While the mullahs in Lahore were waging jihad (at least through their hateful speeches) many progressive Pakistani and Indians were praying for peace. PHOTO: REUTERS

My blog on Express Tribune

Image via CrunchBase

With the advent of the social web, a new level of interconnectedness between content and the content consumers has emerged – a new way of interacting with and accessing content. Washington Post (WP), for instance, can now be accessed through Facebook through WP’s social reader application.

Such an interconnectedness poses new frontiers in innovation and content consumption, there is no doubt about that. On the flip-side, however, this interconnectedness also poses new challenges (and opportunities) for content providers and content curators alike.

Understandably, a greater level of accessibility would lead to privacy issues if content providers had access to all data stored on another website. This obvious challenge in the new social web is overcome by authentication protocols such as OAuth:

“Everyday new website offer services which tie together functionality from other sites [...] a social network using your address book to look for friends, and APIs to build your own desktop application version of a popular site. These are all great services – what is not so great about some of the implementations available today is their request for your username and password to the other site. When you agree to share your secret credentials, not only you expose your password to someone else [...] you also give them full access to do as they wish. They can do anything they wanted – even change your password and lock you out.”

OAuth is a technology that, in simplest words, “delegates authentication”. That is, it lets users to allow partial access to their data without revealing the identity of the user. Most commonly, this can be seen in action when trying to authorize apps on social websites like facebook and twitter, or when a social network uses your address book to find friends.

OAuth’s flagship website has an interesting metaphor on what OAuth is – Valet Parking:

“Many luxury cars today come with a valet key. It is a special key you give the parking attendant and unlike your regular key, will not allow the car to drive more than a mile or two. Some valet keys will not open the trunk, while others will block access to your onboard cell phone address book. Regardless of what restrictions the valet key imposes, the idea is very clever. You give someone limited access to your car with a special key, while using your regular key to unlock everything.”

The advantages provided by a standardized protocol such as OAuth are obvious. In light of multiple APIs, one protocol allowing users greater privacy and accessibility is always more suited. Anybody who has been around the social web scene – which would be most of us – can see the significance and importance of such a standardized platform. A stable and ready to be implemented protocol is available on OAuth’s website, OAuth.net.

It is not a new concept, however: Different websites have their own versions of OAuth (some of these came before OAuth), such as Google AuthSub, aol OpenAuth, Yahoo BBAuth, Upcoming api, Flickr api, Amazon Web Services api and so on. But what OAuth aims to do is standardize the authentication methods on the web.

Image by leahculver via Flickr

Many websites may want to use their own APIs, but if OAuth can innovate fast enough and address a wide range of issues that APIs face today, its adaptation might become more widespread and diverse. From a content providers’ standpoint – it absolutely makes sense to use a standard protocol that “just works” rather than set up an authentication protocol for a new service.

With interminable new services and innovations in the web, such a technology will be in demand – and to a certain extent, it already is. If executed well, as is the case so far, OAuth may see a more widespread use and immense scale.

Image via CrunchBase

I was not surprised by the University of California Berkeley’s decision to pick Google over Microsoft. Several educational institutions have shown proclivity towards Google. I was intrigued that the decision was not purely based on cost. Speed and ease of migration, integration with Collaboration tools, API alignment, and usability were the key factors that led to UC Berkeley’s decision.

While there were areas where Microsoft Office 360 shined but overall result of the analysis led UC Berkeley to pick Google for productivity tools.

Here is a link to the detailed matrix.. most comprehensive comparative analysis between Google and Microsoft, yet.

The following matrix supports the recent email and calendar solution for the UC Berkeley campus. This matrix is *not* intended to be a comprehensive review of all features but rather focused on items of particular interest to UC Berkeley. This matrix was one tool used in our assessment and was designed and written particularly for the UC Berkeley environment. It is based on the opinions of the assessment team.

Image via Wikipedia

The evaluation was undertaken as part of the Operational Excellence (OE) sponsored Productivity Suite project and focused on features and requirements to meet key objectives of OE including service improvement, project and operating cost, speed of deployment, architectural alignment, accessibility, storage of data in the United States, and privacy and security issues. For more information, see Campus Selects Google as New Email and Calendar Solution.

