Hindustan Times
Pakistan at war on many fronts
My friends in Pakistan tell me that careers of two key figures are at stake in their country: President Asif Ali Zardari and Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. The latter’s future will be determined by the outcome of the South Waziristan operation and the former’s on the view Parliament and the judiciary take on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).
The Ordinance ensured indemnity for Zardari and his wife, the late Benazir Bhutto, against corruption cases. It was part of a deal Benazir reached with Pervez Musharraf before returning from self-exile to Pakistan— and falling to a pistol-bomb attack in Rawalpindi.
Zardari today is more a subject of derision than of respect in Pakistan’s power structure. The opposition to his continuation in the high office is eclectic: powerful media barons, intelligence operatives, services personnel and PPP veterans sidelined upon his post-Benazir ascendance in the party-government hierarchy. At a recent interaction with media persons, the President was at the receiving end of a barrage of embarrassing questions. Sample this: You went out of the way to befriend India. But their PM (Manmohan Singh) snubbed you at Yekaterinburg (with his famous statement: “My mandate is to tell you that Pakistan’s territory should not be used for terrorism against India”) and ‘gifted’ Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement.
Bystanders reported that Zardari was downcast and had no convincing answers that could change popular perceptions about his fast-dwindling importance and utility within the country’s power structure. All that’s wrong —from the Pakistani standpoint —with the Kerry-Lugar law has also been placed at the beleaguered President’s doorsteps. Even the army led by Kayani joined the chorus against the “conditions” the US has laid down for administering the $ 7.5 billion non-military assistance.
The NRO was placed before Parliament for its endorsement in the middle of a fierce debate on the Kerry-Lugar law. That was also the time when the army launched its ground and air attacks in Waziristan, triggering a spate of retributive Taliban-Al Qaeda attacks on security-military assets and individuals across the country.
The irony and grave implications of the lack of consensus between Pakistani institutions and political entities in the face of a veritable war need no emphasis. Such is the sense of fear that the Presidential House, the Parliament Complex, the Prime Minister’s residence and offices and even the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi are considered vulnerable to attacks. The multi-layered security rings around them are only as strong as a fidayeen’s resolve to die.
The overall gloom is compounded by the barely concealed distrust of Pakistan by its neighbours— India, Afghanistan and now Iran that has accused the Pak ISI of backing the Sunni Jundullah that recently killed revolutionary guards near the city of Sarbaz along the Balochistan-Iran border. “Our army has to succeed in Waziristan. If that doesn’t happen, much else would, most certainly,” said a senior journalist whom I’d rather leave unnamed. Amid so many war fronts, he continued, India would be unrealistic if it were to make tough action against Hafiz Saeed (who’s Lashkhar-e-Toiba hasn’t turned anti-Pakistan) a precondition for returning to the negotiating table.
Well, with key government and establishment figures deeply unsure of their ground, early resumption of dialogue looks remote anyway. Conditions within Pakistan are more to blame for the delay than the conditions India has put forth for resuming talks.
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Posted by Vinod Sharma on Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir Bhutto., judiciary, Kerry-Lugar law, Pakistan, Parliament, Sharm-el-Sheikh
Never ever trust these P-A-K-I B-A-S-T-A-R-D-S. They are paying the price for the hate they cultivated and exported.
Even now they think haqqanis and LeT are strategic assets. If a terrorist kills American or an Indian thats OK with them … the problem is only when they kill Pakis. They went after Fazlullah and Hakeemullhah. But they wont go after HAQQANI,HAFIZ GUL BAHADUR,MULLAH NAZIR,LET AND AZHAR MAHMOOD. THESE LATTER ONES ARE STRATEGIC ASSETS…
[Reply]
Why do we even have a column about the f–d up Pakistan? Either have one covering all border countries, or do not have one.
Vinod is giving an India-Pakistan parity by providing all these grand theories about the inner thought processes of the Pakistani mandarins..
What is the big deal if Zaradari gets toppled or Kayani gets dethroned? Will Pakistan change? Will its terrorist attacks against india stop?
The only time we should be interested in Pakistan is if we can have a client state there where we decide who the PM is etc..
We should not have an iota of concern for Pakistan; we focus on our borders so the miscreants and murderers do not cross the border.
[Reply]
@ S Singh
In my view we should be worried and concerned about what is happening in Pakisan for the very simple reason that if that country implodes, as it is looking likely to do, we will have an Afghanistan across our borders.
Not sure how to go about it, though. The problem in Pakistan is that there are multiple power centres; all with an axe or two to grind and most are venal, corrupt and have a stake in digging in into their entrenched positions.
If Pakistan descends into complete anarchy, even the fig leaf of international citizenship that behoves an elected government to behave in a certain way, will be gone. To me, Pakisan conjures up an image of muderous hordes running amok, small groups with allegiance to local chieftains and nursing grievances against everyone in the world.
It’s a poison pill; if we let Pakistan implode, and let’s assume we have the strategic and tactical wherwithal to do so, we will suffer by having an even more unstable frontier.
It’s blackmail. Yes, I agree. But, I doubt we can benefit from adding fuel to the fire.
[Reply]
Fact is whenver Pakistan remained embroiled in its own problmes India has breathed sigh of relief.. I wish long this internal skirmishes in pakistan may continue
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Let pakistan simmer in it’s own frankstein monster it created.
If the terror groups kill indians, it is freedom fight/spreading islam for them.
If they kill fellow pakistanis, they are “not muslims”‘..
So much inconsistencies.
India should help pakistan.
But only if they vacate occupied kashmir and india takes over that part (legal right to do so as per Accession agreement)..
[Reply]
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Pakistan could be relocated somewhere in Europe, next to the UK may be? Let’s explore how different groups may adjust in case of massive geographical cut-and-paste operation, shall we?
First, the Pakistani elite: They will easily adjust! The elite in Pakistan have never felt out of place in Europe and some already have dual citizenships with the UK. Today, many Pakistani leaders rule parts of Pakistan from England while others live in lavish British mansions when they’re unceremoniously exiled out of their country. While living in the UK, Pakistani generals also undergo strange transformation. They start talking of peace and diplomacy in their post-retirement years while dismissing charges pressed against them in the courts of Pakistan. The Pak establishment will also have no excuse of existential threat in the shadow of its erstwhile masters; the British.
Second, the Pakistani middle class and the poor: They should adjust, with minor exceptions. The Pakistani people, like common people anywhere, want safe places to live where they can earn a decent living and educate their children. By living next to England, Pakistanis can participate in the growing EU without the pains of jumping through the hoops during immigration that they face today. Their national cricket team can play in front of their eyes and they can also keep their nukes. This should be a good bargain for the people of Pakistan.
Third, the British: For the Brits, this change may be little confusing but they will turn around. If you look at the bright side by being next to Pakistan, the Brits, for starters, can enjoy more Lahori Kabobs in their restaurants and also learn how to bowl the doosra and the reverse swing. The British county cricket may receive a boost and hopefully help steal some thunder away from the brash Indian league. The MI5 may succeed in keeping a close eye on potential terrorists entering its country. Last but not the least, the British, like the Indians, may understand how difficult it’s to co-exist peacefully with Pakistan.
Finally, people in South Asia: Sigh of relief! All this may read as tongue-in-cheek but it feels like breath of fresh air; atleast for many people living in India, Afghanistan and Iran. I believe there is a strong likelihood of Pakistan becoming a vibrant democracy by simply relocating itself. Is Holbrooke or Kerry-Lugar listening?
Apologize for the long post.
[Reply]
We should all join hands to free Pakistanis from Pakistan.
Now what does that mean?
Well we could have a free baluchistan which could be Gandhian and and friendly with the rest of the world.
We could set up a free and docile Waziristan. WE could make VINOD SHAARMA the head master out there, since he believes in the goodness of the Pakistani terrorists. He could teach all the suicide bombers “johny JOhny Yes papa….”
Imagine all those guntoting terrorists throwing their weapons into the river and following the pied piper Vinodji, singing nursery ryhmes.
Sindh and Mohajirstan could always be friendly with India.
While Pakistani Punjabis always shared a chord of sentiments with their Indian counterparts. Right from Khuswant singhjji to Kuldip Nayar to IK Gujral, our Punjabis loved them. Now once the Pakistani Punjabis are freed of the burden of being Pakistanis and becoming just Punjabis, then it would be all pappies jhappies at Lahore once again.
So let us all make Pakistan free… :):):):)
[Reply]
Dear Vinod Ji,
In an earlier posting I had likened that the state of Indian policy vis-a-vis Pakistan to that of a boxer in a ring - one who had taken a vow never to launch a counter punch but only to defend the punches thrown at him ( read by Pakistan). This was his strategy to outlast the opponent and eventually hope to win. This was also a strategy, vehemently supported by peacnicks by you. I had argued that it was a flawed startegy and India needed to throw at least some counter punches, to see whether Pakistan could survive even one !
