts have adjudicated complaints received from Pakistan. Water has therefore not been a strong reason for war until now. But this stability may be drawing to an end because both countries — Pakistan more so than India — are becoming water stressed. Rising populations would strain resources even if the other country did not exist. Therefore, sensible and well-informed high-level discussions are critical.
Third, do away with the absurd and provocative daily flag ceremonies at Wagah. Instead, let the leaders talk about how ordinary people can travel more easily across the border. This is a natural right, and a step towards real peace. If you travel to the other side and see that people there have greater likeliness to you than anywhere else in the world, the urge to go to war diminishes. Yet, for a Pakistani to get an Indian visa, or an Indian to get a Pakistani one, is presently an ordeal.
Fourth, Pakistan and India have technical issues regarding trade and transit rights that need discussion. Although Pakistan has finally granted MFN status to India, the real dividend will come if non-tariff barriers are removed and bank transfers are allowed. There are estimates that Pakistan-India trade could rise to an awesome $8 billion per year. To achieve this goal, the onus lies on India.
Fifth: let them talk about exchanging academics, both teachers and students, between the two countries. Pakistan is starved of good teachers in almost every field, especially at the higher levels of education. The Higher Education Commission’s plan to bring in university teachers from overseas has flopped. A breakthrough is only possible if Indian teachers could be brought to Pakistan. Indians would find it easier to adapt to local ways and customs than others. Plus, they would have smaller salary expectations than most others. The huge pool of strong Indian candidates could be used to Pakistan’s advantage — we could pick the best teachers and researchers, and those most likely to make a positive impact on our system.
The above list has two deliberate omissions. The first is terrorism, which will displease the Indian side. But this matter lies beyond what any elected national leader in Pakistan can do; basically it is for the Pakistan Army to rethink its goals. In all likelihood, change will only come when the internal costs of maintaining strategic jihadist assets become too large. The present informal truce is unlikely to last forever, and jihadists could be attacking their handlers once again in the not-too-distant future.
The second omission is Kashmir, which displeases the Pakistani side. But, given the tortured history of Pakistan-India conflict on this conflict, it is difficult to imagine that progress is possible. Pragmatism therefore requires keeping the conflict on the backburner instead of demanding an instant solution. For now, it is more important that Pakistan and India become normal neighbours and deal with their disputes reasonably.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 16th, 2012.

'via Blog this'

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Pakistan defiant, seeks proof from India to act against Saeed - India News - IBNLive

Pakistan defiant, seeks proof from India to act against Saeed - India News - IBNLive:

New Delhi: The Hafiz Saeed issue remains a sticking point in talks between India and Pakistan as Islamabad demands solid proof for courts to convict the Lashkar-e-Toiba founder. Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reacted to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remarks to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari in Delhi on Sunday, linking progress in bilateral talks to action against the alleged 26/11 mastermind.
Gilani said, "We are serious on the issue of Saeed but the question is how to proceed against him without evidence. Courts here are independent and we need substantial evidence against him."
Gilani further said it had been agreed that the Interior and Home Secretaries of the two countries will discuss the issue when they meet on April 16.
Pakistan defiant, seeks proof from India to act against Saeed
He said that former premier Nawaz Sharif too had asked him about the government's stance on the issue of Saeed. Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar e-Taiba, has been in focus after the US offered a $ 10 million bounty for him last week.
Gilani has said in Parliament that the case of Saeed is an "internal issue" of Pakistan and any evidence against him should be provided to Islamabad so that it could be examined by the courts.
Responding to a question about groups like JuD fanning extremism in Pakistan, Gilani said: "I have ordered action against all proscribed organisations".
He said there should be peace between India and Pakistan and it was in the interest of both countries as well as the region.
"(Indian Prime Minister) Manmohan Singh and I are committed to bringing stability to the region. We will take every possible step towards peace and stability," he said hours after President Asif Ali Zardari met Singh in New Delhi.
Asked about trade with India, Gilani said: "Trade relations are beneficials for each other. Even China had asked us to have trade with India as it is good for both countries". He said the Pakistan People's Party-led government had the mandate of the opposition and the people to forge good relations with India.
"The army should be with us on this matter," he added. He said President Zardari daylong private tour of India would help improve relations between the two countries.
(With additional information from PTI)
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on FacebookTwitter,Google+ and Pinterest)

'via Blog this'

Friday, April 6, 2012

Our real ‘jugular’ | Pakistan Today | Latest news | Breaking news | Pakistan News | World news | Business | Sport and Multimedia

Our real ‘jugular’ | Pakistan Today | Latest news | Breaking news | Pakistan News | World news | Business | Sport and Multimedia:

Our real ‘jugular’

By:Nazir NajiWednesday, 4 Apr 2012 9:50 pm | Comments (17)
Nazir Naji
What we have done to Gilgit-Baltistan

Like today’s politicians and strategic experts do not know how Balochistan came to be a part of Pakistan, they similarly do not know how Gilgit-Baltistan came to be apart of Pakistan. For the sake of recall, Gilgit-Baltistan used to be a part of the Kashmir state that the people freed from Dogra raj. Post-independence, the people of GB voluntarily decided to join the federation of Pakistan and wanted to be given the status of a federating units like the others. But the then rulers of Pakistan, pleading on the basis of the lack of an administrative infrastructure, stated that they would have to be part of the Pakistan federation for the time being without being declared a separate province. They would be given that due status once the requisite administrative infrastructure was in place. Given our national predilection for amnesia, no one remembered this pledge even though the people of GB constantly kept reminding governments and repeatedly asked for recognition of their identity. In 1963, an important part of GB was given under the control of China without asking from the people. Given their allegiance to and love for Pakistan, the local populace accepted this unjust decision. Finally, the incumbent government came through on the historical promise of giving them provincial status.

It is pertinent to mention here that it is the people of GB, after the people of East Pakistan, who fought their war of independence themselves, got their freedom and joined Pakistan of their own volition. Of Pakistan’s current territory, there was widespread disagreement in the then province of NWFP. The Red Shirts movement boycotted the referendum and because of that boycott, the province became a part of Pakistan after the referendum. The Sindh Assembly had passed a resolution in favour of Pakistan but there was no noteworthy expression of desire from the people there. The province became a part of Pakistan according to the plan of partition. The resolution that had been passed in 1938, in fact was passed in the assembly of the province formed after separation from the Bombay presidency. During the elections for this assembly, the issue of Pakistan had never come up. The resolution was passed 1938 whereas the resolution for Pakistan was presented in 1940.

Similarly, the Pakistan movement in Punjab was also restricted to a few days. The elections that took place in Punjab before independence, the Muslim League had not gotten a majority in them. Along with Hindus and Sikh, the party of the Punjabi feudals, the Unionist Party, formed a coalition government and the chief ministership was given to Khizar Hayat Tiwana. During this time, the movement for Pakistan had already gained steam. Thus, the Muslim League also protested against that government in Punjab and registered their participation in the Pakistan movement. Some Muslim Leaguers were arrested. Some feudals also had an R&R session as jailbirds. But this agitation in Punjab wasn’t even a miniscule portion of the entirety of the Pakistan movement and the sacrifices rendered for it. Punjab’s English governor hinted to all the Unionists that since the Pakistan movement was about to achieve its end, it was better for them to join the ML. And as the night fell, all the Unionist became Leaguers and West Punjab became a part of Pakistan. If Punjab had prepared it case to present to the Radcliffe Award, then Ferozepur and Gurdaspur could have become parts of Pakistan. Batala especially would never have gone to India. But the Punjabi Muslim League was barely able to fight its own case properly which is an indication of its seriousness of purpose.

However, returning to the point I was making, it was the people of East Pakistan that had rendered the most sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan and after them, the people of GB who got their territory freed from an oppressor and joined Pakistan. The decision about East Pakistan was also taken by people who had no remarkable contribution to the creation of Pakistan. And now what is being done in GB is also being done by elements who never fought for the cause of Pakistan.

What did we lose after losing East Pakistan? Those who are pushing this country deep into a quagmire in the name of Islam still have no idea about how grave that loss was. The leadership of East Pakistan would never have let Pakistan be embroiled in the Afghan war. The Kashmir problem would possibly have been solved. Just like India, Pakistan would be on the road to rapid development. We would be standing with dignity in the comity of nations. Our society would have been free from the scourge of violence. No OBL would have been ensconced safely in our quarters and no Hafiz Saeed would have had the gall to support foreign terrorists. We have seen all this because we let East Pakistan go. And what is happening in GB now, if I allude even perfunctorily to it, it would scare the daylights out of most.

Consider: What is the geographical location of GB? On the one hand, it joins with KP and on the other with Azad Kashmir. The Karakoram Highway passes through it and that is where our and China’s territories meet. North to that is Wakhan strip which is a part of Afghanistan. But this is the area which directly joins Pakistan to the landmass of Central Asia. China is conducting many great developmental worksin GB. China is going to build a big water reservoir in this area, 80 percent of the expenditure for which China will bear itself. This Chinese reservoir will act like a lifeline for our Daimer-Basha dam. If this reservoir is not built, the Daimer-Basha dam will be but a pipedream. You must also know that the fountainhead of our aquatic lifeline i.e. the River Indus is also situated in GB.

I wrote in my previous column that if any flight from Indian territory to Afghanistan were to take fifteen minutes, it would be from this area. You fly from Occupied Kashmir to GB from where you fly to Wakhan in a matter of minutes. Now look at our relations with India and the US. Look at their capabilities and look at our own and you will clearly know what I am worried about. If we lose control over GB, the one that we never actually established, what would be the consequences for that?

Eighty percent of GB’s people belong to the Fiqh Ja’afria. They are a peaceful people. During Zia-ul-Haq’s reign, the Sipah-e-Sahaba started terrorist activities in the region which have now gained a lot of momentum. Gilgit has been in a curfew for the last three days. Corpses litter the roads and no one dare pick them up. Sectarian hatred is fermenting in South Punjab and our tribal areas and reaching that region. Kashmir is the ‘jugular vein’ without which we have been living for 64 years. But if some enemy gets hold of our jugular vein of GB, we will definitely not have 64 years…

The writer is one of Pakistan’s most widely read columnists.

'via Blog this'