Taking a look back at Pakistan’s history, however, exposes the hypocrisy of such assertions.  It was, in fact, during Gen.Zia ul Haq’s rule that the US was allowed to construct five ‘intelligence and recon basses’ in Pakistan. It was under Gen. Musharaf’s rule that Pakistan compromised the security of it’s nuclear assets, allowed drone attacks, handed over Pakistani civilians to the CIA and allowed Blackwater to launch covert operations.

By now we all know about Seymour Hersh article in New Yorker. I have been wary of Mr. Hersch’s unnamed sources and questioned timing of his stories.

But Jeremy Scahill who writes for The Nation Magazine is a straight shooter. In his latest article in The Nation journalist Jeremy Scahill has revealed that Blackwater is secretly operating in Pakistan under a covert program that includes planning the assassination and kidnapping of Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects. Blackwater is also said to be involved in a previously undisclosed U.S. military drone campaign that has killed scores of people inside Pakistan. Blackwater operatives have been working under a covert program run by the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s top covert operations force. The previously undisclosed JSOC operations would mark the first known confirmation of U.S. military activity inside Pakistan.

This was possible because in 2006 Gen. Pervez Musharaf struck a deal with the Bush administration that allows U.S. Special Operations forces from the Joint Special Operations Command to enter Pakistan with the understanding that they were, “following the target.”

Indeed, if you read Pakistan’s short history you will find that our Army has always served America’s interest and its foreign policy has been congruent with US policy in the region. Although our nation’s key decision to stand in America’s camp pre-dates the Ayub regime, it was during our first martial law that Pakistan’s anti-imperialist forces were completely crushed.

America was the clear winner when, on April 17^th 1953, Pakistan’s third Governor General Malik Ghulam Mohammad dismissed Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin who had then enjoyed the confidence of the parliament. Mohammad Ali Bogra was appointed to form a government the same day. Looking through declassified documents at the US National Archives you will understand that the main benefactors of the change were always two elements, Pakistan’s army and the US.

Please see blow the US ambassador’s telegram from the embassy in Karachi sent on April 18^th, 1953.

Two more significant telegrams sent from the US embassy in Karachi clearly indicate that: America was fearful of Pakistan’s left inclined politicians and Ayub Khan was being encouraged to take control ie. “a coup by a military dictatorship”.

I will be adding to more documents here to deconstruct the notion that Pakistan’s army is anti-imperialist. Secondly, I will also continue to question the assertions of many that Pakistan’s Army is truly religious.  It only promoted and protected Islamist elements to serve U.S. interests. Ironically Pakistan’s army also promoted westernized voices in early parts of it history, also at the behest of it’s American masters. A religious bigot like Zia ul Haq was built-up when America wanted to exploit religious sentiments. And, Gen. Musharaf was nurtured as a ‘westernized’ voice when that was the need of the day.  This willingness to be anything the U.S. wants is often observed by Pakistan watchers who say: if America wants a transvestite, the Pakistan army will hurry up and promote a hijra through it’s rank.

پاکستان میں جمہوریت عبوری دور سے گزر رہی ہے، اور اس کا مستقبل غیر یقینی ہو سکتا ہے۔ اپنی اس دلیل کی وضاحت میں اس طرح کروں گا کہ پاکستان میں سیاسی قیادت نے سیاسی خلاء تو پُر کر لیا ہے جس کا اس سے پہلے کوئی وجود تک نہیں تھا، لیکن سیاسی قیادت ابھی ریاست کے تمام شعبوں پر مکمل کنٹرول نہیں کر پائی ہے۔ سیاسی جماعتوں کی فتح آٹھ سال کی طویل آمریت کے بعد جمہوریت کے لئے منزل ثابت ہوئی تھی۔ پاکستانی عوام کو یہ فتح اس لیے نصیب ہوئی کیونکہ چیف آف آرمی اسٹاف جنرل اشفاق پرویز کیانی نے انتخابات میں جان بوجھ کر غیر جانبدار رہنے کا فیصلہ کیا تھا۔ اُن کے اس فیصلے کا مقصد اپنے پیش رو جنرل ریٹائرڈ پرویز مشرف سے مختلف ہونے کا تاثر دینا تھا۔   

اس پیش رفت کے باوجود فوج اور حکومت کے تعلقات میں اداروں کی سطح پر نہایت معمولی تبدیلی آئی ہے۔ فوج پاکستان کی سیاسی زندگی میں اب بھی مرکزی کردار ادا کرتی نظر آتی ہے۔ پاکستان کے خفیہ اداروں میں اصلاحات کے حوالے سے سیاست میں فوج کا کردار نہایت اہم معاملہ ہے۔ خفیہ اداروں کا کردار ہمیشہ سے بے انتہا متنازع رہا ہے کیونکہ یہ ادارے متعدد بار ملک کی اندرونی سیاست میں مداخلت کے لئے استعمال کیے گئے۔ جنرل ایوب خان، یحیٰ خان، ضیاء الحق اور پرویز مشرف کی فوجی حکومتیں ہوں یا ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کی سیاسی حکومت، تمام حکمرانوں نے خفیہ اداروں کو سیاسی مقاصد کے لئے تواتر سے استعمال کیا، تاہم خفیہ اداروں کو اپنے اپنے مقاصد کی خاطر استعمال کرنے کے لئے اُن پر سول اور فوجی حکومتوں کی جانب سے کنٹرول کی حد الگ الگ رہی ہے۔

اختلاف رائے رکھنے والے سیاستدانوں، دانشوروں اور معاشرے کے دیگر سرگرم افراد کے خلاف کئی آپریشن کیے گئے جن میں باقاعدہ نظام کے تحت انہیں ہراساں کرنا، ڈس انفارمیشن، جعلی مقدمات کا قیام، اغوا، تشدد اور قاتلانہ حملے تک شامل ہیں۔ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیاں باقاعدہ نظام کے تحت سیاسی رہنماؤں کی وفاداریاں خریدنے کے لئے بھی استعمال کی جاتی رہی ہیں۔    

ملٹری انٹیلیجنس (ایم آئی) اور انٹر سروسز انٹیلی جنس (آئی ایس آئی) جیسے خفیہ ادارے اپنی پیشہ ورانہ ذمہ داریاں ایک طرف رکھ کر فوجی حکومتوں کے سیاسی مخالفین کی نگرانی کرتی رہی ہیں۔ یہی خفیہ ادارے سول حکمران مقرر کرنے کے لیے اُن کے انتخاب کے ماسٹر مائنڈ بھی رہے ہیں۔ انہوں نے مذہبی اور نسلی جذبات سے بھی فائدہ اٹھایا اور پاکستانی سوسائٹی کی اُن تمام کمزوریوں کو بھی استعمال کیا جن کی وجہ سے معاشرہ پہلے ہی تقسیم ہو چکا ہے۔ ملٹری ایجنسیوں نے ایسے طریقے اپنائے جو دراصل اُنہیں پاکستانی عوام کے خلاف ہونے والی دہشت گردی کو ختم کرنے کے لئے استعمال کرنے چاہیے تھے۔ 

مختلف اوقات میں خفیہ اداروں نے سیاست دانوں کو آسان ہدف سمجھ کر قَصُور  وار  بھی ٹھہرایا ہے تاکہ سازشی گٹھ جوڑ کے ذریعے اُن کے سیاسی زوال کو درست ثابت کیا جا سکے، تاہم یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ انٹیلیجنس اداروں نے سیاسی پیش رفت کے متعدد معاملات میں مرکزی کردار ادا کیا ہے۔ ماضی کی حکومتوں میں یہ ادارے دوسروں کو کنٹرول کرنے کے دل پسند ہتھیار کے طور پر استعمال ہوتے رہے ہیں۔        

 ملک میں ابھی جمہوریت کمزور ہے، لیکن ان حالات میں اس جانب فوری توجہ دینے کی پہلے سے بھی زیادہ ضرورت ہے تا کہ کسی قسم کے پوشیدہ آپریشن کا پہلے سے سدباب کیا جا سکے۔ یہ نکتہ اس تناظر میں اہم ہے کہ ماضی میں پاکستان کی حکومتیں ایجنسیوں سے بُری طرح متاثر ہوتی رہی ہیں۔ اب اگر نئی اور بہت ہی کمزور حکومت ملٹری کنٹرول کا براہ راست مقابلہ کرنا چاہتی ہے تو اُس کو کسی طور پر بھی پاکستانی سیاست میں انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کا نہایت اہم کردار نظر انداز نہیں کرنا چاہیے۔ خفیہ اداروں کی اصلاحات ناگزیر ہیں اور انٹیلیجنس کے عمل کو غیر سیاسی بنانا طاقت کے استحکام کی طرح قومی مفاہمت کا ہی ایک عنصر ہے۔ 

مغربی تجزیہ کار پاکستانی انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کی بات کرتے ہوئے علاقائی سطح پر اس ادارے کا کردا اور شدت پسند اسلامی تنظیموں کی حمایت کو ہی مدنظر رکھتے ہیں، لیکن وہ یہ بھول جاتے ہیں کہ یہ حمایت ہی پولیٹیکل کنٹرول کے عمل کے اہم پہلو کا تعین کرتی ہے۔ آئی ایس آئی کی جانب سے اسلامی شدت پسند گروپس کی تشکیل صرف خارجہ پالیسی کے مقاصد تک ہی محدود نہیں، بلکہ یہی ملکی تناظر میں بھی استعمال ہوتی ہے۔ 

اگر ہم صرف اسلامی گروپس کی حمایت کا پہلو لے کر بیٹھ جائیں تو ایک اور بڑی حقیقت پس پردہ چلی جاتی ہے۔ وہ حقیقت بظاہر سیکولر جماعتیں ہیں جن میں ایک متحدہ قومی موومٹ (ایم کیو ایم) ہے جو سیاسی عمل کے تعین کی اہم کردار ہے۔ یہاں یہ بات بھی مدنظر رکھی جائے کہ ایک وقت میں یہ جماعت بھی اسی تشکیل کا شکار رہی ہے۔   

 اس کی مثال یوں لے لیں کہ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیاں ایک ایسے معاشرے میں شدت پسندی کے خطرے کا نظریہ پھیلاتی ہیں جہاں پہلے ہی یہ رجحان پایا جا تا ہے، اس طرح سیکورٹی کے لحاظ سے فوجی حکومت کا اقتدار میں رہنا ناگزیر ہو جاتا ہے، تاہم یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں میں اصلاحات صرف قانونی اور آئینی مسئلہ نہیں ہے۔ انیس سو نوے کی دہائی میں فوج نے نہ صرف کبھی آئی ایس آئی کے ڈائریکٹر جنرلز کی نامزدگی کی براہ راست مخالفت نہیں کی بلکہ ان عہدوں کی منظوری بھی نہیں دی۔ اس لحاظ سے دیکھا جائے تو اس نے کبھی قانون شکنی نہیں کی، لیکن دوسری جانب نہ صرف جمہوری عمل کو  نظر انداز کر دیا بلکہ حکومت کے نامزد افراد کو اس طرح جلاوطن کر دیا کہ اُن کی قیادت غیر موثر ہو کر رہ گئی۔ 

اصلاحات کا یہ عمل صرف ادارتی ڈھانچے میں تبدیلی کا معاملہ نہیں ہے۔ انٹیلی جنس کا نیا کلچر لانے کے لیے اداروں کے فلسفے کی دوبارہ تشریح کرنا ہو گی۔ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ انٹیلی جنس مشن اور ترجیحات کی بھی از سر نو  ترتیب اور تشکیل کی ضرورت ہے۔ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں میں اصلاحات کے لئے نہ صرف ظاہری صورتحال بلکہ اُن لوگوں کی سوچ بدلنے کی بھی ضرورت ہے جو  ان تمام معاملات سے منسلک ہیں۔ 

اصلاحات کو سول اور فوجی حکومتوں کے تعلقات کے وسیع تناظر میں سمجھنا ہو گا اور اس کے لیے سب سے پہلا کام  اعتماد کا بحال ہونا ہے، تاہم یہ کام ماضی میں سول ملٹری تعلقات کے تناظر میں اور ایجنیسوں کے ادارتی ڈھانچے کی وجہ سے مشکل ہے۔ اعتماد کا فقدان اس سوال پر پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ آخر ایجنسیوں کو کنٹرول کرنے کی ضرورت کیوں پیش آئی ہے۔ اگر انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کے کردار کا دوبارہ تعین کر لیا جاتا ہے تو  ملکی سیاست پر اس کے دور رس اثرات مرتب ہوں گے۔ خفیہ ادارے ہمیشہ ہی کسی ریاست کے بنیادی کردار کا اظہار ہوا کرتے ہیں، لیکن پاکستان کے معاملے میں ان اداروں کی سرگرمیاں آرمی کے روایتی غلبے کی عکاس ہیں اور  بدقسمتی سے اسی کو رہنمائے اصول بنا لیا گیا ہے۔ یہ ادارے اپنے طور پر  انفرادی اور اجتماعی لحاظ سے لوگوں میں خوف و ہراس پھیلانے، رشوت ستانی، بہ وقت ضرورت قتل اور عوام کی سیاسی نگرانی جیسے کام انجام دینے لگے ہیں۔   

پاکستان میں جمہوریت کے استحکام کے لیے ملک کے خفیہ اداروں پر سول حکومت کا کنٹرول ناگزیر ہے۔

Indian diplomats and White House representative tell us that two leaders will discuss issues ranging from environment to accelerating the completion of a landmark civilian nuclear deal signed last year with Bush administration. It is rather interesting that Mr. Singh will be in Washington a week after President Obama in Beijing pledged to strengthen ties with China.

It is no secret that America views India as a countervailing force against rising China. America encourages India’s increasing involvement in Afghanistan, and calculates that Indian and American interests coincide in seeking to develop pipelines that would draw central Asia’s oil reserves toward the Indian Ocean.

Analysts argue that the current Indo-US relationship is good, but lacks a central defining issue, such as the civilian nuclear deal, that shaped the relationship during the presidency of George Bush.

Singh and Obama will try to regain some of the momentum back- with possibly more Indian involvement in Afghanistan.  India has been critical of the Obama administrations Afghan strategy and claims it’s focus on Pakistan comes at the expense of other regional stakeholders such as India. India and the US have been concerned with China’s engagement in Afghanistan as well.

Indian policy makers viewed the Afghan war a godsend – an opportunity to reverse Pakistan’s increased influence in Afghanistan and more importantly to advance its geopolitical interests in oil-rich central Asia. It was based on these two key fundamentals that India decided to support the US invasion of Afghanistan. India facilitated contact with  Northern Alliance and provided intelligence from ground.

Just like America had showered Pakistan with ‘blessings’, Bush administration also expanded ties with India for being it’s eyes and ears on Afghan soil. This romance developed so rapidly that the US declared its eagerness to assist India in becoming a “world power.”  For the services rendered to the ‘new masters,’ India received a unique status within the world nuclear regulatory regime – despite being a non signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But India has been sensitive to Washington’s perceived growing ties with China and Pakistan. During his presidential campaign, Obama had committed to addressing regional issues including Kashmir.

India has also complained abut Obama administrations’ stance on a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). India has refused to sign the CTBT on the grounds that it could imperil the development of India’s “strategic deterrent,” i.e. its nuclear weapons arsenal.

This week Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement pledging to “promote peace, stability and development” in south Asia. Indian Foreign Ministry fired back: “The Government of India is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. A third country role cannot be envisaged.”

India has been inserting itself in Afghanistan in past years. But India is not completely behind Karzai government either- Hamid Karzai believes a negotiated solution of Afghan problem is possible. He is intent on persuading sections of the Taliban to enter into peace negotiations and ultimately incorporating them into Afghanistan’s government. Indian officials and media commentators have repeatedly declared that there is no such thing as “good Taliban.”  Indians fear that Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan will grow significantly in the event of a rapprochement with elements hitherto associated with the Taliban.

Obama is likely to assure Singh that his country’s interest will be protected in Afghanistan.

Singh needs this assurance specially because General Stanley McChrystal in a confidential report submitted to the US President Barack Obama on August 30 wrote: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.”

Needless to say Indians did not fancy McChrystal’s recommendation.

The Indian government has invested more than $1.2 billion since 2001. Mr. Singh will want Obama to ensure that McChrystal’s reports lands in the trash and a guarantee Obama will facilitate India’s regional hegemonic role. From what I hear in Washington DC, it seems Singh will leave happy.

Indians were busy today (Friday) on the Hill to make progress on the civilian nuclear deal. America wants guarantees from New Delhi — that it won’t pass on its nuclear know-how. In other words- India will not proliferate but India refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

During her recent visit to India Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a deal allowing two US companies, General Electric and Westingouse, to build a pair of new nuclear power reactors at a cost of $10 billion. Before any contracts are signed, the US companies are asking the Indian parliament to pass legislation which would limit the companies’ liability in case of nuclear accidents.

Before this deal goes any further, Indian law needs to be modified to set limits on the liability assessed to American companies involved with any kind of nuclear development. Even in the United States, liability is limited to about $11 billion, whereas the damage caused by accidents at nuclear power plants are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. US companies want similar liability protections, and it remains to be seen whether the Indian parliament will satisfy those requests.

Under current international law, the nuclear industry, or rather, state-owned nuclear enterprises, operate under sovereign limitation. In other words, Russian and French nuclear reactors can protected by the built-in liability insurance provided by their respective governments, since they are publicly owned. However, Westinghouse and General Electric are not accorded this same security, as they are privately owned. In an analogous circumstance, during the US-Russia negotiations over the use of Cold War plutonium, including surplus plutonium from weapons in Russian reactors, the failure to arrive at a liability agreement was the major stumbling block in the execution of the deal.

The Convention on Supplementary Compensation is a UN convention responsible for limited liability, and its aim is essentially to deny fair compensation. Basically, the US wants India to sign and ratify this convention as a precondition of their participation in the deal. This is a topic that has not been the subject of the domestic debate as of yet, because there were bigger barriers the governments of India and the US government had to cross. Now that those obstacles have all but been bulldozed, this issue of liability protection is bound to be quite politically sensitive. The text of the defense agreement has not been made public, and chances are slim that it will be made public in its full form. Nor do we know, as of now, the future locations of the specific reactor sites.

A convention of National Students Federation (NSF) Karachi was scheduled to be held on January 7, 1973 but members were sharply divided over issues ranging from an earlier stance of Bangladesh-Namanzoor to loyalty towards Meraj Mohammad Khan.

I was new to the organization and believed that the two groups formed thus far could pitch their candidates and let the general members decide through votes. But senior members of the two groups felt that election on convention floor would split the organization.

Therefore conciliation efforts started. Dow Medical College was the venue of hectic politicking. Nauman, who was pitched for President by one group represented one side in these talks while the other side was represented by Zahid Hussain. After days and nights of negotiations the two sides reached a settlement. A cabinet of NSF,

Karachi, consisting of the two groups was agreed upon. Ghafoor Kasi became President and Sohail Ahmed was declared General Secretary. Nauman made the central working committe.

However, this patch-up did not last long and the members finally split a few months later. During those few days, I was approached by both sides and opinions on every political issue under the sun was expressed. Nauman was quite articulate in expressing his views and criticized the other side without raising his voice. Though I decided to align myself with Rasheed Hassan Khan's group and they retracted from their stance of Bangladesh-Namanzoor, but Nauman left a deep impression on my mind because of his rational arguments and gentle demeanor.

As the world keenly watched leaders of the two world powers Obama and Hu appear in the Great Hall of the People overlooking Tiananmen Square people saw what they wanted to see. For Pakistani analysts it was a sign of substantial progress in China-U.S. relations over the past 30 years, but to others this summit was “increasingly important to both countries, but also curiously bereft of warmth or intimacy.” For American observers, Obama walked away without any concrete agreements on currency, environment or human rights issues, but for my Chinese friends at the United Nations, it was the dawn of a ‘new era’ of global cooperation. 

For South Asian analysts the mention of India and Pakistan in the joint statement was significant. China and the United States voiced support for  peace and stability in South Asia. According to the joint statement both countries support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability, and achieve sustainable economic and social development. Their statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan was expected.

Surprising, however,  was the joint pledge to support “improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.”  

The joint statement said: “the two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.”

This statement has dual implications; first, Afghanistan-Pakistan security concerns are viewed through the larger regional perspective which includes India, and secondly, India’s perceived regional role. Although India has restrained itself and there were no immediate official responses (at the time of writing of this article), but Indian analysts have begun taking note.

I juts saw Natwar Singh, former External Affairs Minister telling an Indian TV:“ Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu Jintao are confusing hope with facts. India has consistently extended its hand of friendship to Pakistan but the response has been wholly unsatisfactory. The government and the people of India want warm and cordial relations with Pakistan, so do the people of Pakistan. Regrettably the establishment of Pakistan is not in favor.”

Salman Haider, former Foreign Secretary, was upset that such a ‘pledge’ was made because the U.S. knows it would be regarded as some sort of provocation to India. He told the Indian TV: “the statement should not give a message to Pakistan that it could start attempting the involvement of others in our bilateral affairs. We have repeatedly told our friends not to interfere. This is not a good formulation and is not at all helpful.”

Indians have become accustomed to the American administration talk about South Asian countries, but ‘red flags’ go up when China mentions Indo-Pak ties. India has a baggage of confrontational diplomacy with China- history of war, border conflicts, water rights issues, and lately economic and military competition.  India has amplified its rhetoric against China, and Beijing has been frank in expressing concern over India’s planned Agni-V ballistic missile test. From Arunachal Pradesh to Azad Kashmir, there have been several key instances recently in which Indian foreign policymakers seem to have been unnerved, even alleging China is constructing a dam on the Brahmaputra.

Indian External Affairs Minster and Foreign Secretary were unhappy about this US-China joint statement because China has a long history of cooperation with Pakistan; relations that reach back through six decades of trust.

Although it was a good surprise for Pakistan but it did not have all the elements to make it substantial. The Obama-Hu joint statement did not invoke the Kashmir issue. Meeting soon after the Pokhran tests in 1998, the then U.S. President Bill Clinton and the former Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, had issued a statement that was more specific on Kashmir. The statement expressed the “commitment” of the U.S. and China to help peacefully resolve “the difficult and long-standing differences between them including the pending issue of Kashmir.”

I agree with the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs that one should not expect “that the waters would part and everything would change over our almost 2 1/2-day trip to China,’’ but I am hoping that the sObama administration start looking at India as a key variable for security and stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Resolution of the India-Pakistan conflict, I am convinced, will bring peace and prosperity to the region.

Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies, and in our case, a territorial dispute. Unless Kashmir’s link with water is addressed and resolved, these other crises may intensify leading to further political insecurity and conflict at various levels.

It is abundantly clear to most educated Pakistanis that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved until every Pakistani citizen is assured access to water – today, tomorrow and for times to come. I am hoping that China and the US will have the courage to stop India from building dams that will deprive Pakistani farmers of vital water supplies.

Joint statements without concrete follow-ups serve no purpose. I am hoping China and the US will play an active role in resolving the critical issue of the Tulbul Navigation project on Wular Lake in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir.

Conversations with several insiders and subject matter experts point to a set of meetings on October 19^th in Islamabad.  General David Petraeus  and US Senator John Kerry reached Islamabad on Sunday (October 18^th). It was reported in local media that the meetings were about Waziristan operations but in reality talks with top Pakistani General were limited to the $7.5 billion dollar aid package. “They wanted to understand how this aid package violates Pakistan’s sovereignty. And, they wanted to hear it from the horses mouth,” said a diplomatic source.

Gen. Patreause and Sen. Kerry were sent to Pakistan after US President Barack Obama signed a record 7.5 billion dollar package tripling non-military aid to the nuclear-armed Muslim nation to boost its campaign against a virulent Islamist insurgency. Although the Zaradari government defended the package, Pakistan’s powerful military sparked a domestic showdown, expressing grave reservations about conditions that hinge some of the funds on efforts to battle Islamist extremism. The bill prevents the funding from being used for nuclear proliferation, to support militants or to attack neighboring countries — namely India — and calls for a cut-off in aid if Pakistan fails to crack down on extremists.

United States Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus and Chairman Senate Foreign Affairs committee Senator John Kerry on Monday October 19^th  held separate meetings with the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashraf Kayani and the outcome of those meetings were an immediate yanking of the anti-KLB campaign from Pakistani private TV channels. When Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus went to the GHQ he categorically told Gen Kayani to halt anti-KLB campaign. “Gen. Kayani was told in absolutely clear terms that the Obama administration will not tolerate another Honduras,” said a source very close to this conversation. 

It is interesting that three of my sources mentioned Honduras while talking about the possible outcome of anti-KLB campaign in Pakistan.

On June 28th Honduran soldiers roused democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint and flew him to Costa Rica. The coup d’etat was the first in Central America in over a quarter century. The coup, led by the Honduran Gen. Romeo Vasquez, was condemned by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of American States and all of Honduras’ immediate national neighbors.

The Obama administration initially did not legally classify Zelaya’s ouster as a coup, which would automatically trigger a suspension of aid. However the administration subsequently suspended military cooperation with the country. Honduran controversy has been extremely embarrassing for the Obama administration which had come to power on the rhetoric that America should seize supporting tyrants and military dictators.

In Pakistan, Zardari administration was portrayed by the media as too deferential to the United States. Pakistani journalists who unconditionally support their Army started the campaign against KLB and coalesced anti-Western politicians, and Muslim fundamentalists — implausibly claiming that Pakistan’s sovereignty was undermined and the country could end up as a U.S. neo-colony. Some of it is untrue!

To begin with, Pakistan has been an American neo-colony for last six decades and most of that time it was under a military dictorship. And, most importantly Pakistan has been an American satellite state because of it’s army. Pakistan’s military operates on the U.S. financial and technological assistance and it will receive even more support in the near future as it targets Taliban strongholds. Therefore conditions placed by the U.S. Congress on $7.5 billion in economic aid to Pakistan over the next five years should not have been of major consequence to Pakistani generals.

Sen. Kerry brought the carrot while Gen. Patreus had the stick.  Gen. Kayani was assured that his military will get monies and equipment that he has asked for but if he pulled a fast one, the Obama administration would at once severe its ties with Pakistan army. 

Sen. Kerry’s meeting was held earlier in the day and Gen. Patreaus arrived at the GHQ in the afternoon. General Kayani counseled his peers and advisors and by the end of October 19^th and it was decided that Kerry-Lugar Bill will not be publicly condemned. Five Pakistani journalists were contacted the very same night and told not beat the dead horse.

It is undoubtedly true that Pakistani government is too deferential to the Americans. Not that I condone it but this is not new.  Bone of contention here was the ‘non-military’ aid. This aid package was historic because it earmarked monies for health, education, infrastructure and civil society. Pakistan army felt left-out.  Although Pakistan army has backed out of KLB but democratic government is still hanging on the balance. NRO, food security, energy crisis all loom over Zardari’s head.

Pakistani media is packed with stories of corruption – same TV anchors who had become Hugo Chavez of Pakistan on army’s behest opposing Kerry-Lugar bill have now launched vociferous campaign against Zaradri government exposing corruption of ruling politicians. Not a single anchor has ever asked what happened to corrupt Generals. Why are corrupt army officials beyond criticism?

From trafficking heroin to grabbing precious land; from taking kick-back on purchase of equipment (sub-marines included) Pakistan army has looted everything we have ever had. Why then, I wonder, Pakistanis only discuss civilian corruption? Managing PR fiasco was easy for the Obama administration. They had to remind the source of opposition of an old proverb: you can’t bite the hand that feeds you. Pakistani Generals understood and complied.

According to a senior friend, he was on his way to England, when his steamship stopped in Karachi. He went on shore to meet progressive friends, who persuaded him to stay in Karachi. According to party sources, he was sent by the CPI as assistant to Sajjad Zaheer, who took over as the secretary general of the party in Pakistan.

The CPP was implicated in in the so called Pindi conspiracy case of 1951. besides army, navy and air force officers, Sajjad Zaheer, Faiz Sahib, Hasan Nasir and a few journalists were arrested. Faiz sahib wrote some of his best poetry in Hyderabad Sind jail. According to CPP sources, the conspiracy was a very half baked affair. Some army officers, in their cups, boasted of their plans to intelligence officers. They were picked up and to make the affair credible, the CPP was hauled in.

The titular leader of the conspiracy was one general Akbar Khan, who was disgruntled with the governments Kashmir policy. I met him in Karachi in 1956-57. He was such a vacuuous person, I am glad the conspiracy did not succeed. PM Liaquat Ali Khan had been besieged by the landowners (he had left his estate in India). Suhrawardy and Fazal haq from East Pakistan were snapping at his heels. He made much of the conspiracy, made a very emotional speech and gained high stature and acceptance, so far denied him, because he had been so much in the shadow of Jinnah. It is believed that he meant to use his newly acquired standing to get the Constituent Assembly to pass a constitution and hold elections. He was conveniently assassinated.

Pandit Nehru apparently interceded on behalf of Sajjad Zaheer and Hasan Nasir. they were released, Sajjad Zaheer went back to India, while his mother took Hasan Nasir to Switzerland. Hasan Nasir returned to Pakistan and took over as the secretary general of CPP. He also organized the National Awami Party of Maulana Bhashani and Wali Khan The following is from my book, “Across Three continents”: “Hasan Nasir went underground when Ayub Khan took over and suppressed all political activities and freedom of expession. He spent a part of his underground time in the home of the foreign secretary whose daughters were said to be in love with him. He had truly declassed himself.

Wadood (a highly respected student leader) once asked me to accompany him, in a rather mysterious fashion, to an out the way locality in the town. We met Hasan Nasir who had spent the previous night sleeping on the footpath. I must say he did not look any worse for it. He was eventually arrested.

It was widely believed at the time that he was betrayed to the police by a close and trusted associate, a journalist in the higher ranks of the party. He was tortured to death in Lahore Fort. He was only thirty-two.

Faiz, arguably the most renowned Urdu poet and unarguably the leading progressive muse in the language in the twentieth century, wrote a beautiful elegy for him. I quote a verse Kaun Hota Hai hareefe-e-mai mard afghane ishq Hai mukarrar ye sila labe saqi pe mere baad Transliterated it means that who will carry the emblem of defiance after me).

It was November 13, we were in the midst of a Fete to raise funds for DOW Medical college, when the news of his asassination broke. Sher Afzal broke down. That reminds me of an anecdote. The secretary general of the communist party of the USA while addressing a secret politburo session started “Comrades”  and after a pause added “members of the FBI”.

A judicial luminary and erstwhile votary of Benazir’s PPP of told me recently that security agencies had their men in the highest councils of the party and were fully briefed on all discussions. Hasan Nasir had managed to exclude the agents from two or three meetings. Interrogators insistently asked him about them. His only response was Bako Mat (Don’t talk rubbish), don’t talk rot.