Image via Wikipedia

Former ISI Director Brigadier Ijaz Shah sheltered Osama bin Laden in a safe house in Abbottabad.

The Jamestown Foundation website is blocked in Pakistan, and I am reposting (without permission) on my blog.

In spite of denials by the Pakistani military, evidence is emerging that elements within the Pakistani military harbored Osama bin Laden with the knowledge of former army chief General Pervez Musharraf and possibly current Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. Former Pakistani Army Chief General Ziauddin Butt (a.k.a. General Ziauddin Khawaja) revealed at a conference on Pakistani-U.S. relations in October 2011 that according to his knowledge the then former Director-General ofIntelligence Bureau of Pakistan (2004 – 2008), Brigadier Ijaz Shah (Retd.), had kept Osama bin Laden in an Intelligence Bureau safe house in Abbottabad. In the same address, he revealed that the ISI had helped the CIA to track him down and kill on May 1. The revelation remained unreported for some time because some intelligence officers had asked journalists to refrain from publishing General Butt’s remarks. [1] No mention of the charges appeared until right-wing columnist Altaf Hassan Qureshi referred to them in an Urdu-language article that appeared on December 8. [2]

In a subsequent and revealing Urdu-language interview with TV channel Dawn News, General Butt repeated the allegation on December 11, saying he fully believed that “[Brigadier] Ijaz Shah had kept this man [Bin Laden in the Abbottabad compound] with the full knowledge of General Pervez Musharraf…  Ijaz Shah was an all-powerful official in the government of General Musharraf.” [3] Asked whether General Kayani knew of this, he first said yes, but later reconsidered: “[Kayani] may have known – I do not know – he might not have known.” [4] The general’s remarks appeared to confirm investigations by this author in May 2011 that showed that the Abbottabad compound where bin Laden was captured and killed was being used by a Pakistani intelligence agency (see Terrorism Monitor, May 5). However, General Butt failed to explain why Bin Laden was not discovered even after Brigadier Shah and General Musharraf had left the government.

Image via Wikipedia

General Butt was the first head of the Strategic Plans Division of the Pakistan army and the Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) under Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1990 to 1993, and again from 1997 to 1999. Sharif promoted General ZiauddinButt to COAS after forcibly retiring General Pervez Musharraf on October 12, 1999, but the army’s top brass revolted against the decision and arrested both Prime Minister Sharif and General Butt while installing Musharraf as the nation’s new chief executive, a post he kept as a chief U.S. ally until resigning in 2008 in the face of an impending impeachment procedure.

Brigadier Shah has been known or is alleged to have been involved in several high profile cases of terrorism. The Brigadier was heading the ISI bureau in Lahore when General Musharraf overthrew Prime Minister Sharif in October 1999. Later, General Musharraf appointed Shah as Home Secretary in Punjab. As an ISI officer he was also the handler for Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was involved in the kidnapping of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. [5] Omar Saeed Sheikh surrendered to Brigadier Shah who hid him for several weeks before turning him over to authorities. In February 2004, Musharraf appointed Shah as the new Director of the Intelligence Bureau, a post he kept until March 2008 (Daily Times [Lahore] February 26, 2004;Dawn [Karachi] March 18, 2008). The late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto accused Brigadier Shah, among others, of hatching a conspiracy to assassinate her (The Friday Times[Lahore], February 18-24).                                                                                                                           

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistani top military brass had serious differences on several issues. One of the most serious of these concerned Pakistan’s relations with Osama bin Laden. However, the disastrous1999 Kargil conflict in Kashmir overshadowed all of these. General Butt says that Prime Minister Sharif had decided to cooperate with the United States and track down Bin Laden in 1999. [6] According to a senior adviser to the Prime Minister, the general staff ousted Sharif to scuttle the “get-Osama” plan, among other reasons: “The evidence is that the military regime abandoned that plan.” [7] General Butt corroborates this. In his latest interview, he says that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had constituted a special task force of 90 American-trained commandos to track down Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If the Sharif government had continued on this course, this force would likely have caught Bin Laden by December 2001, but the plan was aborted by Ziauddin Butt’s successor as ISI general director, Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmed. [8]

Arif Jamal is an independent security and terrorism expert and author of “Shadow War – The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir.”

Notes:

1. Author’s telephone interview with an Islamabad journalist who requested anonymity, November 16, 2011.

2. Altaf Hassan Qureshi, “Resetting Pak-U.S. relations” (in Urdu), Jang [Rawalpindi], December 8, 2011.  Available at http://e.jang.com.pk/pic.asp?npic=12-08-2011/Pindi/images/06_08.gif

3. See “Government – Army – America on Dawn News – 11the Dec 2011 part 2,”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4bYHC2_ito&feature=youtu.be

4. Ibid

5. Author’s interview with a security officer who requested anonymity, Islamabad, May 2000.

6. “Government – Army – America on Dawn News –December 11, 2011, part 1,”                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WLtaxxPPw.

7. Author’s interview with a former government minister who requested anonymity, Rawalpindi, February 2006.

8. “Government – Army – America on Dawn News –December 11, 2011, part 1,”                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WLtaxxPPw.

 http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=38819&cHash=b3da5dd4a1af2664ec4821b405dae77b

Image via Wikipedia

Cloud applications, software used in a utility model, introduces a new dimension in usability and scalability, but it also posses new challenges in identity and access management, among others.

Businesses that use applications such as Google Docs, WebEx, Salesforce among others have to understand and solve the challenge of user authentication and entitlement. How should an organization ensure that employees access only the data they are entitled to? How should an organization make sure all user data is synchronized among various systems? When a user leaves, how should they de-provision the accounts so all access privileges are revoked? And above all, how can organizations make sure that all this is done efficiently, so that the advantages of cloud systems are not undone by these new challenges?

Managing identities in the cloud efficiently is a growing challenge and given the exponential speed at which the users of these services grow, efficient identity management is imperative. Some of the challenges in the identity management are:

1. User Provisioning and Access Control: Companies face the most challenges when it comes to adding new users, and giving them limited amount of control. Not only is this time consuming, but it also required resources specifically dedicated to giving certain rights and access to accounts.

Image via CrunchBase

2. Automating users: In addition to the challenge of access control, provisioning of new users also need to be automated in order to be really scalable. This is currently not the case in most environments, where provisioning and de-provisioning of users is not automated. This requires time and dedicated human capital to focus on just adding new accounts and deleting unused, old ones.

3. Multiple Environments: When multiple environments are added to the equation, user management is especially difficult. Try to imagine synchronising information on hundreds of thousands of accounts on a daily basis, only in order to keep account data up-to-date in multiple environments. What is required here is a real-time data synchronization service that will update the multiple environments as and when changes take place.

Image via CrunchBase

4. Limiting Scalability: Cloud applications boast scalability as one of their main advantages, but in terms of identity management, this may not be true. In fact, the lack of automation and challenges of multiple environments as described above may lead to limiting the scalability of cloud applications. While the applications themselves might be immensely scalable, manual provisioning and de-provisioning of accounts may limit their instant usability.

5. Lack of Industry Standard: Cloud computing is a relatively new, albeit promising, industry. With anything new, challenges need to be overcome as they are implemented and scaled up. This is especially true in case of cloud applications, where each organization has its own set up and its own standard of synchronizing and provisioning data and user access management. The lack of such an industry standard poses considerable challenges that companies need to overcome in order to make efficient and full use of cloud applications.

Large companies such as Novell, are working on products that will help synchronize identities in multiple environments and automate the process of provisioning (giving users the access) and de-provisioning (revoking access). Identity Manager 4, the newest product from Novell claims that it will overcome the challenges currently posed in identity management. It’s a new product, and a promising one at that – perhaps such products can help towards a more standardized identity management solutions for companies.

