What can the IS offer Pakistani Militants

This article has been published with some changes at
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1073889/can-offer-pakistani-militants/

In two words: nothing new. And this is exactly why its mass appeal and organised presence is very unlikely. Although I have always had serious reservations about the statements coming from the foreign ministry, I would side with them on this one. In order for a movement to be popular and organised, one needs to offer a unique aspect, either in terms of ideological appeal or material support. Coincidently, the IS scores zero on both counts when it comes to Pakistan.

Let us break this down a bit. As far as I understand, the IS wants to implement a strict form of Sharia law as a pan-Islamic caliphate; it wants to wipe out various sects; it labels those who do not support them as infidels; it encourages jihad against the West; it makes videos of brutal killings and beheadings and uses social media for propagation.

Those who are aware of the religious dynamics of Pakistan can very well see that all the points I mentioned about the IS are already present in Pakistan. Several organisations with such aims and objectives have been functional in Pakistan for well over a decade prior to the formation of the IS. In fact, the IS also has a serious disadvantage in that it is based thousands of miles away and thus, in no position to offer any kind of material support or create a consistent, reliable platform.

Another factor which the IS clearly lacks is that they split up with the main pan-Islamic militant movement, al Qaeda, which leads the jihadis of Pakistan and Afghanistan. After declaring their own caliph, they were not careful to denounce the widely-accepted jihadi Amir of the Afghan Taliban movement, Mullah Umar. Pakistan’s jihadi landscape is occupied by these two main streams i.e., the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda. The third and most important militant organisation is the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which operates solely in Pakistan and has a modus operandi similar to that of the IS, did not swear allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. There were some random defections towards the IS in Afghanistan, but as a whole, the TTP did not fall for IS. The TTP also released a detailed document denouncing the caliphate of Abu Bakr, on grounds that there is no consensus amongst the jihadi Muslim organisations on their Leadership.  Therefore, the extremely fertile jihadi grounds in Pakistan have already been occupied by the TTP, Taliban and al Qaeda. Then there are some state-sponsored jihadis like Jamatud-Dawa and Jaish-e-Mohammad, which fill in any gaps for additional jihadi urges. They are fully controlled and ready to be used for our foreign policy objectives in Kashmir, India and Afghanistan. Consequently, to enter these circles from thousands of miles away and expecting the existing jihadis to denounce their leaderships which nurtured them, is next to impossible.

Moreover, the IS considers various sects as infidels. Does that sound familiar? We already have our own version of the IS in the form of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, who have demonstrated their capability to create havoc in society with exceptional resourcefulness and expertise. What else can the IS offer to people with sectarian leanings? I think it can easily be considered amateur in this business, when compared to those who have been in this profession for more than 25 years now.

If we talk about the ideological appeal that IS has to offer in the form of the idea of the caliphate and implementing Sharia, then there is still way too much and far more credible competition. Pakistan has a presence of ideological carriers of the idea of a caliphate in the form of organisations such as Tanzeem-e-Islami and Hizbut-Tahrir. These groups present a very modern image of a caliphate as compared to the IS image, which kills muslims and non-muslims alike. Tanzeem-e-Islami has a presence from the 1990s and has been propagating a non-violent method of establishing a caliphate in the country. Hizbut-Tahrir has been chanting the slogan of a caliphate from 1950s, after its formation in Palestine. It presents itself as a pan-Islamic movement, has a deep ideological appeal, is non-militant, has a strong presence on social media and has been advocating the idea in Pakistan from the early 2000s. Both of these organisations have categorically rejected the IS caliphate and its tactics and have, therefore, side-lined this aspect of IS ideological appeal within the country.

Therefore, when people say Pakistan has a fertile ground for the IS to propagate, I would consider it a superficial argument at best. The correct argument would be that Pakistan has a fertile ground for the political idea of a caliphate/Sharia law, the support for militant jihad and support for militancy against sects. But all three notions are locally occupied. Moreover, the seat bearers have also openly rejected to entertain a member who has nothing new to offer in terms of resources or ideas. 

Fans of Mumtaaz Kadri

This article has been published with some changes at
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/03/05/comment/understanding-mumtaz-qadris-fans/

“Kehta hay Mumtaz saaroon ko salam”, the ending words from Mumtaz Qadri’s Last naatwhich he sang before being hanged to death. After the swift and unexpected hanging, there was a burst of unrest amongst religious and Islamist circles and protests erupted in all major parts of the country. Since mainstream media seemed to consider it an unpopular story and did not cover the massive protests going across the country, social media was a platform which reflected the real popular sentiments. State control on mainstream electronic media can be witnessed by comparing it with social media where several Twitter hashtags and thousands of supportive posts on Facebook reflected a completely different mood. Schools were called off and major protest locations were filled with people mourning the hanging of Qadri and displaying their hatred for the Raheel-Nawaz regime.

Critically reviewing social media and some random discussions with religious and non-religious friends, I tried to understand the reasons of overwhelming support that Mumtaz Qadri harnessed.

Firstly, there are fans that are generally religiously biased. They look at a person with beard, his religious inclination, his singing of naats and praising the prophet SAW, they would be biased towards him even though that person might have done something extremely wrong. Mumtaz Qadri had all those qualities to cater support from this lot and his continuous videos of naats coming from jail from time to time were a major contributing factor in enhancing such image and sympathy. Salmaan Taseer, on the other hand, was a known liberal secular, no beard, love of alcohol, no naats, no Islamic outlook etc and therefore demanded innate hatred from such fans.

Secondly, the vast majority of fans in this issue think “Salmaan Taseer was a blasphemer and rightfully killed by Mumtaz Qadri”. They not only consider it justified to kill the blasphemer in an extra-judicial manner but have vowed to repeat the same to any other person considered blasphemer during the funeral prayers with slogans “Gustakh rasool ki aik hi saza, sar tan say juda, sar tan say juda”. This argument is carried by the emotional ones which are in abundance in Pakistan and they are not ready to discuss on any scholarly grounds.

Thirdly, there are those fans that are ready to endorse scholarly explanation but still are in support of Qadri. They agree that Islam does not generally allow punishing a person on extra-judicial grounds. For instance, if a person has stolen something from me and I arrest him, am I entitled to cut off his hands? Ask any sane scholar of Islam and he will answer in negative. But then, there are some instances where the Prophet SAW did approve extra-judicial killing for a very specific crime i.e., direct blasphemy of the Prophet SAW. But even in such cases, it is extremely emphasised by the scholars that the killer needs to have direct, clear and explicit evidence of the crime. If such direct, clear and explicit evidence is not present, then the killer would be held accountable and the family has the right to demand any one of the three things as Qisas: either the killer be hanged or payment as compensation to the family or pardon by the family. Now, when we look into the case of Salmaan Taseer, such direct, clear and explicit evidence is missing. Terming a law of blasphemy as “kala qanoon” does not mean a person has committed direct and explicit blasphemy on any scholarly grounds. Hence, Salmaan Taseer can be clearly considered not guilty for blasphemy and since it is not allowed to take law into our own hands in Islam, therefore the blame lies on Mumtaaz Qadri.

Then why do they still support him? Their argument is pragmatic. It starts off with claiming that Salmaan Taseer was trying to protect a blasphemer Asia Bibi who was convicted by the court of law. He was going against the court decision and termed it “zulm”. He started “abusing” the law on blasphemy and was trying to create public opinion to repeal the law which protects the honour of the Prophet SAW and punishes a blasphemer. He had full media support, western support and all the elite liberals and major politicians were with him. Since he was Governor Punjab and a highly powerful figure, if people would have filed a case to Stop Salmaan Taseer’s evil mission, the current judicial system would have never served justice. Mumtaz Qadri had no other option but to take law in his own hands and silence all such voices. So his cause was just even though the method he followed was wrong. Since the ‘end justifies the means’, so Mumtaz Qadri is justified in his actions to courageously destroy the onslaught against this law and have their support.

Then there is another Islamist mindset, which might not be termed as direct fans but are inclined towards Mumtaz Qadri. They endorse the notion that “Mumtaz Qadri is a killer and Salmaan taseer was not a blasphemer and justice is served to the family of Salmaan Taseer”. But they term it selective and biased justice by the regime. They say that Asia Bibi is not hanged even though convicted by the court of law. Raymond Davis was not hanged even though he killed two Pakistanis while the families were pressurised to pardon him and were denied justice. Shahrukh Jatoi was not hanged while the family of Shahzeb was pressurised and denied justice. Pervez Musharraf is not hanged for allowing drone strikes which killed hundreds of innocent people in Bajaur madarrasah and the likes and he is being cleared slowly of all the cases because of strong backing by the establishment. It shows the hypocrisy of the state in matters of justice.

To narrow it down, it shows that as per the current National Action Plan, the state would surely give justice when the matter is somehow linked with Islam and a high profile family, but the state would be rather careless and ensure that justice is denied to those who do not have state backing them up or who do not follow. This selective and biased justice by the regime and the Islamist mindset causes a group of people to be close to the mourners than the actions of the regime.

Mumtaz Qadri is hanged and his fans have given the state and the secular liberals a serious message with a funeral that was attended by around a million and many more who did not attend but mourn with them. The message is that they are “emotional, senseless, pragmatic, reactionary and lethal” when it comes to the matter of honour of the Prophet SAW. Therefore, the state representatives need to find other ways of addressing the issue of misapplication of the law of blasphemy, rather than getting killed on such a sensitive issue.

Understanding the militant narrative

This article has been published with some changes at
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/02/10/comment/understanding-the-militant-narrative/

After every militant attack on Pakistan by the non-state actors, which kills innocent people and especially our kids, people anxiously look towards their guardians for the solution to this menace. The ruling elite seem to be in an urgency of doing “something” that would calm the masses. The COAS visits Afghanistan, Politicians vowing to fight back, ISPR with its positive messages that we have almost caught the culprits, media instilling nationalism and tales of sacrifice, launching new military operations, getting more arrests and the likes. Upon critical review, it seems that some random actions are carried out to somehow convince the people to follow through towards a goal which is nowhere in sight. This “something” clearly lacks a serious thought process in solving the crises.

The recent attack on Charsadda University with numerous casualties points out that you cannot defeat an enemy who has a strong ideological narrative by military operations and brute force.  There are many pseudo intellectuals who think that TTP is a bunch of brainwashed bearded people somewhere in Swat or Waziristan or Karachi and can be rounded up and killed. Well I think they have tried and failed miserably for the last 8 years. We are still at the same position which General Musharraf pushed us into, General Kiyani escalated to higher levels and now General Raheel is moving zealously to end.

When I say that General Musharraf pushed us into this, I am referring to the events that led us to the formation of TTP in December, 2007. One needs to understand that it did not just pop up one morning from amongst Pakistan tribal regions and vowed to kill Pakistan military personal and civilians. TTP was built on a reactionary narrative to a brutal reality of drones and military operations faced by Pashtuns which was coupled with the ideological aspect of Jihad and aided by the exploiters across the borders.

The pretext can be well understood by the book “Inside Pakistan Army” by Carey Schofield in which she explains how Americans pushed Pakistan army for military operations on their own soil. The first operation launched by Pakistan Army named “Kazha Punga” in June 2002 in South Waziristan was based on CIA intelligence in which we lost 2 officers and 10 soldiers. Then the second operation was launched on October, 2003 at Angoor Adda in which 10 million dollar bounty was paid to Pakistan for killing Al-khadr.  Afterwards, 6 major military operations were launched to stop the attacks from Pakistani soil at the Americans before 2007 along with 4 drone strikes.

Then, a drone attack in 2006 on Bajor Seminary facilitated by Pakistan army killed over 80 children. It turned out to be the APS attack for the tribal region. Pakistani citizens were already facing a reaction to these military operations with 24 suicide attacks from 2002-06 with over 400 fatalities but Bajor attack changed the dynamics of the situation in Pakistan.  In 2007 alone, there were 58 suicide attacks killing over 800 people and the trajectory did not go down ever since with over 270 suicide attacks from 2008-15 with an average of around 350 fatalities each year.

Pakistan’s initial military strategy against TTP was to make it unpopular, isolate it from general public and finish them off with military operations. This strategy did not work and will never work until the basis on which TTP recruits its people is sincerely identified and focused. For Instance, the tribal killings by American drones was raised to unprecedented levels with a total of 385 drones after the formation of TTP which killed 3392 tribals on Pakistani soil. Military operations like Rah-e-Haq, Rah-e-Rast, Sheer Dil, Black Thunderstorm and the very recent Zarb-e-Azab were launched against complete regions where people in hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes.  They were forced to live miserable lives in camps while their whole life belongings were either destroyed by bombings or stolen.

These killings, military operations and displacements created a reactionary narrative of injustice against the Pashtuns and they were forced to retaliate with utmost craze. It needs to be understood that revenge and standing up against atrocities fuels TTP and motivates its followers to give the ultimate sacrifice and blow themselves up and punish the forces and even the general masses.  And every escalation of the military operation inevitably produced blowback in form of severe terrorist attacks.

The second aspect that TTP gets its support is by coupling this resistance with Jihad and Islam. This makes the movement extremely lethal and includes non-pashtuns. This is reinforced by Quranic verses and Hadiths which explicitly mention that those MUSLIMS who are allies of the kuffar are amongst them. On such basis, they declared kufr to the army soldiers and officers and claimed that they are waging jihad against the pak army. Interestingly, steps taken by the forces consolidated their thinking, like allowing drone strikes, operation at Lal Masjid in Islamabad, ban on all jihadi groups, rolling back kashmir jihad, strict surveillance of Masajid, Ulema and Madaris, arrests of members of non-militant Islamist parties etc. These steps help spread the movement to all parts of Pakistan and now became much more than simply a Pashtun resistance. The practical flaw in dealing with the second point was to consider advocates of non-militant Islamists to be the basis of militant thought. It is either naivety or a deliberate agenda to elevate the problem.

The third aspect that aids TTP is foreign agencies like CIA and RAW. Episodes of Raymond davis and Blackwater and cross border support by Indian consulates have been the highlight of media several times which denote some amount of influence by these agencies on TTP. Since it is a loose network of several small groups, infiltration into them is easy. The more TTP kills people, the more people favor military operations in tribal areas which America is continuously demanding. RAW has more historical reasons to create instability in Pakistan and TTP is the new tool to trigger that. 

Incredibly, there is considerable denial about the atrocities that are being committed against the tribal people and that their narrative is evil, unislamic and not popular. This denial leads rulers to frame policies that create more atrocities and injustice in the society and further strengthening the militant narrative. The government narrative that “It is our war and the enemy is only Islamist motivated” is far from truth for tribal regions and especially pashtuns. Some voices of more militant operations against Lal masjid cleric and the likes means stepping again on the fault lines. Chaudry Nisar understands well that bajor and Lal masjid episodes have already turned out to be a mess for Paksitanis and opening up more venues would mean more terrorist reprisals.  The fact needs to be accepted that military operations and brutal tactics against our own people have resulted in far more terrorist attacks in Pakistan than they have reduced and have generally made things worse, not better. The basis of militant narrative needs to be cured rather than its symptoms.

Therefore, if we want to end this TTP menace in our country which has claimed more than 60,000 lives and 3,000 soldiers, we need to counter this narrative head on by practical steps. First, we need to stop military operations in Waziristan and stop throwing people into camps every year. No more drones or air strikes or bombings. The people of tribal regions should feel secure that life is now back to normal and their trust with the government and the military is restored. Second, end alliance with the Americans on this so called War on terror and declare independent foreign and domestic policy which suit our dynamics and does not endanger the lives of Pakistanis. Third, release American pressure by intelligent international political maneuvers. By taking these three steps we would neutralize the militant narrative and the reasons of Pushtun reactionary militant struggle and save us from moving into further chaos for the years to come.

Terrorist sympathizers?

This article has been published with some changes at
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/81924-Terrorist-sympathisers

 “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathizers,” the prime minister of UK David Cameron said on 2nd Dec, 2015. This is the same rhetoric that Mr. Bush repeated. "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said in 2001. But the British parliamentarians and the public responded in an enlightened manner. Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond responded “Would the prime minister apologize for his “deeply insulting remarks”?” And another party spokesman said: “He clearly realizes he has failed to make a convincing case for military action in Syria and opinion is shifting away from him.” Similarly, sam hinrichs, A british citizen tweeted “i'd rather see money go into education than war, therefore i am a #terroristsympathiser”

Just like Britain and US, Pakistani state attempts to define its narrative on terrorism in a binary “Yes or No” and “with us or against us” fashion. If you do not support military operations, you are a terrorist sympathizer. If you criticize National Action plan, you might be labeled a terrorist yourself. Opinion space is limited in an emotional manner and support for the state narrative is presented as the only sane way to move forward. However, a person with even the slightest of intellectual sense would agree that in matters of state policy there can be several other possibilities.

The issue of terrorism has become a widely debated topic. The first point in this discussion which is widely agreed upon is the definition of terrorism i.e. “Non-state Islamist motivated militancy”. Even in the recent California shooting incident, the discussion was focused on “is it a criminal activity?” or “is it a terrorist activity”. The second question in this discourse is “What should be the most effective counter terrorism policy”. To us Pakistanis, this is a vital question because we are directly affected from this menace but it seems that Pakistan’s ruling circle seem to be mostly confused or unclear. It is because, National Action plan(NAP), which is the most recent endeavor for uprooting the menace of terrorism, faces a series of issues.

The first issue is the scope of NAP. For instance, The Peshawar school incident was correctly not treated as a criminal activity but a terrorist activity because it was based on islamist motivated militancy. But NAP has been somewhat deliberately mixed with criminal acts and corruption issues. Considering Arrests of MQM workers, PPP workers or other political cases or issues of corruption in KMC or NADRA or Land issues or arrest of pilot of shaheen airline are wrongfully associated with NAP. These acts are some of the several superficial attempts made to generalize terrorism just to give NAP a neutral cover.

The second issue is to curb Islamist motivated militancy by targeting even the non-militant Islamists. NAP attempts to target all Islamists across the board who are not involved in militancy with the pretext of terrorist sympathizers. It is generally assumed by the architects and supporters of NAP that Islamist thoughts residing in the society can easily cross the line of political, religious or economic discussion to militant struggle and therefore all Islamists need to be targeted. But upon critical assessment, this policy comes with a dangerous consequence because Pakistan is a predominantly a Muslim society and these non-militant Islamists are an active component of society. Amongst them are those who are democratic, political, intellectual, revolutionary and preachers of non-militant thought.  Seminaries, Universities, Mosques, Doctors, Engineers, Scientists, Educationalists, businessmen etc are filled with Islamist thoughts and religious people.

Such Islamists should not be marginalized as being Sympathizers and prosecuted. For Instance, pointing at Al-Huda for tashfeen Malik issue, connecting Tanzeem-e-islami with Safoora carnage, criminalizing members of Hizb-ut-tahrir on media for spreading their ideas, arrests of Ulema, raids on seminaries etc is a huge mistake. Groups like these and their likes have an intellectual/political understanding of things and should be dealt by discussions and serious debate on Ideas regarding military operations or IDPs or Drone Issues etc.  Thoughts and ideas should be countered with better ideas and thoughts.  Dealing it in military style and spreading fear would increase the depth of the problem. It reflects that state is enemy of all Islamist. It would convince the Islamists that since you are not allowed to discuss, do political activism, you get negative media coverage, cyber crime law etc, the only way to solve the problem is to fight the state. This would escalate grievances, squeeze space of islamist opinion and ultimately justify the militant cause.

A clear example in front of us is the case of balochistan. The people of Balochistan think that there is no other way to solve the problem other than militant struggle. The more we try to suppress the voices, the more radical society starts to become and hence more violent and it opens up space for militancy! This military style solution, which has been employed by several arab countries mostly pushes the country on the verge of chaos and there comes a tipping point when people want to break free from the suffocating environment just like Syria. 

Third issue that NAP faces is linked with our historical foreign policy decisions. It was this very state which built madarassas and introduced curriculum for promoting Jihad on the pre-text of supporting the American project against the soviet. If we would have followed an independent and intelligent policy, we would have been probably in a much better situation. The 94-page policy document titled “National Internal Security Policy”, states “A large number of terrorists, either are, or have been students of madrassas where they were brainwashed to take up arms against the state,”. Interestingly, those 22,000 madrassas identified by the policy document and people with similar thinking reside widely in the society from 80s. They were never our problem until we made yet another foreign policy decision after 9/11. We supported the American project in Afghanistan yet again. Unfortunately, the very people we created in over throwing the Soviets were in the mood to overthrow U.S. Thus this militancy which was a freedom struggle in Afghanistan moved as terrorism in Pakistan. We had to pray a serious price for the American war on terror. Ironically, we worked for the American project during 80s by radicalizing our people and we are working for the American project after the 2000s by now de-radicalizing them. I must ask here that, where is our independent thinking? Why are we not setting up directions for ourselves as a nation which is better for us? These questions must be answered for taking NAP ahead in the correct direction.

To sum it all up, a rational and meaningful attempt should be made to identify the issues of NAP and any criticism on this issue should not be dealt with a David Cameron like statement. This discussion can be either treated as “an approach of terrorist sympathizer or apologist” or as Winston Churchill once said “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

Link down! The horrors of getting your passport renewed in Pakistan

This article has been published with some changes at
http://www.dawn.com/news/1219194/link-down-the-horrors-of-getting-your-passport-renewed-in-pakistan

My passport expired last year and I did not dare to think of a renewal, knowing full well the horrors of going to the passport office and doing the khwari. 

But as a PhD student, I had to publish at least one paper internationally. Luckily, mine got accepted for “IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2016 in Video Surveillance and Transportation Imaging Applications Conference” in San Francisco. I could no longer put the renewal off.

One fateful Tuesday morning, I finally willed myself to go to the main passport office. I arrived at 8.30am, and as I was walking towards the head office, about a dozen people who wanted to 'help' me get my passport renewed descended upon me out of nowhere!

The 'agents'

Commonly known as ‘agents’, they have bank challan (tickets) in their hands and are ever-ready to assist you – minus the khwari, at a cost, of course.

They guarantee the submission of any application in under 15 minutes and promise to deliver the passport to your house. The offer sounded too good to be true so I did not pay any heed to the clamour and went directly inside the office.

To my dismay, I saw four haphazard queues, with no idea what to do or where to start. I looked around but failed to find an information counter.

Fortunately, I spotted a colleague who had come for a renewal too. He explained the entire process to me and advised that I should go to the regional branch at Awami Markaz on Sharae Faisal, which covers my locality. "Also, it won’t be this crowded," he had said.

He did mention, however, "Wahan link down hojata hai kabhi kabhi." (Their server link is sometimes 'down'.)

I thanked him and rushed to the regional office. A flock of agents descended once again. I ignored them and went straight ahead. This office was definitely better structured than the previous one.

Thankfully, I found an information counter as well. The man behind the desk said I would need to submit the fee at the bank and would additionally need my expired passport and original Identity Card along with their photocopies. That bank's branch was on the 2nd floor of the building I was standing in (Awami Markaz). I went down, submitted my fee, and came back up again to find a queue the likes of which I had never seen before!

The long wait

It was already 10:30am, and I had to go to the university so I decided to come back later. The next day at 9:30am, I was standing in line for a token once again. The queue was so long that it stretched out of the office and into the street under the naked gaze of the sun.

While I was waiting, I started chatting with the people around me. I was unnerved at what they had to share; a gentleman who is a senior manager at a bank told me that the last time he came, he had spent hours finishing all prerequisites, carefully collecting and organising all documents, and when he reached the last counter for the final stamp, he was asked for the original ID cards of his parents!

Another one told me that he was asked for his matriculation certificate. A third was asked for his latest electricity bill. They were told that their process could not begin without the aforementioned records.

I argued that the information counter had not mentioned any of these requirements. They smiled at my naiveté. Suddenly it struck me, after all this trouble I could still get rejected at the final counter for not having some random document.

As our queue moved forward at a sluggish pace, I did finally manage to get out of the scorching sun and under the shade. To my utter dismay, I felt a gush of hot air right above my head. I looked up to find two AC heaters droning on.

On moving forward, I saw a guard standing near the counter religiously trying to keep the queue in proper order. He was not letting anyone outside of the line go in directly. I salute the guard for that. Many people came with big references but he wouldn't budge.

Finally and at last, I was inside the office. I realised that there were just two counters; one for men and one for women. However, on close scrutiny I saw that there was another counter to get tokens. I had been standing in this line for almost an hour and was still waiting for my turn, but I saw some people coming in with agents from the exit door, going directly for their tokens without having to wait in line.

We were furious at this point. This continuous intrusion was delaying our turn. Someone behind me started shouting. We all joined in and soon the Assistant Director sahab came and calmed us down. He ‘scolded’ the token guys for the lapse.

After 2 hours of waiting, I got my token, pictures and thumb impressions done, and then came the time for data entry. The space between the token counter and data entry counter was so cramped, one could only stand sideways. Men, women, the elderly and children, all stood in a state of asphyxiation because the air conditioners were barely working.

All of this had started to feel like a very tedious and unpleasant experience. Some tried to ignore the surroundings by blankly staring at a cricket match on a tiny TV screen in a corner.

The two most frightening words

Just as I was thinking it couldn't get any worse, someone shouted:

“Link down!”

This meant that all work would now stop. And here we were standing half suffocated, while the staff began to relax. They ordered tea for themselves and started watching the cricket match.

I remembered that I had once discussed the passport renewal process with one of my university colleagues and he had told me that he got it made through an agent.

Interestingly, the agent had told him “Sirjee jaldi karain, link down honay ka time hogaya hay.” (Hurry up sir, it's time for the link to go down.)

Almost immediately, I understood what had passed. By then, another 40 minutes had gone by and now people were starting to get angry.

By 12:15pm, I felt certain my work would not be done that day. And just as I was standing there feeling terrible about it, the assistant director announced that they could only process passport renewal applications and would not be entertaining other requests.

I was in luck!

They took my token and called my friends and I one by one. I was done in the next five minutes!

Then came the dreaded last counter which would decide the fate of my application. As I moved towards the counter, I glanced at the irritable faces of all the people still expecting to hear: ‘Link up’.

At the final counter, there was a plaque with the words 'Assistant Director' on it. The director sahab, who was by then under a lot of pressure, did not ask me anything and just signed off my application.

I couldn’t believe the relief that washed over me as I realised I was finally done.

However, the respite was short-lived as this experience made me realise how 'genuinely' interested the government is in the affairs of its people

This is just my experience. Almost everyone across the country has similar stories of horror to share about public hospitals, police stations, license offices, schools or district councils or other government-run institutes.

And then, how are we to feel when we look at the parliamentary lounges, the chief minister houses, governor houses, or presidential palaces or the army generals GHQ, the core commanders places etc? Our political and military elite seem to be taking pretty good care of themselves. Either be at this point in time or earlier.

When I think about the developed world, I can safely say that they think about the well being of their citizens irrespective of who is in power in the government. Why can’t we say this for Pakistan from the day of its inception? Even after 68 years, did we not get any leadership which could solve our problems? My analysis is that we have many many good people but what we lacked as a nation was a revived ideological approach towards life. This ideological approach unites a society and moves it towards developing systems which align their thinking. This had been the case for every revived nation in history. Whether it be under the capitalist model or the communist model or the model of Islamic governance in the history under Caliphate. Replacing an administrator here or there, making a country a police state or making NAB strong will not make us a nation that cares for its people. I urge the day when we will have a system and a leadership that would elevate the situation of the masses. 

Let us play our role in spreading awareness about the incompetence of the ruling elite and the ruling systems so that they are pressured enough to be changed or be replaced. 

Taliban as Reconciliation Partners

This article has been published with some changes at
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-351677-Taliban-as-partners

“We actually view the Taliban as being an important partner in a peaceful Afghan-led reconciliation process. We are not actively targeting the Taliban,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis said on 5th November. This is a very significant statement given by the US department of Defense.

The Americans have been trying for peace talks with the Taliban for quite some time now from its start in Qatar, then China and most recently in Pakistan. Interestingly, the American President George Bush had said earlier in September 2004 that  “And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free.” And in December 2004: “In Afghanistan, America and our allies, with a historically small force and a brilliant strategy, defeated the Taliban in just a few short weeks.” After more than 14 years of celebrated victory and elimination of the Taliban, Americans seem to be back to square one! The Americans changed their position regarding Taliban so drastically that one can only view this as a complete failure of American control in the region.  

The statement from the pentagon becomes very much out of the ordinary when it is connected with the very recent battle of Kunduz which led to the downfall of the city on 28th September and then re-taken by Afghan forces with the help of Americans till 15th October. One security official briefed on the situation in Kunduz estimated that the Taliban force in the city numbered 500 against the estimated government forces of 7,000 troops in the area. “The problem wasn’t lack of security forces,” Zalmai Farooqi, a district governor who had retreated to the airport said, “but there was no good leadership to command these men.” This somewhat seems to be a repeat telecast of the episode of Mosul in Iraq. As mentioned by the Americans earlier, since they are not actively targeting the Taliban, it was the first time since 2001 that they had taken control of a major city in Afghanistan. But why are Americans doing this? If we analyze this situation critically, we can see that the fall of Kunduz in this climate holds great value for the American plan to stabilize Afghanistan.

Initially, American plan to stabilize Afghanistan had been to secure a government without Taliban as any stakeholders in the region and permanent presence of American troops to have a strong grip over Eurasia region. But when it failed, and they could not finish off the resistance against them, the plan changed and included Taliban as a small stakeholder along with American installed regime in Afghanistan and American military presence. For this the Americans allowed the Taliban to make an official office in Qatar, took them out of the list of terrorist organization, released several high profile prisoners, involved Pakistan to get support. But the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Umar were adamant that Americans leave Afghanistan and the regime of Hamid karzai be completely removed and Taliban be given full Afghan Emirate as was before the occupation. This was naturally too much for the Americans to swallow as it would mean a defeat of exceptional bounds in the international arena and waste of billions of dollars and destroying a country for no reason.

Recently, the revised American plan for Afghanistan has seen some light. The change in regime in Kabul with Ashraf ghani and change in leadership of the Taliban and the end of American combat mission in Afghanistan are serious factors supporting the revised plan. Ashraf Ghani is much more open for discussions with Taliban as compared to his predecessor Hamid Karzai. The Taliban new leader Mullah Akhter Mansoor is open for dialogue with more flexibility than Mullah Umar even though several Taliban leaders are still challenging his legitimacy. The Americans had to leave because their official combat mission has ended on 28th December, 2014 and therefore had to pull out the present force of 9,800 US troops till the end of 2015.

This situation seems to be matured for a Taliban-afghan govt-US negotiations. Additional hindrances being faced by the three stakeholders have been somewhat eased out with the battle of Kunduz. For instance: The incident of Kunduz consolidated the leadership of Mullah Akhter Mansoor. It must have also additionally convinced many voices in the Afghan regime of Ashraf Ghani for additional compensations for the Taliban. Because, the Kunduz incident is yet another harsh example that If anything the war torn country has seen in these years, is the surge in militancy by the Taliban resistance. Finally, this incident provides strong justification for the continued American presence in this region. American President Mr. Obama announced just after the kunduz incident that he would keep the forces till 2017 as because they do not want Afghanistan to become safe heaven for militants once again.

Moreover, there is another important stakeholder i.e. Pakistan. The dilemma for American and Afghan Govt is that they cannot enter negotiation without Pakistan. Even though Pakistan is not directly a party in the negotiation process but it has considerable influence over the Taliban through the tribal belt and its previous involvement during the soviet invasion. And it has been very fortunate for the Americans and Kabul regime that Pakistan is actively pushing the Afghan Taliban for peace talks. Not only this, Pakistan has also provided increasing level of support by launching several military operations in its tribal region against Haqqani Network and the likes. This is done to punish the Taliban who are against peace talks and to pressurize the remaining. Pakistan has done all this even though this has caused serious repercussions at home.

Even though, things seem to be moving positively for the Americans, the key player in all this is Mullah Akhter Mansoor. If he consolidates his control over Taliban resistance and is ready to accept power sharing with Ashraf Ghani and ready to accept the permanent presence of some American troops and bases, the Americans will be happier than ever.

This may still be very tough because mainstream Taliban narrative is that of their first leader Mullah Umar. Afghan journalist Raza Wazir rightly points out that “The key issue the Taliban is facing regarding talks is maintaining the unity of its rank and file. For years, the ground fighters have waged war under the banner of jihad, which is why it is now difficult for them to talk with the ‘puppet government.” For this, Mullah Akhter will have to get support of Pakistan to control the stubborn Taliban and make more attempts to control his grip over the Taliban movement and make a fundamental shift in their policy of 14 years. This is a tough endeavour. Either he does this with the help of Pakistanis and Americans and the Afghan government or He sticks to the Mullah Umar doctrine and frustrate the American plans even further.  

What we lose from Civil-nuclear deal with US

This article has been published with some changes at
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-350353-What-we-lose-from-a-civil-nuclear-deal

Ever since the discussion of the “Diplomatic blockbuster” of David Ignatius, there has been a sense of Achievement in the political, intellectual and military circles in Pakistan. It is being hailed as Pakistan’s greatest achievements by some amongst them because that would, maybe, equate us to the Indian-US nuclear deal of 2008. But let us deeply analyze this reality before jumping to any conclusions and celebrations.

What has India got from a US-India nuclear deal

The first and most important aspect of this discussion is to understand the reality of US-India nuclear deal. The discussion of nuclear deal with india that started in 2005, materialized in 2008 has not been able to conclude a single nuclear agreement with America or any other country till 2015. According to G. Balachandran, a consulting fellow at the New Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, “The only nuclear cooperation that India has been able to conclude with any of the countries with whom it has nuclear cooperation agreements is in respect of nuclear fuel.” India had to lower its target of installed nuclear capacity from 63 GW by 2032 to 27.5 GW, as none of the proposed projects have started. Last year, Russia has agreed to setting up 10 nuclear reactors but that has nothing to do with the US-India Nuclear deal. Other than the prestige that comes with the name US-India Nuclear deal, there had been no practical effect of the deal for Indians Energy problems for the last 7 years after signing the deal. The question really arises, are we really dying for such a deal just because of our obsession with India?

What we will loose from a US-Pak nuclear deal

“Possible new limits and controls on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems,” David Ignatius, an opinion writer for the US-based newspaper said. It does not sound really encouraging now, does it? Peter R. Lavoy, a longtime intelligence expert on the Pakistani nuclear program, with close relations with the country’s military, and who is currently serving on the U.S. National Security Council, is known to be leading the discussions think that “There’s a political dimension with the Shaheen-III that I think is troubling to the US government, and to many other governments of representatives here in the audience, that now you will have the ability to reach many other countries, in the Middle East, for example, that Pakistan didn’t have that capacity in the past.” It is also described in The Washington Post and The New York Times, the American proposals center on Pakistan’s shortest-range missiles and long-range ones. So to sum it up, we will have to reduce our nuclear program to get a deal which might take 3 years to materialize and another 7 years to start discussing about giving us a civilian nuclear reactor. And off course if anything unusual happens, this deal can be taken off by the Americans, like the F-16 deal in the past in which we got wheat for the money of F-16s.  

What we will get from a US-Pak nuclear deal

Maybe, I am too cynical, so lets explore what we can get practically.  US support for a US-Pakistan civilian nuclear agreement, possible membership of 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) by US support and relaxation of Nuclear Suppliers Group export controls.

I have already discussed how beneficial can the US-Pak nuclear agreement be by comparing with the US-India deal. As far as NSG is concerned, for now, the symbolic significance of a place at the NSG carries no strategic weight for Pakistan, as it has explored alternative markets for its civil nuclear program. Pakistan has already been engaged with China, and to some extent with Russia, for its civil nuclear needs. China is involved in construction of at least six nuclear reactors in Pakistan. Wang Xiaotao, a key official of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said at a press conference “has assisted the construction of at least six nuclear reactors in Pakistan with a total installed capacity of 3.4 million kilowatts.” Most Importantly, China has never imposed any conditions on our Military Nuclear program after supporting us in building the civilian nuclear reactors.

There is another angle to this discussion. Even if we get the NSG membership and people start trading with us in the nuclear domain, we will always be looked at with suspicion. Our track record of the AQ Khan episode will always keep us in the spotlight.  For Instance, on October 20, Congressman Ted Poe, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade, urged Obama to not engage in any negotiations regarding a US-Pakistan civil nuclear agreement. "Simply put, Pakistan's current and past record is disqualifying for any consideration by the US to support civilian nuclear cooperation with Pakistan bilaterally”. I am sure that even if the Americans deal with us and we become an active partner in Nuclear Suppliers Group, they, along with the Indians would continue to blame us and blackmail us and humiliate us in the rest of the world. So this move is going to hurt our international standing in the long run despite all our efforts at strengthening the nuclear safety and security regime.

Thinking independently and making better choices for Pakistan

Other than the superficial argument, “whatever India wants, we want it too” there is nothing in it for Pakistan in this deal. We need to overcome our obsession with India and realize that we can make far better choices if we think independently for Pakistan. We already have secured a 46 billion dollar deal with China without any “CONDITIONS” from China on our military assets. Major part of the investment deals with resolving the energy crises as well. Apart from that, Pakistan has exceptional potential for Solar, Wind, Coal, Hydro energy options to meet the energy needs and unnecessary pushing for a US nuclear reactor is absolutely redundant for Pakistan.