Kamran Shafi

The writer is a retired army officer and a freelance columnist

kshafi1@yahoo.co.uk

Before I get on with this week's piece, I wish to clarify a matter I wrote about (for the second time) week before last because many readers have sent me e-mail asking that I do so. I had asked if our General was properly briefed by the Defence and Foreign Ministries on two important matters that he could have brought up with Prime Minister Tony Blair when he came a-calling at this delicate time. One was the 1995 declaration of the British Labour Party accepting Pakistan's stand on Kashmir in its entirety; the other had to do with the British announcing a one-off gratuity payment of 10,000 Pounds Sterling to the survivors (or in case they had passed on, to the widows) of Japanese POW camps in the Far East Theatre of the Second World War. Which offer was soon, quite shamefully as I said in my first piece on the subject almost six months ago, withdrawn for the 'natives', and restricted to those who served "The Crown in the 'British Armed Forces'" meaning of course white soldiers and airmen and sailors, Australians and New Zealanders included. I had asked why those that served in the British-Indian Army were not considered as having served "The Crown" too? Whose war were those young men fighting if not "The Crown's", I had asked. That article generated many Letters to the Editor in this newspaper and others, and I wanted last week to know if the Defence Ministry and the FO had done their homework and briefed the General, so that he might have brought up the matter at this, may I repeat, "delicate time".

I say "delicate time" because the West is rather seriously preoccupied with the thought that the army (which has been much infiltrated by Ziaist 'holy warriors', and therefore is much tainted) might well not back Musharraf all the way to the final decimation of obscurantism in our part of the world. This was therefore, a good time to remind the British Prime Minister that the payment of a piddling little sum to those very few POWs or their widows who are still surviving would be well received in the areas from which the mass of the soldiery are drawn - areas such as the old districts of Attock, Rawalpindi, Jhelum, and Gujrat; and the Frontier. The "trickle down" effect would be great indeed, and the West would be seen as standing by its words; of taking responsibility for those who sacrificed so much for the "Free World"; of wanting to help those in need, and not only as great powers who go back on their promises just as soon as their ends are served. Whilst I have had, quite understandably, no response from any one in government - for it does not read, it does not think - many readers did take keen interest. Therefore, this lengthy clarification. I might add that whilst I expect no reaction from the GOP this time either, I do hope the British High Commission will bring this matter to the notice of its government so that a grave injustice, which can only work to the West's detriment, is put right.

Right then. I must now address a letter in 'Newspost' of November 21st, written in response to my last piece in which I had attempted to say that it was just no good talking big whilst carrying a very small twig indeed (a catapult against the most horrifically deadly war-machine, so to say); of how foolish the Taliban were in taking on the might of several world powers at the same time, when they were so weak and debilitated; and that let alone taking out our nuclear assets, the Americans were angry enough to have gone to any lengths to teach us a lesson if we hadn't fallen in line. Merely to illustrate my point I had said that utter chaos would have ensued if the Americans had say, bombed just three bridges on the Ravi. This is what Mr Meinhaj Husain of Islamabad said in his letter: "Supposing your precious three bridges are destroyed. Supposing that all your cities are bombed. Supposing that your country is attacked and invaded. Supposing that every single Pakistani man, woman and child is killed. What then? What is it that you value most? Your life or Allah's commandments? There are people in this world who live by principles. Then there are the others." Whilst immediately joining the ranks of those "others" who wish to save their, and their friend's and countrymen's lives; and those of my children and grandchildren, and theirs - all gifts of the Almighty; and while praying for Mr Husain's and his family's welfare, let me ask him which of Allah's commandments he refers to? Is there a commandment asking Muslims to kill women and children, even in war? Is there a commandment saying that people, even those condemned to die by a proper court, should be hoisted by their necks at the end of crane jibs and very slowly be asphyxiated to death? Is there a commandment asking Muslims to castrate their enemies? Is there a commandment forbidding widows to work to feed their orphaned children? Is there a commandment, which says that the harshest punishments should be meted out by a government that does not even feed its people? Is there a commandment that forbids girl-children from going to school? Which particular commandment does Mr Husain refer to? Also, I take it that Mr Husain is sitting in some Afghan fastness, living by his "principles" and fighting alongside Mullah Omar's brave band. I trust he writes to The News via satellite telephone e-mail. It would ill-behoove him to sit in the pristine city that its denizens call Islamabad the Beautiful and lecture us on "principles".

So then, the Kurram Agency political wallahs have furiously denied that Maulana Sufi Mohammad of Malakand Sharif, he who has given the state of Pakistan much grief since long by kicking its poor "writ" in the teeth repeatedly (are you listening Mein President?), has not been sentenced to three years jail, as reported, alongside his thirty "followers" all of whom were apprehended sneaking back into Pakistan from Afghanistan whence they had gone amid drum-beats and much bravado some few days ago; armed to the teeth with Kalashnikovs, heavy machine-guns and rocket launchers. But why not? Why hasn't the Sufi Sahib been locked up? He did enter the country with forbidden weapons (are you listening General Moinuddin Haider), did he not? When will you stop pussyfooting for God's sake? When the devil will you start applying the laws of Pakistan to all its citizens, without favour to some? Why are you intent upon losing this God-given opportunity to cleanse our country of the criminals? Recall Shakespeare gentlemen, and take the tide now that it is at its flood. Otherwise, be prepared to lose it all, leaving the rest of us exactly where we started - at the mercy of the ill read. God give you the courage (strength you have) to do the right thing.

So then, the Geneva Convention is being rolled out by our government to try and save those misguided Pakistanis, poor things, who are about to be ditched by the great Taliban when they surrender Konduz to the Northern Alliance, the great armies of which haven't dared attack it, waiting (as usual) for US aircraft to finish the job before they go on their blood-letting spree. But, didn't we hear the US Secretary of Defence say loudly and repeatedly that the "foreign terrorists whether they are Chechen or Arab or from other countries should (read will) not be allowed to leave Afghanistan because they will then terrorise the world from elsewhere"? That they should "surrender or be killed"? Why do we do it? Why do we shove our heads into the sand? Why don't we listen? Why do we waste our breath, in the vernacular: "Apni baat ko kyun khud ghatatey hain"?

To wrap up, I must say that I am deeply disappointed that the great military strategists and admirers of the Taliban, Generals Beg and Hamid Gul are still knocking about in Rawalpindi and surrounding country. Why pray are they not in Kandahar advising Mullah Omar on "strategic defiance"?