Archive for January, 2010

h1

Pervez Musharraf: Most popular Pakistani leader on Facebook

January 24, 2010

By Afnan Khan

LAHORE: The face of Pakistani leadership may be entirely different now compared to a few years back but the Facebook fan club of former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf with over 100,000 fans shows that the former president still rules the roost, at least in the cyberworld, beating President Asif Ali Zardari’s page, which has over 86,000 fans.

However, no other leader is even close to Musharraf and Zardari on the most popular social networking website in the world, as two-time prime minister Nawaz Sharif languishes in third place with merely 6,000 fans.

Pervez Musharraf on Facebook

A large number of Pakistanis using the Internet and taking interest in political issues and the future of the country is being seen as a good omen. Although the majority of the people are still deprived of the luxury of using the Internet or even getting an education to participate in online political forums, blogs, groups, discussions and communities. The people believe that such interactive groups not only provide them an opportunity to share their views and get political knowledge but also provide the leadership of the country an opportunity to directly see what the people think about them and what their expectations from their leaders are.

Reasons: Musharraf’s Facebook group consists of members of all ages although majority of the fans comprise the youth. Expert bloggers believe that the key reasons for the former military dictator’s popularity on the web are his liberal thoughts and his stance on extremism.

A large number of fans of President Zardari’s page are also from the youth but they either discuss the ongoing problems in the country or make fun of the government. Only a few of them appreciate the leadership for its services.

Some of Musharraf’s fans also criticise his policies on his Facebook page while some pessimists are of the view that Musharraf, Zardari, the Sharif brothers and other famous politicians are all alike.

It was noticed from the comments on the page that some young fans of Musharraf were keen to see him back in power and had expressed this desire in different ways.

The page also features a brief note from Musharraf on how he felt about leading the country and some of his activities these days.

The message reads, “I’ve had the good fortune and privilege to lead my country and serve the people of Pakistan for almost nine years. Since my retirement as president of Pakistan in August 2008, I have been keeping myself busy with a series of lectures worldwide. I’ve found this to be a stimulating experience as I get an opportunity to share my thoughts with audiences of different nationalities and diverse backgrounds.”

Meanwhile, member of Nawaz Sharif’s group mainly discuss issues the country is facing, including the National Reconciliation Ordinance, from an opposition party’s perspective. It also provides personal information about Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leaders and Nawaz’s contributions in the development of the political system of the country.

Criterion: An expert blogger and danka.com director Foad Nizam told Daily Times that though websites like Facebook provided people an opportunity to interact with each other and a chance to freely express themselves, they were by no means a criterion to judge somebody’s popularity or credibility. He said a fan club was only used as a marketing tool by some people while some joined these groups just for fun. He said the real picture of a situation could only be seen through serious discussion forums and blogs on the Internet where experts commented on various issues in a more intellectual way.

Source: Daily Times

h1

Musharraf musters support to launch own party

January 22, 2010
By Ashfaq Ahmed, Chief Reporter

Dubai : Former President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf is busy mustering support to launch his own political party.

He aims to resume his mission of getting rid of the “sham” democracy in the country, but this time as a civilian, Gulf News has learnt.

President Pervez MusharrafMusharraf spent a busy week in Abu Dhabi — before flying back to London on Wednesday morning — holding marathon meetings with his lawyers, old political partners and retired officials, including his close aide Major General Rashid Quraishi.

He further discussed issues related to forming a new political force and his possible return to Pakistan.

“Musharraf is weighing possibilities of going back to launch himself as a political force,” a leading politician requesting anonymity, said after meeting with him in Abu Dhabi.

He said the purpose of the meetings were to discuss various aspects of the new political party and its launch time in Pakistan. “I hope that Musharraf should be going back within a few months after re-gaining his strength in the political circles,” he added.

The former Pakistan president resigned in August 2008 under immense pressure and due to a decline in popularity caused by his decision to impose emergency in the country and sack judges in November 2007 — as a bid to save his presidency

Who’s in it

Sources told Gulf News that Musharraf’s party would mainly comprise of politicians who parted ways from the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) — a party which he launched with the help of Chaudhry Shujjat Hussain and Chaudhry Pervez Elahi who defected early from Nawaz Sharif’s PML (N).

These included Humayon Akhtar, Khusheed Mahmoud Kasuri, Senator Salim Saif Allah and Arbab Gulam Rahim who were all on important positions during Musharraf’s government.

Those who came to meet Musharraf in Abu Dhabi also included leading politicians such as Dr Sher Afgahn, Ejaz Durrani, Gulam Sarwar Khan, Amir Muqam and former attorney general of Pakistan Malek Qayyum.

A close aide of Musharraf, who also met a group of Pakistani students of a leading university in Dubai, in addition to attending a dinner reception hosted by a leading Pakistani businessmen currently residing in Dubai, said that the former president has also gained immunity against all the cases in the court.

He is ready to face the court cases including the murder case of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, who was killed during a military operation during his regime.

A top diplomat said that Musharraf’s resignation and his consequent ‘self-exile’ in London are all part of the bigger deal in which international guarantors were also involved. “He has been given immunity as part of the deal and will not be arrested on his return but he is waiting for the right signal to go back,” he said.

Musharraf will be able to contest elections after August this year when he would complete two years — a mandatory ban period for any government official before contesting any polls.

He is also trying to negotiate with different dissident groups in a bid to bring them together on one party platform before returning to Pakistan.

Source: Gulf News

h1

PAKISTAN: ENVISIONED AS ISLAMIC STATE

January 16, 2010

By Mr. Ahmad Subhani for “The Pakistan Observer”

Apropos of Ms.Nosheen Saeed’s article titled,” From Integration to Isolation” appearing in Pakistan Observer of  9th January; while agreeing with most of the observations made by the worthy columnist, I am constraint to differ from one of her vital observation that reads,”…misinterpreting homeland for Muslims for Islamic State…” Also, her contention that, “ The fact that the Pakistan movement was all about political rights, economic opportunities,  equality and social justice for Muslims of India was misconstrued and given an ideological dimension”, is only partly true. To ascertain the factual position in this regard ,let us seek guidance from the founding fathers of Pakistan namely, the Quaid and Allama Iqbal .Reproduced here under are relevant extracts from their speeches and writings on the subject:–

Iqbal who conceived the idea of a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, in his presidential address at the annual session of the All India Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930, said,” India was the biggest Islamic country and in it Islam could be sustained as a living cultural entity only if it was centralized in a specific territory [ for that he demanded ] formation of a consolidated Muslim State in the best interest of India and Islam. For India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power, for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabic Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its laws, its education, its customs, its culture, and to bring them in close contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times” He elucidated the point further in his monumental work,”  The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”  saying,”….during the course of history, the moral and social ideals of Islam have been gradually de-Islamized through the influence of local character and pre- Islamic superstitions of Muslim nations…..The only alternative open to us, then, is to tear off from Islam the hard crust which has immobilized an essentially dynamic outlook on life, and to rediscover the original verities of freedom, equality and solidarity with a view to rebuild our moral ,social and political ideals out of their original simplicity and universality”.In his concluding remarks [6th lecture of  above named book ],advises,” Let the Muslim of to-day appreciate his position, reconstruct his social life in the light of ultimate principles {of Quran} and evolve out of the hitherto partially revealed purpose of Islam, that spiritual democracy which is the ultimate aim of Islam”.

Quaid-Azam’s speech at Chittagong [ March,1948]:” Pakistan means not only freedom and independence, but also the Muslim Ideology that has to be preserved that has come to us as a precious gift and treasure”. In his Pakistan Day Message in March,1945, he said, “In Pakistan lies our deliverance, defence and honour. If we fail, we perish and there will be no signs and symptoms of Muslims or Islam left in the sub-continent”.

“ The Constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed———I am sure it will be of a democratic type embodying essential features of Islam. To-day, they are as applicable in modern times, as these were 1300 years ago———-in any case, Pakistan is not going to be a Theocratic State—–to be ruled by the priests with a Devine Mission”. [Broadcast to the U.S.A.-February ,48 ]

“ Islam  is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrine, rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim Society, every department of life collectively and individually” [Eid Message—September, 1948 ]

“ In Islam, ultimate obedience belongs to God alone. The only way to follow this guidance is through the Holy Quran .Islam does not preach obedience to a king, parliament, a person or institution. The Islamic government means rule of the Quran. And how can you establish the rule of  the Quran without an independent state?”. [Address to the students of the Usmania University, Hyderabad, Deccan, India —August,  1941 ].

