Pakistan's Military must surrender control of foreign policy..! By Shiraz Paracha

Recent arbitration by the Saudi intelligence agency in the ongoing ‘CIA-ISI war’ is yet another proof that Pakistan is in a dangerous mess created by the military’s illegitimate control over the country’s foreign policy.

Before it is too late, Pakistan needs a radical change in terms of reorganizing  internal power centers. Adventurous generals must be reined in and should be no longer be allowed to impose their outdated foreign policy perceptions. As a significant stakeholder, the military can give advice on foreign policy issues but it must not solely shape or dictate the contours of Pakistan’s foreign policy.

A country’s foreign policy is formulated not on the basis of paranoia and true or false security concerns. Trade and economic interests are corner stones of a successful foreign policy. A country can’t change her neighbors; it has to live with them. A country which can’t establish friendly or at least working relationship with its neighbors is not considered credible by the international community.

Pakistan is seen as an unreliable state because its generals, not politicians; control the country’s foreign policy. The time has come that for the survival of Pakistan, and to restore its own credibility the military restrain from meddling in the foreign policy.

The majority of Pakistanis are not against India but a few generals are. The people of Pakistan would like to have good relations with India but the military is opposed to the public will. At the same time under the Saudi and American pressure the military has blocked bridge building efforts between Iran and Pakistan. This attitude of the men in uniform has been hurting Pakistan.  

 The military cannot continue treating the rest of Pakistanis as ‘bloody civilians’ or a heard of sheep. Pakistan needs an army that serves the people of Pakistan, an army that follows law of the land and submits to the writ of an elected representative government. Foreign policy ought to be formulated by the elected civilian government in consultation with properly trained specialists, professionals, academia and other stakeholders.

The military is not the sole interpreter of Pakistan’s national interests. The military is not the institution which should set national or international agenda for Pakistan.  

For the last 65 year, the people and all institutions in Pakistan have been hostages at the hands of their own military. In the past generals and commanders considered Pakistan as their personal state. Indeed because of generals’ horrific blunders lives of millions of Pakistanis have been at risk.

Intellectually confused generals like Ayub Khan, Sher Ali Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Aslam Bag, Hamid Gul, Akhtar Abdur Rahman, Naseerullah Khan Baber, Javed Nasir, Pervez Musharraf and many more tried to implement their flawed perceptions and philosophies in Pakistan by force and manipulation.

Professionally incompetent generals, many of whom were also corrupt and morally bankrupt, put their personal greed and ambitions above Pakistan. Today, the Pakistani society is a sick society due to paranoia and confusions created by a few generals.

The military’s civilian regiments such as the Jamat-e-Islami and other Jihadies have imposed false ideologies and concepts upon the people of Pakistan. Even today, a group of idiots defends those foolish and deadly policies on our television screens. As a consequence Pakistan’s faces a huge PR crisis.

The military has been involved in clandestine operations and deals and often the country’s civilian leadership is not informed. In fact an independent investigation would reveal that some in the Pakistan military have been pursuing criminal agendas at the cost of  Pakistan and its people.  Military coups and generals’ unlawful interference in foreign and domestic policies have harmed Pakistan. Some Pakistani generals think that only they know what is good for Pakistan. This selfish and foolish approach has almost destroyed Pakistan.

It is sad to observe that despite recent debacles no lessons have been learnt and there are no visible signs of change in the military mindset. Discussions and the tone at Corps Commanders’ meetings have not been appropriate. Corps Commanders act as an alternative Cabinet and generals present themselves as defective rulers of Pakistan. With military’s such behavior Pakistan will continue suffering humiliation after humiliation on the national and international fronts.

The current military leadership can turn the page.  General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his colleagues can change the culture of contempt that exists in the military ranks for the Parliament and the elected government. General Kayani will earn true respect and will leave a positive legacy behind if he could take the first step and teaches his fellow commanders that they have to bow to the will of the people and obey the law, not violate it. Half of the Pakistan’s troubles can end if some in its military stop operating above and beyond the law.

Shiraz Paracha is a journalist and analyst. He can be reached at: shiraz_paracha@hotmail.com

VIEW: Support for a killer —Naeem Tahir

Source: Daily Times Saturday, October 08, 2011 

The groups that are supporting Qadri, a murderer, need to be understood. Their mindset is causing the disintegration of this society and breaking it into pieces. Quite obviously, they do not believe in the law and the system of justice otherwise they would let the law take its course and respect its decision

The court has convicted the killer, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, on two counts and imposed the death sentence. Mumtaz Qadri killed, in cold blood, the governor of Punjab province, Mr Salmaan Taseer, when he stepped out of a restaurant after lunch with a friend in Islamabad. Mumtaz Qadri, who was Taseer’s on-duty guard and was expected to protect him, instead fired several bullets into Mr Taseer causing almost instantaneous death. There was no provocation at the time. The killer had planned for an opportune moment and acted accordingly. There was little confusion about the murderer as Qadri confessed to the killing and there was no shortage of evidence.

On the arrest of Qadri, and his subsequent appearances in court, he was supported by some lawyers and others, and even garlanded by them. If Salmaan Taseer’s murder shocked the world, the public support for Qadri was no less shocking. Some religio-political parties continued to pressurise the case, making even hearing of the case difficult. However, the court saved its honour, examined the facts and sentenced the killer to death. Now the same political and so-called religious groups are taking to the streets to influence the courts where an appeal has been filed.

Should society remain silent and let whatever is happening happen? Do we have any conscience? Do we realise our social responsibility? Do we even realise moral and religious responsibility? Is our religion only of use to exploiters who can twist it for some political power and blackmail? How can anyone justify the killing of one person by another just because they have a difference of views?

Friday, October 7, was announced as a day of street protests by a group of extreme right groups like Sunni Tehreek, Sunni Ulema Council, Sunni Ittehad Council, Jamiat Ahle Hadith and Jamaat-e-Islami. They chose this day, Friday, because it is easy to collect people from their mosque networks, whip up the sentiments of those present and then encourage them to take to the streets, as if these namazis (worshippers) were doing a religious duty.

The groups that are supporting Qadri, a murderer, need to be understood. Their mindset is causing the disintegration of this society and breaking it into pieces. Quite obviously, they do not believe in the law and the system of justice otherwise they would let the law take its course and respect its decision. Is such intimidation of the court in itself not a cognisable offence? One wonders about the real purpose of these rallies. These rallies have a cost in time and money and the leaders of these groups are only trying to show off their strength. They are clearly supporters of terrorism. They would probably want to have their brand of justice administered in the streets, little different from the mob that lynched the two innocent boys in Sialkot. I do not know much about other groups but I doubt if Maulana Abul Ala Maududi would have ever allowed the stance adopted by the current ‘Amir-e-Jamaat’. About the other groups, one can say that they are mostly the political wings of the terrorists in the country. They speak for the sections of society that have been brainwashed into twisted versions of Islam just like the Taliban and its young recruits have been. This is organised promotion of anger, taking the law into individual hands and making decisions on the streets. Seen in this perspective, it can be termed as an uprising against the country. It needs to be taken up seriously. Those sections of the provincial governments and political groups that enjoy destabilising the country must be dealt with according to the constitution. A government that turns a blind eye to these happenings is lacking in its duties. The government must ensure protection to the courts to enable them to uphold the law of this land.

The courts indeed have enhanced their prestige in recent days. Their decisions in the Sialkot lynching case, Malik Qadri case and their objective findings of the causes of the Karachi unrest have raised their respect in the public eye by several notches. At the moment, the judiciary is one institution that is functioning while all other pillars of state are subject to question. All persons, groups and institutions must review and rationalise their style of covert actions. The street action to influence the courts is a ‘covert’ action to intimidate. I suppose it would be an appropriate issue for a suo motu.

Finally, staying silent is not helping the saner sections of society. Nor does it help in developing civil society. We all need to contribute, even in conversation, dialogue, lectures, all and any method of communication that an individual has access to and try to restore sanity. Let us not allow street decisions be the winning sentiment. Unfortunately, this is what has been happening so far. The most recent case is the restoration of electricity. We all know that electricity potential has always been present in Pakistan. Why did the government wait until the public took to the streets? Did anyone realise the cost of this power disruption? Please let us live in some peace. Have the grace to look at yourselves and analyse the consequences of your actions. Consider this country your own and treat it as such. Consider these people your people with equal rights, as you want for yourselves. Give yourselves some moments to think and bring about change; cynicism and lack of faith will not help but some decent effort will.

The writer is a culture and media management specialist, a researcher, author, director and actor

ANALYSIS: India-Afghanistan alliance: implications for Pakistan? —Farhat Taj

Source: Daily Times, October 8, 2011

The PPP-led political leadership, despite its disagreement with the security establishment, has become part of the establishment’s lethal strategic depth policy since it has not asserted its legal right over foreign policy 


Afghanistan and India have signed a wide-ranging strategic partnership agreement during the recent visit of Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai to India. The agreement expands trade relations between the two countries, affirms Afghanistan’s support for India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and, most importantly, “India agrees to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan National Security Forces” so as to help prepare the armed forces for security responsibilities in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of US forces from the country in 2014.


This agreement implies that the nightmare apprehensions of Pakistan’s security establishment about Afghanistan have been realised. The agreement undermines the establishment’s policy of ‘strategic depth’, a policy to ensure, by violence if necessary, a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan to offset Indian influence in the country. Fear of encirclement by India, regarded as an existential rival by the security establishment of Pakistan, has motivated the latter to suppress Pakhtun nationalism on both sides of the Durand Line since the creation of the Pakistani state, create and nurture armed Islamist proxy groups — the mujahideen in the 1980s and Taliban in the 1990s — and play a double role of ally and enemy in the US-led war on terror since 2001. The agreement came in the context of tense US-Pakistan relations over the issue of the Haqqani Taliban and amid Afghanistan’s accusations of Pakistan’s involvement in the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the peace envoy of Afghanistan. No one in the world seems to be sympathetic to the view that Pakistan too has legitimate interests in Afghanistan that might be undermined by growing Indian influence in that country. This is the ‘reward’ of the strategic depth policy devised and followed by generals with a tunnel vision.





Islamabad could have wielded greater influence in Kabul than Delhi if it had adopted a people-centred approach with focus on human development and trade, coupled with respect for Afghanistan’s sovereign right to have an independent foreign policy. Pakistan’s extensive physical border with Afghanistan, Kabul’s dependence on Islamabad for access to the Arabian Sea and, above all, Pakistan’s large Pakhtun population, if integrated with the Pakistani state though the rule of law, human development and democratic participation in state affairs, would have provided stable leverage to Pakistan over India in terms of influence in Afghanistan. Instead, Pakistan adopted proxy militant groups waging jihad in Afghanistan and broke down the Pakhtun culture through systemic Arabisation of society to hide the generals’ ambitions in Afghanistan with engineered Pakhtun support.


This violence has devastated not only Afghanistan but Pakistan too, especially FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Today, Pakistan stands at a point where, despite all death and destruction to prevent India from gaining a foothold in Afghanistan, Delhi and Kabul stand united and it is Pakistan that appears isolated in the region and the wider world as a state nurturing terrorism. Moreover, Pakistan is hated by Afghans, Pakhtun and non-Pakhtun alike, and the Pakistani state stands discredited in the eyes of its own citizens suffering in terror, especially in FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.


Most analysts are already expressing the fear that the agreement will lead Pakistan to intensify its proxy war in Afghanistan to prevent Indian military training of Afghan security forces. This fear is not misplaced given the political realities in Pakistan. The PPP-led political leadership of Pakistan, which does not support the idea of controlling Afghanistan through violence, does not control the foreign policy of the country vis-à-vis Afghanistan and India. In the recent All Parties Conference (APC) convened in the context of US pressure on Pakistan, the ruling political alliance lined up behind the establishment together with the unelected pro-establishment political parties, including sectarian parties that have links with sectarian killers. The foreign policy of Pakistan should be run by the political leadership, this being its legal right and duty. By not standing up to the military establishment on this issue, the political leadership of Pakistan has become part of the daily acts of terrorism against the innocent people of Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no neutral position on foreign policy in the current security crisis. Either you lead the establishment or are led by it. The PPP-led political leadership, despite its disagreement with the security establishment, has become part of the establishment’s lethal strategic depth policy since it has not asserted its legal right over foreign policy.


The APC resolution already suggested talks with the Taliban ‘to give peace a chance’. The suggestion will now be put into practice with full force. This implies that there will be no fundamental shift in the foreign policy or national interests as perceived by the security establishment. Pakistan will take no action against the terror groups on its soil to prevent them from attacks inside Afghanistan. Like in the past, there will be agreements with the al Qaeda-led Taliban disguised as ‘agreements with the tribes’ to entrench al Qaeda and Taliban control over FATA even further. The security establishment will intensify its tactics to divide and rule the ‘bad’ Taliban so as to exert control over them with the aim of ensuring their jihadi energies are directed towards Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, which has been involved in high profile attacks on Indians in Afghanistan in the past, will continue to do so. The abuse of FATA as a strategic space will increase and the people of the region, already overpowered by Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants, will be subjected to more torture and the militant control in the area. In the Pakistani media, the anti-Pakhtun propaganda that the Pakhtun are synonymous with the Taliban and that the Taliban are Pakhtun nationalists will speed up. Pakistani Taliban attacks will also be given a colour of Pakistani Pakhtun ‘anger’ over Indian involvement in Afghanistan.


Some people in the PPP have expressed the fear that the security establishment of Pakistan wants to roll back the legal reforms recently implemented by the PPP-led government, which accorded some human rights to the people of FATA. They suspect that extremely violent events, well planned in advance, will occur in FATA and will be used as justification to withdraw the reforms.


Intensified jihadi activities will not be limited to FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but will spread around Pakistan. Pakistan will stand even more isolated and condemned for jihadi connections in the region and the world. The country, already on a collision course with the world, will appear even more so. The question then is: how long will the world tolerate this terrorism-sponsoring? Time will tell.


The writer is the author of Taliban and Anti-Taliban