B.RAMAN
BASIC DATA (From BBC)
* King Hamad, 61, a Sunni, has been in power since 1999
* Population 800,000 (70 per cent Shias); land area 717 sq km, or 100 times smaller than the Irish Republic
* Ranks 48 out of 178 on corruption
* A population with a median age of 30.4 years, and a literacy rate of 91%
* Youth unemployment at 19.6%
* Gross national income per head: $25,420 (World Bank 2009)
Latest reports from Bahrain speak of considerable tension marked by anti-King and anti-Government slogans shouted by thousands of Shia mourners attending the funerals of seven persons killed during a crack-down by the riot police on a group of young people demonstrating against the Government from the Pearl Square since February 14,2011.
2.The protest movement started as a movement of solidarity with the Egyptian youth on February 14, turned into an anti-Government movement on February 15 after the death of two Shias due to alleged use of force by the Police and then turned into an anti-King movement on February 17 after the brutal dispersal of the protesters from the Pearl Square by the riot police on the night intervening February 16/17.
3. Initially, the demonstrators were mainly shouting pro-democracy slogans calling for reforms and action to remove economic hardships. There was no religious or sectarian colour , but after the crack-down by the riot police it is tending to take a religious colour. Some of the slogans shouted during the funeral ceremonies on February 18 were : "Justice, freedom and constitutional monarchy," "victory for Islam", "death for Al Khalifa [the ruling family]", "we are your soldiers", "Revolution till victory." Many Shia women have participated.
4.The Government initially allowed the demonstrations to take place, but as they gathered strength the riot police moved in on the night of Februaty 16/17 and forcibly dispersed the demonstrators in the Pearl Square. This was followed by a ban on meetings, fencing of the Square to prevent demonstrators from gathering there again and deployment of the Army with tanks and armoured personnel carriers at key points in the capital Manama.
5. The Bahrain authorities have sought to project the demonstrations and the incidents of violence as largely organised by mischievous elements in the Shia community instigated from outside, meaning Iran. Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed Al Khalifa told a press conference on the evening of February 17 that the police intervention was justified to prevent "a sectarian conflict and an economic crisis." He accused the demonstrators of "polarizing the country" and pushing it to the "brink of the sectarian abyss."
6. However, there have been some reports of the involvement of some Sunni youth also in the demonstrations. The BBC reports that the Shias formed "the bulk of the protesters" on February 18. Al Jazeera’s correspondents in Bahrain have reported as follows:”Hospitals are full of injured people after Wednesday night's police raid on the pro-reform demonstrators. Some of them are severely injured with gunshots. Patients include doctors and emergency personnel who were overrun by the police while trying to attend to the wounded.After several days of holding back, the island nation's Sunni rulers unleashed a heavy crackdown, trying to stamp out the first anti-government upheaval to reach the Arab states of the Gulf since the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. In the surprise assault, police tore down protesters' tents, beating men and women inside and blasting some with shotgun sprays of bird-shot. The pre-dawn raid was a sign of how deeply the Sunni monarchy fears the repercussions of a prolonged wave of protests, led by members of the country's Shia majority but also joined by growing numbers of discontented Sunnis.”
7. Even though the demonstrators initially took care not to project their protests as Shia protests against Sunni domination, the authorities, who have accused the Shia protesters of polarising inter-communal relations, have themselves contributed to the polarisation by encouraging the Sunnis, including Sunnis from South Asia living and working in Bahrain, to hold a counter demonstration in support of the King. The attempt of the authorities to encourage counter-demonstrations by the Sunnis and the reported participation of Sunnis from South Asia in them could turn the Shias against the Muslim migrants from South Asia.
8. The Shias have been enraged by the brutal dispersal of the protesters from the Pearl Square.A senior Shia cleric, Sheikh Issa Qassem, has condemned the attack on the protesters by the riot police as a "massacre" . According to Al Jazeera,in the wake of the crack-down by the riot police, angry demonstrators chanted "the regime must go," and burned pictures of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa outside the emergency ward at Salmaniya Medical Complex, the main hospital in Manama
9.Bahrain's opposition has demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa's government in the wake of the raid.
"The opposition groups, including Al-Wefaq, have issued a statement demanding the government resign and calling for the formation of a new government to investigate this crime," said Al-Wefaq bloc's leader, Ali Salman. "We have decided to completely pull out from parliament," added Salman, whose bloc holds 18 seats in the country's 40-member elected house.
10. Iran finds itself in a dilemma. It cannot vociferously support the demand for democracy and political reforms by the Shias of Bahrain while ruthlessly suppressing demonstrators in Iran voicing similar demands and threatening to execute their leaders. The US has been greatly concerned due to the likelihood of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries and coming in the way of its support to the anti-regime demonstrations in Iran. How can the US vociferously support the pro-democracy demostrations in Iran while maintaining a muted response to the demonstrations in Bahrain? If the demonstrations succeed in Bahrain and a pro-Iranian Shia group comes to power, it could affect the operations of the US Fifth Fleet, the headquarters of which are located in Bahrain.
11. The spread of the unrest in the Gulf region could impact on oil security. Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and Mr.Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, are reported to have contacted their counterparts in Bahrain and urged restraint.Obama's spokesman Jay Carney has said the President's view is that "we oppose the use of violence by the government of Bahrain." If the US is not careful in handling the issue, it may end up by playing into the hands of Iran. At present, both the US and Iran face an equal dilemma in Bahrain, but the ultimate advantage could be with Iran if the protest movement picks up further momentum
12. There is considerable nervousness in the Gulf Countries.Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council consisting of Bahrain,Oman,Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates held an emergency meeting in Manama on February 17 and said in a statement: "Our security is a collective responsibility and there is no question of accepting foreign interference."
13. The crisis in Bahrain poses a ticklish situation for Indian workers---particularly India Muslims, many of whom are believed to be Sunnis. If the Shias ultimately succeed, local anger could turn against the Sunnis from South Asia, who will be suspected of letting themselves be used by the Sunni rulers to suppress the movement. (18-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail:-seventyone2@gmail.com )
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
MAULANA FAZLUR REHMAN'S MYSTERIOUS VISIT TO INDIA
B.RAMAN
The Lucknow correspondent of Rediff.com has reported as follows on February 17,2011:
" The two-day India visit by Islamic hardliner and Pakistan's Jamiat-ul-Islami chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman is believed to be aimed at reinforcing the anti-Vastanvi forces at the Darul-Uloom Deoband seminary in Uttar Pradesh , where the recently appointed vice chancellor Ghulam Mohammad Vastanvi had drawn much flak for praising Narendra Modi's governance in Gujarat.
"Ostensibly, Rehman was in Deoband and New Delhi earlier this week to broker peace between the two warring factions of Indian Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind led by rival Madnis -- uncle Arshad Madni and nephew Mahmood.
"However, informed sources at Deoband suspect that the Pakistani cleric's 'real intent behind bringing the Madnis together was to strengthen the anti-Vastanvi lobby.'
"Vastanvi's fate is to be decided at a meeting of Deoband's 'Majlis-e-Shoora', the highest decision making body of the institution on February 23.
"Considering that Mahmood Madni was responsible for mobilising support for Vastanvi against whom Arshad was known to have fuelled all the trouble, unity between the duo was aimed at weakening the seminary chief's case.
"The proximity between Pakistani cleric Rehman and Arshad Madni was always an open secret. And even during his 17- hour long stay in Deoband, the two were seen together every minute.
"Sources in Deoband claimed that Rehman's visit was planned by Arshad, who was clearly worried about his hold over Deoband.
"Rehman was therefore called to convince Mahmood to sink his differences with his uncle Arshad in the larger interest of maintaining the undisputed hold of the undivided Madni power over the seminary.
"Who does not know that the Madnis whose family has called the shots at the seminary for decades, were responsible for appointment of the previous vice chancellor Maulana Maghrubur Rehman who passed away last year," a senior faculty member told rediff.com over telephone from Deoband.
"Yet another young lecturer, who had hailed the appointment of a computer savvy and MBA qualified Vastanvi as the new vice chancellor felt, "Members of the Arshad Madni lobby were busy impressing upon all north Indians at the seminary that they must not allow Vastanvi to continue as he was the first non-north Indian to head the Deoband seminary."
"He went on to add, "Evidently, the whole idea was to prevent any progressive Muslim to take over the reins of this historic institution; and that was the reason that a Pakistani Islamic hardliner had come down all the way."
"The last time Rehman flew down to Deoband in similar circumstances was in March 2007, when he succeeded in bridging the divide between the Madnis."
2. In this connection, I am reproducing below an article titled SUPPING WITH THE MAULANA written by me on July 23,2003, when the Maulana had come on a visit to India, It is available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers8%5Cpaper743.html. The Maulana continues to be close to the Pakistan People's Party. He has toned down his pro-bin Laden and anti-US rhetoric. His party is a member of the ruling coalition in Islamabad though there were recent reports of its having quit the Cabinet of Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani due to differences over portfolios. It is not a member of the new Cabinet formed by Mr.Gilani on February 11.
3. The Maulana, who has now come to India, is a sobered man compared to the Maulana of July 2003. Thus, one cannot find fault with the decision of the Government of India to issue a visa to him. Even the Government of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had issued him a visa. So did the Government of Narasimha Rao.
4.Recently, Mr.Gilani has been quoted in the Pakistani media as having talked of a religious solution to the crisis relating to the arrest and prosecution of Raymond Davis, a member of the staff of the US Consulate-General in Lahore, who allegedly shot to death two Pakistanis who were mysteriously following him on a motor-bike on January 27. A religious solution apparently meant Davis apologising to the families of the deceased and paying them a compensation in return for which the families would pardon him and tell the court they do not want him to be prosecuted. Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been in Pakistan to find a way out.
5. One would have expected the Maulana to play an important role in this. Instead of staying on in Pakistan during Mr.Kerry's visit he has come away to India, reportedly to lend a helping hand in sorting out the differences in Deoband and to ensure that nobody in Deoband deviates from the policy of opposing Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat. This would show that L-Affaire Deoband has greater importance in his eyes than L'Affaire Davis. ( 18-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE\
SUPPING WITH THE MAULANA
by B. Raman, CAMP US
The high-profile visit of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the controversial leader of the Jamiat-ul-ulema Islam (JUI) of Pakistan, to India and the attention accorded to him in governmental and non-governmental circles in New Delhi are being viewed by many India-watchers in the US with a mix of bewilderment and concern.
2. Fazlur Rahman is a fundamentalist with a difference, known for his proximity to Mrs.Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP). Despite his fundamentalist orientation, he supported her right to become the Prime Minister and opposed the campaign of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) in the 1990s against a woman heading the Government of an Islamic country.
3. Benazir rewarded him by making him the Chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee and allegedly asked the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to place a large amount from its secret service fund at his disposal during his travels abroad.
4. He loves foreign travels and the good things of life and during her second tenure as the Prime Minister, he spent more time abroad than in Pakistan.
5. In 1993-94, Pakistan’s cotton crop was practically destroyed by insects for two years in succession and many textile mills were threatened with closure. Asif Zirdari, her husband, through a business crony in Hong Kong, entered into a contract with Turkmenistan for emergency supplies of cotton. The responsibility for transporting them to Pakistan by road via Afghanistan was given to the Hong Kong-based Pakistani businessman.
6. His cotton convoys were attacked and the cotton looted by armed followers of Gulbuddin Heckmatyar of the Hizb-e-Islami (HEI) and Ismail Khan, the pro-Teheran warlord of Herat.
7. Zirdari then asked Maj. Gen.(retd) Naseerullah Babbar, Benazir’s Interior Minister, to organize a special force to escort the cotton convoys through Afghanistan. Naseerullah, with the help of Pervez Musharraf, organized the Taliban by rallying round many of the dregs of the Afghan war of the 1980s against the Soviet troops under the leadership of Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban.
8. They were helped in this by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and his protégé, Mufi Shamzai of the Binori madrasa of Karachi. Thus, the Taliban came into existence in 1994. The role played by Fazlur Rahman in helping Benazir and her husband in creating the Taliban led to serious differences between him and Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the JEI, who was a strong supporter of Gulbuddin. Another person who was a strong critic of the Maulana’s soft corner for Benazir and Zirdari was Lt. Gen.Hamid Gul, who was the DG of the ISI during her first tenure as the Prime Minister.
9. The US started viewing the Maulana with suspicion in 1995 due to the proximity of the Harkat-ul-Ansar (HUA), then headed by Maulana Fazlur Rahman Khalil, to the Maulana. In March, 1995, Kamran Khan, the well-known investigative journalist, came out with a series of articles under the title “Jihad Worldwide” in the “News”, the prestigious daily. In these articles, he exposed not only the role played by the HUA in organizing terrorist operations in India’s Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), southern Philippines, the Arakan area of Myanmar and Chechnya, but also its attempts to carry its jihad to the US homeland by recruiting and training a group of Afro-American Muslims. It was suspected that the HUA could not have been indulging in such activities without the complicity of Fazlur Rahman.
10. This was followed by the kidnapping of some Western tourists, including two Americans, one of whom escaped, by the HUA in J&K under the name Al Faran. The Clinton Administration in the US sought Benazir’s help in getting them released. She and Zirdari asked Fazlur Rahman to go to India to persuade the HUA to release them.
11. At the request of the US Embassy in New Delhi, the Narasimha Rao Government, then in power, agreed to let him come. The Rao Government was hoping that he would keep his mission unpublicized, but Fazlur Rahman, who has a weakness for publicity, made the visit high-profile. After reaching New Delhi, he demanded that he should be allowed to visit Srinagar to which the Indian intelligence agencies were strongly opposed.
12. On coming to know of his visit, circles close to the present ruling coalition in New Delhi, which were then in opposition, strongly criticized the Rao Government for allowing the patron of the HUA to visit India. Thereupon, the Rao Government totally cut of all contacts with him and he went back to Pakistan.
13. In October 1997, the US State Department designated the HUA as a foreign terrorist organization under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Consequently, it is a crime for anyone in the USA to be associated with it and foreigners associated with it are not entitled to US visas. Fazlur Rahman, as the suspected supporter if not the mentor of the HUA, is covered by this ban. After the ban, the HUA ostensibly split into two organizations called the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) and the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI). The Maulana is viewed by many in Pakistan and the US as the patron of both.
14. After the explosions outside the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzaniya in August,1998, the Clinton Administration exercised considerable pressure on the Nawaz Sharif Government and Lt. Gen.Ziauddin, the then DG of the ISI, to help the US Special Forces in organizing a commando raid into Kandahar to capture Osama bin Laden and take him to the US for trial.
15. This pressure was kept up during 1999 too. Nawaz Sharif, fearing an adverse reaction from Musharraf, his Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), was initially hesitant to co-operate. However, after a visit to Washington DC by Ziauddin after the Kargil war, Nawaz agreed to pressurize the Taliban to hand over bin Laden to the US and, if it refused, to co-operate with the US Special Forces in their planned raid.
16. Ziauddin met the Amir of the Taliban at Kandahar in this connection. While sticking to his refusal to hand over bin Laden to the US, the Amir agreed to consider expelling him to another Islamic country. On coming to know of this, Musharraf, who was not kept in the picture by Nawaz or Ziauddin, sent Mohammad Aziz, then his Chief of the General Staff, along with Fazlur Rahman to Kandahar to tell the Amir that he should not carry out any instructions received from Ziauddin. It was on coming to know of this that Nawaz decided to sack Musharraf and appoint Ziauddin as the COAS, triggering off the coup and his overthrow.
17. Following the visit of Ziauddin to Kandahar, there were many speculative reports in the Pakistani media that US Special Forces had already arrived in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and were about to raid Kandahar. Fazlur Rahman issued a statement warning the US that if bin Laden was killed or captured, no American national in Pakistan would be safe. A senior US diplomat posted in Islamabad thereupon visited him and reportedly warned him that if any US national in Pakistan came to any harm, it would hold him personally responsible and act against him. Thereafter, he lowered his anti-US rhetoric.
18. After 9/11, Musharraf sent a delegation of Pakistani mullas headed by Mufti Shamzai to Kandahar to persuade the Taliban Amir to hand over bin Laden to the US in order to avert a war. The delegation was accompanied by Lt.Gen.Mehmood Ahmed, the then ISI chief.
19. Before going to Kandahar, the Mullas and the ISI chief had met Fazlur Rahman at Peshawar. They then met the Taliban Amir at Kandahar and came back and reported to Musharraf that the Amir had refused to co-operate. It was said that the USA came to know from one of its sources in the mullas’ delegation that instead of pressurizing the Amir to hand over bin Laden to the US, the delegation, in the presence of Mehmood Ahmed, congratulated the Amir for resisting US pressure and encouraged him to continue to do so.
20. It was after this that the US pressurized Musharraf to remove Mehmood Ahmed, known to be close to Fazlur Rahman, from his post. He did so on October 7, 2001, and appointed Lt.Gen.Ehsanul Haq, then Corps Commander in Peshawar and a close personal friend of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, as the new DG.
21. Musharraf’s decision to co-operate with the US against the Taliban led to a re-alignment in Pakistan. The JEI and the JUI forgot their past differences over the role played by Fazlur Rahman in helping the Benazir Government in the creation of the Taliban as a counter to Gulbuddin’s HEI and joined hands in backing the Taliban, the Al Qaeda and the HEI in their joint operations against the US forces in Afghanistan.
22. Despite the formation of the coalition of six fundamentalist parties called the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), of which the JUI and the JEI are the driving force, suspicions continue to mark the relations between the Maulana and the Qazi. Each suspects the other of continuing to maintain clandestine contacts with the military-intelligence establishment. There was also friction over the decision of the Maulana to nominate one of the members of his party as the Chief Minister of the NWFP without consulting the Qazi.
23. Since 9/11, US suspicions of the Maulana have worsened because of the active role played by the HUM under the name HUM (Al Alami—International) and the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) in the terrorist strikes against French and American nationals in Karachi and Islamabad. There were reports before the US invasion of Iraq that the HUM had sent its cadres to Saudi Arabia under the cover of haj pilgrims and that they were to infiltrate into Iraq to start a jihad against the US troops. When an injured bin Laden escaped into Pakistan from Afghanistan in the beginning of last year, Mufti Shamzai, the protégé of Fazlur Rahman, gave him shelter in his madrasa in Karachi till last August.
24. Five Pakistani jihadi organizations are members of bin Laden’s International Islamic Front (IIF)---the HUM, the HUJI, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ). Of these, the HUM, the HUJI, the JEM and the LEJ are close to the Maulana. The LET, despite its strong Wahabi orientation, is not. The Maulana’s perceived hobnobbing with India could act as a red rag to the bull and provoke an intensification of the terrorist strikes in Indian territory.
25. The questions being asked in the US are: Did the Maulana come on his own or at the instance of the Government of India or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)? What was the motive? What would be its implications?
26. It is alleged by many here that the Govt. of India has been making overtures to the Maulana through PPPcircles close to Benazir in the hope of using his services for persuading the Deobandi leaders of India to react more positively to the proposals made by Kanchi Shankaracharya for a solution to the Ayodhya issue and to pressurize the jihadi organizations close to him to stop their terrorist activities in India.
27. There is concern that this exercise might prove counter-productive and lead to an aggravation of the ground situation in J&K. (23-7-2003)
(
The Lucknow correspondent of Rediff.com has reported as follows on February 17,2011:
" The two-day India visit by Islamic hardliner and Pakistan's Jamiat-ul-Islami chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman is believed to be aimed at reinforcing the anti-Vastanvi forces at the Darul-Uloom Deoband seminary in Uttar Pradesh , where the recently appointed vice chancellor Ghulam Mohammad Vastanvi had drawn much flak for praising Narendra Modi's governance in Gujarat.
"Ostensibly, Rehman was in Deoband and New Delhi earlier this week to broker peace between the two warring factions of Indian Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind led by rival Madnis -- uncle Arshad Madni and nephew Mahmood.
"However, informed sources at Deoband suspect that the Pakistani cleric's 'real intent behind bringing the Madnis together was to strengthen the anti-Vastanvi lobby.'
"Vastanvi's fate is to be decided at a meeting of Deoband's 'Majlis-e-Shoora', the highest decision making body of the institution on February 23.
"Considering that Mahmood Madni was responsible for mobilising support for Vastanvi against whom Arshad was known to have fuelled all the trouble, unity between the duo was aimed at weakening the seminary chief's case.
"The proximity between Pakistani cleric Rehman and Arshad Madni was always an open secret. And even during his 17- hour long stay in Deoband, the two were seen together every minute.
"Sources in Deoband claimed that Rehman's visit was planned by Arshad, who was clearly worried about his hold over Deoband.
"Rehman was therefore called to convince Mahmood to sink his differences with his uncle Arshad in the larger interest of maintaining the undisputed hold of the undivided Madni power over the seminary.
"Who does not know that the Madnis whose family has called the shots at the seminary for decades, were responsible for appointment of the previous vice chancellor Maulana Maghrubur Rehman who passed away last year," a senior faculty member told rediff.com over telephone from Deoband.
"Yet another young lecturer, who had hailed the appointment of a computer savvy and MBA qualified Vastanvi as the new vice chancellor felt, "Members of the Arshad Madni lobby were busy impressing upon all north Indians at the seminary that they must not allow Vastanvi to continue as he was the first non-north Indian to head the Deoband seminary."
"He went on to add, "Evidently, the whole idea was to prevent any progressive Muslim to take over the reins of this historic institution; and that was the reason that a Pakistani Islamic hardliner had come down all the way."
"The last time Rehman flew down to Deoband in similar circumstances was in March 2007, when he succeeded in bridging the divide between the Madnis."
2. In this connection, I am reproducing below an article titled SUPPING WITH THE MAULANA written by me on July 23,2003, when the Maulana had come on a visit to India, It is available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers8%5Cpaper743.html. The Maulana continues to be close to the Pakistan People's Party. He has toned down his pro-bin Laden and anti-US rhetoric. His party is a member of the ruling coalition in Islamabad though there were recent reports of its having quit the Cabinet of Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani due to differences over portfolios. It is not a member of the new Cabinet formed by Mr.Gilani on February 11.
3. The Maulana, who has now come to India, is a sobered man compared to the Maulana of July 2003. Thus, one cannot find fault with the decision of the Government of India to issue a visa to him. Even the Government of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had issued him a visa. So did the Government of Narasimha Rao.
4.Recently, Mr.Gilani has been quoted in the Pakistani media as having talked of a religious solution to the crisis relating to the arrest and prosecution of Raymond Davis, a member of the staff of the US Consulate-General in Lahore, who allegedly shot to death two Pakistanis who were mysteriously following him on a motor-bike on January 27. A religious solution apparently meant Davis apologising to the families of the deceased and paying them a compensation in return for which the families would pardon him and tell the court they do not want him to be prosecuted. Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been in Pakistan to find a way out.
5. One would have expected the Maulana to play an important role in this. Instead of staying on in Pakistan during Mr.Kerry's visit he has come away to India, reportedly to lend a helping hand in sorting out the differences in Deoband and to ensure that nobody in Deoband deviates from the policy of opposing Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat. This would show that L-Affaire Deoband has greater importance in his eyes than L'Affaire Davis. ( 18-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE\
SUPPING WITH THE MAULANA
by B. Raman, CAMP US
The high-profile visit of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the controversial leader of the Jamiat-ul-ulema Islam (JUI) of Pakistan, to India and the attention accorded to him in governmental and non-governmental circles in New Delhi are being viewed by many India-watchers in the US with a mix of bewilderment and concern.
2. Fazlur Rahman is a fundamentalist with a difference, known for his proximity to Mrs.Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP). Despite his fundamentalist orientation, he supported her right to become the Prime Minister and opposed the campaign of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) in the 1990s against a woman heading the Government of an Islamic country.
3. Benazir rewarded him by making him the Chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee and allegedly asked the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to place a large amount from its secret service fund at his disposal during his travels abroad.
4. He loves foreign travels and the good things of life and during her second tenure as the Prime Minister, he spent more time abroad than in Pakistan.
5. In 1993-94, Pakistan’s cotton crop was practically destroyed by insects for two years in succession and many textile mills were threatened with closure. Asif Zirdari, her husband, through a business crony in Hong Kong, entered into a contract with Turkmenistan for emergency supplies of cotton. The responsibility for transporting them to Pakistan by road via Afghanistan was given to the Hong Kong-based Pakistani businessman.
6. His cotton convoys were attacked and the cotton looted by armed followers of Gulbuddin Heckmatyar of the Hizb-e-Islami (HEI) and Ismail Khan, the pro-Teheran warlord of Herat.
7. Zirdari then asked Maj. Gen.(retd) Naseerullah Babbar, Benazir’s Interior Minister, to organize a special force to escort the cotton convoys through Afghanistan. Naseerullah, with the help of Pervez Musharraf, organized the Taliban by rallying round many of the dregs of the Afghan war of the 1980s against the Soviet troops under the leadership of Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban.
8. They were helped in this by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and his protégé, Mufi Shamzai of the Binori madrasa of Karachi. Thus, the Taliban came into existence in 1994. The role played by Fazlur Rahman in helping Benazir and her husband in creating the Taliban led to serious differences between him and Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the JEI, who was a strong supporter of Gulbuddin. Another person who was a strong critic of the Maulana’s soft corner for Benazir and Zirdari was Lt. Gen.Hamid Gul, who was the DG of the ISI during her first tenure as the Prime Minister.
9. The US started viewing the Maulana with suspicion in 1995 due to the proximity of the Harkat-ul-Ansar (HUA), then headed by Maulana Fazlur Rahman Khalil, to the Maulana. In March, 1995, Kamran Khan, the well-known investigative journalist, came out with a series of articles under the title “Jihad Worldwide” in the “News”, the prestigious daily. In these articles, he exposed not only the role played by the HUA in organizing terrorist operations in India’s Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), southern Philippines, the Arakan area of Myanmar and Chechnya, but also its attempts to carry its jihad to the US homeland by recruiting and training a group of Afro-American Muslims. It was suspected that the HUA could not have been indulging in such activities without the complicity of Fazlur Rahman.
10. This was followed by the kidnapping of some Western tourists, including two Americans, one of whom escaped, by the HUA in J&K under the name Al Faran. The Clinton Administration in the US sought Benazir’s help in getting them released. She and Zirdari asked Fazlur Rahman to go to India to persuade the HUA to release them.
11. At the request of the US Embassy in New Delhi, the Narasimha Rao Government, then in power, agreed to let him come. The Rao Government was hoping that he would keep his mission unpublicized, but Fazlur Rahman, who has a weakness for publicity, made the visit high-profile. After reaching New Delhi, he demanded that he should be allowed to visit Srinagar to which the Indian intelligence agencies were strongly opposed.
12. On coming to know of his visit, circles close to the present ruling coalition in New Delhi, which were then in opposition, strongly criticized the Rao Government for allowing the patron of the HUA to visit India. Thereupon, the Rao Government totally cut of all contacts with him and he went back to Pakistan.
13. In October 1997, the US State Department designated the HUA as a foreign terrorist organization under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Consequently, it is a crime for anyone in the USA to be associated with it and foreigners associated with it are not entitled to US visas. Fazlur Rahman, as the suspected supporter if not the mentor of the HUA, is covered by this ban. After the ban, the HUA ostensibly split into two organizations called the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) and the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI). The Maulana is viewed by many in Pakistan and the US as the patron of both.
14. After the explosions outside the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzaniya in August,1998, the Clinton Administration exercised considerable pressure on the Nawaz Sharif Government and Lt. Gen.Ziauddin, the then DG of the ISI, to help the US Special Forces in organizing a commando raid into Kandahar to capture Osama bin Laden and take him to the US for trial.
15. This pressure was kept up during 1999 too. Nawaz Sharif, fearing an adverse reaction from Musharraf, his Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), was initially hesitant to co-operate. However, after a visit to Washington DC by Ziauddin after the Kargil war, Nawaz agreed to pressurize the Taliban to hand over bin Laden to the US and, if it refused, to co-operate with the US Special Forces in their planned raid.
16. Ziauddin met the Amir of the Taliban at Kandahar in this connection. While sticking to his refusal to hand over bin Laden to the US, the Amir agreed to consider expelling him to another Islamic country. On coming to know of this, Musharraf, who was not kept in the picture by Nawaz or Ziauddin, sent Mohammad Aziz, then his Chief of the General Staff, along with Fazlur Rahman to Kandahar to tell the Amir that he should not carry out any instructions received from Ziauddin. It was on coming to know of this that Nawaz decided to sack Musharraf and appoint Ziauddin as the COAS, triggering off the coup and his overthrow.
17. Following the visit of Ziauddin to Kandahar, there were many speculative reports in the Pakistani media that US Special Forces had already arrived in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and were about to raid Kandahar. Fazlur Rahman issued a statement warning the US that if bin Laden was killed or captured, no American national in Pakistan would be safe. A senior US diplomat posted in Islamabad thereupon visited him and reportedly warned him that if any US national in Pakistan came to any harm, it would hold him personally responsible and act against him. Thereafter, he lowered his anti-US rhetoric.
18. After 9/11, Musharraf sent a delegation of Pakistani mullas headed by Mufti Shamzai to Kandahar to persuade the Taliban Amir to hand over bin Laden to the US in order to avert a war. The delegation was accompanied by Lt.Gen.Mehmood Ahmed, the then ISI chief.
19. Before going to Kandahar, the Mullas and the ISI chief had met Fazlur Rahman at Peshawar. They then met the Taliban Amir at Kandahar and came back and reported to Musharraf that the Amir had refused to co-operate. It was said that the USA came to know from one of its sources in the mullas’ delegation that instead of pressurizing the Amir to hand over bin Laden to the US, the delegation, in the presence of Mehmood Ahmed, congratulated the Amir for resisting US pressure and encouraged him to continue to do so.
20. It was after this that the US pressurized Musharraf to remove Mehmood Ahmed, known to be close to Fazlur Rahman, from his post. He did so on October 7, 2001, and appointed Lt.Gen.Ehsanul Haq, then Corps Commander in Peshawar and a close personal friend of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, as the new DG.
21. Musharraf’s decision to co-operate with the US against the Taliban led to a re-alignment in Pakistan. The JEI and the JUI forgot their past differences over the role played by Fazlur Rahman in helping the Benazir Government in the creation of the Taliban as a counter to Gulbuddin’s HEI and joined hands in backing the Taliban, the Al Qaeda and the HEI in their joint operations against the US forces in Afghanistan.
22. Despite the formation of the coalition of six fundamentalist parties called the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), of which the JUI and the JEI are the driving force, suspicions continue to mark the relations between the Maulana and the Qazi. Each suspects the other of continuing to maintain clandestine contacts with the military-intelligence establishment. There was also friction over the decision of the Maulana to nominate one of the members of his party as the Chief Minister of the NWFP without consulting the Qazi.
23. Since 9/11, US suspicions of the Maulana have worsened because of the active role played by the HUM under the name HUM (Al Alami—International) and the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) in the terrorist strikes against French and American nationals in Karachi and Islamabad. There were reports before the US invasion of Iraq that the HUM had sent its cadres to Saudi Arabia under the cover of haj pilgrims and that they were to infiltrate into Iraq to start a jihad against the US troops. When an injured bin Laden escaped into Pakistan from Afghanistan in the beginning of last year, Mufti Shamzai, the protégé of Fazlur Rahman, gave him shelter in his madrasa in Karachi till last August.
24. Five Pakistani jihadi organizations are members of bin Laden’s International Islamic Front (IIF)---the HUM, the HUJI, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ). Of these, the HUM, the HUJI, the JEM and the LEJ are close to the Maulana. The LET, despite its strong Wahabi orientation, is not. The Maulana’s perceived hobnobbing with India could act as a red rag to the bull and provoke an intensification of the terrorist strikes in Indian territory.
25. The questions being asked in the US are: Did the Maulana come on his own or at the instance of the Government of India or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)? What was the motive? What would be its implications?
26. It is alleged by many here that the Govt. of India has been making overtures to the Maulana through PPPcircles close to Benazir in the hope of using his services for persuading the Deobandi leaders of India to react more positively to the proposals made by Kanchi Shankaracharya for a solution to the Ayodhya issue and to pressurize the jihadi organizations close to him to stop their terrorist activities in India.
27. There is concern that this exercise might prove counter-productive and lead to an aggravation of the ground situation in J&K. (23-7-2003)
(
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
WHAT A FALL WAS THERE, MY COUNTRYMEN
B.RAMAN
Dear Mr.Prime Minister,
Like millions of ordinary Indians, I too watched from the beginning till the end your televised interaction with selected journalists from the electronic media on February 16,2011.
You had never spoken to us, the ordinary people of India, on the various scams which have rocked the country one after another since August last year. Our only source of information has been the media.
As the citizens of this country who put your party in power, we had a right to expect that you will talk to us and explain to us what is the truth and how you intend arresting and reversing the rot that has set in and the continuing decline in the credibility and image of India as a result of the stories of these scams .
These stories---whether correct wholly or only partly--- have brought out one thing loud and clear--- the ineptitude and incompetence of your Government, the poor supervision which seems to prevail in many Ministries and offices, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the insensitivity of many senior members of your Cabinet to public concerns over these alleged scams.
Corruption is nothing new, but the magnitude of it as seen since you came to power has been highly disturbing . What is new is the ineptitude, the incompetence and the lack of supervision which seem to prevail since you came to power--- the like of which one had not seen under any other Prime Minister of India since we became independent in 1947.
You try to blame your difficulties and embarrassments on your having to run a coalition. You are not the first Prime Minister having to run the country at the head of a coalition. V.P.Singh, Chandrasekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Gujral and Atal Behari Vajpayee headed coalitions too. Despite this, they gave us a government which worked as a team and which did not pull in different directions. I can't recall any instance under the previous coalitions where a Minister repeatedly circumvented the instructions of the Prime Minister, without fearing the consequences of his action.
All the previous Prime Ministers, who headed coalition Cabinets, made it clear to their political associates who the boss was and who would take important decisions. They never tolerated anyone who sought to circumvent their instructions. They never let their political allies dictate terms to them.
This is the first time we are seeing a Prime Minister, who tries to earn not the confidence of the people by projecting himself as a strong leader who will not tolerate any nonsense from his coalition partners, but the pity of the people by projecting himself as a helpless leader, who has nothing but to do what his coalition partners ask him to do.
We watched in utter amazement for one hour on February 16 not the rallying cry of a leader, who has realised the magnitude of the rot and who is determined to set it right whatever be the consequences to his position as the Prime Minister, but an exercise in self-pity of a leader who is at the mercy of his coalition partners and does not have the courage to call them to order.
This was the first time we had an opportunity of listening to you on the State of the country in the light of these scams. We were looking forward not to excuses and pretexts to explain away the sins of commission and omission of your government, but to a bold re-assertion of your leadership as the Prime Minister of this great country, who has the courage to face the people of this country in their eyes and reassure them: Thus far and no further.
I have no doubt in my mind that many right-thinking people of India, like me,must have felt ashamed and enraged as they saw the Prime Minister of this country giving out one excuse after another for not being able to govern effectively and for not being able to prevent blatantly wrong decisions and corruption.
You let us down badly, Mr.Prime Minister. You let us down badly.
Warm regards,
Yours sincerely,
B.Raman, Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Dear Mr.Prime Minister,
Like millions of ordinary Indians, I too watched from the beginning till the end your televised interaction with selected journalists from the electronic media on February 16,2011.
You had never spoken to us, the ordinary people of India, on the various scams which have rocked the country one after another since August last year. Our only source of information has been the media.
As the citizens of this country who put your party in power, we had a right to expect that you will talk to us and explain to us what is the truth and how you intend arresting and reversing the rot that has set in and the continuing decline in the credibility and image of India as a result of the stories of these scams .
These stories---whether correct wholly or only partly--- have brought out one thing loud and clear--- the ineptitude and incompetence of your Government, the poor supervision which seems to prevail in many Ministries and offices, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the insensitivity of many senior members of your Cabinet to public concerns over these alleged scams.
Corruption is nothing new, but the magnitude of it as seen since you came to power has been highly disturbing . What is new is the ineptitude, the incompetence and the lack of supervision which seem to prevail since you came to power--- the like of which one had not seen under any other Prime Minister of India since we became independent in 1947.
You try to blame your difficulties and embarrassments on your having to run a coalition. You are not the first Prime Minister having to run the country at the head of a coalition. V.P.Singh, Chandrasekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Gujral and Atal Behari Vajpayee headed coalitions too. Despite this, they gave us a government which worked as a team and which did not pull in different directions. I can't recall any instance under the previous coalitions where a Minister repeatedly circumvented the instructions of the Prime Minister, without fearing the consequences of his action.
All the previous Prime Ministers, who headed coalition Cabinets, made it clear to their political associates who the boss was and who would take important decisions. They never tolerated anyone who sought to circumvent their instructions. They never let their political allies dictate terms to them.
This is the first time we are seeing a Prime Minister, who tries to earn not the confidence of the people by projecting himself as a strong leader who will not tolerate any nonsense from his coalition partners, but the pity of the people by projecting himself as a helpless leader, who has nothing but to do what his coalition partners ask him to do.
We watched in utter amazement for one hour on February 16 not the rallying cry of a leader, who has realised the magnitude of the rot and who is determined to set it right whatever be the consequences to his position as the Prime Minister, but an exercise in self-pity of a leader who is at the mercy of his coalition partners and does not have the courage to call them to order.
This was the first time we had an opportunity of listening to you on the State of the country in the light of these scams. We were looking forward not to excuses and pretexts to explain away the sins of commission and omission of your government, but to a bold re-assertion of your leadership as the Prime Minister of this great country, who has the courage to face the people of this country in their eyes and reassure them: Thus far and no further.
I have no doubt in my mind that many right-thinking people of India, like me,must have felt ashamed and enraged as they saw the Prime Minister of this country giving out one excuse after another for not being able to govern effectively and for not being able to prevent blatantly wrong decisions and corruption.
You let us down badly, Mr.Prime Minister. You let us down badly.
Warm regards,
Yours sincerely,
B.Raman, Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Monday, February 14, 2011
CAIRO LAVA FLOWING IN UNEXPECTED DIRECTIONS
B.RAMAN
The lava from the people's volcano in Egypt has started flowing in unexpected directions.
2. It did flow to Yemen and Algeria as widely expected, but on February 14 it started flowing in a totally unexpected direction towards Iran---a non-Arab country.
3. It is no longer a purely Arab anger. It is no longer a Muslim anger towards the West and Israel as Al Qaeda and the Ayatollahs of Iran had wanted it to be.
4. It has become the anger of the masses wherever people's rights are suppressed and people are subjected to hardships by uncaring rulers. One does not know when the lava will lose speed and stop and in which directions it will flow. Before it stops, the world is going to see changes in the political landscape of all countries where people are suppressed---- whether Arab or non-Arab, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, whether West, South or East Asia, whether Myanmarese or the Hans. The lava is going to be no respecter of rulers and regimes and their religion.
5. It could sweep everything before it. It could temporarily damage the global economy yet to recover fully from the recent economic melt-down.
6. We in India cannot afford to be over-confident that it can't affect us. It can. If it does due to our insensitivity and self-complacency, it will not have a pan-Indian impact. It will be an impact felt in some pockets where there is already people's anger as in the North-East or Jammu & Kashmir or in the tribal areas of central India.
7. We have to be alert. Being alert does not mean more security forces. It means actions to monitor the grievances and anger of the people and timely steps to address them.
8. If the protests succeed in Yemen and Algeria, the impact on India will most probably be minimal. If they succeed in Iran, the impact could be considerable. It could become worse if the lava further flows into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
9. There were protests in Iran on February 14 in solidarity with the Egyptian people. There have been calls for more protests on February 15.
10. The Mubarak regime committed a serious mistake in underestimating the force of the people's anger. The Iranian regime will be committing a similar mistake if it under-estimates the force of the anger of its people. ( 15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The lava from the people's volcano in Egypt has started flowing in unexpected directions.
2. It did flow to Yemen and Algeria as widely expected, but on February 14 it started flowing in a totally unexpected direction towards Iran---a non-Arab country.
3. It is no longer a purely Arab anger. It is no longer a Muslim anger towards the West and Israel as Al Qaeda and the Ayatollahs of Iran had wanted it to be.
4. It has become the anger of the masses wherever people's rights are suppressed and people are subjected to hardships by uncaring rulers. One does not know when the lava will lose speed and stop and in which directions it will flow. Before it stops, the world is going to see changes in the political landscape of all countries where people are suppressed---- whether Arab or non-Arab, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, whether West, South or East Asia, whether Myanmarese or the Hans. The lava is going to be no respecter of rulers and regimes and their religion.
5. It could sweep everything before it. It could temporarily damage the global economy yet to recover fully from the recent economic melt-down.
6. We in India cannot afford to be over-confident that it can't affect us. It can. If it does due to our insensitivity and self-complacency, it will not have a pan-Indian impact. It will be an impact felt in some pockets where there is already people's anger as in the North-East or Jammu & Kashmir or in the tribal areas of central India.
7. We have to be alert. Being alert does not mean more security forces. It means actions to monitor the grievances and anger of the people and timely steps to address them.
8. If the protests succeed in Yemen and Algeria, the impact on India will most probably be minimal. If they succeed in Iran, the impact could be considerable. It could become worse if the lava further flows into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
9. There were protests in Iran on February 14 in solidarity with the Egyptian people. There have been calls for more protests on February 15.
10. The Mubarak regime committed a serious mistake in underestimating the force of the people's anger. The Iranian regime will be committing a similar mistake if it under-estimates the force of the anger of its people. ( 15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
CAN RAYMOND DAVIS CASE TRIGGER EGYPT-LIKE SITUATION IN PAKISTAN?
B.RAMAN
In response to readers' questions, I had earlier ruled out the possibility of an Egypt-like mass uprising in Pakistan despite the economic hardships being faced by the people. In support of my argument, I had, inter alia, referred to the disorganised state of the youth and trade union movements in Pakistan.
2. As I monitor the public anger building up in Pakistan over what growing sections of the people see as the bullying tactics adopted by the US Government to secure the release and departure to the US of Raymond Davis a member of the staff of either the US Consulate-General in Lahore or the US Embassy in Islamabad (one does not know which), who allegedly shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore on January 27,2011, I am no longer that certain that there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan.
3. Yes, I still feel there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan over domestic issues and the style of governance. But if the public anger over the Davis case continues to build up as a result of the surprising mishandling of the case by the US State Department, one may be faced with a mass uprising over the issue of the country's relations with the US.
4.The Egyptian people rose in revolt because they were fed up with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak and his corruption and insensitivity to the economic hardships of the people. The US failed to read the writing on the wall. In Pakistan, large sections of the population---including the youth--- are showing signs of getting fed up with the way they think the US has been treating their country as evidenced by its alleged bullying tactics to secure his release and departure.
5. Facts are no longer the issue disturbing the people----whether Davis is a diplomat or not; whether he enjoyed diplomatic immunity or not; whether he is a CIA employee or not. The real issue has become the way the US is seen to be treating Pakistan. Normally, one would have expected the State Department to engage in quiet discussions with the Governments in Islamabad and Lahore and persuade them to let him go in return for an apology by the US Government for his act in allegedly killing two Pakistanis and compensation for the families of the Pakistanis killed. Instead of doing so, the State Department continues to adopt tactics which are seen in Pakistan as nothing but bullying.
6. "No more bullying by the US"----that is the mounting cry in Pakistan. The Drone (pilotless planes) strikes in the tribal belt caused sporadic ant-US anger in the tribal belt, but it remained confined to the tribal areas. It did not spread to the rest of Pakistan. The anger over the Davis case has been in the whole of Pakistan. The elite as well as the common people, the religious as well as the liberal sections of the population are resentful of the manner in which they see the US as dictating terms to their Government.
7. There is an urgent need for the US to make changes in the way it has been handling the case. Otherwise, the public anger could lead to unpredictable consequences creating further instability in Pakistan and making it difficult for the Government to co-operate with the US on issues viewed as affecting Pakistan's sovereignty and self-respect.
8. Previously, critics of the Drone strikes used to accuse the US of not respecting Pakistan's sovereignty. Now critics of the US handling of the Davis case are accusing it of not caring for the dignity and self-respect of the Pakistani State and people. (15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
In response to readers' questions, I had earlier ruled out the possibility of an Egypt-like mass uprising in Pakistan despite the economic hardships being faced by the people. In support of my argument, I had, inter alia, referred to the disorganised state of the youth and trade union movements in Pakistan.
2. As I monitor the public anger building up in Pakistan over what growing sections of the people see as the bullying tactics adopted by the US Government to secure the release and departure to the US of Raymond Davis a member of the staff of either the US Consulate-General in Lahore or the US Embassy in Islamabad (one does not know which), who allegedly shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore on January 27,2011, I am no longer that certain that there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan.
3. Yes, I still feel there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan over domestic issues and the style of governance. But if the public anger over the Davis case continues to build up as a result of the surprising mishandling of the case by the US State Department, one may be faced with a mass uprising over the issue of the country's relations with the US.
4.The Egyptian people rose in revolt because they were fed up with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak and his corruption and insensitivity to the economic hardships of the people. The US failed to read the writing on the wall. In Pakistan, large sections of the population---including the youth--- are showing signs of getting fed up with the way they think the US has been treating their country as evidenced by its alleged bullying tactics to secure his release and departure.
5. Facts are no longer the issue disturbing the people----whether Davis is a diplomat or not; whether he enjoyed diplomatic immunity or not; whether he is a CIA employee or not. The real issue has become the way the US is seen to be treating Pakistan. Normally, one would have expected the State Department to engage in quiet discussions with the Governments in Islamabad and Lahore and persuade them to let him go in return for an apology by the US Government for his act in allegedly killing two Pakistanis and compensation for the families of the Pakistanis killed. Instead of doing so, the State Department continues to adopt tactics which are seen in Pakistan as nothing but bullying.
6. "No more bullying by the US"----that is the mounting cry in Pakistan. The Drone (pilotless planes) strikes in the tribal belt caused sporadic ant-US anger in the tribal belt, but it remained confined to the tribal areas. It did not spread to the rest of Pakistan. The anger over the Davis case has been in the whole of Pakistan. The elite as well as the common people, the religious as well as the liberal sections of the population are resentful of the manner in which they see the US as dictating terms to their Government.
7. There is an urgent need for the US to make changes in the way it has been handling the case. Otherwise, the public anger could lead to unpredictable consequences creating further instability in Pakistan and making it difficult for the Government to co-operate with the US on issues viewed as affecting Pakistan's sovereignty and self-respect.
8. Previously, critics of the Drone strikes used to accuse the US of not respecting Pakistan's sovereignty. Now critics of the US handling of the Davis case are accusing it of not caring for the dignity and self-respect of the Pakistani State and people. (15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, February 13, 2011
MY CANCER COUNT-DOWN
B.RAMAN
This is the week of my quarterly cancer check-up. Due on the 18th when I will also be given my quarterly injection.
2. I had my tests on February 10. Everything seems normal. But one never knows with cancer. The doctor wanted me to have a scan too. That I will avoid. If the scan result is negative, that could affect my morale. I am living on my morale.
3. Learnt in October 2009 that I can hope to have a maximum of another three years of life. Sixteen months are already over. A maximum of 20 months more remains.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
---- Robert Frost
This is the week of my quarterly cancer check-up. Due on the 18th when I will also be given my quarterly injection.
2. I had my tests on February 10. Everything seems normal. But one never knows with cancer. The doctor wanted me to have a scan too. That I will avoid. If the scan result is negative, that could affect my morale. I am living on my morale.
3. Learnt in October 2009 that I can hope to have a maximum of another three years of life. Sixteen months are already over. A maximum of 20 months more remains.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
---- Robert Frost
EGYPT: AS SEEN FROM NERVOUS BEIJING
B.RAMAN
In its issue of February 14,2011, the "Global Times" of Beijing, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, has come out with a commentary on the success of the Revolution in Egypt. It is worth reading in full and is hence reproduced below:
Egypt has won a battle, but not the war
* Source: Global Times
*February 14 2011
*
Street protest put the Mubarak's rule to an end. The regime change may bring progress for Egyptian society, though there is also worry over the prospects for the country and the entire Arab world.
The first test Egyptian society will face is whether Mubarak's domestic and foreign policies based on rationalism become national policies in a democratic way. Egypt's middle class is weak, bureaucracy and corruption are prevalent and the income gap between rich and poor is huge.
These problems cannot be solved by democracy itself. They require a hard process of economic and cultural development throughout Egyptian society. Egypt's real risk is that it has not formed a stable pillar to support democratic governance. Revolution broke out and changed the country, but there is no force to sustain that change. Therefore, the country is temporarily under the control of the military. However, in the months to come, the leader will still be elected from the old forces in the Middle East country, since there is still no new force to take over.
Egypt has a population of more than 78 million. With underdeveloped industry, it produces far less oil than Gulf countries. It is the US' largest aid recipient country in the Middle East and the US ensured that the Mubarak regime was pro-American.
If Egypt's future national path is chosen with the help of the United States, the significance of Mubarak's stepping down will be greatly reduced.
If the Egyptians carry out elections by themselves, and encourage the Middle East to make its own choices, nobody could foretell the lasting consequences of this revolution.
Various forces in the Middle East, including extremist forces, will engage in a brand-new competition to imprint upon Egypt's new social makeup. Egypt may well be the first chapter in a regional saga in this light.
As the Middle East is still an important balance point for major forces in the world, the region's governance, democratic or not, will have wide-reaching impacts.
The temporary takeover by the military can be seen as a response to global concerns. However, it is only a transitional military regime, lasting a few months,before the Egyptian society gets ready for democracy.
Therefore, when the military regime returns the regime to the people, it could really show the difficulty facing the Egyptian revolution.
In its issue of February 14,2011, the "Global Times" of Beijing, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, has come out with a commentary on the success of the Revolution in Egypt. It is worth reading in full and is hence reproduced below:
Egypt has won a battle, but not the war
* Source: Global Times
*February 14 2011
*
Street protest put the Mubarak's rule to an end. The regime change may bring progress for Egyptian society, though there is also worry over the prospects for the country and the entire Arab world.
The first test Egyptian society will face is whether Mubarak's domestic and foreign policies based on rationalism become national policies in a democratic way. Egypt's middle class is weak, bureaucracy and corruption are prevalent and the income gap between rich and poor is huge.
These problems cannot be solved by democracy itself. They require a hard process of economic and cultural development throughout Egyptian society. Egypt's real risk is that it has not formed a stable pillar to support democratic governance. Revolution broke out and changed the country, but there is no force to sustain that change. Therefore, the country is temporarily under the control of the military. However, in the months to come, the leader will still be elected from the old forces in the Middle East country, since there is still no new force to take over.
Egypt has a population of more than 78 million. With underdeveloped industry, it produces far less oil than Gulf countries. It is the US' largest aid recipient country in the Middle East and the US ensured that the Mubarak regime was pro-American.
If Egypt's future national path is chosen with the help of the United States, the significance of Mubarak's stepping down will be greatly reduced.
If the Egyptians carry out elections by themselves, and encourage the Middle East to make its own choices, nobody could foretell the lasting consequences of this revolution.
Various forces in the Middle East, including extremist forces, will engage in a brand-new competition to imprint upon Egypt's new social makeup. Egypt may well be the first chapter in a regional saga in this light.
As the Middle East is still an important balance point for major forces in the world, the region's governance, democratic or not, will have wide-reaching impacts.
The temporary takeover by the military can be seen as a response to global concerns. However, it is only a transitional military regime, lasting a few months,before the Egyptian society gets ready for democracy.
Therefore, when the military regime returns the regime to the people, it could really show the difficulty facing the Egyptian revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)