From the above, it is quite clear that the founding fathers of Pakistan wanted it to emerge as a Democratic Islamic State and not a Theocratic or Secular one. As quoted earlier, the Quaid denounced a Theocratic set up  in no uncertain terms. At the same time, he never used the term “secular” in conjunction with Pakistan or its Constitution. There is a wide-spread misperception that if it is not a theocratic state, then it necessarily has to be a secular one, and vice-versa. It is not so. An Islamic State, in fact , lies in between these two extremes .Briefly speaking, in theocracy there is total and absolute control of religious clergy over the private and public affairs of the state, where as, in a secular regime, religion is virtually banned from having any say in public [state ] affairs. In an Islamic State, it is the primary duty of the Government to implement Quranic Laws through mutual consultation [“ shura” ] and through the process of “ijtehad”. Clergy can be consulted in this respect but it cannot dictate or enforce its will on the government as there is no priesthood in Islam. As such, there is no intermediary between a Muslim and his Allah and Quran remains the all important link between these two.

h1

Why I miss Musharraf

January 13, 2010

Tuesday, January 06, 2009 (Part-I)
Salman K Chima

When General Musharraf seized power, I was not among those who welcomed him – although with Justice Tarrar as the President and Shariat Amendment Bill to the Constitution awaiting approval by the Senate, Pakistan was on the verge of being a theocratic state. Why did I oppose Musharraf? Because his rule was undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Yet, today I willingly acknowledge Musharraf. The choice of his successor in the Presidency is reason enough to remember him. But I praise him for the freedom Pakistan breathed under him; for the fact that he did not feel entitled to extra reward for his services. Even his worst detractors do not accuse him of personal corruption. This in a country where rulers have chosen to place their hard earned money in Swiss accounts.

Despite my initial opposition, I would have set the following agenda for the general:

1 . Cleanse the army of the jihadi elements inducted by General Zia.

2. Free the media.

3. Initiate meaningful steps to emancipate women.

4. Bring the minorities into the mainstream of politics.

5. Implement balanced and across the board accountability.

Before we address whether the general delivered, there is an important preliminary matter that needs to be sorted out.

My initial opposition to Musharraf was based on his takeover being unconstitutional and undemocratic. These are of course compelling arguments to oppose a regime, but one must not forget that even Adolph Hitler was popularly elected and had a constitution of sorts. So there is surely a higher principle by which to judge a government – constitution and democracy cannot be the decisive benchmarks.

The decisive benchmark to me is the freedom a regime is prepared to extend to its subjects. Constitutions and democracies represent good forms of government only insofar as they are able to preserve the inherent right of all citizens to be free.

It is against this yardstick that 19th century America fails; as does Hitler’s Third Reich – despite being blessed with constitutional and democratic rule. Paradoxically, it is against this higher principle that Musharraf wins.

Reverting to his performance, my first agenda point was the cleansing of the Pakistan Army of jihadi elements. While the ‘war on terror’ was not visible in 1999, however Pakistanis were acutely aware of the growing Talibanisation around them. The Taliban were ruling Afghanistan and one could predict that a war would have to be fought with their way of thinking within Pakistan.

This war against Talibanisation could scarcely be fought without Pakistan Army. It is also axiomatic that the Pakistan Army inherited from General Zia and his successors was ill equipped to fight this war. So, the first agenda item: to rinse out the Taliban elements from the institution. This may sound an easy task, but remember that the generals who brought Musharraf to power were differently inclined.

Was the task accomplished? Consider: From the first day of Musharraf’s rule, General Hameed Gul has been his most vocal critic. Could this be attributed to Gul’s love for democracy and constitution or simply resentment at the restructuring of Pakistan Army — contrary to Gul’s desire? Could the present fighting in Bajaur and elsewhere have been possible without deep structural changes in the army? Do not the terrorist attacks afflicting Pakistan indicate the Taliban elements are no longer reacting to Musharraf but to the restructuring put in place by him? The profile of the Pakistan Army’s top leadership has been reformed in the last nine years but, the restructuring has virtually gone unappreciated since it took shape away from public eye.

Moving on to freedom of media, one should not have to recount evidence to establish how truly free media was under Musharraf. So let me address some unfair commentaries offered by the General’s critics. First, that he did not have a choice; with the advent of satellite TV (which can be beamed from outside the jurisdiction) Musharraf could not have shielded himself from media scrutiny. True, but why is the same freedom not witnessed in Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar, Iran etc. The government has many ways of curbing media freedom, for instance, not only is the government an important client of all the media houses in terms of advertisement but also runs its own TV channels which can make lucrative offers to the more vocal critics.

Second, the aftermath of Nov 3, 2007: Critics allege if Musharraf believed in media freedom, he would not have curbed it after Nov 3. The argument is fair, but needs to be put in perspective. The period between November 3 and 13, 2007 is admittedly the ‘darkest period’ of Musharraf’s regime from the media freedom perspective. It would perhaps be unfair to judge Musharraf by reference to this period alone.

But how bad was this period really? Let us do a litmus test. Pick a day and newspaper of our choice during this period. Go through this newspaper and select one article which we feel is most critical of Musharraf. Now go through every publication in Pakistan between August 14, 1947 and October 12, 1999 to ascertain how many articles in this period match up to the one we just identified. What are the odds we will find even one?! Does that tell us something about Musharraf’s ‘darkest period’?

Coming next to emancipation of women, unlike media freedom it must be acknowledged that this did not witness any giant leaps during Musharraf’s time. But this task is going to require many generations – such being the state of affairs. Yet, one was entitled to ask for some acts (even if symbolic) to set the direction right. It is in this perspective that the following steps may be recounted.

There was a substantial increase in women’s representation in the assemblies. Women not only add value in the assemblies but also their representation gradually changes the society’s mindset. The ‘Sword of Honor’ was awarded by the Pakistan Air Force Academy to a lady cadet. The Women’s Protection Act – a long overdue amendment to soften a retrogressive law legislated by Zia- was passed as well.

One does regret the General’s statement before the American press regarding Mukhtar Mai case. But even here one must not be cruel in judging him.

A detailed study of the LHC judgement reveals that there is indeed another side to the story: Mukhtar Mai may have willingly married the main accused. She at least admitted before the court that she would have been prepared to marry him, in exchange for the main accused’s sister marrying her own brother. According to the defense version, this is exactly what happened and she only recorded the FIR once the main accused’s sister (contrary to the agreement) was married to someone else. The record also shows that no visible injuries (except a relatively minor abrasion) were seen on Mukhtar Mai during medical examination – which took place about eight days after the alleged incident. Mukhtar Mai also admitted that the accused were financially weaker than her own family. Fortunately the matter is before the Supreme Court, and they will put this controversy to rest.

Was not Musharraf advised that the defence version was not entirely baseless? As the country’s president, he may have felt agitated by the adverse publicity this case was getting outside Pakistan.

The next agenda point, the minorities: They have been relegated to second class citizenship, particularly since the times of General Zia. Musharraf introduced joint and yet separate electorates for minorities – giving them two votes, one in the general election and one for their own reserved seats. However, after the 17th Amendment, the minorities now only vote in the general election, and their reserved seats are filled by political parties according to their representation in the assembly.

Minorities are also particularly hard done by the Blasphemy Law. A person convicted of blasphemy must suffer (often the death penalty) because he has hurt the deepest feelings of the Muslim majority. But how can people’s feelings take priority over a man’s right to life or liberty. Musharraf only considered amending the procedural aspects of the law. He backtracked but only a person with the right orientation would even begin to conceive such a move. The other mentionable change (though subsequently reversed) was the removal of the religious column on the passport. He backtracked on this – but who else even made an effort.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=155762

Part II
Monday, January 12, 2009
by Salman K Chima

Coming then to the next point, accountability: Here the General’s performance was disappointing. The National Reconciliation Ordinance is a grotesque law. It is indeed difficult to find any redeeming feature in the NRO. However, attention must be drawn to the fact that the protection offered by the NRO extends only up to October 12, 1999. The General did not seek to protect his own acts. Also, may one ask, have the people of Pakistan done any better by electing the very politicians who are the primary beneficiaries of the law. Why blame Musharraf?

Justice Iftikar Muhammad Chaudhry was not the most popular judge, until he was manhandled by the Islamabad Police. In the ensuing mess, it is easy to forget what the reference was about. Simply put:

The President on the advice of the Prime Minister asked the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to opine whether the chief justice (CJ) had committed misconduct. Certain specific allegations (most notably regarding the CJ’s son) were included in the reference. SJC was seized of the matter when a petition was filed by Justice Chaudhry in SC. The Supreme Court, having initially stayed the proceedings before SJC, after three months of hearing (by a majority of 10 against 3) quashed the reference. In doing so, SC decided not to look into contents of the reference.

The Supreme Court ruling is intriguing. One waited anxiously for the detailed judgment; but considering that that may not be forthcoming, one is now left to speculate on possible reasoning.

The honourable judges may have concluded that while a references can be filed against other superior court judges, it cannot however be filed against the Chief Justice of Pakistan. This is faulty reasoning, not sustainable in light of the Constitutional provisions. Also, what happens if a chief justice goes into coma, or is diagnosed with mental incapacity? How would such chief justice be removed?

The other argument that perhaps found favour with the Supreme Court is that the reference was filed with ‘malice’ and was therefore void. But this raises an important issue. If there was a case to answer (which of course could only have been determined by consulting the reference), was it then available to the President/Prime Minister to withhold the Reference — whether with good intentions or bad. Was the President/Prime Minister not under a constitutional duty to refer it to SJC?

It seems to me that there was only one issue that the Supreme Court could have adjudicated: was there a case to answer based on the material contained in the reference. If yes, the President was obligated to refer the matter to SJC. The President’s alleged malice was quite irrelevant to the equation. This was after all not an issue between two private litigants, or even between the President and the Chief Justice. This was rather an issue having to do with Pakistan’s constitution. The Constitution does not permit a chief justice guilty of misconduct to remain in office.

Incidentally, one issue the honorable SC did not decide was whether the reference made out a case to answer. They decided not to consult the reference at all. In my opinion, majority of the honourable SC may have erred in this regard.

Next the Lal Masjid case. The Lal Masjid danda brigade began by taking over the children’s library; then raided various shops that were renting out Indian and western movies (hence unIslamic); then kidnapped three women on the allegation of indulging in immoral activities; then kidnapped eight Chinese nationals on the pretext of indulging in immoral activities. All this while the government was engaging in dialogue with them, with the whole world as witness.

Ultimately, the government gave every occupant of Lal Masjid the option to leave (even to collect Rs. 5,000 per head as travel expense) or face action. This message was communicated loud and clear. And what did the Lal Masjid brigade do? They (in front of live cameras) shot and killed two personnel of the Rangers, and set a government building on fire, while also ceaselessly firing bullets at the law enforcement agencies. Even then the government showed restraint.

It is only when the Lal Masjid militants refused to allow people to leave and threatened to start suicide bombings that the government acted with full vigour. Musharraf and other government functionaries were repeatedly criticized by the ‘free’ media for not taking action, and ultimately the media stood by the Lal Masjid militants when action was taken. The entire responsibility for Lal Masjid episode rests with the Lal Masjid hooligans — and the media also acted highly irresponsibly.

Moving on to the Waziristan operation, international law does not permit Pakistan to allow its citizens or citizens of other countries residing in its territory to wage war against Afghanistan or USA or any other country for that matter. Pakistan therefore had only two options regarding the militants present in Waziristan and elsewhere – to take action, or face action from those threatened by such militants. Such action would have been totally consistent with international law. Musharraf opted for the first and managed to convince the powers that be not to intervene directly.

Imagine if the second option had been implemented — not only would Pakistan be crippled economically, but there would also have been a huge reaction to foreign intervention, and quite possibly the country delivered to Taliban elements. Of course, Musharraf employed the carrot and stick approach and there was at times collateral damage on account of the latter.

We move to the case of ‘missing persons’. Some pertinent questions:

Why has a person gone missing? Could it be that he has voluntarily gone on jihad; or was he picked up by agencies?

Were there more missing persons falling in the latter category, during Musharraf’s time than in earlier regimes?

Did anyone go missing because of his enmity with or criticism of Musharraf?

If these questions are answered, it may well transpire that there were in fact fewer missing persons in Pakistan during Musharraf’s time than ever before. Significantly, it may also be revealed that those who went missing at the hands of the agencies were not ones who opposed Musharraf – these were persons wanted with regard to the war on terror.

Dr. Afia Siddiqui’s case merits mention though. Human Rights groups seem to have concluded that she was kidnapped with her three children by Pakistani agencies in 2003. Consider this:

How come despite multiple meetings with Pakistani officials Dr. Siddiqui has not claimed that she was kept in detention since 2003?

How come her lawyer continues to advise her not to disclose the whereabouts of her detention and that of her kids? How come her son who recently arrived from Afghanistan, has also not made any statement regarding his detention?

How come the current government (with all its opposition to whatever happened during Musharraf’s time) has not blamed any member of any agency for having taken her into custody?

Are we aware of any person kept in detention by the US for five years with their kids?

Has anyone been shot by US Forces while in detention – are we aware of any other case of this nature?

Could it be that she voluntarily went on jihad, took her innocent children with her, and has only recently been taken in detention?

No one, not even Musharraf’s harshest critics, accuse him of personal corruption. An eminent industrialist recently told me that in eight years that Musharraf was at the helm of affairs, he repeatedly called the general, bringing various kinds of government inefficiencies or inactions to his notice. He insists that each such approach was made in the interest of the country, and each time the General took constructive steps to ease the situation. The gentleman then says that he is still waiting for Musharraf’s first call asking for a favour in return, whether for himself or a friend or a relative or anyone at all.

I listen when Musharraf says that every step he took was taken in best national interest. There are some who hold A.Q. Khan as their hero; and there is also the dwindling number of those who raise Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s hand as the saviour of Pakistan; one must not expect them to lend their ears to Musharraf’s voice.

God forgive him and forgive us all

Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall

(Shakespeare).

(Concluded)

The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=156628

h1

Pervez Musharraf on Facebook: Answering Your Top 3 Questions – III

January 13, 2010

Question: What did your Government do for the people of Balochistan?

Answer: One thing that I can very proudly and surely say is that no one did as much for Balochistan as my administration did.

Infrastructure. We spent billions on Gwadar Port. It was a gigantic project completed on time and executed in a most transparent manner. The Port has geo-strategic importance. Its eventual linkages to the Central Asian Republics, Russia and China and the resultant trade corridors hold the promise of a quantum surge in economic activity in the region. This will bring about a perceptible difference in the quality of the lives of the entire nation but more importantly, the people of Balochistan. Other major infrastructure projects completed include the Coastal Highway, Gwadar-Rato Dero (950 KMs) Road, Mirani Dam, Subukzai Dam, Kachi Canal, and other smaller projects over which the PSDP allocation was more than that of Punjab. Let anyone challenge this statement.

Governance. Barring a few cities, the entire province of Balochistan was ‘B’ area for policing and law enforcement purposes. We were successful in converting a major part of the Province to ‘A’ areas. In this way, it was brought at par with the rest of the country. My administration believed that Balochistan needed the maximum possible resources for development, which had been neglected in the past. In this effort we were prepared to cooperate and talk to everyone in the province, but there could be no place on the negotiating table for elements opposed to the very being of Pakistan.

Question: Why was Akbar Bugti targeted?

Answer: Bugti’s death was a result of his own confrontation with the state. He incapacitated the Sui gas plant (by having 500 rockets fired in a single day), blew up gas pipelines, electric pylons, railway lines and bridges. He challenged the Frontier Corps and the Army by denying movement to them, and had rockets fired on garrisons. Aside from this, Bugti had let loose a reign of terror on the people of his area. The Kalpar tribe which was opposed to him were banished and forced to live as refugees in the adjoining districts of Punjab. Governments are required to act when their writ is challenged and when activities which are detrimental to the responsibility of the State are blatantly carried out.

The government reacted to restore law and order. Let me clarify here that the President of Pakistan or the COAS does not pass direct orders to the military or law enforcement authorities at a tactical level. Aspersions on my person therefore are quite baseless. Of his own accord, Akbar Bugti left with his militia for the mountains in an offensive mode while challenging the writ of the government. With regard to the ensuing operations Bugti was located in a cave. A detachment including four officers of the Pakistan Army entered the cave to ask him to surrender. It appears that the cave collapsed due to an explosion in which he himself, his followers and the brave military men who attempted to engage him got buried.

After the operation, Dera Bugti was a peaceful place and those banished by the warlord were able to return to their homes.

Question: Why did you allow private US security agencies such as Blackwater, DynCorp or Xe to operate on Pakistani soil?

Answer: The answer to this is very short. Never did I, or my government, either allow any such agency to operate in Pakistan or have any special access into the country.

Source: www.Facebook.com/PervezMusharraf

%d bloggers like this: