From stories that raised concerns on the safety of nuclear assets to exposes that alleged Pakistan reverse engineered legacy Harpoon missiles; from allegations that ISI engineered attacks on the Indian embassy in Kabul to claims that ISI officials participated in high level Taliban meetings in Quetta; an image of ‘Pakistan gone wild’ is well established in the American imagination.

After a New York Times story last week claimed that Pakistanis had become “emboldened” by the firing of Gen. McChrystal, Pakistan has been painted in a box that can be very easily labeled ‘evil’ when needed. The New York Times story and subsequent commentaries on American TV channels claim that Pakistan is trying to exploit the Obama administration’s perceived vulnerability in Afghanistan to carve a larger role for itself.

Interestingly, none of the sources were named. As a journalist with nearly twenty years of reporting I understand one often needs to protect the source, but even after not finding WMDs in Iraq, even after recognizing how many critical mistakes were made in the past ten years, mainstream journalists continue to trust the ‘whisperers’ who say one thing on the record another behind closed doors. This duplicitous tactic puts Pakistan in a very tenuous situation.

Up until recently, American think tanks and officials had complained that Kabul and Islamabad were extremely hostile to each other and that they should work together. The entire AFPAK strategy was premised on the argument that you can’t have enduring peace without participation of all local stakeholders. I remember attending an elegant reception co-hosted by Pakistani and Afghan diplomats in Washington DC where Special Representative Holbrooke was positioned as the potential grand savior of the region. This reception was touted by the American administration as a clear demonstration that both the Afghans and Pakistanis were willing to work together. It was Holbrooke’s first milestone. Americans at that time complained that Kabul and Islambad had very siloed strategies and that was counterproductive.

But, now the American media has begun complaining that General Kayani and President Karzai are keeping the Obama administration out of loop.

One wonders why this story was leaked a few days before General Kayani and Lt. General Pasha are heading back to Kabul. New York Times on June 24 reports: “Though encouraged by Washington, the thaw heightens the risk that the United States will find itself cut out of what amounts to a separate peace between the Afghans and Pakistanis, and one that does not necessarily guarantee Washington’s prime objective in the war: denying Al Qaeda a haven.”

There is another, more ominous possibility, though. Perhaps the Obama administration is persisting in the tradition of a popular Bush camp negotiating tactic, and the NYT story is the “stick” that follows promises of supplemental military aid and enhanced engagement with Pakistan army.

This is a high stake “tactic” that was used by the Bush administration; dates of events and the names of people and places, would continuously transform along a trajectory of a lethal narrative. Somehow, the identities of the main players manage to elude the mesmerized spectators, who watch an endless cast of characters all playing the same role of “evildoer” in “multiple theaters of wars.” In an instant, a cave-dwelling religious fanatic becomes a nationalist dictator. In an instant, an ally becomes an enemy.

Citing unnamed sources, the New York Times writes, “Despite General McChrystal’s 11 visits to General Kayani in Islamabad in the past year, the Pakistanis have not been altogether forthcoming on details of the conversations in the last two months, making the Pakistani moves even more worrisome for the United States.”

This should be “worrisome” for Pakistan as well. Is the Obama administration preparing to put the blame of possible failure in Afghanistan squarely on Islamabad? Or is it possible that Pakistani Generals are misreading an American exit strategy as ‘retreat’ and demanding a bigger role for Pakistan through extremist proxies?

Either scenario is lethal for Pakistan.

If the United States faults Pakistan for it’s failure in Afghanistan there is a possibility of direct retaliation against Pakistani assets that will not bode well for the region. And, if the Pakistan army is really pushing the Haqqani network and GHQ still views extremists as ‘strategic assets’, the country has no hope of progress.

A well placed CENTCOM source Washinton told us today that despite some posturing by democratically elected government of Pakistan, country’s Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani will get an extension to his tenure.

Fourteenth chief of the Pakistan Army, General Kayani (55) was promoted to the rank of General in October 2007, with the title of the Vice Chief of Army Staff. Very next month (November 2007), General Kayani moved-up as the Army Chief after General Pervez Musharraf retired.

Our CENTCOM source says the current Pakistani General has developed strong working relation with his American counterparts and it will be “in the best interest of the operation not to change leadership mid-stream.”

On his part, General Kayani has assured Obama administration that his army will play in their “own sandbox” and not disrupt the civilian setup, our source said.

Earlier today in Pakistan, Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar had said that the PPP-led Government was not giving any extension to Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Defense Minister, however, had put a caveat to his statement: “he (Gen. Kayani) has not asked for the extension of his tenure.”

In March when a high level Pakistani delegation came to Washington for high-level talks, General Kayani was the “top dog,” who negotiated most aspects of the strategic dialogue.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani had opened a reception at the embassy declaring that General Kayani: “embodies the conviction of the Pakistani armed forces, not just to defend the frontiers of Pakistan but also to ensure the continuity of constitutional democratic rule in accordance with the aspirations of our people of Pakistan.”

Ambassador Haqqani, whose diplomatic tenure was set to expire this month has also received one year extension.

“Haqqani and Kayani are both key stakeholders and extremely valuable contacts for the American government,” our source said.

General Kayani had meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, and other senior U.S. military officials during his visit to Washington.

“He (Kayani) had assured American leadership that his army does not plan to remove the elected government from power,” our source said.

Civilian rule returned to Pakistan in 2008 after General Pervez Musharraf resigned, but the army has not given up its dominance of key security issues.

ISI Chief Lt. General Pasha has also recieved extension to his tenure recently. “Pasha has worked dilligently to restore confidence of American intelligence community,” our source said.

“With Kayani as head of army, Pasha leading ISI and Hussain Haqqani in Washington, we feel comfortable,” our source who said.

Of course terrorist don’t celebrate mothers day because “others” have no mothers. Where is the mother of Faisal Shazhad? Where is the mother of his children? We will never see or hear from them. They must be kept invisible less we get the impression that he may actually be a human being, birthed by a female of our very own species.

Likewise the American media will never show the images of Aafia Siddiqui’s mother crying as she recalls the last day she saw her daughter. They will never show the images of the children who were deprived of their mother for seven long years. And, we will never be allowed to hear from the mother herself, to explain why she could not recognize her own son.

Motherhood is indeed problematic for the War on Terror. Aafia Siddiqui was completely stripped of her motherhood during her early depiction as Al Qaeda’s number three. When news finally begin to emerge not only of her disappearance but that of her three small children she was suddenly recast from the evil scientist to “terror mom” whose job now was to “have lots of babies” and “raise lots of little jihadis”.

I have no doubt that many would argue; what about the terrorists attempts to take innocent lives depriving our mothers of their children and our children of their mothers? But all the more reason to hear from the mothers of alleged terrorists. Perhaps they can spare us the endless speculation on how and why their kids became terrorists. After all, they raised them?

It’s not just the mother’s of alleged terrorists who disappear, but all the mothers who are victims of the War on Terror often described as Wars of terror. Never in the American media does one see or hear the mothers of children killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never does one see or hear mothers of any of the U.S. soldiers killed or wounded. The only American mother who tries with monumental will to overcome this silencing, Cindy Sheehan, is marginalized by the mainstream media, as a bereft nut.

And when news of children being hurt or killed does inadvertently makes it’s way to the American media it is again blamed on the cold-hearted terrorists for “using their children as human shields”. In fact U.S. soldiers were shown on a recently leaked video indiscriminately firing on a van filled with unarmed civilians including several children. When the soldiers who were shooting realized that the children had been hit they laughed about it and said “well its their fault for bringing their kids into a battle”.

But this Mother’s Day, 9 years into the War on Terror, is the day to remember all those mothers who have been disappeared. It is also the time to demand to know the whereabouts of the latest mother to disappear the mother of Faisal Shazad’s two children, Huma Mian. Given the allegations of both the ISI as well as CIA’s involvement in the abduction of Aafia Siddiqui and her children; given the U.S. DOD’s own internal reports admitting its willingness to use family members including children in the interrogation of terror suspects; it is urgent that the public, Human Rights Watch, The Red Cross, and Amnesty International verify that Huma Mian and her children are safe and protected.

Motherhood is more than just problematic for the War on terror, it is fundamentally irreconcilable with it. You cannot celebrate mothers day if you tolerate war. Motherhood is about giving life, and war is about taking life.

Why is it that Muslims from Qatar or Oman: Muslims from India, Bangladesh, Malaysia or Indonesia not under scrutiny? Why is it that a Pakistani has to go through “enhanced” security measures at American airports while Muslims of many other countries walk with their heads high? If we are judged by the company we keep ask yourself why you are in the company of Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Libya and Syria? Ask yourself what is common between these nations?

In my opinion these countries are defined by the absence of mature governance model and corrupt, uneducated, greedy leadership.
Why is that we don’t have highly educated Pakistanis in parliament and cabinets? Where are our PhDs hiding? Why isn’t Proferssor Manzoor Ahmad, Pervez Hoodbhoy or Ayesha Siddiqui running the management of country?

I believe in past six decades we have nourished a culture that protects and respects illiterate thieves- not only in politics but also business. A handful of privileged and filthy rich Pakistanis collude to artificially raise prices of important commodities like sugar and cotton.

I always wonder how a nation in the throes of one war and a half on two fronts, an undernourished, calamity stricken nation like Pakistan condones such behavior on the part of a few rich, self-interested people. These people are the real terrorists of the land; they deserve to be caught, imprisoned and punished for the way in which they are corroding the economy of Pakistan, and by their ill devised foreign policy diluting our brand in the world.

Look closer at these robbers and you will find them in military uniforms, parliament, senate and cabinets. These corrupt elite of Pakistan are responsible for not only destroying economy but their adventurism has put us in harms way.

Why is it that Pakistanis are under microscope in the US and Europe? It is because our military leaders with modest IQ and strong muscles can twist arms (or abduct or kill or both) anyone who does not agree with them.

Pakistani entrepreneurs have learned that they can make crazy profit by playing by the rules of army bosses. And, Pakistani journalists realize that their job security comes from perpetrating the propaganda of men in uniforms.

Last September, a largely unknown raid at the premises of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association revealed that a number of sugar mill owners had formed a cartel like structure and were engaged in “extensive institutionalization of collusive behavior.”

The agency, which has been struggling to make a foothold for its antitrust laws in Pakistan’s largely feudal economic climate, established how the affluent owners of the 82 sugar mills planned to raise the price of sugar by unfair pricing practices.

Guess who owns these sugar mills? 35% are owned by retired Pakistan army officials and another 40% are owned by the leaders of two major political parties.

Why Pakistani nation is not outraged?

While Pakistan was still struggling through the sugar crisis, unscrupulous parties and untoward economic conditions seem to have come together to create another commodity crisis in Pakistan, this time, of cotton.

Cotton prices rose to Rs 7000 per maund in April. The new crop is yet to arrive, and various international bans and embargos have produced a big deficit in the available amount of cotton. People with old stocks of cotton are taking advantage of the situation to make a killing, knowing that they are killing the economy itself. In just a short week last month, there was a Rs 1000 appreciation in the price of prime stock cotton while the textile industry pitted against peers to buy as much of the previous year’s stock as they could.

And, guess who owned majority of the old stocks? Three retired Major Generals in Punjab- had hoarded a large lot. Several well wishers of Mian family and a very close ally of Mr. Gillani.

The country has been most hit by a ban on import from India, Pakistan’s principal supplier of cotton. Pakistan has had to buy cotton at high rates from expensive sellers of other countries.

Pakistan’s textile industry has to supply pending orders from foreign buyers in the developed world, and cotton bought at very high prices kills their margin. And, this calamity has also raised the price of cotton domestically, and that does not bode well for the ordinary Pakistani, who now has to shell out more than twice as much as the old price of cotton. Prices of garment in Pakistani markets have become unbearable for a middle class family to even purchase uniforms for their school going children.

Why are Pakistani people not outraged? Why are Pakistani journalists not talking about this?

Overall Pakistan need to import at least 1.5 million bales of cotton to contain the crisis. The deficit is a shock, because India, with very similar climactic and soil conditions, has a record surplus this year.

The Karachi Cotton Association has fixed the official spot rate, or base price of Grade 3 cotton, at Rs 7180 per maund. At such prices, ordinary citizens of Pakistan will find it very hard to buy and wear cotton this year.

With severe economic crisis at hand, Pakistani leaders go around the world to beg and borrow, while they continue to steal from their own people.

And, guess what is your favorite TV anchor doing right now? Preparing a show that will ask the same question: why does America hate Muslims? Please remind them it is not religion – it is their policies.

Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: “the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”  I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. Through leaks that are whispered in our ears, however, we were told that Americans commissioned studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads. Talk like this only serves to embolden those terrorist elements that seek to destabilize the entire region.

I didn’t get a clear sense as to what President Obama might do in Pakistan – and that makes me more nervous. What we hear is that the US will not do anything overt in Pakistan to deflect criticism and mitigate risk. A report in New York Times suggest (again based on leaks) that there will be a two pronged approach- CIA  led covert operations and, to mitigate risks ,the US will sub-contract the overt war within Pakistani borders to the nation’s army.

So basically President Obama confirmed the narrative that was being constructed through leaks to the media for the past 8 years.

Report also claim that President Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan and the Pakistan army is onboard. Many Pakistanis fear that more U.S. troops mean more of the nightmare that we have been living with for the past several years including  more drones, additional CIA and private boots on the ground operating co-overtly, more money for the ISI, and moral support for the army.  Don’t be surprised by drone attacks in Baluchistan as well.

President Obama defined his strategy with three core elements: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

In the corridors of West Point we met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I asked her what will happen if Pakistan’s democratic government was destabilized. She said “we hope it won’t come to that”. We know people of Pakistan want democracy. We hope whatever the political problems are internally they will be worked out in a lawful and constitutional manner.”  When asked if her government will engage with a dictator should martial law be implemented in Pakistan, she responded, “ in my dealings with the military leadership I have no indication that they are looking to do anything except supporting the democratically elected government.”

Here is the transcript because YouTube audio is not that good:  

{Obama administration has been very supportive of democratic process in Pakistan but the democratic government seems instable. What will be the impact if current government is destabilized?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that because the people of Pakistan want democracy and we hope whatever internal political problems there might be can be worked out in lawful and constitutional manner. What’s important is for us to partner with Pakistani people. So of course when I came to visit I met with democratically elected government officials – president and prime minister and foreign minister and other ministers as well as members  of parliament. We also met with the military, head of ISI. We believe the future for Pakistan is so positive but of course there has to be stability. There has to be kind of security that military is fighting for in South Waziristan. And, there has to be kind of political stability that comes with a solid democracy. We hope that can be worked out.

Will you engage with Pakistani military if there was a martial law?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t want to speculate. I think that — in my talking to the military I didn’t get any indication that they have any intention of doing anything except supporting democratically elected government. Now, I know there are all kinds of challenges to the current government that is for the people of Pakistan- your political process to work out. But of course we want to see a strong, vibrant democracy. And, that is what we are going to continue to support.}

Off the record conversations with US officials indicated that they have diversified contacts in Pakistan: Mr. Hollbrooke called Mr. Nawaz Sharif prior to Obama’s Afghanistan strategy speech. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is talked about with more respect than ever before.

It is pretty evident from Ms. Clinton’s response above as well that democratic process should not be confused with President Zardari’s rule. I believe Americans realize that President Zardari may have only symbolic position going forward and they are prepared to deal with anyone and everyone who represents Pakistan.

I really hope New York Times report is incorrect that there is no expansion of the war. I, absolutely support eradicating terrorists where ever they maybe: but in the process let’s not create more terrorists.

HBO today televised a documentary 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.

Phone calls intercepted and recorded between these men sent on ‘jihad’ and their commander in Pakistan were heart 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.

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, 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, India is a belligerent regional hegemony and 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.

Update:  To all those who have suggested that my article assigns direct responsibility for Mumbai to the Government of Pakistan, let me be clear that is not what I am saying.  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.

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.