Image via CrunchBase

New products and industries take a considerable time in becoming “perfect”, but this is a journey rather than a destination. Cloud applications have already shown their promise; their usability and scalability is unparalleled. Overcoming these challenges are a question of “when?” rather than an “If”. For now, these challenges need to be focused on and overcome, in order to make cloud applications more perfect.

Image by Ann Douglas via Flickr

Ask anyone why Pakistan is rapidly losing a competitive edge in the global economy and you are bound to get a variety of responses; but lack of law and order, arcane bureaucratic practices, and rampant corruption usually top the list. Ask how to address these problems and you will get a long list of recommendations beginning with combatting the growing menace of violence.  Despite the obstacles there is usually a consensus that transparency can address the bureaucratic quagmire and corruption, and encourage entrepreneurs to take risk, profit, and prosper.

In my previous columns I have suggested that technology plays a vital role in achieving transparency. Let’s first understand what transparency in governance actually means. Open Government means “making the government processes and lawmaking as comprehensive as possible so that they are more easily understood by the public, as well as engaging citizens and enabling them to provide feedback on government activities.” Doing so is of course integral to achieving a peaceful and progressive governance model.  In a country such as Pakistan, which has never had democratic set up longer than five years, the struggle to achieve a transparent government is now clearer than ever.

Many Pakistanis feel that our leaders are inherently corrupt and therefore democracy can’t function. But instead of trying to fix the problem, my friends often take an anti-democratic stance. Just because one’s leaders, civil and military bureaucracy is corrupt doesn’t mean one should glorify anarchy or dictatorship. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why not use technology to facilitate transparency in Pakistan’s governance model. Technology, if used adequately, has the potential of keeping politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, police and army officials honest.

In America the effects of technology on government transparency have been clear for several years, with websites such as Regulations.gov, usaspending.gov, and data.gov, allow those who wish to become more informed as to the inner workings of the nation’s political system to view documents and policies easily and conveniently. The Obama administration formally endorsed the concept of Open Government in 2009 and in just three years, investment in technology is already showing positive impacts.

Technology does not only serve the interest of the constituents but also provides opportunities for government agencies achieve economies of scale. In this way, the resources furnished by one government agency serve to improve another agency, as easily understandable data is placed in a centralized location.  Cross-agency sharing of data allows for unnecessary or inefficient practices to be examined or dispensed with.

Of course it is easy to understand how technology can be leveraged to enhance consumer awareness. It is no secret that many innocent citizens feel disenfranchised because of either petty fraud or coercion by local authorities. Awareness is always the first line of defense against localized fraud, schematic deception and bureaucratic coercion.

A practical example of the benefits of transparent government practices in America is Recalls.gov, a “smartphone” program developed by USA.gov.  As unfortunate as it may be, many products are recalled on a regular basis, some with very good reason.  Several regulating organizations including the Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly stream news of all their recalls to Recalls.gov, which posts real-time updates. An interactive database such as Recalls.gov makes the search for information and the struggle for consumer awareness much smoother. This wealth of information evolves constantly, thereby creating a fluid exchange between all levels of government, from the organizations based in infrastructure to the individuals themselves, including government employees and citizens.

Of course, technology can only accelerate transition; it doesn’t create the environment. A well considered policy that provides for checks and balances at multiple touch points reduces pilferage. To increase the confidence on public projects, it would make perfect sense for government agencies to post budgets and project plans online for anyone to see. Now if I see that 100,000 rupees have been spent on fixing a sidewalk in my neighborhood but no work or poor work was done, I can immediately report that on the website. I will be able to name and shame the contractor who took the money or thw civil engineer who signed off on the work. These are simple solutions a revolution is not needed to change Pakistan – just take simple baby steps in the right direction.

It is no secret that the same corrupt politicians, military and civil bureaucrats,  who loot and plunder the country will resist change, even if the prospects were bright for the country at large.

Crime  can be reduced simply by placing a sign that says “this establishment is under video surveliance”. These corrupt politicians and civil-military officials will be more cautious if they know that people are watching.

