CIA Links with Pakistani Taliban 

(This article is being re-circulated after a year of being written because the Obama Administration, apparently eager not to destabilise Pakistan, has not called off the CIA hounds and is using President Zardari to get the Army even more deeply involved in fighting CIA and RAW surrogates in FATA and NWFP. Pakistan should expose the truth that it is the CIA and RAW who are funding the insurgents and clandestine operations in the cities of Pakistan. + Usman Khalid, Secretary General of Rifah Party+

When Gen. Musharraf submitted to U.S. pressure after 9/11 and ditched the Taliban in Afghanistan, he provided air bases as well as logistics support and shared intelligence with CIA. He allowed CIA and FBI to recruit agents in FATA and other places and to establish their outposts. The focus of ISI and other agencies was shifted towards hunting and nabbing so-called terrorists all over the country, in monitoring dissident elements within the army and in political wheeling and dealings. The CIA acquired all the links ISI and MI had both sides of the Pak-Afghan border and gradually took most agents on ISI payroll within its fold. By virtue of having better technology and means the CIA was able to take over intelligence acquisition and dissemination system. As a consequence the troops operating in FATA became entirely dependent upon CIA inputs. Taking advantage of complete liberty of action, CIA succeeded in buying the loyalties of many tribal chiefs and notables in FATA by doling out dollars in sacks since it knew that the Pashtun could not be crushed by force but could be purchased. Those not falling in line were got killed.

In FATA, Nek Muhammad was first cultivated and provided logistic support. When he entered into a peace deal with Pak Army in July 2005, he was killed using precision guided missile. Abdullah Mehsud, an Afghan war veteran who had also fought the Northern Alliance in October-November 2001 was captured and brainwashed during his two years internment in Guantanamo Bay. He was released after agreeing to work on terms dictated by CIA and he soon was able to takeover the leadership role. His death at Zhob at the hands of Pak security forces was a loss for CIA.

Baitulah Mehsud and Fazlullah had not taken part in Afghan jihad and do not qualify to head Taliban; yet 30year old Baitullah has managed to create Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Fazlullah calls the shots in Swat. Mulla Omar had never shown interest in establishing any links with Pakistani Taliban and had warned Nek Muhammad not to operate under the brand name of Taliban. It is being questioned as to how come Baitullah, Fazlullah and their spokesmen desperately wanted by Pakistan security forces have escaped the hawkeye of USA, particularly after they have been seen giving detailed interviews to media and using their cell phones? ISI had once given six figure coordinates of Baitullah and yet no Hellfire missile was fired on his hideout by CIA. The TTP that has spread its influence in all the seven agencies of tribal belt and in neighboring settled districts of NWFP has succeeded in making inroads into Punjab, particularly southern Punjab. Large number has been recruited from Chiniot, Bahawalpur, Dera Nawab, Bahawalnagar, Faisalabad, Sialkot and other places.

After Shakai peace deal with the militants in South Waziristan in July 2005, Pakistan was subjected to a calculated slander campaign. Having pushed more than one hundred thousand troops into the furnace of FATA it was scoffed at for not doing enough to control militancy in FATA. Pakistan was also accused of nuclear proliferation and IAEA kept up the pressure to handover AQ Khan for interrogation. Musharraf accepted the charge and forced AQ Khan to make a confession to defuse the heat. The religious extremist threat was blown out of all proportions and it was repeatedly stated that Pakistan’s nuclear assets had become unsafe. Musharraf accepted this charge as well and promised to fight extremism and terrorism with full force.

After declaring Pakistan as the most dangerous country, FATA was declared as the most dangerous place on earth. Pakistan was blamed for growing turbulence in Afghanistan since in the view of U.S. military leaders and Karzai Pak army was not doing enough to control militancy. The phenomenon of missile attacks by drones commenced in January 2006 when a suspected target in Damadola was attacked killing scores of innocent civilians. Another deadly missile attack was launched on a Madrassa in Bajaur in October that year killing 80 students. Ever since, this phenomenon continues unabated.

Once the ISI was freed from the wild goose chase of so-called terrorists and came under pressure on account of missing persons, it started to concentrate on its primary task in the troubled spots. To its horror it found far too many militant groups and criminal gangs operating under the guise of religious militants and cultivated by foreign agencies

They were the ones involved in carrying out gruesome beheadings of security personnel and torching girls’ schools to defame the real Taliban who had a peaceful agenda. Besides CIA and RAW, even Iran and Uzbekistan had developed their tentacles in Balochistan, Swat and Kurram Agency. Most of the pro-Pakistan groups had been purchased or neutralized and those not coming to terms were eliminated by groups sponsored by CIA. Things had gone topsy-turvy and ISI found itself at a loss how to differentiate between friend and foe.

It is when the ISI began to recover the lost ground and renewed its old contacts in FATA and started to expose and block clandestine activities of CIA, RAW and RAM that all hell broke lose on ISI. Instead of feeling ashamed of what they were doing, USA had the cheeks to start making hue and cry that ISI was linked with the Taliban and that it must be emasculated. The three colluding partners lost their cool when the Indian Embassy in Kabul was subjected to a suicide attack on 7 July 2008. The trio fumed with anger and blamed ISI without even carrying out preliminary investigations. It was alleged that the perpetrator of suicide attack belonged to Gujranwala. Admiral Mike Mullen and Deputy Director CIA Stephen Kappes came huffing and puffing to Islamabad on 12 July and expressed their concern in strong words. Both General Tariq and General Kayani were told to bring the ISI to heel and to control militancy on their side of the border. The details of the suicide bomber provided by the visitors proved false. It transpired later that the bomb was planted in a parked jeep in front of the Indian Embassy, which was detonated by remote control masterminded by Mossad.

In the meanwhile Bush gave a green signal to Pentagon to extend the sphere of operations in Afghanistan into neighbouring FATA in July. He said that besides Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan is the third battleground. The military was told to hit targets whenever any actionable intelligence was available without notifying Pakistan. U.S. troops started to man mobile posts all along Pak-Afghan border with Paktika as their main forward base camp. These hostile steps were taken in spite of the fact that the new government under Zardari had abandoned its policy of dialogue and resumed the policy of force against the militants. After a month-long Frontier Corps-led operation in Khyber Agency, the army was employed in Hangu to control the unrest. In continuation of the offensive policy, the army launched powerful operations in Swat in July and in Bajaur on 6 August backed by jetfighters, gunship helicopters, tanks and artillery guns and started to make rapid progress against the well-entrenched militants. Operations in these two restive areas are still going in with full steam and several hundred militants have been killed. Instead of getting pleased, the Americans got disturbed since they never intended to control militancy but to spread the flames of militancy into cities and create anarchic conditions.

The month of September saw intensification of missile attacks and each attack resulted in loss of innocent lives. To create fear and panic among the peaceful residents of Waziristan and also to target pro-government elements, missile attacks were intensified and each attack killed innocent men, women and children.

The idea was to antagonize pro-government Waziris and to force them to migrate like the people of Bajaur. To further up the ante, Pakistan was declared as a battleground and a first ever ground attack was carried out by U.S. troops on the night of 3 September at Angoor Adda killing 15 men women and children. Another missile attack was carried out on the house of pro-Pakistan Jalaluddin Haqqani in North Waziristan on 8 September killing 25 inmates - mostly women and children. It may be remembered that his group had been blamed for carrying out the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

The intruding drone was forced to beat a hasty retreat on 12 September when Pakistani jets got airborne and started to track it. A ground attack on 15th was also thwarted by the troops and the locals. So far, 62 border violations have been carried out by U.S.-ISAF forces including 36 after the takeover by PPP government in March 2008. So far 30 missile attacks have been made killing innocent people. In none of the attacks any Al-Qaeda operative or militant Taliban was killed.

The nexus in Kabul is working upon a scripted plan to make FATA lawless and beyond the control of security forces, push militancy into settled areas and then into major cities and thus create a civil warlike situation to prove their contention that Pakistan was the most dangerous country in the world and that the extremists were on the verge of taking over power and nuclear weapons. After inflaming South Waziristan, North Waziristan, Mohmand Agency, Khyber Agency, Darra Adam Khel, Kurram Agency, Hangu and Swat, Bajaur Agency was built into a stronghold of militants where huge cache of arms and ammunition was dumped. By virtue of being located at the crossroad of the tribal belt and also linked with Dir, Swat and Afghanistan, it was to act as bulwark and a launching pad to provide reinforcement to other areas.

10,000 Indian troops are stationed in Afghanistan under the guise of supervising construction of road from Jalalabad - Port Chahbahar in Iran, a project that has now been completed. Whereas India has officially declared 14 Indian consulates in Afghanistan, on the ground they have 107 in which 20 intelligence units are burning midnight oil to destabilize Pakistan. Many shops in Afghanistan run by Indians have an intelligence office in the rear. In Wakhan, a religious Madrassa run by Indian Muslim clerics is functioning since 2002 under the patronage of RAW and Mossad. Very young boys, mostly orphans, destitute or homeless are recruited. Recruits are mostly Afghans, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Caucasians. The latter being fair skinned and resembling Europeans are trained to hit targets in Europe or in USA to once again create a 9/11 like situation.

Reportedly, 10,000 ideologically motivated terrorist and suicide bombers have been trained. Besides receiving military training, they have also been taught to speak Pashto and the customs of the Pashtun. They are regularly infiltrated into troubled spots of Pakistan. Posing as volunteers they join the rank and file of militants to fight the Pakistan Army. They are the ones who are destroying schools, CD shops, bridges and other installations and carrying out brutal beheading of captured personnel. The idea is to create chaos and confusion and also to defame the real Taliban that have not come under their influence. They are also responsible for creating cleavages within the people of FATA and in disrupting peace deals. In Kurram Agency, Afghan officers and soldiers are actively involved in the sectarian conflict, providing arms and ammunition to Shias belonging to Toori tribe and physically participating in fights against the Sunnis. In Swat, Fazlullah led militants are supplied with war munitions as well as fighters.

Likewise, dissident tribal chiefs in Balochistan including late Akbar Bugti were also taken on board. The CIA helped in the reincarnation of the BLA and providing all sorts of war munitions to Baloch militants belonging to Bugti, Marri and Mengal tribes and establishing over 60 Farari camps in Balochistan. Shamsi airbase that was handed over to USA in October 2001, houses Blackhawk helicopters primarily engaged in monitoring the entire length of Iranian border. CIA has cultivated Sunni Iranian Baloch Jandullah group (not the one that had operated against 5 Corps commander). It is anti- Iranian regime and was utilized by CIA to carryout acts of sabotage in Iran through Zahidan. Iran has now constructed a stone wall all along its border to prevent cross border terrorism from Baluchistan. Jandullah activities have fouled Pakistan’s relations with Iran since the latter feels that such activities could not have been undertaken without the blessing of the Pakistan Government.

It is now clear that our so-called friends have been playing a double game. Now that USA has bared its teeth and let its intentions known, to pretend that it would stop short of achieving its objectives will be like living in fools’ paradise. It is simply degrading to unashamedly say that we cannot fight the Americans. It is also preposterous to assume that Pakistan may not survive without American support. Pro-American elements within Pakistan on U.S. payroll have been parroting this theme since creation of Pakistan to safeguard their vested interest. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, Somalia are living examples who have survived despite adopting hostile posture against USA. It is high time that we gird up our loins and put our act together to face up to the challenge boldly.

The army under General Kayani has expressed its resolve to confront the threat and safeguard the country’s sovereignty. It is now up to our week-kneed rulers, oblivious to the ominous threats, to rise to the occasion. It will be naive to expect that the threat will be warded off by diplomacy alone. The USA must be made to realize that it will become exceedingly difficult for their troops to operate in Afghanistan if Pakistan opts out of fighting the U.S. war of terror and refuses to provide transit facility for oil and food supplies. The magnitude of dependence can be gauged from the fact that each day over 400 containers ply from Karachi and Quetta to Afghanistan transporting food, munitions and 300 million gallons of fuel. We may also consider closing down four bases in control of USA, from where the CIA operates against Iran as well Pakistan.

The writer is a defence and a political analyst. This article was first published by the Asian Tribune.

******************************************************************************

LISA Seminar: Speech by Usman Khalid,

British House of Commons, House of Lords,

Thatcher Room, the 29th June, 2009

LONDON INSTITUTE OF SOUTH ASIA

Seminar on

National Self Determination in South Asia

Changing the Language of Political Discourse

Place: The British House of Commons, House of Lords

Room: Thatcher Room

Delivered by Usman Khalid, Director, LISA,

Date: 29 June 2009

London Institute of South Asia has been in existence for five years. It is time to evaluate its performance and success.

The objectives of LISA have been to:

Provide a common platform for all the victims of  Brahmanism.

Change the language of political discourse in South  Asia

As is evident from the presence of the principals of LISA present here today, all of who have been the leading lights in campaigns for securing the right of self-determination for their respective communities, LISA has gone a long way to consolidate the struggle to free peoples from the stranglehold of Brahmanism. We have here today Dr Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan; Mr V.T. Rajshekar, Editor of Dalit Voice – the fortnightly that has recently celebrated the Golden Jubilee of continuous publication; Dr Mukul Hazarika of Assam Watch; Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon, Editor of the International Journal of Sikh Affairs; Dr Syed Inayatullah Andrabi, Convenor of Mahaz i Islami in Indian Occupied Kashmir. All of them have spoken of the resolve to secure the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, for the Sikhs, for the peoples of the eight states of Assam, and above all, the untouchables of India who constitute 65% of the population of that country. They have all underlined that their struggle is against a common enemy - the ruling castes of India led by the Brahmins.

But LISA has met little success in changing the language of political discourse in South Asia. In fact, Pakistan has regressed into political dialogue in the language of religious obscurantist and ethnic secularists. But what does ‘language of political discourse’ mean? It implies that certain key words, which represent a concept, a principle or an idea, are held to be the benchmarks that are above reproach and all the participants in the discourse use those words with varying emphasis but more or less the same meaning. The language of political discourse is decided upon by the politically dominant. Political discourse in South Asia is still carried out in the language of British India because that language has been embraced by Hindu India. They had a choice (and they may yet take up that option) to revert to the language of Hindu/Buddhist rulers in South Asia but they did not. Under Hindu - Buddhist rule, the political discourse revolved around KARMA and DHARAMA that allowed the  uprooting of Buddhism in the land of its birth. The Hindu fundamentalist political parties in India still harbour a hope to replicate the genocidal pogroms against the Muslims, Christians and the Sikhs, which were so successful to eliminate Buddhism from South Asia. But that would require embracing reaction so far remote from reality that failure was dead certain.

Under Muslim Rule in India, the political discourse was dominated by concepts of EQUALITY before law, and the ‘RULE OF LAW’ (Sharia), which allowed autonomy to all faiths in matters of religion and personal law. Muslim rule in India lasted as long as it did (800 years) because it was based on two very modern concepts that are – Equality before Law and Rule of Law – that underpin the socio-political order not only in the Muslim World but now also in the West. The Muslim rulers were able to maintain peace and inter-communal harmony because they structured the state on a very modern principle of COMPACT of FAITHS. The order established by the Muslims was more egalitarian and fair but efforts to convert the indigenous people of India to Islam were half hearted at best. The Muslim rulers ignored the caste divisions in their empire and left the untouchables in the fold of Hinduism more or less at the mercy of the high Hindu castes.  But this issue was addressed under British Rule. While India continued to be ruled by a ‘Compact of Faiths’ with all faith communities allowed to operate their own personal laws, the British did introduce their own doctrines of civil and criminal law. The scope of the ‘Rule of Law’ was thus expanded and it remained the lynchpin of a stable society and state.

The British reinforced the ‘rule of law’ by a new language of political discourse. Their focus in political discourse was Western concepts of NATIONALISM, SECULARISM & DEMOCRACY. The Hindus readily embraced all three and gave their own emphasis and interpretation. They said, ‘India is a Nation’. They gave Secularism their own twist and equated it with ‘religious tolerance’ and insisted that the Hindus are ‘naturally secular’ as their faith accommodates thirty three million gods and could accommodate more. They gave the concept of Democracy their own twist and said it meant ‘majority rule’. Since Hindus are in majority, they claimed, the British should hand over power to their Congress party that represented the ‘majority’, and leave. The leadership of the Muslims was in the hands of clerics who rejected all the three pillars of Western political discourse. They rejected Nationalism as it undermined the ‘unity of the ummah’; they rejected Secularism as kufr; they rejected Democracy as it substituted the sovereignty of God with sovereignty of the people. The result was that the Muslims were sidelined in the political life of British India for half a century while the Hindus embraced everything British, having seen how their concepts and methods had destroyed Muslim power, prosperity and prestige. It was not until the Muslim League was founded in 1906 that the Muslims of India began to creep back as active participants in political discourse of their time.

The Muslim were very fortunate in having exceptional leaders – Allama Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The Hindus had no one of the same intellectual calibre or political standing. The Muslim Leaders challenged the Congress view of majority rule, which had remained unchallenged since the founding of the Congress Party in in 1885 by an Englishman, Allan Octavian Hume <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Octavian_Hume> . The Muslim League wanted the principle of ‘majority rule’ to be applied to every province of British India.  The Muslim League thus embraced the British language of political discourse and asserted that:

MUSLIMS ARE A NATION  (the basis of the Two Nation Theory).

Since there is no established church in Islam, SECULARISM IS IRRELEVANT.

MAJORITY RULE should apply to every province and not to  India as a whole.

1940 Resolution & Provincial Autonomy In 1940, when the Pakistan Resolution was on the anvil, this point that ‘majority rule’ should be applied to each province rather than to the entire British Empire in India, had not been conceded either by the British or by the Hindu leaders of the Congress Party. Our leaders had the alacrity and wisdom to see it was most important for the Muslims to secure their right of self-determination was to underline the institution of the British introduced concept of Provincial Autonomy throughout their global empire. The British looked at the provinces as having a socio-political personality within which they could local give self-government to have locals address local problems while the British rulers were free to look after weightier matters of the Empire. They divided their empire into provinces and created states (provinces) even in USA, Canada and Australia where the majority was all white immigrants. The states or provinces are not nations but they are political entities because of their unique history – usually the time and terms of annexation. The British left Muslim majority states with Muslim rulers alone and gave them the status of princely states. When the people were of a different faith to that of the defeated ruler, his realm was outrightly annexed with some land distributed among collaborators. That is what happened on the defeat of Sikh State in the Punjab. Most of it was annexed; Kashmir was given to Gulab Singh who collaborated with the British against the Sikhs. The British Indian Empire, set up in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, was still fighting to save or build the empire when the British left in 1947. Such was the complexity of ruling an empire with so many peoples, faiths and castes.

The Princely States, who enjoyed autonomy to varying degree, have an unsavoury history. Hindu India had no difficulty in amalgamating nearly 500 princely states and has been creating more provinces (states) within the Union without much fuss. But Pakistan, having won the argument that that majority rule be applied to each province, the boundaries of provinces are more sacrosanct and provincial autonomy more dearly cherished. This is no disadvantage. Unlike India, the provinces of Pakistan are ethnically diverse. There are more Pashtun in Karachi than in Kabul or Peshawar. There are ten million Baloch in Sindh and Punjab whereas they are only 2 million in Baluchistan. The British concept of ‘provincial autonomy’: that land belongs to the province but the people belong to the country - Pakistan. It follows that the provinces alone can tax and draw income from land and property. The federation alone can impose taxes on the people – their income, their production and their consumption. The people are free to move from one province to another and own property any where in Pakistan. But the federation has to buy ‘state land’ from the province whether to build roads, dams, the federal capital or even cantonments. The liquids or stones of value (minerals etc) found above or below the surface are the property of the province. The demand of Balochistan is in accord with that concept and is enshrined in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. Until provincial autonomy was made controversial by India sponsored political parties (like Shiekh Mujib’s Six Points and now the MQM), the original (British) concept of Provincial Autonomy had helped consolidate the unity of the people of Pakistan.

It was not a mistake that the 1940 Resolution did not even mention the word Pakistan and demanded the provinces to be ‘sovereign states’. They expected the Muslim majority provinces and princely states to form a federation as they indeed did. But the important point was that the so-called ‘Hindu majority’ provinces also had non-Hindu castes in majority. Our leaders wanted the same right – the right of national self-determination - for the other states of India as they wanted for Muslim majority provinces. We in Pakistan have missed the point altogether. That Islam is the polity – principle of national solidarity – of Pakistan was as clear to the Hindus as it was to the Muslims. That is why it was the Hindu press that called the 1940 Resolution as the Pakistan Resolution. It was because of the absence of a principle of national solidarity in Hindu India that the Congress leaders were so eager to be the successors of the British Raj. It is the very same factor that impels India to make imperialism its destiny. India feels it would break-up if its imperial quests against its neighbours do not succeed.

Objectives and Methods of the Muslim League

The objectives of the Muslim League evolved over time in three separate phases:

A.Demand for Muslim Personal Law.

B.Demand for Separate Electorate.

C.Demand for Separate Homeland

At every stage, its methods were appropriate to its demands. Since the demand for Muslim Personal Law did not infringe upon the rights of other faith communities, the Muslim Leaders made a ‘petition to the Crown’ to secure that objective. To secure Separate Electorate, which was good for all the faith and castes communities of India, the Muslims League ‘argued’ its case and mobilised Muslim public opinion in its support. But it came against stiff opposition from Mahatma Gandhi and Congress leadership because they were aware that the Hindus would become a minority if the ‘untouchables’ were not counted as Hindus. The 1932 Communal Ward, which gave Separate Electorate to all the faiths and castes, was a huge test for all the leaders. The acceptance of Separate Electorate by Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar came as huge blow to the Congress leadership. Gandhi went on hunger strike to get him to reverse the decision. Gandhi succeeded and the untouchable regret that reversal till today. If they had insisted on Separate Electorate they would have been the rulers of India today because they constitute 65% of the population of that country. .

Lessons Learnt

For a Movement to succeed, its leadership must have clarity in the following areas:

1.A clear objective at every stage of its struggle.

2.A clear enemy who opposes or would oppose the objective.

A clear methodology (including strategy) to achieve that objective. This methodology should be qualitatively in line with the objective and appropriate to the nature of the enemy.

There are many examples of success against heavy odds when the there was clarity in the three areas above. There are even more numerous examples of failure when lack of clarity created uncertainly and lack of resolve in the leadership.

The Lawyers Movement of 2008-09 in Pakistan succeeded despite opposition from one military and one civil dictator because it was called off the moment the Prime Minister declared that the Chief Justice would be restored. There was a temptation to make it an anti-Zardari Movement or to hold out until the PCO judges had been removed. That the Movement did not extend its objectives despite momentum on their side made it so successful.

The PNA (Pakistan National Alliance) movement in 1977 to get the general elections to be held again was unsuccessful because the Movement was not called off when Late Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed to elections anew. They transformed it into ‘Nizam e Mustafa’ Movement thus giving the military an excuse and opportunity to carry out a coup d’etat.

The Hindu leadership of the Congress Party failed to frustrate the Pakistan Movement because its objective was to deny the Muslims their separate identity and their separate state. They failed because of their methods. The entrenched hostility to the Muslims helped the Muslims win the argument that they were a separate nation.

The Kashmiris have a clear objective - AZADI; they have a clear enemy - INDIA; and they have already moved to the stage of RESISTANCE. But international support is important for movements for national self-determination. The Kashmiris depend on Pakistan for global connections and are being severely handicapped in consequence.

The KHALISTAN Movement has a clear objective, it has a clear enemy and it has a viable methodology – win the argument, demonstrate power and be ready to resist, but it is being subjected to subversion and division. The Sikhs have become unsure who are their friends and enemies. The USA is their friend and so is Pakistan.

The Divide and Rule policy of India has worked in Eight States of Assam in its North East. Now India wants to focus on Bangladeshi infiltration into Assam and would like to use that as an excuse liquidate Bangladesh. India would fail because the Chinese claim over Arunachal Pradesh has changed the dynamics as the problem has become international.

The DALIT Movement is clear who the enemy is: the Brahmins. It is also clear who are its friends within; it is eager to form a Bahujan Alliance. But it is not clear what their objectives are. Perhaps it should also evolve its objectives, like the Muslims in the last century, in phases – from separate personal laws, to separate electorate, and majority rule.

The Naxalite and Maoist movements have a base among the tribals and untouchables. Their movement will mature in time like the one in Nepal. But the present time is not an era of ‘ideology’ - certainly not of Marxist ideology.  It would be better if they dovetailed their efforts with those of the Dalit Movement – win the argument (that they are not Hindus), agitate for separate electorate and win political power in India. They cannot do so until they recognise the right of ALL the peoples in India to national self-determination. The only viable future for India is an anti-imperialist union of states on the basis of a COMPACT OF STATES as Dr Ambedkar visualised. .

Pakistan is also experiencing insurrection - secular nationalist movements in Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP and Islamist movement in other provinces. None has roots in the people. The Taliban secured some support and credibility by taking on the ‘secular secessionists. But they have lost all credibility and support as it became clear that they are driven by Takfiri ideology that advocates the slaughter of bad Muslims - Shias and practitioners of Shirk. The people of FATA, NWFP and Balochistan have resisted the secular nationalists as well as the Islamists. Pakistan is comfortable with being a MUSLIM NATION STATE and still has the potential for being a model state for the Muslims of the world.

In summation I would say:

For a movement to succeed, it must have clarity over  its: 1) objective, 2) enemy, and 3) methodology.

The right methodology is first to: 1) win the argument,  then 2) demonstrate strength, and finally, 3) be prepared for violence.

The Khalistan Movement has all the ingredients for  success. Its objective is Khalistan; it has demonstrated strength and faced  state violence and can do so again. But it is not so clear about its friends  and enemies.

The Dalit Movement is clear about its enemy – the  Brahmin. But it is not clear about its objectives and it cannot decide on  methods until a single clear objective emerges.

With China having pressed its claim over Arunachal  Pradesh more robustly, and Nepal having come into its sphere of influence, the  dynamics of the situation in the seven states of Assam  (now eight with Sikkim) is changing.

The Kashmiri struggle for self-determination is close  to achieving its goals; its objective, its enemy and its methodology are  crystal clear.  India is preparing  for another war with Pakistan, which would be confined to J& K owing to  fear of escalation into a nuclear war. The Kashmiris will win by fighting it  by the rules of asymmetrical war.

Pakistan MUST NOT fall into the trap of creating more provinces or changing provincial boundaries, or accept the principle of ‘provincial autonomy’ different to what it was under the British Raj. The principle is that land belongs to the provinces and the people have only one loyalty – to the state of Pakistan.  The people are and must remain free to move, work and own property in all parts of Pakistan.

*****************************************

It is well known that no medication is yet available to reverse the progressive diseases like dementia. If the medical reports are true and are based on valid diagnosis, Mr Zardari is unfit to hold the office of the President on account of suffering from a degenerative disease. If the medical reports are bogus, it is an even more serious matter. That would mean Mr Zardari evaded trial on the basis of untruth and may have committed the crime of perjury.
Mr Zardari made several written agreements that were well publicised, to ‘reinstate the judges’ dismissed and incarcerated by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007. He went back on his solemn pledge every time.  That also indicates that he is either suffering from ‘dementia’ or has conducted himself dishonourably. In either case, he is unfit to hold the high office of the President.
The lawyers in Pakistan have been engaged in a movement for the ‘rule of law’ since March last year when General Musharraf dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. That Asif Zardari is unwilling to restore him in the office of the Chief Justice even after the resignation of President Musharraf also castes a doubt on his sanity. Worse still, it could be reflection of his determination to establish ‘personal rule’ in preference to the ‘rule of law’.  
It is better for Mr Zardari, the country and the entire sub-continent that he honours the promise he made to his coalition partner – Nawaz Sharif – and let an uncontroversial non-partisan be elected as the President of Pakistan. Chief Justice (retired) Saeed uz Zaman Siddiqi, who is a PML(N) candidate for President, is such a person. The PPP does not enjoy absolute majority in the parliament. It is right and proper that he should at least allow the largely ceremonial office of the ‘head of state’ be filled by an honourable former Chief Justice thus meeting a legitimate demands of his coalition partners, and restoring the fast eroding credibility of the new government.  
Usman Khalid
Director London Institute of South Asia

****************************************************

Pakistan MUST have a Consensus President  
Pakistan is drowning as its people reach for every straw. Zardari can still save the situation by withdrawing from the contest and allow a consensus candidate, preferably with military background, to assume the high office.
Usman Khalid, Director London Institute of South Asia

Like every other Pakistani, when the PPP nominated Asif Zardari as its candidate, for President, my heart sank. Doom and gloom dominates all walks of life. We are so ecstatic over the unparalleled success of the lawyers’ movement for the ‘rule of law’ until the irony hit us that it is to culminate in an ‘outlaw’ becoming the President of Pakistan. Along the way, it would not only be Nawaz Sharif who is beaten at the game of politics; the entire nation feels beaten as its faith in ‘democracy’ perished with it. Once again, it was proved that democracy in a country is as good as its political class. And Pakistan’s political class is rotten to the core. It is so rotten that every election produces a worse government that the outgoing government. It seemed impossible to have a government less concerned with public opinion or national interest than the Musharraf Administration. But Asif Zardari is a league ahead of him in deviousness and lack of concern. During the six months he has been the de facto ruler of Pakistan, he has only been doing one thing, appointing his cronies everywhere.
Like every other Pakistani, I have been eager to find a silver lining in every cloud. When Javed Hashmi, announced his candidacy for President, I eagerly supported him. In politics, he is one of very few who is widely respected. But his party – PML (N) - did not even consider him. Then I endorsed the name of former Chief Justice Saeed uz Zaman – who was nominated by the PML(N). When the chances of his success evaporated with the JUI(F) and ANP supporting Mr. Zardari for President, I still hoped that Asif Zardari may withdraw in favour of his younger sister – Faryal Talpur. Yesterday, as she withdrew from the contest, that hope was also dashed. Clearly, the nightmare of Asif Zardari stepping into the shoes of Musharraf is upon us. I, like every other Pakistani, continue to look for a silver lining. But in the heart of my heart I know that our country is heading for a situation much worse than even that of 1971.  
Pakistanis are used to state that governs by rules and laws. But in the Tribal areas in North West of Pakistan and much of Baluchistan, the laws of the state do not apply and the writ of the government is feeble. Tribal leader and the Mullahs exercise authority in parallel with the state. With electoral process having been extended to these areas, the tribal leaders as well as the Mullahs became a part of the political class as the largesse of the state, they saw, was much bigger in comparison with puny reward of repressing and exploiting the poor and ignorant folks who placed faith in them. Electoral democracy consolidated the political unity of Pakistan. That was until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Mullah began to get more money from the Arab states and the Americans than Pakistan could ever give them. With the Mullah also becoming a Mujahid, he also got respect and adulation. That started a process that extended to all areas of Pakistan. For want of a better word, I will also use the word in common usage for this process - Islamisation.
Alarmed by the Islamisation of Pakistan, the Soviet Union began to give arms and money to tribes in Balochistan, who they saw are more secular and immune to the charms of Islamisation. They did not succeed much but India took over their role after the Soviet withdrawal. Initially, their support was political but after 9/11, Afghanistan became available to them as their base, the proxy war of India in Balochistan was pursued as ‘counterweight’ to what they perceived as Pakistan’s proxy war in Kashmir. After General Musharraf sent his Qadiani aide - Tariq Aziz - to India to assure them that Pakistan would no longer give any assistance to the resistance in Kashmir and would henceforth be India’s partner in America sponsored ‘war against terror’ the decline and fall of Musharraf regime began. America and India started to think of replacing him. They got in touch with Benazir through their agent, Rehman Malik, and got her to agree to perform the tasks given by them to Musharraf i.e.: 1) sideline the struggle in Jammu and Kashmir, 2) commit the entire armed might of Pakistan to fight against the Tailban; 3) and continue to give USA information about the nuclear weapons of Pakistan.
Several ‘informe’’ columnists have since expressed the view that Benazir was assassinated because she had changed her mind; she was afraid to court the hostility of Afghan resistance that had formidable links in Pakistan. I believe it unlikely the Americans got her killed; it is more probable they connived by not stopping her being killed. Those still looking for a ‘silver lining’ hope that after Zardari is formally anointed as the de jure ruler of Pakistan, he will be free and able to look after the interests of Pakistan. With all the minders placed around him by the USA – Rehman Malik in the Ministry of Interior, Hussain Haqqani (Pakistan’s Ambassador in the USA) in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his predecessor as the National Security Advisor, it seems very unlikely Zardari would be ‘free’. Looking at his record of five months as the de facto ruler, he has single-mindedly pursued the objective of personal control over all the institutions of the state without any scruples or concern for public opinion. That has resulted in huge financial losses to the state, and precipitous decline of the economy and the stock market. The people hoped that the exit of General Musharraf would start a new era of stability and peace but all indication are that Zardari Administration would be a Government of the Criminals, by the Criminals, for Criminals with the USA having dossiers to blackmail all of them.
The armed forces are rightly alarmed that Asif Zadari, with his dark past and repute, would be the President with his finger on the ‘nuclear trigger’. He would already be looking for having cronies in the armed forces to patronize, corrupt and subvert. Highly respected General Ali Quli Khan, who was superceded and ‘playboy’ Musharraf appointed as the COAS, addressed a press conference in Rawalpindi on 30 August to demand, on behalf of ex-servicemen (of who I am one) that the 17th Amendment should be repealed before the Presidential Election due on September 6. This should be taken seriously. Asif Zardari would have to regret if he set his press dogs upon him. There is still time for Zardari and his US patrons to prevent a crisis that no one would be able to resolve – with force or without it. The armed forces are at the end of their tether having to face death at the hands of their own people and ridicule from the press and the politicians. Pakistan’s President is and should continue to be the Supreme Commander of the armed forces. He MUST be a reputable person, non-partisan and honourable, preferably with a background in the military.
I have been concerned with the choice of the next President for over two years because I have been acutely aware that it would be decisive in underpinning (or otherwise) the political stability of Pakistan. I have suggested two names over those two years. One is Syed Ali Geelani, leader of the All Parties Hurriyet Conference in Kashmir, and the other is General Ali Quli Khan.  I did not know two years ago that Kashmir would be on the front burner once again but it is. The two names are more relevant today than ever before. Syed Ali Geelani as President would underline that Kashmiris are a part of our nation and it is our duty to secure for them the right to become a part of country. At this point in time, there is no more important national interest than support for Kashmiri struggle for freedom. General Ali Quli Khan, who was a Corps Commander in Kashmir, also has impeccable credentials to be the President. Let us not forget the adage: those who put anything above national interest, end up failing not only in securing that interest but also what they put above it. Asif Zardari should keep that in mind. If he did become the President on 6 September, he will be the sole ruler and the most powerful person in the country. When those in power do not enjoy respect, the country is unstable. He will be hounded in Pakistan for his failure to honour agreements with coalition partners, and reviled abroad for the huge amount of tainted wealth that he owns. He could yet withdraw from the contest, postpone elections, and allow a consensus candidate to assume the office of the President. ++