میجر ندال ملک کی حماقت، جہالت اور جہادیت پر جب میں نے اپنے بلاگ پر مضمون لکھا تو امید نہیں تھی کہ اتنی جلدی اُس کے حمایتی سامنے آ جائیں گے۔ ایسی امید نہ رکھنا درحقیقت میری خوش فہمی تھی۔ ہمارا معاشرہ تنگ نظری کی اُیسی گہرائیوں میں ڈوب چکا ہے جہاں بصیرت کی روشنی نہیں پہنچ پاتی۔ آپ اپنے ملک کے کسی نوجوان سے پوچھیں گے کہ آپ سبط حسن کو جانتے ہیں تو نوے فیصد نے نام بھی نہیں سنا ہو گا۔ اگر آپ اُنہیں ‘‘موسی سے مارکس’’ تک کا حوالہ دیں گے تو جواب ملے گا کہ آپ سید قطب شہید کی کتاب‘‘ معرکہ اسلام اور سرمایہ داری’’ پڑھ  لیں، اس میں بھی سامراج کی سازش اور سرمایہ دارانہ نظام پر تنقید ملے گی۔ اور یہ ہے ہمارے ملک میں رجعت پسندی کی معراج۔ امید ہے کہ آپ اس سے اتفاق کریں گے کہ رجعت پسندی سائنسی علوم کی دشمن ہے اور جیسے جیسے سید قطب جیسے لوگ ہمارے ملک  کے ‘‘اسکالرز’’ گردانتے جائیں گے، ہمارا معاشرہ اُتنا ہی تاریک ہوتا جائے گا کہ روشنی صرف خودکش حملہ آوروں کے جسم میں لگے بم کے پھٹنے سے ہی ہوا کرے گی۔

مجھے حیرت ہے کہ بظاہر پڑھے لکھے نوجوان جنہوں نے سطحی تعلیم حاصل کر کے، مغربی لباس پہن کر، انگریزی موسیقی اور ایم ٹی وی پر میوزک ویڈیو بھی دیکھے ہیں، لیکن بخدا اس ظاہری ڈارمے کے نیچے میں ایسے بدشکل بنیاد پرست نکلتے ہیں کہ اُن سے کوفت ہونے لگتی ہے۔ امریکا کے خلاف ایسی تقریریں کرتے ہیں کہ جسیے Chavez ہوں۔ سامراج دشمنی جیسے انہی اللہ کے پیاروں نے شروع کی تھی اور سرمایہ دارانہ نظام تو انہیں جچتا ہی نہیں۔ ان سے پوچھوں کہ بچو۔ جب 1990 میں امریکا ایران پر حاوی ہوا تھا تو آپ کہاں تھے؟ جب 1980 میں افغانستان پر حملے کر رہا تھا تو آپ کہاں تھے؟ اُس وقت تہمارا سب سے بڑا دشمن سوشلزم کیوں تھا؟ اسلام کے ان جیالوں کی امریکی نفرت کی بنیاد نہ تو قومی ہے اور نہ ہی انسانی ہمدردی اور انصاف۔ یہ سب تشخص کا مسئلہ ہے۔ ہمارے ملک کی شناخت صرف اسلام سے ہوتی ہے اور جدیدیت اس یک سطحی شناخت کی توڑ ہے۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ غلبہ اسلام کی تحریک کے مفکرین کے لئے یہ کافی نہیں کہ پاکستان ایک اسلامی ملک ہے بلکہ وہ یہ سوچتے ہیں کہ اسلام کو عمل کرنے کے لئے اقتدار ملنا ناگزیر ہے۔ اُن کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ دین عبادت گاہوں اور حجروں میں بند یا صرف دلوں اور ضمیروں میں جاگزیں رہنے کے لئے نہیں آیا بلکہ اس کا مقصد یہ ہے کہ زندگیوں پر حکم چلائے اور اُن کا رخ موڑے۔ زندگی سے متعلق اپنے نظریات کے موافق معاشرہ قائم کرے جس کے لئے وعظ اور اشاروں بلکہ قانون سازی سے بھی مدد لی جائے۔ مولانا قطب کا دعویٰ ہے کہ اسلام کا اقتدار نہایت ضروری ہے ورنہ اسلام مسائل کو درست انداز میں حل نہیں کر سکتا اور غلبہ اسلام کی یہ تحریک ہماری نئی نسل کے معصوم ذہنوں میں کوٹ کرٹ کر بھر دی گئی ہے۔

آج امریکا کی دشمنی کرنے والے یہ تو بتائیں کہ اُن کا ضمیر اُس وقت کہاں سو رہا تھا جب مصدق اور سوئیکارنو کے تختے الٹے گئے اور امریکا نے ویتنام پر 25 سال جنگ برپا کئے رکھی؟ آپ براہ کرم یہ نہ سمجھیں کہ میں امریکا کے ظلم کی حمایت یا کوریسٹ امریکا کی حفاظت کرتا ہوں۔ میری التجا صرف اتنی سی ہے کہ امریکا دشمنی ہمیشہ سامراج دشمنی نہیں ہوتی۔

ایران میں ترقی پسند قوتیں بیوقوف بن گئی تھیں۔ اُن کا خیال تھا کہ ملاؤں کے ساتھ مل کر انقلاب برپا کریں گی اور بعد میں حالات قابو میں آجائیں گے، لیکن ایسا نہ ہو سکا اور اب یہ عالم ہے کہ وہاں جددیت اور ترقی پسندی کے نام لینے والوں کی زبانیں تک کھینچ لی جاتی ہیں۔ تو میرے لبرل اور ترقی پسند بھائیو اور بہنو: اس سے پہلے کہ ملاؤں کی بحث تمہیں قائل کرے، لاحول پڑھ کر سیدھے راستے پر نکل آؤ۔ جہاں انصاف ہر ایک کا حق ہے۔ جہاں مظلوم کی حمایت میں کھڑے ہونے سے پہلے اُس کا مذہب دریافت نہیں کیا جاتا، جہاں کسی کو اپنے عقیدے پر تکبر نہیں۔ جہاں کوئی مذہب، کوئی فرقہ، کوئی سائنس اور طرز حکومت اپنے آخری اور ابدی ہونے دعویٰ نہ کرے۔ جہاں لوگوں کو بدلتے وقت کا ادراک ہو۔ میرے بھائیو اور بہنو، ہزار سال سے زائد کا عرصہ گزر چکا ہے، آج کی دنیا میں عربی حملہ آوروں نے فتح پا کر خلافت نہیں جمائی۔ اپنی سوچوں کو ساقی میں منجمند نہ رکھو۔ صدیوں سے خود پسندی  اور فخر کے جس غار میں آپ بند ہیں وہ اب پہاڑوں کی حرکت سے گر رہا ہے۔ اگر آپ اس سے باہر نہیں نکلے تو ہمیشہ کے لئے اسی میں دن ہو جائیں گے۔ آپ غازی ہیں تو علم کی جیت کی خواہش کریں، شاہین ہیں تو سائنس کے افکار میں پرواز کریں۔ ہمیں خودکش بمبار نہیں بلکہ بے لوث مجاہدوں کی ضرورت ہے جو گاؤں گاؤں جا کر علم پھیلائیں۔ ہمیں ایسے جیالوں کی ضرورت ہے جو علم کے لئے آواز بلند کر سکیں۔ مجھے اپنی بہنوں کی ضرورت ہے جو ہماری قیادت کر سکیں۔

ختم   

Gladly, there are very few crackheads like Major Nidal Malik Hassan. But with politics of identity so prevalent, I worry someone else may also snap. Ever since the unfortunate events of 9/11, Muslims around the world have had it really tough. They are pigeonholed by the reactionary politics of identity.

Before I go any further, here is a note of caution to my American and Western friends: Major Malik was an aberration, not the norm. My name may be Malick, but that doesn’t mean you have to hassle me at the airport, or in banks and bars.

From what I have gathered so far, it seems the mass killer Hassan was a victim of a reactionary obsession with his identity. I am no Dr. Phil, but it appears he was unable to locate himself in public culture, even though public culture provides formal, and often ample, settings for definitions and experiences of identities. Identities are defined and experienced in settings that differ from the social spaces of public culture in multiple ways. The intimacy experienced within the family or in the process of worship or watching news or playing video games are all examples of identity-forming experiences. No matter where and how identities are defined, a pathological obsession with identity is repeatedly constructed on the politics of reaction.

This is exactly what has happened to many Muslims around the world, and I can cite several personal anecdotes to prove my point. For example, my cousin grew a beard and started to pray five times a day after 9/11 and my erstwhile socialist friends built mosques in the U.S. But these are personal stories and I’m sure you have several as well; just take a look at your Facebook and you will find religion pouring out of the “info” pages of your Muslim friends.

Why have we become so hyper-sensitive? Why have we become so consumed with only one aspect of our identity at the expense of all others? Why are Muslims doing poorly in the areas of economy, education, and social work? Granted, there is a worldwide economic crisis, but the economies of 57 Islamic countries have been hit the hardest by the global financial crisis, with the real GDP growth at a historical low of 1.2 percent, according to the Islamic Development Bank. I have not seen any paradigm shift in processes, any scientific innovation, any cultural breakthroughs or enviable examples of entrepreneurship coming from the Muslim world.

Morons like Major Hassan abound; there is an abundance of suicide bombers, but Muslim scholars are few and far between. There are no conferences on science, technology and progress, but rather Mullahs and tote scholars in our country hold conferences on creationism. Now there is something they have in common with fundamentalist Christians. Come to think of it, crazy Muslims have plenty in common with crazy Christians and crazy Jews and crazy Hindus. But I digress.

One can argue that Major Hassan was mentally ill and he might have been belonged to any religion, gender, or race. Agreed! After all, none of the previous mass shootings in the U.S. were perpetrated by Muslims. Anyone can go postal, if I may use the expression.

But when a Muslim-American commits such a heinous crime, his identity has a multiplier effect. He allegedly felt harassed as a Muslim in the U.S. military, and wasn’t treated as any American and soldier should be. He wore his religion on his sleeve, wearing his military uniform to services and a cap and tunic around his apartment complex. But one day, he discovered his car keyed and his “Allah is Love” bumper sticker ripped to shreds. A fellow soldier was charged, and the apartment manager where the two lived said the serviceman had recently returned from Iraq and was upset that Hassan is Muslim.
Whatever Hassan’s complaints may have been, there is no excuse for his actions; there are thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military, and they don’t go shooting fellow soldiers. There is no exact count of Muslims in the military. The Pentagon lists 3,557 Muslims out of 1.4 million U.S. service members, but the figure is likely low because disclosure is voluntary. This nut-case psychiatrist has made it seriously difficult for all Muslims in the military; his violent deed has the potential to unravel all the work of other Muslims to be accepted as loyal, dedicated soldiers. There is a great likelihood that the reputation of every Muslim in the armed forces may be yet another casualty of Hassan’s foolish bloodshed.

I have plenty confidence in the kindness of American people and I feel any backlash will be limited. I am glad that Muslim organizations did not waste time condemning this incident. A good friend from the Islamic Circle of North America said he was praying that this reprobate will turn out to be anything but a Muslim. Unfortunately, in this particular circumstance his prayers didn’t work.

Muslims are caught in a very vicious cycle of reactionary politics of identity. Coming out of it is extremely critical and will be the most challenging struggle Ummah has ever faced.