If you want to reduce corruption from Pakistan, you will need democracy- you will need people’s participation; technology enables that interaction.

Go to the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) and you will note this site that claims to be “The Official Web Gateway to the Government of Pakistan,” is less than impressive. You will find more engaging blogs and news outlets in Pakistan. There is nothing that I can do here… absolutely nothing. Compare this to websites I have mentioned above and you will began to understand the gap between an Open Government and one that only offers at best, a peep hole.

This article appeared in The News International: http://e.thenews.com.pk/12-19-2011/bfr_page3.asp

Ever since the Memo scandal our media mongers whose previous almost daily predictions over the past four years about the demise of the democratic government had fallen flat, seem to have got yet another dose of oxygen in their life-support system. They are now hallucinating and misusing some of my first reactions following OBL operation on May 2, 2011 to launch a charge sheet against me.

A section of the media has even ignored all professional ethics by twisting my clarifications to the media. They have been resorting to cherry picking from my comments to various channels subsequent to Osama’s killing.

The media has ignored the mysterious circumstances in which Osama was killed. I would like to remind them that initially everything was overly shrouded in ambiguity following the OBL operation. Pakistan’s security institutions were subjected to most humiliating comments by some of the leading columnists and TV anchors for having miserably failed to defend the territorial sovereignty of the country.

These renowned columnists and anchors had gone overboard in their criticism of the Pakistan army, the ISI and the government. Their comments were extremely unkind to Pakistan’s security apparatus. I distinctly remember that one of the most vocal editors in Pakistan then editing The Friday Times wrote on May 6th asking: “was the national security establishment doodling” when the American helicopters were operating in Abbottabad. It was even accused of caught “pants down”. 

It was, indeed, painful for me to see the unpatriotic dominant narrative. Whatever happens, we must stand together as a nation in unison and not blame each other in a moment of distress. And in the days right after 2nd May, the Pakistani media was doing exactly the opposite and thereby trying to create fissures within the government institutions.

It was distressing for me to see aspersions on Pakistan’s government; its civil and military leadership, that they had known about it prior to the operation. Since little was known of the May 2 operation, my immediate personal view was that as we had been sharing intelligence and co-operating with the US in operations against Al Qaeda since 2002 onwards, we must have been kept in the loop by the US as we were frontline state in war on terror.

But unfortunately we were not. And when we came to know of it I described it as being stabbed in the back by our friends. There could not be a stronger condemnation of the unilateral action of May 2nd than this. 

That Pakistan was not taken on board by the United States was later confirmed by American administration when they said that except President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a few others, no one else was taken on board from even within the US government itself.

In my immediate reaction and comments to the media I had claimed that Pakistan had been helping the United States in tracking down Osama and without our help it would not have been possible for the Americans to find him. My above assertion was confirmed by the Government of Pakistan on May 3rd in a press statement that states: “The government of Pakistan recognise that the death of Osama Bin Laden was an important milestone in fight against terrorism and that government of Pakistan and its state institutions have been making serious efforts to bring him to justice.” It was in this background that President Obama in his statement thanked for all the assistance and support extended by Pakistan. 

It may be mentioned here that the Government of Pakistan had categorically denied the media reports suggesting that its leadership, civil as well as military, had any prior knowledge of the US operation against OBL on 2nd May 2011.  

The above press statement further adds: “Abbottabad and the surrounding areas have been under sharp focus of intelligence agencies since 2003 resulting in highly technical operation by ISI which led to the arrest of high value Al Qaeda target in 2004. As far as the target compound is concerned, ISI had been sharing information with CIA and other friendly intelligence agencies since 2009. The intelligence flow indicating some foreigners in the surroundings of Abbottabad continued till mid April 2011. It is important to highlight that taking advantage of much superior technological assets, CIA exploited the intelligence leads given by us to identify and reach Osama bin Laden, a fact also acknowledged by the US President and Secretary of State, in their statements. It is also important to mention that CIA and some other friendly intelligence agencies have benefitted a great deal from the intelligence provided by ISI. ISI’s own achievements against Al Qaeda and in War on Terror are more than any other intelligence agency in the World.”

It was on the basis of our co-operation that CIA was able to track down OBL and the courier who had been frequenting OBL compound.

Had we had sophisticated technical knowhow to know about Osama’s presence in that compound, we would have nabbed him first. However, CIA did it because of its superiority in technology. What hurt us and amounted to stabbing us in the back was that we were not taken on board. This was stated by me time and again. The above is the factual and truthful position. At no stage neither I nor the military or civil leadership knew about the operation.
* The writer is Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK

On November 26, 2009 I saw a documentary on HBO narrated by Fareed Zakaria, a Mumbai born American journalist. ‘Terror in Mumbai.’ an extremely informative documentary compresses three days of mayhem – three days when ten Pakistani young men who had mobile phones and machine guns killed 170 people and wounded 300 more, sending shockwaves of fear around the world. I was horrified watching this 360-degree view of the terrorist act, recounted in harrowing detail – especially because these young men came from a country, I call my own.

And, I wrote an article Pakistan’s Star Role on HBO Documentary which was commented over 300 times. Mostly, accusing me of being an Indian agent, of course  I am reposting my thoughts of the documentary because I saw it again last night with a note to all those who had suggested that my article had assigned direct responsibility for Mumbai to the Government of Pakistan.  One can apologize for acts done in the name of one’s nation, or in this case one’s religion, by their governments, or by their citizens, without assuming direct and absolute responsibility; just as many anti-war Americans have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and apologized to the people for the war waged upon them by the U.S.  government.  I think here of the group September 11th Families for a Peaceful Tommorrow who have actively protested the war in Afghanistan and have even travelled  there to apologize directly to the people of Afghanistan.  It takes a big heart and courage to take such a position.  Pakistanis should muster up the courage and do the same.

“Terror in Mumbai” shows phone calls intercepted and recorded between these men sent on ‘jihad’ and their commander in Pakistan.  This conversation was hear wrenching and, so was statement of Kasab, the only gunman who survived. As this documentary depicted, these young Pakistan men received instructions over the telephone, leaving a trail of evidence that led Indian investigators to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a group fighting Indian rule in the disputed region of Kashmir. Pakistan’s military and ISI were also accused of backing the militants, a charge Islamabad has denied. New Delhi named 38 people in an 11,000-page charge sheet filed in a Mumbai court in February 2009.

At some level I feel sorry for these lost souls- poverty stricken, uneducated young men who were fooled by conniving leaders of LeT and other fundamentalist organizations,  However, I have no sympathies for their leaders- whomsoever they maybe. These characters have eroded the Pakistani society and have pushed us in a state of profound crisis.

I can’t forgive them because these morally corrupt LeT leaders have pushed us in a crisis that is complex, and multi-dimensional with facets that touch every aspect of our lives: our health and livelihood, the quality of our environment and our social relationships, our ideology, economy, and politics. It is a crisis of intellectual, moral, and spiritual dimensions; a crisis of a scale and urgency unprecedented in Pakistan’s 63 year history..

As a Pakistani-American, I stand today with my head down – embarrassed that my country has been hijacked by illiterate and irrational people – from self styled clergy to the army. These men will do anything they can to pursue their fantasy. Even if that means hoodwinking simple, young Pakistani men and murdering of innocent civilians on both sides of Indo-Pak border.

Undoubtedly, we must protect Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and dignity but these wayward leaders who exploit religion and patriotism have managed to drown the voices of reason and rationality. With Petro dollars supported tribal and Wahabi influence Pakistan’s social structures and behavior patterns have become so rigid that this country can no longer adapt to changing situations, it is unable to carry on the creative process of cultural evolution.

Read response to my earlier blogs and you will find an eerie uniformity of opinion. Even those who are tolerant, progressive, democratic are willing to condone terrorists in the name of Islam and nation. This uniformity and lack of self-reflection  are clear signs that our society is in the process of disintegration.

As I watched this documentary I was reminded of acts of terrorism Pakistanis witness everyday- every Pakistani is a victim. Unless Pakistan’s progressive and democratic forces are willing to take on the retrogressive elements we will concede our right to opinion, education and way of life.  Fundamentalists will prohibit freedom of expression and use all coercive apparatus to crush opposition. Education will be discouraged and whatever little is allowed, will be subverted by distortion of curricula. You can argue what is new- it has always been the case? It is the intensity that will change. We are not talking about FATA or NWFP or the tribal areas. This monster is already in cosmopolitan cities like Karachi and Lahore.

I was horrified to hear the Punjabi accent of those controlling these 10 terrorists. I was horrified when these young men were ordered to shoot hostages- I can’t express my anger and fear.

We, the Pakistani people should seek forgiveness from the families of those who lost loved ones in Mumbai. We should let the people of Mumbai know that we are just as much a victim. We should let them know that we don’t condone these acts of violence.

We, the Pakistani people should let our rulers know that they can’t indulge in adventurism like LeT anymore. We should let ISI and MI know that we will not pay their salary if they do not immediately cease all relations with all terrorist outfits.

But primarily I didn’t expect it because she had said taking the job of ambassador would be a demotion for her. About two years ago I had met at Shaheen Sehbai’s house in VA along with few other Pakistani journalists. Ms. Rehman was the guest of honor- she had already resigned as Information Minister protesting the curb on Pakistani media. I, of course, admired her courage and her principled stand. One of us had asked her if she would consider the position of ambassador and replace Husain Haqqani. She categorically said “no” – explaining that it will be a lower pay grade

Although I am saddened by entrapment of Husain Haqqani – I am relieved that Sherry Rehman will be representing Pakistan in Washington DC. At least Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani will be happy because unlike Husain Haqqani who was joint at the hip with President Zardari, Ms. Rehman has closer ties with the PM. And all the other names that were floating around would have been such an embarrassment for Pakistan.

Welcome Ambassador Sherry Rehman- hopefully you will keep us engaged at Twitter as well.

Express Tribune on it’s website has a good writeup Sherry Rehman, the chairperson of the Jinnah Institute, a former journalist and author.

She will be 51 this December and studied at Smith College.

She started her career as a reporter for the daily Star newspaper and then moved on to the monthly magazine Herald, where she was – at the age of 26 – the group’s youngest editor.

Rehman left Herald in 1998 and co-authored the book The Kashmiri Shawl: From Jamawar to Paisley.

She was elected to the National Assembly twice, in 2002 and 2007, on reserved seats for women. In 2008-2009, she declared assets of Rs210 million.

As a legislator, Rehman highlighted human rights issues as well as played an instrumental role in passing key legislation related to women’s rights.

Rehman worked closely with the late PPP chairperson and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and headed the PPP’s policy planning committee that developed the party’s manifesto for the 2008 elections.

After the PPP came to power, Rehman, was named Minister for Information and Broadcasting, and had the additional portfolios of Health, Women Development and Culture.

According to a leaked US Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, in a February 8, 2008 meeting with then US Ambassador Anne Patterson, PPP co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari said he was ‘struggling’ over who would be named Senate chairman. When he said the best candidate would be Farooq Naek, Zardari was asked who would be law minister. “That’s the problem,” he replied, “We don’t have enough good people.”  According to Zardari, Sherry Rehman “was dying for the job,” but Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam would never vote for a woman as Senate Chairman.

She resigned from her position in March 2009 over the government’s handling of the media, and won kudos from the press for taking a stance on the issue. Rehman was then replaced as the Pakistan Peoples Party’s information secretary.

After her resignation as minister, Rehman focused her attention to the Jinnah Institute, “a non-profit public policy organization based in Pakistan, which works as a non-partisan think-tank, advocacy group and public outreach institution.”

In late 2010, Rehman’s life was threatened since she submitted a private member bill suggesting amendments to the blasphemy law. Rehman was criticized by speakers at large-scale rallies and kept a low profile in the ensuing months, particularly after the assassinations of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer and the Minister for Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti.