|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
analysis Pricy or
piracy Yeh Woh governance Caught
on spies’ turf Held,
charged, released
analysis There can
be no hope for a fair, legitimate and mutually beneficial US-Pakistan By I.A. Rehman The present difficulties in
US-Pakistan relations may be more serious than ever but the fault lines were
visible from the very beginning, namely, the tendency on either side to use
friendship solely for its own advantage. True, all countries, with the
possible exception of states like Pakistan, devise their foreign policies in
their own national When the United States started taking interest in Pakistan’s requests for military and economic aid in the early 1950s it had only one interest in mind — to fight communism. There were no doubt some elements in Pakistan’s leadership opposed communism for their own reasons, but many more became anti-communist in order to improve their eligibility for the American patronage and their largesse. But Pakistan’s leadership as a whole, especially its military and military-backed civilians among both politicians and bureaucrats, wanted US military aid solely to raise the country’s capacity to take on India. The US never accepted this and repeatedly told Pakistan that the weapons they were giving were not to be used against India. Indeed, President Eisenhower did not sign Pakistan’s military aid bill until he had written to Nehru to assure him of this conditionality. The government of Pakistan knew of the US position on this point all along but chose not to take its people into confidence. Instead, they reinforced the public view that the US military aid was meant to enable Pakistan to take Kashmir by force. That is why when the US suspended aid at the time of the 1965 conflict the people of Pakistan felt betrayed and anti-American sentiment grew, though for the wrong reason. Other factors also contributed to estrangement between the US and the “most allied of the allies” (Ayub’s song). The civilian government during 1947-52, with all its faults and shortcomings, had a sense of national interest, as evidenced by its recognition of the People’s Republic of China soon after the 1949 revolution and its decision to profit from the Korean war without sending troops to join the UN-backed forces mobilised against North-Korea. The US-Pakistan understanding grew in real terms with the rise of the Ghulam Mohammad-Ayub Khan clique and it ran parallel with the suppression of democracy in Pakistan, though it is wrong to blame the Americans alone for that. Pakistani public has always been worried by the realisation that US-Pakistan relations have peaked always during military regimes here, Ayub’s, Zia’s and Musharraf’s. Even the pacts of the 1950s were negotiated when the military had become a key disposer of this nation’s fate. It is possible that the civilian-democratic regimes too could have taken the same path, but all matters might not have been made subject to a warped security theory. At the level of leadership Pakistan chose to ignore the fact that the US had turned to Pakistan only when India, riding high on the crest of the non-alignment wave, had spurned its advances. In that situation supporting Pakistan on Kashmir was good politics for the US but this period was very brief. As India reversed its policy towards the US so did the latter reverse its policy towards Pakistan. When the US decided that Kashmir was to be settled by India and Pakistan bilaterally, the UN stopped taking interest in the matter. For 40 years or more, the issue has been on the back-burner and whenever it does not figure on the General Assembly’s agenda our Foreign Office and the professional advocates of Kashmir make some noises and consider restoration of the matter on the agenda a major triumph. Even today some Pakistanis take offence at Washington’s growing collaboration with India which betrays a whopping ignorance of Big Power politics and a refusal to accept India’s position in the region. This is not an issue to have a quarrel with the USA. One more aspect of Pakistan-US relations during 1952-1979 was that while Pakistan was always indecently keen to receive US military aid it had reservations about meeting its part of the bargain. For instance, it said yes to arms aid and the policy of Soviet Union’s encirclement, but it started feeling uneasy about the Badaber base when its existence could not be concealed. During the phase of US-Pakistan collaboration which began on the basis of Reagan-Zia understanding also Washington and Islamabad could not achieve unity of purpose. While the US was interested only in pushing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, and possibly in avenging its retreat from Vietnam, Ziaul Haq had started entertaining ambitions regarding Afghanistan that had imperial overtones. By allowing Zia to undermine the attempts to script a scenario for Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, the US contributed to the crises during 1985-2001 that have not been solved to this day and have exacted a huge price from the people of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the latest phase of the US-Pakistan relations again the partners in the war on terror are separated by the gulf of mistrust caused by different interpretations of the joint undertaking. Each side blames the other for not respecting its interest. After relying for long years on the military alone the US realised, vide the Kerry-Lugar Bill, that Pakistan had a civilian authority too, on whose supremacy the whole democratic edifice rested. We know what happened. Matters deteriorated further when the US started developing its own intelligence network instead of relying on Pakistani services under pacts old and new, and gave Pakistanis cause to complain. And when the US got Osama in a clandestine operation its relations with Pakistan’s military establishment ebbed to the lowest possible level. The main cause of trust deficit between the two allies was Musharraf’s doublespeak. He agreed to fight terrorists in one area and protected them elsewhere, little realising that his attempts to be clever with the Americans were sowing the seeds of Pakistan’s destruction. What is happening now is a tussle for a new understanding with each side wanting to gain more than the other and nobody can say that neither side has an agenda that dies not cause anxiety to the other. Matters have been complicated by differences over the Drone attacks. Human rights advocates do have a problem with Drone operations, but military experts perhaps have little options in the choice of weapons in an all-out war. Many Pakistanis concentrate only on the fact that the US cannot defeat terrorism without their help but they forget that they too cannot fight the terrorists without the US help. While neither the US nor any other state is going to approve of some Pakistanis’ dream of acquiring strategic depth by bringing Afghanistan under their hegemony, Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns in a post-conflict situation cannot be easily dismissed. A section of the Pakistani people believes the US is unlikely to abandon the strategic outpost it has found Afghanistan to be and could be looking for another base in the region in the event it has to exit completely from Afghanistan. Another serious issue that causes tension between the US and Pakistan is Washington’s open advocacy of India-Pakistan détente, a plea no sensible Pakistani, who can appreciate his national interest, can disagree with. But the idea upsets the traditional India-baiters so much that they forget all the benefits they have received from the US and turn against her. Above all, Pakistan is now in the grip of an anti-American wave generated by a suicidal infatuation with quasi-religious militancy. There are many valid reasons for disagreeing with the US policies and for protesting against the economic bondage to Washington but the extremists’ hostility to US cannot be one of them. No one who attacks the US out of partisanship with extremists cannot have Pakistan’s interest at heart. It is quite easy to see that whatever problems the US and Pakistan face in evolving a smooth and mutually beneficial relationship are of a political nature. Even the conduct of operations against terrorists is a political matter and it will never be solved by military means alone. This means that leaving matters entirely in the hands of military experts will further complicate the situation. The decisive role must be played by civilian, representatives from both sides who may be fully briefed by their military experts. Ultimately, however, there can be no hope for a fair, legitimate and mutually beneficial US-Pakistan relationship until each side gives up the old habit of ignoring the other’s interests and looking at bilateral relations as a one-sided affair in its own limited interest. The real question is how long will Pakistan like to stay in the world of 1950s, that is, developing its external policy on the basis of irreversible confrontation with India and relying on the United States’ ability to see the world through Islamabad’s tinted glasses? Pakistan can have good relations with the US and India both in accordance with the Quaid-i-Azam’s motto — “friendship with all and malice towards none”. The world is changing fast and different countries are coming out of the shadows of the Cold War. This is the time for concerted efforts to prevent the world from again being divided into blocs in the interest of arms manufactures and mercenaries. The US may not feel the pressure for changes in its outlook on the world for some time but Pakistan cannot afford to lose any time in finding security in a regional framework and by giving primacy to its relations with its closest neighbours. Pricy or piracyPakistan
ranks 15th in the world with the volume of By Haneya Hasan Zuberi Anum Khan is a second year student studying at CMH Medical Hospital, Lahore. Studying in a private medical college consumes almost her year’s entire budget. In addition, the pricy books required for her coursework do not ameliorate her situation at all. So if she has an option to choose between a cheap pirated book and an expensive original one, which one do you reckon she picks? “I will go for the
pirated book,” she says, “The text is the same, the pictures are the
same, and this gives me no Similarly, if you walk in a hustling bustling DVD shop anywhere in the country, you are ninety nine times more likely to end up purchasing a pirated DVD as opposed to an original one. Now why is that so? The owner of a DVD shop in Gulberg, Lahore, who wishes to remain anonymous, says, “We only get pirated DVDs because they are incredibly cheap for us and have a huge market-value.” According to him, “Usually people do not even have much awareness about what ‘kind’ of DVD they are here to purchase. If the print is good, they go for it.” He adds, “Only one per cent of the people who come here ask for original DVDs. We sell originals for Rs475 and the pirated one for Rs50.” At Hafeez Centre, one of the most famous software markets in Pakistan, finding original software is a difficult task as most of the shops there don’t even deal in it. According to Nadeem Khan, the anti-piracy executive at Microsoft Pakistan in Karachi, “Piracy rate in Pakistan is almost 84 per cent now while in India it is 64 per cent. We are one of the top countries in the world when it comes to piracy. Contrary to the popular belief, numerous big firms in the country use pirated software because it is cheaper and more widely available. Majority of the home users buy pirated software only. Only 16 out of 100 home users will have genuine software.” “But at the same time, there are many multinational companies operating in Pakistan which only use genuine software. In addition to that, there are many firms which are trying to keep up with the international standards, hence they also make use of original software, but they are only 16 per cent of all the software users,” Khan adds. “As of last year, the volume of piratical industry in Pakistan is $217 million. When it comes to piracy, Pakistan is ranked 15th on the list of 116 countries worldwide. Copyright is a legal term which describes the rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Sadly, up till now no criminal syndicate carrying out this illegal practice has been caught,” says Khan. When it comes to piracy in books, a totally new culture with a new generation of book purchasers can be seen emerging. There are many stores which are selling really cheap pirated books. There are many book stores with a huge clientele that offer very affordable prices of the pirated books. Many book stores are running out of business in the US because of very low turnout of people due to expensive books and people prefer going to libraries. But when it comes to Pakistan, ironically, where the library culture is almost non existent, this illegal activity is making books accessible to those who enjoy reading. Like India has done, Pakistan can also bring down the prices of original books by opening branches of foreign publishing houses. This is how the books will be reprinted with the group effort of publishers. This will make original books more affordable and people will be able to read without being a part of the criminal activity. Selling combs to the bald By Masud Alam “Pakistani media is in its infancy.” I was a young man when I first heard this disclaimer in defence of immature and clumsy content, particularly on TV. I have hit middle age and I still get to hear the refrain. The TV medium in this country simply refuses to grow up. When private news channels started at the turn of the millennium, they copied the state-run PTV — president always at the top of the news bulletin, followed by prime minister, and then the riff raff. Gradually, it weaned itself away from the state broadcaster’s breasts and started copying Indian television, which incidentally is more of an infant in comparison. Lately, it has been borrowing from either side of Atlantic as well. Of course everyone can’t be, and doesn’t have to be creative. So it’s alright for our telly producers to imitate others, though it’s never easy to understand why they would only pick the cheesiest content and style to follow. As a result, the news content on television seems more of
a joke than the spoof news bulletin done in the name of But not all is rotten in the state of Tellyland. The entertainment channels are offering some fine drama and music, season after season. The drama serials are particularly strong and fresh, but just as unwatchable, because they are buried under a barrage of advertising. For every five minutes of a play, the viewer must endure ten minutes of commercials. And cheap, unintelligent commercials at that, played at a frequency that aims to annoy the viewer to the point of hating the product or brand being advertised. Okay, let’s keep things in perspective. One, ten minutes long commercial break is a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but only a bit. Two, someone has to pay for the content telly channels produce, and that ‘someone’ happens to be the advertiser. Three, the advertiser has the right to seek mass market for their products or services. And four, we the viewers are not stupid. We have the right to enjoy our electronic entertainment without being encumbered with unwelcome and unreasonable interruptions. And what we get is a series of adverts running on the loop 24/7, interrupted briefly by the programming. The media owner is happy to see the prime time slot overflow with profits. The advertiser is happy in the knowledge millions of people are getting their sales message through media. And the viewer? The viewer is having the last laugh. Instead of learning the art of being happy by switching to a particular mobile phone service, or being prosperous by opening an account with a particular bank, the smart viewers are using their remote controllers to change channels faster than a host can say ‘we’ll be right back’. And by so doing they not only evade large groups of men and women dancing rapturously because they have found the right mobile service provider or the milk that’s perfect match for their tea, but also reward themselves by watching two or three plays in the same time slot. The longer the commercial break, the better chance we have to catch up with what other channels are on to. There are even smarter viewers who have given up on television altogether without having to miss anything. They still get to watch their favourite drama serial or a particularly nasty confrontation on a talk show the night before … on YouTube. You can watch complete episode or a whole season, in one sitting, and you can be sure of no interruptions other than power outages or your spouse or sibling pushing you away so they can have their turn at the computer. And just to reassure the poor advertiser, not all the viewers are ditching your sales pitches on which you spend millions of rupees. Only the ‘smart ones’ are. You still have the attention of the dumb and the infirm. masudalam@yahoo.com Back to British Raj Is the Sindh government attempting to address problems of the 21st century with the 19th century commissionerate system? By Amir Zia On July 13, the Sindh Assembly restored the time-tested legacy of British Raj, known in our part of the world as the “commissionerate system”. In what may appear as a befitting tribute to democracy, the Sindh Assembly lawmakers belonging to the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and its allies passed three controversial ordinances by a simple majority in barely 15 minutes, which repealed the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s Local Government Order of 2001 and amended the Sindh Land Revenue Act of 1967. One of the bills revived the British-era Police Act of 1861 by scarping the Police Order 2002. The move is being described by the government loyalists
as a victory for the democratic forces, though it is all set to increase
polarisation and division in the ethnically diverse and volatile province of
Sindh, which is drifting from one The PPP Sindh leaders claim that the Musharraf-era system remained alien to both masses and the administration and they wanted the old system back, but their rivals say that it gave powers to the grassroots level. The government’s move first came in the form of Ordinances soon after its one-time ally, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which supports the Musharraf-era local government system, quit the treasury benches and its Sindh Governor tendered his resignation. Within four days of the passing of the controversial ordinances, which restored the commissionerate system, the government got them passed in the assembly despite the bitter opposition of the MQM. Although Sindh Governor Dr Ishrat ul Ibad resumed his responsibilities on July 18 indicating a thaw in the relations of these two parties, the brewing crisis over the commissionerate system appears far from over. As the MQM continues to sit on the opposition benches despite having its man as Sindh Governor, one of its leaders, Wasay Jalil, says that his party will continue its campaign for the restoration of Musharraf-era local government system. “We say that if there were flaws in the 2001 Local Government Order, they should be removed,” he says. “We are demanding this not just for Karachi, or Sindh, but for the entire country. Instead of living in the 21st century, the vested interests want to drag us back to the 19th century. We only harm ourselves by repeating the past experiments.” Sindh remains the only province where the Musharraf-era system has been scrapped altogether by the elected representatives. In Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, nominal changes have been brought in this system through executive ordinances. Fahim Zaman Khan, a former PPP-nominated mayor of Karachi, who now leads a civil rights group, says that Sindh has reverted back to the 1979 Local Government Ordinance, while other provinces have made only symbolic changes, including restoring the old administrative titles. “Under the constitution, the local government is a provincial subject. The Musharraf government took the political, administrative and financial powers away from provinces and gave them to districts in the name of devolution and decentralisation. However, the military government made no attempt to transfer powers from the centre to the provinces. The step was taken with bad intentions from the day one,” Khan says. “It was akin to Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracy, which was aimed at weakening political parties and dividing the people on the basis of ethnicity, clans, tribes and regions. Musharraf followed the footsteps of Ayub in his bid to eliminate the provincial authority,” Khan adds. The traditional political forces viewed the 2001 local government system as full of anomalies and contradictions compared with the Municipal Act of 1848, enforced by the British East India Company. Under the Musharraf’s planned system, police had to report to the elected nazim, but this part of the reform was never implemented, which, for many of its critics, led to the police becoming a “monster”. Under the British Raj, they say, responsibilities and duties of police remained clear. For instance, police were not allowed to open fire without orders from the magistrate, but Musharraf gave this power to the police force itself. Taj Haider, a senior PPP leader, says that Musharraf’s ordinance also remained in conflict with the constitution. “The system was full of loopholes… indirectly elected people were given vast financial powers.” He says the PPP reverted back to the Ziaul Haq-introduced 1979 ordinance because it was closer to the spirit of constitution compared with the one introduced by Musharraf, which could not be reformed. However, in line with its policy, the government has ensured the separation of administrative and judicial powers, he says, adding that the recently resorted system will be improved further. “The government has setup a task force to decide whether commissioners, deputy commissioners and other officials report to chief secretary or the elected representative.” Analysts say that the traditional political forces, especially belonging to the rural areas, felt that the powers of ministers were slashed under the Musharraf’s local body system. That was the reason many influential feudal lords chose to get themselves or their close relatives elected as nazims rather than going for the provincial or national assemblies. Danial Aziz, a former federal minister, who is leading a campaign for the devolution of powers and restoration of the 2001 local body system, says that vested interests are opposed to it because Musharraf’s system loosened their grip on the power structure. “These so-called democratic politicians, who run parties as their fiefdoms and nominate their heirs, saw a dark future because power was being transferred to the grassroots level.” “They use deputy commissioners and other bureaucrats as their political agents. Obviously, they won’t like institution-building and decentralisation of power where people take ownership and hold elected representatives accountable,” Aziz says. Sardar Ahmed, a senior MQM leader and a former bureaucrat, says the commissionerate system fitted the needs of colonial times and undemocratic rule, but enforcing the 19th century system in this day and age remains a cruel joke. “Only local representatives remain in a position to address problems of their people and areas. It is not the job of members of the national or provincial assemblies or ministers to do this. The PPP never reconciled with the concept of transferring powers at grassroots.” Differences over the local body system remained the main bone of contention between the PPP and the MQM even when they were allies. But PPP officials say that they can work together even with difference of opinion on this vital issue. The elected local governments flourished mainly under the military rule in Pakistan, while the democratic governments maintain a record of stifling them. The affection of military rulers toward the local governments stems from the fact they wanted to alienate the mainstream political parties and wanted to create an alternate. \ The democratic government abhorred the local governments and in most cases chose to run them through their hand-picked lackeys as they could never truly digest the concepts of sharing and devolution of powers. One can call it the absurdity of Pakistani politics that our ruling elite keeps reopening and revisiting issues, which should have been decided long ago. The PPP government’s attempt to address the problems of 21st century Pakistan with the 19th century system remains ironic in itself, underlining the intellectual bankruptcy of our times.
The arrest of Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai in Washington indicates a shift in the US policy on Kashmir By Ershad Mahmud The dramatic arrest of Dr
Ghulam Nabi Fai (a leading Kashmir lobbyist and Executive Director of the
Washington-based Kashmiri American Council, in Washington) has jolted the
power corridors in Pakistan as it comes on the heel of ISI Director General Lt
General Ahmad Shuja Pasha’s visit to Washington. The arrest overlaps with
the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to New Delhi
and may impact the upcoming Pakistan Foreign Dr Fai has been residing in the United States for a long time and has held several major positions in the socio-political circles there. He is a well-connected lobbyist in the Capitol Hill and Congress. He did his Ph.D in mass communications from Temple University, Pennsylvania. As a student leader, he represented the International Federation of Student Organisations (IFSO) at many international conferences. In 1986, he addressed the United Nations Conference in New York on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries. Dr Fai jumped onto the Kashmir lobbying scene in late 1989 when mass uprising commenced in Srinagar. Since then, he has actively engaged in Washington to promote a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue. From 1991 to 2010, Fai organised 11 International Kashmir Peace Conferences at the Capitol Hill, Washington. Hundreds of Indian, Pakistani and American leading academics, journalists and politicians participated in these conferences. He was never bracketed with any particular Kashmiri group or ideology. He emerged as a leading spokesman for the Kashmir cause for over three decades and travelled to over 40 countries lecturing on the subject. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) Geneva was his one of the regular visiting places where he used to articulate his point of view on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Yasin Malik, JKLF chief, tells TNS Dr Fai’s detention would be good news for the Kashmiri radicals. “The US action would weaken moderate forces in the Kashmir valley who believe in good relations with the western world, particularly with the USA.” Ved Bhasin, Editor of Kashmir Times Jammu, recalling his association with the detained Kashmiri leader, says that Dr Fai believes in the peaceful settlement of the Kashmir conflict through tripartite negotiations among the governments of India and Pakistan and the accredited leadership of Jammu and Kashmir. Dr Fai took several Kashmiri leaders from Srinagar to Washington so that they could directly interact with the US administration officials. It was widely believed that he was a blue-eyed man of the Washington as he never spoke ill of the US during his private meetings, interviews or statements. Analysts believe the arrest of Dr Fai and its timing with the Hillary Clinton’s visit to Delhi has sent a lucid message to Srinagar and Islamabad that US has endorsed the Indian position on Kashmir. Political analyst Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais thinks Fai’s arrest is a response to the detention of CIA’s private agents in Pakistan and nothing else. “It might further complicate the already strained relationship between the United States and Pakistan in the days ahead. Dr Fai is a genuine Kashmiri leader and a responsible US citizen. He should not become a casualty of the intelligence agencies’ turf war,” Rais notes. Fai’s arrest triggered several protests across the Kashmir valley, and the Pakistani media also took up the issue seriously. Dr Fai had successfully cultivated a huge number of friends in media, civil society and diplomatic circles across the world. Several independent observers in Islamabad question the logic of cooperation with Washington when it is not sensitive about the Pakistan’s strategic interests in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The writer is an Islamabad-based analyst. ajkrawalakot@gmail.com
Release of yet another high profile accused killer, Malik Ishaq, because of ‘lack of evidence’ reveals the weak state prosecution Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision to grant Malik Muhammad Ishaq, the founding leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a bail is not surprising for those clamouring about the weakness of state’s legal and prosecution system. It is yet another release of a high profile accused killer, who, reportedly, had confessed to his crime, but could not be sentenced because of ‘lack of evidence’. In Pakistan, the weakness of
state is exploited by hardened criminals. The acquittal of another LeJ ring
leader Akram Lahori by a court in Karachi a few months back due to ‘lack of
evidence’, release of the attackers of Taxila Church Police record reveals that during the interrogation Ishaq had confessed to 11 murders, involvement in at least 57 murders, one murder attempt and over 17 dacoities. Cases against him include attack on Iranian Consul in Multan, Khana-e-Farhang-e-Iran and killing of many police officers and government officials belonging to the Shia sect. He was charged with more than 100 murders. Ishaq was involved in 45 criminal cases. The last charge was masterminding the attack on Sri Lankan cricket team at Liberty roundabout in Lahore in March 2009 from the jail. According to the Interior Ministry’s published report, the attackers belonging to a splinter group of LeJ wanted to kidnap the team to get Ishaq released. Ishaq, born in 1959, is the son of Ali Ahmad Awan, who owned a cloth shop in the village Taranda Sawaey Khan in Rahim Yar Khan (RYK). Ishaq left school in sixth grade and joined his father’s cloth shop in early 1980s. Later, he started a business of distributing cigarettes in RYK until he joined SSP in 1989 — after meeting Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, the founder of SSP. This was the time when Ishaq started his hardline religious activism from the SSP platform. The first police case was lodged against him the same year for disrupting a Muharram procession. He formed LeJ in 1996 with his close aides Riaz Basra, Ghulam Rasool Shah, Akram Lahori and others after having differences with the SSP leadership for joining the Milli Yahkjehti Council, a political alliance of the country’s religious parties and groups including Shia groups. He was against the inclusion of Shias in the council. By now Ishaq had also developed links with militant wings of Harkatul Ansar, Harakatul Mujahideen etc. In 1996, he managed to escape along with his aides from police custody, but was again arrested in 1997. “We are ready to lay down our lives for the honour of the companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH),” Ishaq, surrounded by arms-wielding supporters, said in a brief media talk after his release. “We were never terrorists and killers and the courts have also proven so,” he said claiming his ‘innocence.’ Ishaq’s lawyer, Misbahul Haq, who pleaded his bail case in the Supreme Court, says his client was acquitted in 35 cases because of ‘lack of evidence’, granted bail in seven cases and discharged in one case. He was sentenced in two cases for which he had completed his sentence. Most of the cases against Ishaq were registered in Vehari, Multan, Faisalabad, Khanewal, Jhang, and Sahiwal. Ishaq rose to prominence after joining hands with al-Qaeda and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) after 9/11. These militant outfits were involved in high profile terrorist strikes such as attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, attacks on security forces in Multan, attack on Rescue 15 and ISI offices in Lahore in May 2009, attack on Moon Market, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, and attack on General Headquarters of Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi. Ishaq was reportedly flown from a jail in the Punjab to GHQ at the time of the GHQ attack to recognise the attackers and negotiate their surrender. Security experts believe that PML-N’s soft corner towards such religious extremist groups might have worked for Ishaq’s release. Ahmad Ludhianvi, the chief of defunct SSP, during a media talk a year ago, had claimed he met Ishaq in jail on the request of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif offering him (Ishaq) a conditional release if he remained peaceful for the rest of his life. The Punjab government, reportedly, had also been giving a monthly stipend to Ishaq’s family; an act which the government claims was as per court’s order. Only that there are no court orders in sight. vaqargillani@gmail.com |
|
interests, but bilateral friendships and alliances cannot flourish unless
both sides see in them satisfaction of their expectations to a reasonable
degree.
reason to go for the expensive book.”
‘news comedy’. And the news anchors try so hard to squeeze sensation out
of bland and rather dull news reports that they look like sorry jokers with a
particularly bad script in their hand. The real jokers — the ageing and
largely spent stage comedians — who have been conscribed in force to
co-host infotainment shows in the hope of challenging the popularity of the
brilliant Suhail Ahmed, are the saddest of the lot. A quarter of a century
old jokes have as much chance of entertaining viewers as a brand new home
affairs minister has of bringing peace to Sindh.
crisis to another.
Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s visit to New Delhi.
and Danish Embassy in Islamabad, and killers of Justice and Peace Commission
activists are some of the glaring examples knocking down the legal and
prosecution system of the state. Judges have been blaming the police and state
prosecutors for poor investigation in such cases.