Over the past few months, looking at the events in Pakistan, I have a feeling that India may really be upto something. That Pakistani protestations against India may not be entirely untrue. Looks like, the unsaid part of Af-Pak policy may have been this - to try and destabilise Pakistan to a point where the Pakistani military has to come to terms with a choice - either to persist with it’s policy of sponsoring state terrorism and risk it’s dismemberment or to give up once and for all the rearing of Jihadis.
Between India, the US and possibly Afghan govt, there is definately some tacit support to the groups attacking urban centres of Pakistan. Maybe this support is just financial or maybe equipment too. But the sudden spurt in these activities looks extremely unlikely without the involvement of these three states.
Remember that soon after formation of Obama administration, there were these therories in the US press that how the current geographical map in that region is just a new phenomenon, that how historically the tribes have been ruled in distinct states and how geographica realignment may actually be the eventual solution.
Soon after the 26 / 11 attacks the Manmohan govt had convened a meeting in which Brajesh Mishra was invited. No doubt he would have advised that an operation Parakram type mobilisation would be fruitless unless India actually intended to launch war.
My hunch is that in the middle of 2009, India, no doubt between countless visits by Richard Holbroke, has taken a decision to go for the juglar.
Your views, if any.
[Reply]
Atul Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
@ Akhilesh,
A snippet for you - no impact intended on your argument.
Cassius Clay (aka Muhammad Ali) beat George Foreman in a 15 round match in Zaire by cleverly wearing Foreman out and regained the boxing heavyweight title for the third time.
For 14 rounds he took punches on his body (which he had conditioned for 3 months by hanging upside down while air cycling at 45 degrees, then having extras punch him in the body), and when Foreman had no energy, kayoed him with a flurry of jabs & punches.
His secret? He saw that Foreman’s earlier bouts had ended within 5 to 6 rounds, and reckoned that his stamina would not last all the 15 rounds.
Turns out he was right!!
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Knock outs also work and they work much faster.
[Reply]
Akhilesh Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Atul,
You do have a point. However, the analogy with the boxer can be only taken so far and no further. In realpolitik, every action has intended consquences as well as unintended consequences. In a boxing match, this fear is not there.
The unintended consequence of the Indian state appearing listless and soft is the encouragement it gives to other players inimical to India. That they can too get away with murder !
Look how the naxalite movement has caught the national news spave for the past three months. And what Chidambaram is intending to do today is to clean up the mess that Shivraj Patil left while he was sleeping for 4.5 years.
In respect to Pakistan, however, we have no evidence that the Indian response was actually as thought out and prepared as that of Cassiuss Clay or that we were all these years actually waiting for round 15. What I have said in my first comment is just a hunch I have. No concrete evidence yet.
Although if india is indeed throwing the proverbial 15th round punch at Pakistan then it would at least make the sacrifices of the last 20 years any worth.
One wonders what could be the US end game.
The US have been lusting after Pakistan for quite some to give it a military base / presence. The pakistani’s have known this, and flirted with that notion to telling effect.
Sadly, in all this jugglery, too many balls have dropped, and the US continues to woo a weakened Pakistan in anticipation of achieving its objective.
Meanwhile, the ISI continues its antics, and now the Army is cleaning up the mess created by the political bosses as well as the ISI. I am sure they must have created a few of their own. This must certainly weaken the army too.
My view is that India has some cause for worry if the US steps in as a surrogate ruler. But more cause for worry is if the Taliban take over, for then we will have no option but to go to war with them.
[Reply]
S Singh Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
@Atul
I personally do not think US in Pak will have an issue with India. They may force us to work with them on a coordinated plan against China. India, instead of being a threat to them, may be a startegic relationship - huge market, infrastructure investment, cheap science/tech etc.
Being in Pak will help them to be on Iran’s case from both ends -from iraq and Pak.
Our focus should be to eliminate Taliban/Al Quaeda. plus **** outfits liek jeT.
Pakistan will come out very weak irrespective of how this initiative works out. This weakness can eb an opportunity if the populace plays it right, or be a permanent abyss if the army is perceived again a sthe good guys.
[Reply]
Atul Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Agree that we need to root out the extremist forces, but I would like to add another dimension here.
US & China are bigger buddies than meets the eye. US economy is currently propped up by China. And other than having India as a captive consumer base (in addition to getting a strategic base for world dominance) the US may just want to sqeeze India to placate China.
To that extent, I feel that Pakistan’s sovereignity and independence is as important to India as to Pakistan, beause India’s independence will be under threat with China on one side and the US on the other.
Maybe I am being paranoid here, and would love to hear responses from others.
[Reply]
Nikhil Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Atul,
According to some estimates, India will be the biggest swing state in Asia. If there is some truth to this argument, New Delhi has nothing to be paranoid about its relations with China and the US. In my view, most of the Chinese - and also American - threats raised by the Indian media are overblown. If there is merit to the threats, I believe, we can be neutralize them by addressing the needs of our armed forces and building infrastructure near our borders.
In my view, whatever plays out between China and the US in the coming years may not have much impact on India. Why? Because, India, for better or worse, is not seen as important enough than we’d like to believe. With the exception of climate change and WTO talks, India is usually seen as a regional power with a huge market.
Pakistan’s definition of sovereignity vis-a-vis India is different than that with bigger international powers. Which means Pakistan will continue to be a silent surrogate - not that of Taliban - despite being proud, independent and sovereign. If I think more about it that is all Pakistan has got to be important on global stage. Although, this has come with a heavy human cost. But, in the absence of war on terror, Pakistan risks of becoming a pariah which, I’m sure, the elite in Pakistan may not like after they see the attention and the importance bestowed upon India.
Looks like India needs to heighten security in the country. Would Pakistan be willing to hold talks with other nations? What strategies have been tried to alleviate the anger in Pakistan? Asia Chronicle has been writing about the situation in Pakistan as well as other Asian countries. Worth a read I think. http://www.asiachroniclenews.com
[Reply]
Hello Atul and Akhilesh
I enjoyed reading the comments to yours each other’s blogs. Yes, I also remember the strategy of Mohammed Ali punching away George Foreman in a 15 round fight to win the third title and surely was a memorable sporting event. However , I agree with Akhilesh that after all we are not fighting a boxing battle with our neighbour, but your point has been well taken for its subtle message. I only hope that our govt. is not again taken in by the Indian lobby working for friendship with Pakistani . After the attack on Indian Parliament and Kargil war, Mumbai was the heaviest punch our country took from Pakistan.It hardly matters to us whether President Zardari and Gen. Kayani stay or not, but we must not let this opportunity slip away like we did after 1971 war.
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 5:22 am
how is boxing event related to active terrorism with guns and bombs ?
is it even the right analogy ?
Read this brainwashing by islamists in somalia
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/somali-jihadists-forcing-civilians-to-watch-executions.html
“It recently organised a quiz for young men in the southern town of Kismayo.
The prizes included AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and anti-tank mines.”
[Reply]
Hey if Pakistanis keep fighting with each other, what is wrong?
Let them fight… at the end of a few years we will know who is the best Muslim. Is’nt that, what they are fighting about?
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 5:04 am
You are right.
let the true muslim emerge victorious from this fight.
(as their god Allah will bless only the true muslims)..
once the true muslim emerges, then india can deal with them..
until then just wait and watch…
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 5:05 am
some interesting reading
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/alternate_main.htm
[Reply]
what one sows is what one reaps! The Pakistan politics and nation are being threatened by the very entity that they had created.And this Zardari has no leadership skill and charisma as was possessed by his wife, Benazir. He is merely a puppet and shows a yes-man kind of attitude.Merely holding a powerful position does not ensure that he can lead people or take his stance.And political n social doldrums in Pakistan is such that it needs to handled extremely tactfully, but the inter and intra political parties are at loggerheads. The parasite of terrorism has actually devastated its very host.
[Reply]
Dear innocent Vinodji,
Our freindly neighbourhood Pakistanis for creating a plot to attack two boarding schools in Delhi and create a hostage situation. How would you feel if your own children were in such a school.
And more importantly do you feel, like Antulay and other such greats, that this was preobably an international plot of the Isrealis and CIA to tarnish the image of the innocent leT, ISI and Jaish?
Please let us know…
[Reply]
Usman Chaudhry Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Good ask.
Vijay, can you share some reference (link) about A R Antulay and his belief in your above question.
[Reply]
Dear Usman,
At the time of the hostage/ 26/11 crises, there was a chain email going around which said that the whole plot had been organised by the Isrealis to give a bad name to Pakistan. A R Antulay firther created confusion by implicating the Indian authorities by saying that hemant Karkare had been deliberately sent to the scene of action with a bad bullet prrof jacket so that he would get killed.
The point is that there are always idiots who want to give a bad name to our commandos in the name of human rights; and there are innocent journalists like Kuldip Nayar and his ilk who are trying to absolve Pakistan of everything,
Our country is a great experiment of democratic and secular thought. We all have to make it a success. And in doing so we have to guard against this internal threat of people trying to weaken us by absolviing our vile neighbours.
[Reply]