Posts Tagged ‘Pakistan’

h1

جواب آں غزل ۔ یاسر پیرزادہ کی خدمت میں

January 16, 2014

(تحریر: فراز صدیقی، پی ایچ ڈی اسکالر، اسلام آباد)

بارہ جنوری کے روزنامہ جنگ میں میرے پسندیدہ کالم نگار یاسر پیرزادہ صاحب کا کالم،‘‘ آمریت کے تین مغالطے’’ نظر سے گذرا۔ کالم پڑھنے کے بعد مجھے گمان گزرا کہ شاید یہ تحریر میاں نواز شریف کے اس زر خریدکی ہے، جس کے کالم کی ہر تان نواز شریف کی مدح سرائی یا پرویز مشر ف صاحب کے خلاف زہر اگلنے پر ہی ٹوٹتی ہے اور تحریر کے درمیان میں سوائے اردو کی بہترین لفاظی کے کچھ نہیں ہوتا۔ مجھے گمان گذرا کہ شاید قلم فروش عرفان صدیقی کے کالم پر غلطی سے یاسرپیرزادہ کی لوح لگ گئی ہے ،لیکن جب فیس بک پر پیرزادہ صاحب نے اپنے اکاؤنٹ سے اس کالم کو اپ لوڈ کیا تو مجھے شدید دکھ اور افسوس ہوا کہ ا ب پیرزادہ صاحب جیسے لوگوں کے قلم سے اسطرح کے دلیل سے عاری ،تعصبی جذبات سے بھرپوررہیٹورک کالم پڑھنے کو ملیں گے۔

Yasir Pirzada

موصوف نے اپنے کالم کا آغاز انتہائی قابل احترا م سائنسدان اوراستاد پروفیسر ڈاکٹر عطاء الرحمن صاحب پر بالواسطہ طنزیہ تمہید سے کیا ہے ، جس کی جتنی مذمت کی جائے کم ہے۔ پیرزادہ صاحب، استاد کو جو رتبہ اور مقام خدا نے عطاء کیا ہے، شاید تعصب کی نگاہ اور ذہن رکھتے ہوئے آپ اس مرتبے کو بھول گئے۔ عطاء الرحمن اور پرویز ہودبھائی جیسے قابل فخر اساتذہ کی سیاسی رائے سے اختلا ف کیا جا سکتا ہے، لیکن تحقیق اور علم کی ترویج کے لئے ایسے لوگوں کی خدمات سے انکار ممکن نہیں۔ اگر آپ علم نہیں رکھتے تو ڈاکٹر عطاء الرحمن کے سی وی کو ایک نظر ملاحظہ کر لیں اور دیکھیں کہ پاکستان کے اس سپوت نے سائنس کی دنیا میں کیا کیا کار ہائے نمایاں انجام دیئے ہیں۔نا صرف سائنس کی دنیا میں بلکہ وطن عزیز میں اعلی تعلیم کے لئے ڈاکٹر صاحب کی خدمات سے انکار کرتے ہوئے حقارت اور طنز سے انکا ذکر ایک تعصب سے لبریز ذہن ہی کر سکتا ہے کوئی علم دوست شخص نہیں۔

Dr. Ata-ur-Rehman II

آپکو ڈاکٹر صاحب پر شاید غصہ اس وجہ سے ہے کہ ڈاکٹر صاحب نے اعداد و شمار کے ذریعے صدر مشرف کے بہترین دور کو لوگوں کی یادداشت میں واپس لانے کی کوشش کی ہے۔وہ مشرف جو آپ کی، آپکے والد عطاء الحق قاسمی اور انکے سیاسی والد میاں نواز شریف کی آنکھوں میں اس بری طرح کھٹکتا ہے کہ مشرف صاحب کا نام پڑھ کر ہر طرح کی دلیل، منطق اور عقل اڑنچھو ہو جاتی ہے اور رہ جاتی ہے خالی خولی لفاظی جسکا مظہر، ‘‘ آمریت کے تین مضالطے’’ جیسی بوگس تحریریں ہیں۔

یاسر صاحب! اب آتے ہیں جناب کے کالم کا پوسٹ مارٹم کرنے کی طرف۔

قابل احترام استاد ڈاکٹر عطاء الرحمن صاحب کا طنزیہ اور حقارت آمیز تذکرے کے بعد موصوف فرماتے ہیں کہ،
‘‘فرض کر لیتے ہیں کہ مشرف دور اچھا تھا لیکن سوال یہ پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ ناجائز بچے کو جائز قرار دیا جاسکتا ہے؟ناجائز اولاد ناجائز ہی ہوتی ہے چاہے کتنی خوبصورت ہو ۔’’

محترم! ذرا مجھے یہ بتائیے کہ ناجائز بچہ (فوجی دور) زیادہ قابل نفرت ہے یا اسکو دنیا میں لانے والے (نا اہل او رجاہل سیاستدان)؟ رہی بات نا جائز کو جائز قرار دینے کی، تو ناجائز اولاد‘‘ چوھدری افتخار میٹرنٹی ہوم’’ سے اپنا پیدائشی سرٹیفیکیٹ اور اس کے ساتھ ساتھ اپنی جائز اور تصدیق شدہ ولدیت بھی لے آئی تھی ، اور چونکہ یہ سب آئین اور قانون کے تحت صحیح ہوا تھا تو اس پر موجودہ حکومت کو بھی کوئی اعتراض نہیں اور موجودہ حکومت میں کوئی اور نہیں بلکہ آپکے سیاسی اجداد براجمان ہیں۔ اسی لئے چوہدری افتخار میٹرنٹی ہوم میں بیٹھے ہوئے اس وقت کے عطائی ڈاکٹروں کے خلاف کوئی کاروائی نہیں کی جا رہی بلکہ میرنٹی ہوم کے مالک ،جس نے ناجائز اولاد کو ولدیت دی، کو بچانے کیلئے مشرف صاحب کے ٹرائل کے ڈرامے کو تین نومبر سے شروع کیا جا رہا ہے کہ کہیں ٹھیس نہ لگ جائے آبگینوں کو۔

اسکے بعد موصوف رقم طراز ہیں، ‘‘آئین توڑ کر اپنی مرضی کا پی سی او نافذ کرنا اور عدالتوں سے گن پوائنٹ پر اپنی وفاداری کا حلف لینا۔۔۔۔’’

حضور ذرا یہ توبتائیں کہ یہ خبر کب رپورٹ ہوئی کہ پی سی او کا حلف گن پوائنٹ پر لیا گیا تھا؟؟؟؟ اس طرح کی بے سروپا باتیں کر کے آ پ کسی ناجائز کو جائز قرار دینے والے کو بچانے کی کوشش تو نہیں کر رہے ؟؟؟ میٹھا میٹھا ہپ ہپ کڑوا کڑوا تھو تھو، بھائی کو سنگسار نہ کرو، بھائی کی ناجائز اولاد کو مار دو ۔۔۔۔ واہ میرے شیر۔ ہور کی حال اے؟؟؟؟

بارہ اکتوبر کے بعد کی عدالتوں نے جن میں موصوف افتخار محمد چوہدری مدظلہ ،جن کے دامن کو نچوڑیں تو فرشتے وضو کریں، بھی شامل تھے خوشی خوشی پی سی او پر حلف اٹھایا تھا،کسی نے کسی سے گن پوائنٹ پر حلف نہیں اٹھایا۔ جن کو اپنے حلف کی آبرو کا احساس تھا انہوں نے پی سی او پر حلف اٹھانے سے گریز کیا اور با عزت ریٹائر ہوئے اور جن کی آبرو باختہ کوکھوں نے ناجائز اولاد وں کوجنم دینا تھا انہوں نے خوشی خوشی اپنا یہ کردار قبول کیا، افتخار محمد چوہدری سمیت اس وقت کی عدلیہ نے پی سی او پر خوشی خوشی حلف اٹھایا ، یاسر بھائی میرے لیڈر پرویز مشرف پر اگر ایک انگلی اٹھائی جاتی ہے تو باقی تینوں انگلیوں کا رخ آپکے قبیلے کی طرف ہوتا ہے۔ سمجھے میرے بھائی۔۔۔۔ہور کی حال اے؟؟؟؟

اسکے بعد موصوف نے دوسرا مغالطہ بیان کیا کہ اور ایک لمبی چوڑی فضول تمہید باندھتے ہوئے کہا کہ اگر فوجی چاند توڑ کر لادے تو بھی مجھے قبول نہیں اسکے بعد خود کو اٹھارہ کروڑ عوام سمجھتے ہوئے فتوی صادر کر دیا کے پاکستان کی عوام کو بھی فوجی حکومت قبول نہیں چاہے وہ کچھ بھی کر دے۔۔۔

Hassan Nisar

یاسر پیرزادہ صاحب۔۔۔ عوام کو اس سے کوئی سروکار نہیں کہ آپکے سیاسی آباؤ اجداد کی ننگی جمہوریت ہو یا فوجی حکومت۔ہمیں اپنی ترقی چاہئے ۔اپنے مسائل کا حل چاہئے جن کو یقیناًپرویز مشرف نے حل کیا تھا آپکے سیاسی آباؤ اجداد ضیاء دور سے عوام کی ہڈیاں نچوڑ رہے ہیں اور ان کے پیٹ ہیں کہ نا بھر رہے ہیں نا پھٹ رہے ہیں، ہو سکتا ہے کہ آپ کے گھرانے کو جمہوریت کی فیوض و برکات کے نتیجے میں کہیں کی سفارتکاری ملی ہو لیکن عوام کو اس ننگی اور بے شرم جعلی جمہوریت سے کچھ نہیں ملا ۔ ہمیں مشرف دور میں نوکریاں ملیں ، اسکالرشپس ملیں، ہمارا زندگی کا رہن سہن کا معیار حد درجے بہتر ہوا، بنک ہمیں فون کر کے قرضے آفر کرتے تھے ، ہم موٹر سائیکل سے کار پر آگئے ، درمیانے درجے سے اعلی درمیانے درجے کے ہوگئے ، اس دور میں ہماری قوت خرید بڑھی، ہماری سیونگز بڑھیں، ہمیں سی این جی پورے ہفتے ملتی تھی کبھی لائن میں لگے ذلیل نہیں ہونا پڑا، گیس و بجلی لوڈ شیڈنگ نہیں تھی ،ڈیم بن رہے تھے،یونیورسٹیز بن رہی تھیں ،پاکستان کا اسٹاک ایکسچینج بلندیوں کو چھو رہا تھا،ہائی ویز کا جال بچھایا جا رہا تھا، صنعتیں ترقی کر رہی تھیں، دفاع مضبوط سے مضبوط ہو رہا تھا، میڈیا اور ٹیلی کمیونیکیشن تیزی سے ترقی کر رہا تھا،غیر ملکی سرمایہ دھڑا دھڑ آرہا تھا، میں نے کئی دفعہ مشرف صاحب کے منہ سے سناکہ خزانہ میں پیسہ بہت ہے پروجیکٹ بتاؤکون سا شروع کرنا ھے۔ دوسری طرف، کسی جمہوری حلالی کے منہ سے میں نے خزانہ خالی ہونے کی دہائی کے علاوہ کبھی کچھ نہیں سنا۔ پہلے ہمارے پاسپورٹ کی دنیا میں عزت تھی ، ہمارے ملک کے اس وقت کے سربراہ اور میرے قائدپرویز مشرف کی دنیا میں آج تک عزت ہے، جبکہ آپکے سیاسی آباؤاجداد کو غیر ملک چھوڑیں ،کبھی کسی ملکی یونیورسٹی نے اس قابل نہیں سمجھا کہ اسے لیکچر دینے کیلئے بلائیں۔ میرا قائد پرویز مشرف، غیر ملکی قائدین کی آنکھوں میں آنکھیں ڈال کے بات کرتا تھا، جبکہ آپکے سیاسی جد امجد کی امریکی صدر کے سامنے پرچیاں پڑھنا بذات خود ایک شرم کا مقام ہے کہ کیسا شخص اس ملک کے وزیر اعظم کے عہدے پر براجمان ہے۔رہی بات مسخ شدہ لاشوں کی ، تو آپکے پاس کو ئی ثبوت نہیں کہ مسخ شدہ لاشیں فوج کی طرف سے آتی ہیں۔عین ممکن ہے کہ ایسی حرکتیں علیحدگی پسند فوج کوبدنام کرنے کیلئے خودکرتے ہوں ۔۔۔ ہو رکی حال ہے؟؟؟

اسکے بعد میرے پسندیدہ کالم نگار نے بڑے مزے کی بات کی ہے کہ ،‘‘جس سوشل کانٹریکٹ کا میں حصہ ہوں وہ مجھے اپنے نمائندے چننے کا اختیار دیتی ہے ۔۔۔۔’’

یاسر بھائی! آ پ کو خدا کا واسطہ، اپنے دل پر ہاتھ رکھیں اور ایمانداری سے یہ بتائیں کہ موجودہ حکومت کتنی جمہوری اور آئینی ہے؟ اتنی کہ اگر عمران خان انگوٹھے چیک کرنے کا مطالبہ کرے توان کی شلواریں گیلی ہوجاتی ہیں ، نادرا کے چیئرمیں کو جبری برطرف کیا جاتا ہے جب وہ عدالت جاتا ہے اور اسے با عزت بحال کر دیا جاتا ہے تو دھمکیاں دے کر سبکدوش ہونے پر مجبور کر دیا جاتا ہے ، یہ ہے آپکی جمہوریت اور آپکے نمائندے یاسر پیرزادہ صاحب؟ موجودہ حکومت ایک جعلی خودساختہ حکومت ہے،جسکا جنم بھی اتفاق سے افتخار چوہدری میٹرنٹی ہوم کا مرہون منت ہے، جس کا جمہوریت سے دور دور کا کوئی تعلق نہیں۔ ان ڈھکوسلوں سے آپکا دل بہل سکتا ہوگا ہمارا نہیں، آپکو ایسی جمہوریت کے حق میں کلمہ خیر کہنے سے شائد سفارتکاری وغیرہ دوبارہ مل سکتی ہے۔ مگر اس غریب عوام کو کچھ نہیں ملنا، دوسری بات غریب لوگوں کا لیڈ ر کبھی کوئی سرمایہ دار،جاگیردار یا صنعتکار ہو سکتا ہے ؟؟ کیا بات کرتے ہیںیاسر صاحب آپ؟؟؟

اسکے بعد یاسر صاحب ڈاکٹر عطاء الرحمن صاحب سے ایک سوال داغ دیتے ہیں کہ اگر ڈاکٹر صاحب کا بیٹا غائب ہو جائے تو کیا وہ ڈالر باسٹھ روپے کا ہونے کا جشن منائیں گے؟؟؟؟

میرا سوال یاسر پیرزادہ سے یہ ہے کہ میں اور آپ کیوں گم شدہ افراد کی فہرست میں شامل کیوں نہیں؟ یا میرے اور آپ کے ارد گرد جتنے لوگ ہیں ان میں دور دور تک کوئی لا پتہ فرد شامل نہیں ایسا کیوں ہے؟ سیدھا جواب یہ ہے کہ میں نے اور آپ نے ایسی کوئی حرکت ہی نہیں کی جسکے نتیجے میں ملکی دفا ع پر مامور ایجنسیاں ہماری طرف متوجہ ہوں۔ یہ لا پتہ افراد جب گل کھلا رہے تھے ان کے گھر والوں کو اس وقت ان کی فکر ہونی چاہئے بعد میں لکیر پیٹنے سے کچھ حاصل نہیں ہوتا، ببول کے درخت پر گلاب نہیں اگتے ، جیسی کرنی ویسی بھرنی ، میرا کامل یقین ہے کہ اس ملک کی ایجنسیاں جب تک پکی معلومات نا ہوں کسی پر ہاتھ نہیں ڈالتیں۔ شریف لوگ آج بھی اپنے گھروں میں آرام سے اپنی فیملیز کے ساتھ رہ رہے ہیں۔جیسا کہ ڈاکٹر عطاء الرحمن صاحب کے بچے، میں اور آپ وغیرہ وغیرہ۔۔۔۔

یاسر بھائی! ذرا مجھے آپ یہ بھی بتا دیں کہ پاکستان کی آبادی کا کتنا فیصد اس وقت لا پتہ ہے؟؟؟یقیناًیہ شرح اعشاریہ صفر صفر صفر صفر ایک فیصد سے بھی کم ہو گی، جناب کیا دور کی کوڑی لائے ہیں کہ چونکہ اٹھارہ کروڑ عوام میں سے دو ڈھائی سو بندہ غائب ہے اسلئے ہم یہ نتیجہ اخذ کر لیں کہ مشرف نے کچھ نہیں کیا اور مشرف کے تمام اچھے کام جن کا ذکر ڈاکٹر عطاء الرحمن صاحب نے اپنے کالم میں کیا اسے بہ یک جنبش قلم مسترد کردیں۔ معذرت کے ساتھ یاسر صاحب ،ہمارے باپ کی سفارتکاری مشرف صاحب نے نہیں چھینی اور ہم نا شکرے بھی نہیں۔اس لئے آپکی اور ن لیگ کی ہمنوائی ممکن نہیں، میرے لیڈر پرویز مشرف نے اس ملک کواپنے خون پسینے سے ترقی دی ،جسے آپکے سیاسی آباؤ اجداد نے پھر ایڑیاں رگڑنے پر مجبور کر دیا ہے ۔۔۔ ڈالر ۸ سال تک باسٹھ روپے پر برقرار رکھنا مشرف حکومت کا یقیناًایک کارنامہ تھا جسکا ہر معاشی شد بد رکھنے والا شخص اعتراف کرتا ہے ، آپکے مسترد کرنے سے کچھ نہیں ہوتا میرے بھائی ۔میرا لیڈر پرویز مشرف ایک انتہائی باصلاحیت شخص ہے جسکی جتنی تعریف کی جائے کم ہے ، اور انشاء اللہ وہ دن اللہ جلد لائے گا جب وقتی فرعونوں کی نام نہاد عدالتوں سے میرا لیڈر سرخرو ہو کے باہر نکلے گا اور اس ملک کی دوبارہ خدمت کرے گا۔ گاؤدی اور چغد لوہار وں کو لیڈر بنانے سے بہتر ہے پاکستان فوج کے سپہ سالار کو اپنا لیڈر بنایا جائے اور میں اس میں فخر محسوس کرتا ہوں۔

Dr. Ata-ur-Rehmanآخری گزارش یہ ہے جناب پیرزادہ صاحب کہ کاش اس ملک میں واقعی عدالتی نظام شفاف ہو جائے ۔اگر ایسا ہو جائے تو آپ کے نام نہاد جائز جمہوری سپوتوں کی ہڈیوں کو بھی اس پاک سرزمین میں دفن ہونے کے جگہ نہیں ملے گی کہ انکے جرائم کی فہرست نہایت بھیانک ہے۔۔۔

جئے مشرف۔۔صدا جئے۔۔ہور کی حال اے یاسر بھائی۔۔۔

بشکریہ: سالار ملت بلاگ

Advertisements
h1

The Dark Side of Iftikhar Chaudhry

January 16, 2014

(Written by Afaq)

On 12th December 2013, Iftikhar Chaudhry marked the end of his eventful years as a chief justice of Pakistan.

Charles de Gaulle said, “The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.” Hence, people took the charge, perform their responsibilities and leave. Then this is up to the history to judge their role and legacy.

CJ Exposed IVFormer chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, otherwise considered as a man of courage and vision by many, will sadly be remembered as a media conscious man who escaped from the charges of nepotism and misconduct by taking refuge in highly politicized lawyers’ movement and the one, who believed more in personal vendetta than emerging as an impartial custodian of justice.

If politicians are not doing well, they can be rejected in the elections or summoned in the court. If military coup is undesirable, the military ruler can be trialled. What about the chief justice of the country? Is he above the law? No, he doesn’t. Is he not accountable to anyone? Yes, he is. There is Supreme Judicial Council to investigate the charges against the judges, as clearly mentioned in the Article 209 of the constitution. On 09th March, 2007, the then President filed a reference to the SJC against Iftikhar Chaudhry on the advice of the then Prime Minister. While he didn’t resign, he also didn’t face the inquiry. He took the cover of the media and politicized lawyers’ movement and made the SJC irrelevant.

A file photo dated, 30 June 2005 releaseIt is claimed that he stood against a military ruler and refused to resign – something that made him a hero overnight. But ironically, he himself remained the one who legitimated the same ruler.

Let’s correct the record. Nawaz Sharif’s era was corrupt and ineffective “one man rule” and his overthrown on 12thOctober, 1999 was justified. This is what the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on 13th May, 2000. His Excellency Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of the judges of that 12-member court and favored the military coup.

Not only this, he was one of the nine judges of the bench that validated the Proclamation of Emergency dated 14th October, 1999 and PCO-I as well as the referendum.

He marked his presence in the 5-member bench that validated the legal framework order issued by Musharraf.

He was also the part of 5-member bench that gave judgment in the favour of Musharraf’s uniform and the seventeenth amendment.

Iftikhar Chaudhry was the chief justice at the time when the Supreme Court allowed Musharraf to re-elect in uniform in 2007.

If the constitution of Pakistan was violated on 12th October, 1999 and if that’s the act of treason, then Iftikhar Chaudhry should also be trialed for high treason under the Article 6 (clause 2) of the constitution.

His legacy doesn’t end here.

While he over exercised his authority to take suo-moto notices under the Article 184 (3), he was more concerned about setting market price of samosa and sugar, the possessions of Atiqa Odho and issuing a contempt of court notice to PTI chief. However, the Hazara killing, the persecution of minorities, the suicide bombers, sectarian militant organisations, misuse of blasphemy laws and the atrocities of terrorism – all went unchecked.

CJ Exposed IPakistan has lost almost 50,000 lives in terrorist attacks, but the judiciary failed to prosecute the terrorists. They kept getting acquittal from the courts and kept continuing their anti-state activities. This free service rewarded him appreciation from the miscreants.

During his term, lawyers turned into black coat hooligans. For instance, the assassin of governor Punjab wasshowered by roses in the premises of the court. The ATC judge who gave verdict against him got harassed by the lawyers.

Lawyers were not always violent during his term; they enjoyed the lighter side of life as well. Lahore High Court bar witnessed the dance performance on Sheila ki jawani and the lawyers partied.

This all went unnoticed.

CJ Exposed IIIOn the other hand, he turned a blind eye to the corruption of his son. Even though he took suo moto notice,Supreme Court reversed its position at least three times and finally disposed of the case calling it a personal matter between Arsalan Iftikhar and Malik Riaz.

Iftikhar Chaudhry ruled against the security protocols of the former ministers while himself enjoying the unit of 40-50 security personnel. He asked for police escort and a bullet proof vehicle for security soon after his retirement citing that he was under threat.

He questioned the loyalty of overseas Pakistanis, while keeping mum over the judges with dual nationalities.

He dismissed the elected prime minister showing lack of restraint.

He kept interfering in the affairs of state, and focused less on improving the judiciary – his prime responsibility. The corrupt practices of judges and violent activism of lawyers grew by leaps and bounds. More than 1.5 million cases are still pending in the courts and there is no hope for the speedy justice.

This brief article couldn’t sum up his entire term. In retrospect, he had a golden opportunity and absolute authority to fix the bugs within the judicial system and turning it into a viable institution, but his vindictive behavior made things worse. He had public and media support behind him, he could do this, but alas, he didn’t.

Source: Ibtidah

h1

The Nonsense of the Musharraf Treason Trial: Article 6, Discrimination and a Biased & Compromised Judiciary

November 23, 2013

Usman Sheikh – (APML-UK)

The below is a summary of the main issues the way I have understood them. For non-experts, it can be difficult to understand the legal issues and arguments. Barrister Farogh Naseem, on Rana Mubashir’s programme, has explained the legal issues in layman’s terms on a few occasions. The notes below are based on his lucid presentation along with material which I have gathered from other sources.

The purpose here is merely to relate the main points in a simple manner and, hopefully, demonstrate the ridiculous nature of this treason charge against Pervez Musharraf.

Readers are welcome to notify me of any possible errors.

1. Unethical Conduct of the Supreme Court

From the outset, we need to bear in mind four points:

i. Barely a month after Pervez Musharraf’s arrival in Pakistan, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, issued a challenge, daring people to step forward and bring up charges against Pervez Musharraf.

Can you imagine the Chief Justice of a country behaving in this manner? Iftikhar Chaudhry has been overly politicised and compromised for years and he views Musharraf as his arch enemy. Chaudhry wants his revenge.

ii. For a long time the Chief Justice has been demanding the Federal Government to bring forth treason charges against Pervez Musharraf. When the government politely declined – such as for instance the Caretaker Government – the Supreme Court could not take no for an answer and maintained an argumentative behaviour with the Caretaker Government, insisting the latter bring forth treason charges against Pervez Musharraf, thereby allowing the ever so eager Supreme Court to proceed with the matter.

This is very interesting given the fact that in Pakistani law, the Supreme Court has absolutely no right to request – let alone demand – the Federal Government to bring forth charges against any individual or group. The Supreme Court cannot request, demand, pressurise and incite the Government to bring to its attention any case. Thus, by constantly pressurising the Federal Government to proceed with the treason charges against Musharraf, the Supreme Court is violating the law of the land and exposing its utterly biased attitude.

iii. Now that the Sharif Government, upon the repeated unlawful insistence and pressure of the Supreme Court, has decided to go ahead with the treason charges, Iftikhar Chaudhry has handpicked three judges to oversee this case. These judges, like Iftikhar Chaudhry, are also known to be openly hostile towards Pervez Musharraf and having close relations with the Sharif and Chaudhry families. Iftikhar Chaudhry is known to have been immensely favourable to these judges in the past.

iv. It seems that the FIA was not even given the chance to complete its investigation. While the FIA was just in the very initial/preliminary stages of investigation where not a single witness had been questioned, the Interior Ministry suddenly, out of the blue, ordered them to submit their report on the treason charge. In rush, a rag tag report was hurriedly put together and submitted to the Supreme Court.

2. The Case

The case of treason against Pervez Musharraf follows this logic:

In November 2007, Pervez Musharraf imposed temporary Emergency Rule in Pakistan. As a result, some sections of the Pakistani Constitution were temporarily suspended, or held in abeyance. This is said to be treason against the State because Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan states that holding the Constitution in abeyance is an act of treason.

3. Three Quick Responses

A. Article 232 of the Pakistani Constitution permits the President to impose Emergency Rule under certain situations. As long as the President is satisfied that a situation or a state of affairs exists which warrants Emergency rule, the latter can be imposed.

“Article 232 (1)

If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.

Article 32

Therefore, imposing Emergency Rule is not akin to “treason” as it is permitted by the Pakistani Constitution. One may disagree with the reasons for imposing the Emergency, yet imposing it is not “treason” or a “punishable crime” even if the underlying reasons are deemed to be weak.

Counter Response to the Above: Pervez Musharraf signed the text of the Proclamation of Emergency Rule as the Army Chief, not as the President. So whilst the President can impose Emergency Rule, the Army Chief cannot.

Rebuttal: Signing off a text with the title of Army Chief does not negate the fact that Pervez Musharraf was also the President of the State at that time. Pervez Musharraf’s powers and authority as the President did not temporarily vanish or take the back seat when he signed off a document as the Army Chief. His powers and authority as the President remained, irrespective of the specific title he used in a document.

B. In 2007, Article 6 of the Constitution did not state that holding the Constitution in abeyance or suspending it was an act of “treason.” This is the 2007 version of the text of Article 6:

“(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

In 2010, however, through the 18th Amendment, the above text was altered as follows (italics added):

Artcile 6 - comparison“(1)Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

In 2007, suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance was not an act of high treason. In 2010, however, suspending and holding the Constitution in abeyance became an act of high treason.

It is legally and rationally ridiculous to retroject this backwards to try Pervez Musharraf – or anyone else for that matter – for having allegedly committed “high treason.”

C. Those who have presumed Pervez Musharraf to be guilty of high treason convey the impression as if Pervez Musharraf was working in isolation, in a vacuum, making decisions on his own, with no other individual present in the scene. This scenario is highly unrealistic. The text of the Proclamation of Emergency Rule itself mentions the “prime minister, governors of all four provinces and with the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army” who deliberated upon the situation and then requested the President – Pervez Musharraf – to impose Emergency Rule in Pakistan. However, as far as I can tell, no one has been questioned. To successfully implement the Emergency rule, individuals (Civil Servants etc), judges and departments at all levels were required to play their part. None of them have been questioned. In fact, the Law Minister of that time – Zaid Hamid Khan – who played a pivotal role in designing and implementing the Emergency Rule in 2007 is presently a senior member of Nawaz Sharif’s party and was once again appointed as the Law Minister, only to be made to resign shortly thereafter due to the embarrassment caused on account of his role as the Law Minister in 2007!

 4. Blatant Discrimination

Violation of Article 25 & 6: By having a go at Musharraf, the Supreme Court and the Sharif Government are violating Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 is the equality clause – it calls for a lack of discrimination. Likewise, Article 6 is also not being adhered to.

Article 25

Two forms of blatant discrimination are being carried out:

i. Singling out an individual

 Pervez Musharraf has been singled out as if he was operating in a vacuum. According to Article 6, aiders and abettors are to be charged and are to be treated equally:

Anyone directly/indirectly involved needs to be charged: Army officers, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, journalists etc.

  • Article 6 is not applicable upon a single individual. It talks about a joint enterprise.  Everyone involved in the conspiracy – be it directly or indirectly – is to be tried. There can be no picking and choosing

ii. Restricting the implementation of Article 6 to the November 2007 Emergency

The November 2007 imposition of temporary Emergency Rule is a comparatively very minor matter – compared to the actual Military (counter) coup of 1999.  The latter is the main issue, not the 2007 Emergency.

Were it not for the fact that a Military (counter) coup transpired in 1999, the minor matter of the November 2007 Emergency would not have taken place.

In light of the High Treason Act, the application of Article 6 cannot be limited to the 2007 Emergency. The 1999 Military (counter) coup needs to be considered. Even then, Article 6 cannot be restricted to the 1999 Military (counter) coup. The dark era of the Zia regime also needs to be considered, including all prior Military takeovers.

Article 6 cannot be restricted to a regime/time period. If Musharraf is to be tried, then not only are you required to try all aiders and abettors involved in the 1999 counter coup, but you are also required to try every individual alive who aided, abetted and supported the worst dictatorship in Pakistan’s history – the Zia regime – including all Military regimes in the past.  If Musharraf was wrong, then Zia was wrong. Zia cannot be “right” while Musharraf is “wrong.” Being selective – giving a clean sheet to one regime while targeting another – is a violation of Articles 6 and 25 of the Pakistani Constitution

According to the High Treason Act, from 1958 onwards, every military coup is to be considered and all involved – directly and indirectly – are to be tried and punished.

Thus, by singling out Pervez Musharraf and by restricting the proceedings to the comparatively very minor matter of the imposition of temporary Emergency Rule in November 2007, the Supreme Court and the Sharif Government are violating both Articles 6 & 25 of the Constitution and are also ignoring the High Treason Act, which permits the trial of everyone involved in a coup – whether directly or indirectly – from 1958 onwards.

Either all are tried or none are tried. Either all regimes are considered or none are considered. There must be across the board justice to ensure fairness and transparency. Picking and choosing should not be allowed

Counter Response #1: the Parliament validated the 1999 Army coup. Therefore, one has no choice but to be restricted to the comparatively minor 2007 temporary Emergency Rule.

Rebuttal: The 18th Amendment has made null and avoid the 17th Amendment. This means that the 1999 Military (counter) coup is open to investigation and no longer enjoys protection. Therefore, if we are to abide by the requirements of Articles 25 & 6 of the Pakistani Constitution and apply the High Treason Act, we are to charge each and every individual involved directly and indirectly in the 1999 Army coup and, moreover, all previous Army coups, including the coup carried out by the late Zia ul Haq. We are to try all individuals who worked, whether directly and indirectly, to maintain/strengthen the setup which came about after all Military coups. If we, however, decide to limit things to 2007 and merely single out Pervez Musharraf, we then blatantly violate the Pakistani Constitution.

Counter Response #2: Only a few individuals involved in the previous Military takeovers and regimes are presently alive. Therefore, there is really no point in dragging them to the court.

Rebuttal: It does not matter. Even if one individual is alive who aided, abetted and supported a Military takeover and regime, then he/she is to be brought before the law. Moreover, many who supported the late Gen. Zia ul Haq and played a critical role in supporting, maintaining and furthering his cruel military regime are still alive: for example, people such as Nawaz Sharif, Chaudhry Nisar, Shahbaz Sharif and many others. They are to be brought before the court and made to pay for their crime of violating the Pakistani Constitution.

A Probable Reason for Ignoring the 1999 Military (counter) Coup: Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of the judges who:

1. Legitimized the Military’s takeover of the Government using the “doctrine of necessity” argument

2. Was among the first judges to take an oath on the PCO in January 2000.

3. In April 13 2005, in the “Judgment on 17th Amendment and President’s Uniform Case,” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of 5 Supreme Court judges who dismissed all petitions challenging President Musharraf’s constitutional amendments. In a wide ranging judgment, they declared that the Legal Framework Order (LFO) instituted by General Musharraf after his suspension of the constitution, the 17th amendment which gave this constitutional backing, and the two offices bill which allowed Pervez Musharraf to retain his military uniform whilst being President, were all legal.

His falling out with former President Musharraf occurred only in 2007, when a reference against Iftikhar Chaudhry was legitimately forwarded to the Supreme Judicial Council for investigation.

Therefore, it seems that the 1999 Military (counter) Coup is being ignored because investigating it would mean that a large bulk of the judges – Iftikhar Chaudhry included – and almost all politicians will then be in deep trouble given the fact that they so openly supported, defended, legitimised and strengthened the 1999 Military coup and the subsequent setup for years.

Bottom Line: Army Officers, Politicians, Judges, Bureaucrats, Journalists all need to be tried and punished if they played any part – directly or indirectly – in supporting, maintaining, defending, strengthening and legitimising a Military takeover/regime.

  • Corrupt and biased Judges such as Iftikhar Chaudhry, who legitimised the Army’s rightful counter coup of 1999, are to step down and justice should be served upon them with full force
  • The current two times failed Prime Minister should immediately resign – along with all of his colleagues who aided and abetted the dictator Zia. They must then be brought before the law for violating the Pakistani Constitution multiple times

5. Conclusion

Pervez Musharraf has served Pakistan for over 40 years in the Pakistan Army. He has fought for Pakistan in wars, risking his life on numerous occasions, and has led the elite SSG Commando Unit of Pakistan. Later, he served Pakistan as the Chief of Army Staff, as the Chief Executive and, thereafter, as the President. He boldly represented Pakistan, aggressively fought for the case of Pakistan and continued to patriotically defend Pakistan in the international arena even after retiring from the Army and stepping down from the seat of Presidency.

Can we not see how patriotically Pervez Musharraf has defended Pakistan when in India and when facing off Indian journalists on the Kargil issue? Have we not seen how Pervez Musharraf has defended the Pakistan Army and the ISI in multiple gatherings in the Western world and during interviews on CNN, BBC and a host of other channels? Are we really blind to the incontrovertible fact that there is not a single Pakistani leader besides Pervez Musharraf who has so vigorously defended Pakistan?

What happens to the morale of the Pakistan Army when its highly patriotic former Chief is labelled a “traitor?” Were Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia ul Haq traitors? Zia ul Haq – responsible for the harshest dictatorship in the history of Pakistan – was loyally supported and aided by the likes of Nawaz Sharif who maintained the former’s dictatorial regime. Is nothing to be done regarding this?

It is shameful, to say the least, when a genuinely patriotic Pakistani such as Musharraf is accused of being a “traitor.”

It is even more shameful if the Pakistani nation remains silent and allows this travesty to pass by without a challenge.

PM

h1

Fabricated Case of Lal Masjid / Jamia Hafsa – EXCLUSIVE

October 14, 2013

By Usman Sheikh

In another absurd move, the former President of Pakistan has been arrested again on the basis of the allegation that he “killed” the mother of the terrorist Ghazi brothers (along with the younger Ghazi brother). It is as if the former President rolled up his sleeves, pressed the trigger or ordered the soldiers on the ground to ensure only one of the Ghazi brothers was killed, along with his mother, whilst all the unarmed students, women and kids were successfully rescued.

Below is a very brief and quick summary of the main points:

Q. Thousands of innocent women and children were killed during the Lal Masjid operation and chemical weapons were used

A. 

1. Lie.

* Only one non-combatant was killed: the elderly mother of the terrorist Ghazi brothers. She was killed in the cross fire in the basement of the Lal Masjid

* We know of no other unarmed civilian who was killed in this operation

* Altogether, 103 people were killed in the Lal Masjid operation, of which 11 were security officials

Lal Masjid Commission Report

[Note: The Lal Masjid Commission Report gives a lie to the assertion that “thousands” or “hundreds” of “women and children” were killed in the operation. It also highlights the fact that a) the Lal Masjid / Jamia Hafsa management were preaching and involved in terrorist activities; b) were actively supporting terrorists; c) initiated hostilities d) had a long history of involvement in dodgy activities; e) were not merely demanding the reconstruction of 7 illegally built masajid, but were also demanding the imposition of their weird version of the sharia upon the whole of Pakistan (including demanding the imposition of the Saudi system in Pakistan)]

2. Islamic law does not permit any Tom, Dick, or Harry to take the law into his/her own hands. Neither does it permit any individual to wage (offensive) jihad and to oppose the State, particularly when doing so would cause bloodshed and mayhem.

3. Pakistani authorities negotiated with the terrorists of the Lal Masjid / Jamia Hafsa for many months, trying their best to reach a peaceful resolution. They even agreed to reconstruct the illegally built masajid. Yet the management of Lal Masjid / Jamia Hafsa refused to accept a peaceful settlement and even dismissed the requests of the Wafaqul Madaris

4. These terrorists had threatened to launch suicide attacks, had encouraged members to throw acid upon the female students in the Quaid-e-Azam University, illegally occupied buildings (including a library), burnt the Ministry of Environment building and stored weapons and explosives in the masjid. They destroyed shops, kidnapped and tortured people and kidnapped police officers on multiple occasions. The Ghazi brothers openly threatened suicide bombings and boasted about their close contacts with the TTP and individuals such as Baitullah Mehsud. Ignoring the statements of the

Imam of Kaaba, Taqiuddin Usmani and dismissing the efforts of the Wafaqul Madaris and many others, they began making completely unreasonable and unrealistic demands, including the imposition of the Saudi system in Pakistan. But still the Pakistan authorities continued negotiating with them.

5. Forces on the ground decided to act once the students of the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa killed a Ranger and conducted other destructive activities.

6. As explained by the Lal Masjid Commission Report, no heavy machinery was used by the Pakistani forces. The Commission compared this operation with the operation conducted to liberate the Kaaba in 1979. In the latter, heavy machinery and tanks were used, resulting in hundreds of casualties. In the former, in sharp contrast, all the women, girls and unarmed civilians were rescued by the Pakistani forces and, thereafter, a careful and cautious operation was conducted to eliminate the armed terrorists.

Lal Masjid terrorists

White Phosphorous Grenade allegation

A. No chemical weapon was used in the lal masjid operation

B. The army uses a grenade called SMOKE DISCHARGE/GRENADE WP P3 MK1, locally produced in POF and is used for smoke screening purposes in battles. It is an ordinary grenade and not a chemical weapon.

C. White phosphorus grenades were used to create smoke to enable the soldiers move inside the premises.

D. No lethal application of White phosphorous was made in the operation.

Lal Masjid - Suicide BombersClick here for some forgotten facts about the Lal masjid. (Must Watch)

Click here to read the exclusive article written by President Musharraf, “Lal Masjid- Shifting Truth from Lies” and “Behind the walls of the Laal Masjid” by Naeem Tahir.

“Lal Masjid has 10,000 suicide bombers” – A blunt confession by Molana Abdul Aziz.

h1

An Analysis of the Kargil Conflict 1999

February 5, 2013

(Written by Shaukat Qadir – A retired soldier from the Pakistan army, the founder and Vice President of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, and now works as an independent analyst.)

“The purpose of deterrence is to deter”

VajpayeeIn May 1998 India tested its nuclear weapons, and Pakistan, despite the halfhearted attempts of the international community to prevent it, soon followed suit. Many analysts viewed this development as dangerous. Almost an equally large number felt that it was for the best, however, since this brought deterrence fully into place. It was not long before the latter were rudely shocked out of their assessment.

In February 1999, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Indian Prime Minister, visited Pakistan as part of the much touted ‘bus diplomacy’, on the invitation of his counterpart, Mr Nawaz Sharif. Vajpayee was greeted with great pomp and show, unaware that Kargil had been (or was being) occupied. In early May 1999, the Indian army learnt that intruders had occupied the heights close to the Dras region in Kashmir. A patrol of ten soldiers sent to investigate was wiped out. Over the next few days the Indian army, without yet reporting to their political leadership (as any other army would do), proceeded to first attempt the eviction of the intruders and, on failing to do so, assess the extent of their intrusion. At some point they went to the political leadership to inform them of the intrusion. The event led to a military takeover in Pakistan and sent shock waves round the world. And according to some analysts, it almost led to a nuclear war. It is still too early to assess the final outcome of the event. For Vajpayee, this was a particularly un-propitious moment in time  he was heading an interim government, coming up for re-election in a few months, and, following a courageous trip to Lahore, in the teeth of opposition from all his colleagues.

Let me state at the outset that, while I have considerable knowledge of the course of events (pieced together from private discussions with friends and colleagues in positions of authority, who played a role), I have neither the official Pakistani version nor, quite obviously, any input from the Indian side. There is, therefore, some conjecture in what follows. Only the actual actors will be able to judge the accuracy of this conjecture. That said, this analysis is based on my (not inconsiderable) personal knowledge of: the terrain around Kargil; the character of the principal actors in the Pakistan army; the decision making process in the Pakistan army (in which I served in numerous command and staff assignments); and the collective character of the Pakistan army (on which basis I also judge the Indian army, being essentially no different).

Background

When the British finally decided to leave India in 1947, the ‘Princely States’ were given the freedom to decide their own fate. They could join either of the two new states created by partition, India and Pakistan, or opt for independence. Junagarh, a predominantly Hindu state, with a Muslim ruler, opted for Pakistan, but was forcibly occupied by India on the principle that the population was predominantly Hindu. Hyderabad chose independence, but was again forced into the Indian Union. The territories that formed the state of Jammu and Kashmir were governed by a Sikh ruler, who kept delaying his decision until 1948, when finally some tribal lashkars (a loosely grouped force) decided to intervene on behalf of their Muslim brethren. He then announced his accession to India over the radio, and Indian troops were air lifted into Kashmir (reinforcing those already there), ostensibly to defend the Maharaja (Prince). Interestingly, India claims that the Maharajah also signed the document of accession, although no one has ever seen the document.

Indian troops moved into the valley of Srinagar and managed to evict the lashkars, where they established what was later to be called the Line of Control (LOC). Despite lobbying by India, the United Nations unanimously passed a resolution in favor of self determination for the people of Kashmir. Jawaharal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, accepted the resolution and promised to abide by it, but later reneged. Kashmir became ‘disputed territory’, divided into Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) and Azad (free) Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K, or AK), as the Pakistanis came to refer to them. Pakistan and India have fought three wars. Of these, two were fought over Kashmir, in 1948 and 1965, when Pakistan attempted to liberate the people of Kashmir. The 1971 war was imposed by India, to liberate East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Kashmir has been the site of numerous mini-wars between the two countries, which have constantly sought to take advantage of the other’s perceived vulnerabilities. Since India occupied the vacant heights at Siachin glacier in 1984, there has been an annual exchange at what is the highest battleground in the world. Pakistan too, has seized every opportunity to gain an advantage. Kargil was, in fact, on the Pakistani side of the LOC until 1971, when the Indians evicted Pakistani troops in a surprise attack.

The Terrain

The terrain around Kargil is amongst the most beautiful in the world. It is also amongst the most difficult to conduct military operations in. The Kargil mini war was fought over an area extending from Dras to Kargil and Batalik, an area spanning about a hundred kilometers in length. Craggy peaks abound the region range in height from 13000 feet t 18000 feet, with the floor of the valleys at around 7000 feet. Each crest line is followed by another, with ravines in between, and there are frequent depressions (even along the crest line of one continuous feature), which could range from a few hundred feet in depth to a few thousand. Therefore, infantry attacks, unless backed by surprise, are an exceedingly costly venture. What is more, they are almost certainly doomed to failure [1]. The extremely harsh and inhospitable nature of the terrain was the reason for the Indian troops taking a ‘calculated risk’, leaving it unoccupied during winters, and returning at the advent of spring.

What are referred to as ‘roads’ in this mountainous terrain are usually tracks, which nevertheless can accommodate heavy traffic, including military vehicles. The tracks invariably run along valleys, in this case from Dras to Kargil fairly close to the heights. At Dras, the road curves right under the predominant heights, making the entire Main Supply Route (MSR) feeding the surrounding area (including Siachin) vulnerable to interdiction, even with small arms. Most valleys in the region range in span from a few hundred metres to a couple of thousand. At Dras the valley is at its widest, ranging between five to seven thousand metres, which enables it to house a small cantonment. It is from this cantonment that, at the advent of spring, troops return to occupy the heights they have vacated in winters.

Preliminaries

MusharrafSometime around mid-November 1998, Lt Gen Mahmud, then commanding 10 Corps, sought an appointment with the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen Pervez Musharaf, through the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Lt Gen Aziz. When he went to see him, he was accompanied by the General Officer Commanding (GOC), Frontier Constabulary of the Northern Areas (FCNA), Major General (now Lt Gen) Javed Hassan. They sought permission to execute a plan, which had previously been shelved, to occupy terrain in the Dras-Kargil sector, vacated by the Indians every winter. The rationale was that it would provide a fillip to the Kashmiri freedom movement. The plan was approved in principle, with instructions to commence preparations. Knowledge of this plan was to be confined to the four people present, for the time being.

It is useful to interrupt the sequence of events here, in order to draw a brief pen-picture of each of these four characters, as I know them. Doing so will provide a better understanding of the Pakistani adventure in Kargil, in which these characters played a prime role. Obviously, these will be incomplete, focusing essentially on the traits relevant to the events at Kargil. Equally obvious is the fact that the assessment of their characters is mine and, only as accurate as my knowledge of them, and my ability to assess another human being.

Gen. Pervez Musharaf: A sharp and intelligent artillery officer, he commanded infantry formations from brigade upwards, and held a large variety of staff and instructional appointments. A bold commander, who takes pride in being decisive, quick to take decisions and, therefore, a good commander of troops and keen to assume responsibility.

Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed: Again an artillery officer, with a wide variety of experience. He is sharp, intelligent and arrogant. So arrogant, in fact, that towards the end of his career it became overwhelming. A strong, forceful, decisive and highly ambitious individual, he was secular until he ‘discovered’ the force of Islam late in life. As a consequence, perhaps, he became dangerous in the way that anyone will become if they believe they are ‘incapable of doing wrong’.

Lt. Gen. Muhammed Aziz: More than anyone else, he has been painted the villain, and the ‘fundo’ (someone prepared to misinterpret religion in its puritanical form so as to justify acts of violence), which he is not. Deeply religious, but very balanced, he was born Kashmiri, and has served in some of the most rugged reaches of it at various stages of his career. He is strongly patriotic and deeply committed to the cause of Kashmir, but not to the extent that it might jeopardize Pakistan. He is intelligent, sharp, very balanced, progressive and dynamic.

Major General Javed Hassan: A highly intelligent and well-read officer, he is more of an academic than a commander, and bears that reputation. He, therefore, was the only one with a point to prove.

While preparations for executing the plan began in November/December 1999, the subject was casually broached with Prime Minister Sharif at some point in December. He was presented with the same argument that the freedom struggle in Kashmir needed a fillip, which could be provided by an incursion into these (temporarily unoccupied) territories. Sharif, being the type of person he is, accepted the statement at face value. The military leadership had not presented a complete analysis of the scale of the operation or its possible outcome, nor had they set out its political aim and how it would be achieved.

Colonel Sher KhanAt this stage the rest of the army was unaware of plans for the operation (as indeed were the Chief of Air Staff [CAS] and the Chief of Naval Staff [CNS] too), and preparations proceeded in secret. The operation was, in my view, not intended to reach the scale that it finally did. In all likelihood, it grew in scale as the troops crept forward to find more unoccupied heights, until finally they were overlooking the valley. In the process, they had ended up occupying an area of about 130 square kilometers over a front of over 100 kilometers, and a depth ranging between seven to fifteen kilometers. They were occupying 132 posts of various sizes. Whereas the total number of troops occupying these posts never exceeded 1000 (from all ranks), four times this number provided the logistical backup to undertake the operation. While the occupants were essentially soldiers of the Northern Light Infantry (NLI), there were some local Mujahideen assisting as labor to carry logistical requirements.

It was at this stage, in March 1999, that the leadership of the army was apprised of the operation and the Military Operations (MO) Directorate in GHQ was tasked to evolve a strategic operational plan, which would have a military aim to fulfill a political objective. Given the fact that they were developing a plan to justify an operation already underway, the response was no less than brilliant. Given the total ratio of forces of India and Pakistan, which was about 2.25:1, [2] the MO concluded that the initial Indian reaction would be to rush in more troops to IHK, further eroding their offensive capabilities against Pakistan. As a consequence, they concluded that India would not undertake an all-out offensive against Pakistan, since by doing so it would run the risk of ending in a stalemate, which would be viewed as a victory for Pakistan [3]. It is for this reason that I maintain the view, which is held by no other analyst (to my knowledge) of this episode, that war, let alone nuclear war, was never a possibility.

The political aim underpinning the operation was ‘to seek a just and permanent solution to the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir’. However, the military aim that preceded the political aim was ‘to create a military threat that could be viewed as capable of leading to a military solution, so as to force India to the negotiating table from a position of weakness’ [4]. The operational plan envisaged India amassing troops at the LOC to deal with the threat at Kargil, resulting in a vacuum in their rear areas. By July, the Mujahideen would step up their activities in the rear areas, threatening the Indian lines of communication at pre-designated targets, which would help isolate pockets, forcing the Indian troops to react to them. This would create an opportunity for the forces at Kargil to push forward and pose an additional threat. India would, as a consequence, be forced to the negotiating table. While it is useless to speculate on whether it could in fact have succeeded, theoretically the plan was faultless, and the initial execution, tactically brilliant. The only flaw was that it had not catered for the ‘environment’ [5]. Quite clearly, it was an aberration to the environment, and the international reaction soon left little doubt of that.

Soon thereafter, the first formal briefing of the entire operation was made for the benefit of the prime minister in April, in the presence of the other services. Since the CNS was on a visit abroad, the navy’s reaction was voiced cautiously, but the CAS was openly critical and skeptical of the conclusion that India would not opt for an all-out war. He also voiced the view that in the event of war, the air force would not be able to provide the support that the army might seek.

The Battle

Havaldar Lalik Jan ShaheedBy the third week of May, the Indian leadership began to have some idea of the extent of the penetration. They tempered their initial boastful claims of ousting the intruders in a matter of days, to weeks, then to months, and finally they expressed a hope that they might be able to evict them before the onset of winter, but were not sure of achieving even that. Meantime, in Pakistan, the decision had been taken to deny that the intrusion had been perpetrated by military troops, and instead put the lame on the Mujahideen. In the period up to the third week of May, the Indian army made numerous unsuccessful forays into the region and suffered heavy losses. At about this time, the Indians decided to escalate the war vertically, by using airpower. They also decided to bring in their 400 odd ‘Bofors guns’ [6]. In fact only about 170 were introduced, but these were destined to play a decisive role.

The inclusion of air power was not very successful. Within a few days, on 28 May, two MIGs were shot down by Pakistan. The following day Pakistan shot down two helicopters. The Indians’ lack of success had nothing to do with effort, but rather the nature of terrain, which ensured that bombing, had little chance of working unless it was laser-guided – the only kind that could be accurate in this terrain. Since this terrain also made it impossible for the Indians to put Troops on the ground, they tried using helicopters, which forced them to expose themselves.

Early in June the Bofors guns began to arrive. Since Dras was the locality where Indians were most vulnerable, they decided to start there. Deployment was possible because the great depth of the valley provided the necessary space. While only forty or so guns could be deployed here, they were sufficient. Under cover of fire, elements of 2 Rajputana Rifles captured what the Indians called ‘Tololing top’, (Point 4590) [7], the most dominating height directly overlooking Dras, on 12 June. An adjacent post was captured on 13 June, and Tiger Hills (Point 5140), another dominating height, fell on 20 June. Without in any way undermining the courage and determination of the Indian soldier, the deployment of the Bofors could not but result in the capture of these peaks (see Figure 1). But they could not effect the same military outcome in other places, merely due to the nature of the terrain, and the lack of space and depth to deploy the Bofors.

The Aftermath

nawaz_sharifNawaz Sharif, who had been gloating over the drubbing that the Indians were getting, began to feel uncomfortable. In all fairness to him, the military leadership had failed to apprise him of the politico-diplomatic fallout and he characteristically made no effort to analyze this aspect. The international pressure was becoming unbearable and,when the posts at Dras fell, he began looking for an escape route, not appreciating the military causes of battle, which the army made no effort to explain. Sharif was very worried about the reaction of the military leadership, realizing that a withdrawal might result in his untimely ouster. He responded by dispatching his brother, Shahbaz Sharif to Washington, where he succeeded in getting the US administration to issue a warning that it would regard a military coup in Pakistan as unacceptable. Not only did this serve to warn the military leadership of the prime minister’s fears, it also shed some light on the possible course he might pursue later. The Indian leadership had been offering Sharif an ‘out’ – a statement by him that the Pakistani army had undertaken the operation without political sanction. Had Sharif accepted this offer in time, he might have survived (even though it would have made him look foolish). He lacked the political acumen, however. When he finally accepted the offer – after being forced from power – he found few believers.

During the last briefing in late June, the COAS, General Musharaf, told Sharif that, while the military did not believe that India would succeed in ousting Pakistani troops from the posts they were holding [8], the army would pull back if the government so desired. After some frantic telephone calls by Sharif to US President Clinton, in which he conveyed his desperation at the course of events, he went to Washington. He met Clinton on 4 July, and armed with guarantees of his support, returned to announce the withdrawal of the ‘freedom fighters’ occupying Kargil.

Sharif was still apprehensive, however, and also uncertain of his ability to survive his decision to pull back. Had he been otherwise, things might have continued more or less as normal, and the Pakistani people may still be saddled with him. Instead, he began to call upon the COAS to proceed against the principal actors in this episode and get rid of them. He also convinced Mr Niaz Naik [9] to give an interview to the BBC stating that India and Pakistan had been working towards a peaceful solution of Kashmir, which was hijacked by Kargil. Musharaf resisted, believing that if heads were to roll, his would be the first. Sharif’s plot to get rid of him was unsuccessful, and the rest is history. Sharif was deposed and Musharaf assumed the mantle of leadership.

As indicated above, Pakistan’s first error of judgment was to undertake the operation at a juncture when the entire international community was bound to condemn it. Not only was the ‘Lahore process’ being viewed with hope, India had returned to the limelight in the US’s eyes and Vajpayee was just establishing himself in power. Kargil had the capacity for creating political chaos in India, which was the last thing the world wanted. If it had succeeded, the Advanis and George Fernandes’ would have been India’s future. This, in my judgment, would have meant disaster for everyone, including Pakistan. If Kargil had taken place a year earlier, the reaction might have been less adverse.

Kargil conflictAs if this were not enough, Pakistan decided, for some inexplicable reason, to disclaim responsibility for the incursion. Not only did this cause considerable politico-diplomatic embarrassment to Pakistan, it also made other truthful assertions suspect. American intelligence had already confirmed a military presence there. Tapes obtained in Pakistan of a conversation between the COAS and the CGS during a trip to China added further confirmation. To top it off, Pakistan was giving away gallantry awards (including the highest military award in Pakistan) to soldiers who, we averred, were not fighting a war!

Nonetheless, having suffered the condemnation and the embarrassment of being caught in a blatant falsehood, if the planning of the complete operation was as meticulous as I understand it to have been, the leadership might have been better to allow it to run its course. The operation was, beyond any doubt, brilliantly planned. If the military leadership was convinced (and some of them managed to convince me) of the possibilities of its success, it might have been better to see it to its logical conclusion.

The military takeover was ‘written on the walls of Kargil’. Even if Sharif had succeeded in his endeavors to oust Musharaf, he could not have lasted. No political government could survive the sacking of two army chiefs [10] in one term in Pakistan – an unfortunate reality. It now appears that Pakistan will return to some sort of ‘controlled democracy’ (whatever that means), with Musharaf as the ultimate, untrammeled ‘check and balance’ to a puppet government, for a minimum of five years. His steps so far are appreciably in the right direction, but whether absolute power will corrupt absolutely, only time will tell. Even if it turns out for the best, the idea of democratic dictatorship is unpleasant. Yes, Kargil is an ongoing process, with the ultimate outcome still awaited.

FOOTNOTES

1. The size of the feature dictates the number of soldiers it can accommodate: usually between four to twelve per post. The size of the approach to the top dictates the number of soldiers that can approach it abreast, typically between eight to twenty. Consequently, the battle is heavily weighted in favor of the defender.

2. It is generally accepted that the required ratio for a force launching an offensive to have chances of success is 3:1. However, in mountainous terrain the required ratio may be many times more. If the present total military capabilities (including quality, quantity, numbers, etc .) – were measured, I would support the estimate that MO came up with in

1999. However, this relationship is not permanent, and, given their proposed military spending, will undergo a drastic change in favor of India in a year or two.

3. While the general view was that nuclear deterrence was the cause of Indian restraint, I tend to agree with the conclusions of MO. It is my view that India toyed with the idea of an all out war in late May/early June, but the military leadership could not guarantee the defeat of Pakistan. Consequently, it was decided to confine the battle to this small chunk of territory.

4. My input on the subject is from a number of highly placed sources, on the condition of anonymity, during and immediately after the episode. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the words, but can vouch for the essence of the two statements.

5. At the National Defense College, while teaching operational planning, the first factor to be considered is ‘environment’. The word refers to the national and international dimensions, on the basis of which one can decide whether the political aim could be acceptably achieved, and if so, to develop a military plan that could succeed within the given environment.

6. Swedish made field howitzers, light and portable enough to be inducted into area.

7. Point heights indicate the height of the feature in meters.

8. The army had continued to assert that no posts had fallen to the Indians, which reaffirms the contention that no effort was made to explain such a loss, or why it could not recur. However, in this case, it appears that Sharif found the Indian claims more credible than the Pakistan army’s denials.

9. An ex-foreign secretary of Pakistan involved in ‘track two’ diplomacy with India.

10. In October 1998, Sharif sought and obtained the resignation of Gen Jehangir Karamat,then COAS, over a disagreement, when he publicly recommended the formation of a National Security Council.

Source: http://shaukatqadir.info/pdfs/Kargil.pdf

h1

Musharraf announces January 2012 return

December 18, 2011

LAHORE: All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) President Pervez Musharraf announced on Sunday that he will come back to Pakistan in January 2012.

Addressing a videoconference in Lahore from London, APML President stated that the solution for Pakistan’s prevailing challenges do not lie in undemocratic initiatives and that military intervention into politics would be fatal for Pakistan and its people.

The APML arranged a public gathering at Nasir Bagh Lahore, where party workers from across the country had gathered to listen to Musharraf’s address.

APML President asserted that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Army guarantee Pakistan’s solidarity and sovereignty and added that some elements were conspiring to defame the ISI and Pakistan’s security forces.

Commenting on the performance of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in the current government, Musharraf said that both the leading political parties had been in power twice but had delivered nothing to the masses.

Musharraf urged that the people of Pakistan should cast their votes regardless of their caste and creed, linguistic, religious and provincial prejudices.

Endorsing the demand of Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan, Musharraf said that politicians should submit details of their assets.

“I will provide details of my assets on my arrival in Pakistan,” Musharraf reiterated.

The APML President also said that Pakistan was engulfed into crisis due to incompetent rulers and amidst these hard times, any institution of the country solely cannot steer the country out from the current crisis.

“I led Pakistan towards prosperity and stabilized the economy of the country during my regime and boosted the image of the country worldwide,” APML President said.

“I will soon be among my countrymen and the elements who levelled allegations against me should gather evidences, as they have failed to prove even a single corruption allegation against me”, Musharraf challenged.

APML President also said that only the people of Pakistan can bring change in the country.

Source: The Express Tribune

h1

Former President Musharraf to return on January 31

November 26, 2011

Dubai: In what appears to be a surprising move, former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has decided to return to Pakistan earlier than he had announced due to the fast-changing political scene in the country.

According to one of his aides, Musharraf will fly back to Pakistan on January 31, 2012, instead of March 23 as was announced by him in a press conference in Dubai earlier this year.

A deepening political crisis and the sharp increase in popularity of Imran Khan in Pakistan have ostensibly prompted Musharraf to take this decision.

Meanwhile, a senior Pakistan government official has revealed to Gulf News that the Pakistani authorities have clearly conveyed to Musharraf the threats to his life in case of his return.

“We advised him to stay out of the country because there are threats to his life not only from extremist groups but also others who don’t want to see him in Pakistan,” the official said.

Former prime minister Benazir Bhuatto, who was assassinated on her return from Dubai in 2007, also faced similar threats and warnings before her return but it was Musharraf, in power at the time, who had warned her.

Musharraf, however, has rubbished these threats and is determined to go back. He will be on a tour of the UK, US and Saudi Arabia for the next month to ensure guarantees for his safe return and the launch of his political campaign to contest the next elections.

The decision has been taken following marathon meetings Musharraf held with his party leaders and supporters who came to Dubai from Pakistan, UK, US and Canada.

The three-day-long parleys concluded yesterday with a decision that it is time for Musharraf to go back as soon as possible. Musharraf, who has been living in self-exile, had launched his political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), in October 2011 in a bid to give a third option to the Pakistani electorate.

Almost finalised

“We have almost finalised our party’s organisational structure in Pakistan and are paving the way for our leader’s return,” Fawad Chaudhry, a spokesperson of the APML told Gulf News in Dubai.

When asked about Musharraf’s early return, he did not confirm the date but did acknowledge that the decision had been taken for Musharraf to go back earlier. He said formal plans of his return would be announced by the end of December.

Some five plane-loads of people will accompany Musharraf to Pakistan. He will start his journey from London and reach Pakistan via Dubai. However, a decision is yet to be taken on whether he will land in Karachi or Islamabad.

Meanwhile, Chaudhry said efforts are on for a possible alliance with Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf and Altaf Hussain’s MQM, while a number of politicians from different factions of Pakistan Muslim League are also in touch to join the APML.

“APML will emerge as a third political force and alternative to the current political parties because the people of Pakistan want change,” Musharraf had said in an earlier meeting and added he would take his chances in a bid to make a comeback to power to save Pakistan.

He said the current government had become completely dysfunctional while the administration structure had broken down and the country was facing political turmoil, in addition to a worsening law and order situation.

The meetings lead by Musharraf also discussed his security plans on his return and also the issue of arrest warrants. Musharraf is facing two arrests warrants including one over the killing of a Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti and the another on the murder of Benazir Bhutto.

Source: Gulf News

%d bloggers like this: