Karzai and his conscripts

The fashion model president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai wants to bring in conscription to the war torn country to make the Afghan army large enough for him to manage the country beyond Kabul (the presidential palace really). He wants a 300,000 strong Afghan army by 2012 so that his security is "no longer a burden on the shoulders of the international community". It is public knowledge that President Karzai and his cabinet of crooks has survived last few years under the protection of US Marines. Had he left the security in the hands of his Afghan comrades he and his ministers would by now either be trying to bribe an exit out of hell or would be back living in their villas in Quetta.

Afghan government does not need more soldiers, let alone conscripts. It needs loyal soldiers that serve and protect a credible government backed by its people. Majority of Afghan soldiers are not in it to serve the "queen and country" but for economic sustenance that is not available to common Afghans. They lack the pride that soldiers serving a sovereign state carry and that makes them give their lives to save the motherland.

Unfortunately, for Afghanistan that pride and passion appears to be among those who are fighting the occupation, or among the terrorists - don't mix the two. Not every Afghan is a terrorist - we must realise that picking up arms and giving life to fight against tyranny and especially foreign occupation has been a favourite Afghan past time for centuries. Invaders and their puppets just don't learn from history, do they!

General Kayani, head of Pakistan army recently concluded that "until the Afghan government improved its credibility and governance record and until the Afghan population began to change its perception that Isaf is not winning, the Afghan government would not be able to establish its writ and the local Taliban would not be “weaned off”.

"The Other side" - Generation Jihad

When a decent and mature presenter like Bill Turnbull refers to the Muslims in the UK as "the Other side" it makes me stop and think. He used the phrase in an interview with Peter Taylor this morning on BBC breakfast while promoting a documentary called Generation Jihad that is to be aired on BBC2 on 08 February at 9:00 pm. Asking Peter Taylor about the making of this documentary Bill asks "so who were you able to talk to on the other side"?

I have always beleived that there are always two sides to an opinion or a belief - both with a right to differ. By (I hope inadvertantly) calling the British muslim youth "the other side" is the BBC beginning to take editorial sides? Is the paranoia about "Muslim" terrorism reaching a stage that all Muslim youth in the UK are now prospective Jihadis in the eyes of the BBC. I hope not.

Over the last six months I have had the honour of working with a range of Muslim youth in Cheshire who were keen to get together for charitable purposes, and successfully organising, perhaps, the biggest iftar fund raising event in the North West (yes! the North - hub of wannabe jihadis if media is to be beilieved) to set up a girls school in Swat Pakistan that was blown up by Taliban. Despite continued security threats and recent suicide attack in Pakistan on a similar group that were going to launch a girls school in Pakistan (incidence that got world attention because three of the dead were American soldiers) this Cheshire group of young people is till pushing ahead with the plans to open a girls school, against the wishes of Pakistan based "Jihadis".

I do not, for a moment, deny that we have a problem of radicalisation among a small group of Muslim youth in the UK. Alienating the whole Muslim community and branding them as "the other side" is not the answer to this problem.

Pakistan's democratic government follows China's suit in attempting to curb free speech on the Internet

I believe that president Zardari has reached the end of his tether watching commoners in Pakistan having a laugh at his expense. His recent outburst asking his minions who were not keen to listen to his speech to "Shut up" was in full media glare and has been one of the most watched short video clips on You Tube. Like many other dumb moves to censor free speech the government decided to use the heavy handed approach and censor You Tube itself. Apparently the president has had enough.

Huma Imtiaz reported yesterday that

"About 90 minutes ago, YouTube suddenly got blocked in Karachi – with the message “This site is restricted” popping up instead. PTCL expressed ignorance about the ban, whereas representatives of various ISPs’ helplines said that Pakistan Telecommunication Authority had banned YouTube. At around 9:30 PM PST, YouTube came back, but now one cannot access the video of Zardari saying shut up to a crowd that surfaced recently on the website. Since its a Sunday, PTA representatives are unavailable. This move comes just when one thinks the Government of Pakistan cannot outdo themselves. What’s next, a ban on free speech?"

"Democratic" government in Pakistan keeps on forgetting that despite all its bearded problems Pakistan is still far from a closed society like China or Iran where the authorities can get away with controlling public voices through violence, state oppression or sheer economic might (like Google caved in against Chinese state control). China and Iran boast one of the most thriving blogger communities simply because repressions rebels. Tyrants (and Zaradari is a wannabe) must fear rebels who can talk and are listened to.

And if you missed the video in question, here it is



alongwith a worthy remix.

Discovering God through SMS and eMail - a new passion in Pakistan

Munafiq ki Nishaanian (signs of the hypocrite) – Jhoot bolna (telling lies); Wa’da khilafi karna (breaking promises); Khiyanat karma (stealing); Gaali dayna (swearing). On the surface if seemed like the SMS was introductory section of resume for our erstwhile President Zardari.

But this was the text of an SMS message that prompted Nadeem F. Paracha to write this tongue in cheek post.

Pakistanis love emailing and text messaging quotes from hadiths and assorted religious paraphernalia. I usually ignore such messages because in my mind I imagine a holy punter who is convinced that each email or SMS of his is getting him that much closer to booking a cosy place in heaven. The truth is that this (albeit irritating) activity is actually better than a holy bum blowing himself up in public to find that same place in Paradise.

However, last Monday, as I again received my share of emails and SMSes quoting hadith and citing all that sophomoric stuff about ‘scientific proofs in the Qu’ran,’ I decided to answer one particular SMS; one I was receiving for the umpteenth time.

This is how it went: Munafiq ki Nishaanian (signs of the hypocrite) – Jhoot bolna (telling lies); Wa’da khilafi karna (breaking promises); Khiyanat karma (stealing); Gaali dayna (swearing).

So I replied: Sir/Madman, thank you for your SMS. But I think you forgot one more sign of being a munafiq, i.e. khaali khuli kay SMS karna (sending aimless SMSes).

Right away the sender SMSed his/her reply: SMS technology wasn’t invented when the hadith were compiled. So you can’t say SMSing is a sign of being a munafiq.

He/she quite obviously missed out on my sarcasm. No matter, I thought. At once, I SMSed him/her my reply: Brother/Sister, in that case, I am sure SMSing is haraam. In future I think you should use a pigeon to send your wonderful messages, or better, bring good tidings on a camel.

There was silence for about 10 minutes. Then my phone buzzed again. He/She replied: I am female, so you can call me sister. I sense that you are making fun of my SMS. Very unfortunate, indeed. What was it that you found offensive in my SMS?

I wrote back: Sister. You can call me Nadeem. There was nothing offensive in it, as such. I just wondered what made you the one to tell everybody else what a munafiq is. Are you suggesting you are not one yourself? If not, then do share with me the signs and nishaanian of a person who thinks he or she is not a munafiq.

My phone buzzed again. This was her reply: Bhai, I was just spreading a good saying. I am not an angel, but at least I am conscious of avoiding things that can make one a munafiq. I send the SMS to many people, and most of them were happy and thankful.

“Did they have a choice?” I wrote back. “You don’t even know me. SMSing unrelated men. A very un-Islamic thing to do, no?”

“Dear, brother,” she SMSed, “I can’t see you, and neither can you see me. You are calling me sister, and I am referring to you as brother.”

“Sister,” I wrote, “You speak well … in parables. Should I read your SMS metaphorically or literally?”

“Brother,” she relied, “my SMS was only about good, clear advice. Read it as it is.”

“But why bring religion into it?” I wrote back. “Can’t an irreligious person be good as well; or can’t he or she too give good, clear advice?”

The phone beeped again: “Brother, I can’t understand how a person can be irreligious.”

“Sister,” I replied, “An irreligious person is as much a human being as a religious person. What’s the confusion?”

“Are you irreligious?” She wrote back.

“What do you think?” I replied.

“I think you are,” she wrote.

“I see. If you think I am irreligious, does SMSing me make you a munafiq?” I wrote back.

“No,” she replied. “Maybe my SMS will make you rediscover God.”

“Rediscover God through an SMS?” I replied. “How very tech-savvy of you, dear sister.”

“So are you irreligious or not?” she asked.

“What if I was?” I replied.

Bang came another advice: “A man without God is like a fish without water!”

“Dear sister,” I wrote back. “How expectantly presumptuous of you. Are you also suggesting that the Taliban who also claim to believe in God are better than an irreligious person who may be a lot less violent?”

“They are not Muslims!” she replied.

“Oh? And how is that?” I wrote.

“They are non-Muslims being paid to bring disrepute to Islam,” she replied.

“And how do you know that, dear sister?”

“It’s obvious. No Muslim would kill another Muslim.” she wrote back.

“But it’s okay if he kills a non-Muslim?” I replied.

“Yes, if he is attacked by a non-Muslim.”

“So,” I wrote, “this should mean that the Taliban who are killing Americans in Afghanistan are Muslim, but the Taliban who are killing Muslims in Pakistan are non-Muslims being paid by kafirs?”

“Yes,” came the reply.

“Dear sister,” I wrote back, “you just presented yourself to be a glaring example of a munafiq! Jazaak Allah. I now truly understand.”

“You have no right to say that,” she replied. “You are not even a Muslim!”

“Did I say that I wasn’t?” I wrote.

“No, but it’s obvious.”

“How come everything is so obvious to you?” I replied.

“That’s because I am a fish with water,” she wrote, with a smiley face.

“Oh, you got that wrong, sister.” I wrote. “You are a fresh water fish stuck in salt water!”

“Well, in that case, sorry to bother you. Have to go. My credit is running out,” she replied.

“Oh, boy,” I wrote. “How can a good, honest, non-munafiq spreader of Islam not have what all good, honest, non-munafiq spreader of Islam should have?”

“And what is that?” She replied.

“A post-paid connection.”

Sensitive among us might disagree with the satirical nature of Nadeem's commentary but it is a fact that in Pakistan we now have an on line version of Tablighi Jama'at (without the discipline and focus that is Jama'at's forte) that is bombarding the cyberspace with fairly unmoderated and unresearched barrage of messages about Islam. Whilst you can find some gems of information among these emails and SMSs, most of the content is as dangerous as listening to the illiterate DIY mullahs responsible for utterly intolerant society we are turning into.

Time for a pact with the devil

In order to run a polio vaccination campaign in Afghanistan and to stay alive while doing so who's permission and protection you need? Health workers in Afghanistan feel safer carrying a piece of paper, a letter of introduction from Mullah Omar, leader of Afghan Taliban who has been in hiding since the US invasion of Afghanistan. Apparently a copy of a piece of paper with Mullah Omar's signature provides you more security while carrying out social work than a US army hummer.

The WHO and Unicef, who are running these polio vaccination campaigns, like other UN agencies have been banned from engaging with the Taliban since the security council blacklisted them as terrorists after 9/11. In order to carry out essential vaccination campaigns they contact Mullah Omar through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the only international organization that maintains regular communications with the Taliban command and act as an intermediary every time a new letter of support is needed.

According to Yaroslav Trofimov writing for Wall Street Journal

"For U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan, the arrangement represents a moral dilemma. Coalition military officials shy away from criticizing the WHO and Unicef for reaching out to the Taliban.

Nevertheless, the fact that the international community and Afghan government authorities must request Taliban permission to operate in large parts of the country makes some Western officials wince. "It's a pact with the devil," says one senior Western diplomat in Kabul. "But it's a pact in order to save lives."

Taliban control over one third of Afghanistan while president Karzai's influence is limited to urban areas.

Since Mullah Omar's first letter was issued, in August 2007, vaccinators gained entry to dozens of previously out-of-bounds villages, WHO officials say. More importantly, the Taliban endorsement allowed many vaccination teams that considered pulling out because of safety concerns to continue operating in other districts, even as fighting intensified.

Mullah Omar's cooperation with Afghanistan's polio drive contrasts with the ban on polio vaccinations imposed by leaders of the separate, but affiliated, Taliban movement in neighboring Pakistan...Antipolio campaigns have long been opposed by conservative clerics across South Asia as an American-led conspiracy to sterilize or poison Muslim children. This is a key reason why the disease persists in India and Pakistan.

Afghanistan's Mullah Omar adopted the opposite approach. His letter, viewed by The Wall Street Journal and issued on behalf of the movement's parallel government, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, urges all jihadi fighters and Taliban sympathizers to work with Unicef, WHO and the polio teams. It instructs villagers to take children to a specially designated area where they can receive their dose.

Since the beginning of Afghan war a major error in US policy in Afghanistan has been that the Americans in their infinite wisdom complicated the problem of international terrorism at hand by putting Taliban and Al-Qaeeda together - exactly the way they got sidetracked in Iraq. Not all Taliban are terrorists - narrowminded fundamentalist bigots for sure but not international terrorists. While a large number of them are thrity year long battle hardened guerilla fighters whose only passion in life is to fight against an enemy, many of them are still looking for legitimacy as real rulers of Aghanistan. Mullah Omar has not turned a social worker overnight. Signs are that he wants to engage. Long term solution to the Afghan problem is not in more Nato soldiers, it is in engagement with moderate Taliban elements. It is time to do a pact with the devil!

Pakistan People's Party - collective leadership failure

by Dr Nazir Ahmed

President Zardari alone is not responsible for perils faced by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) today. Being the president of a country his personal problems are now hampering the progress of Pakistan. The problems are growing with the time and it appears to be consuming most of his waking time in meetings with so called friends and allies or political partners - time that he should rather spend on betterment of people of Pakistan who are stuck in a country where the quality of rulers seems to be dwindling with each successive government as Father of the Nation Mohammad Ali Jinnah predicted before his death in 1948.

But could Zardari alone be held responsible for the current plight of PPP or does the entire PPP leadership carry the blame? There is no doubt that luck played a big part in Zardari’s ascent to power. It clearly was a very difficult period in PPP’s history after the party was left devastated by the loss of its all powerful leader, Benazir Bhutto . Also there is this traditional style of ascent to political leadership in the subcontinent where a single person becomes the face of the party without whom nothing seems to matter.

For this reason the senior party leadership thought that they needed a figurehead in the form of Zardari, being father of Benazir's children, to carry on that legacy. This was understandable logic at the time but the leadership had a much bigger and wider role to play.

The party leadership should have been able to see outside the box and should have able to imagine the ramifications of Zardari’s candidacy which they approved on his flimsy evidence. Evidence that Mr Zardari refused to share with the public to whom they owe everything, who have made them the “leaders” they are.

The traditional style of thinking and jumping on the band wagon without proper assessment would have normally worked in Pakistan only if the candidate in question was a normal first husband. The man in question was, however, no other but Mr Zardari and the party leadership failed to recognise the extent of the baggage he carried and his capacity to be ever able to emerge from those shadows.

The PPP Central Executive Committee was witness to the fall of its government on two occasions and on either occasion Zardari’s corruption was blamed for it. It is only fair to expect from members of CEC that they would have been capable of such risk assessment and its management. They failed dismally on both counts.

Before making a decision on a new party leader the senior leadership should have carried out wider discussions over many days involving all stake holders instead of a two hours meeting just two days after the death of a cult like personality Benazir Bhutto.

The question in consideration should have been that in Pakistan where a party chairman is a supposed to be a visionary personality who leads his/her party to success and glory wcould Zardari be that person or would he become a liability for the party because of his past and that whether that damage would be sustainable.

Secondly once they had agreed to his ascent to power there should have been a comprehensive strategy development exercise aimed at enhancing his stature to such a point that effortlessly appeared convincing to the masses. This should have been possible by putting together a governing team without a blemish on their character that executed political programme that uplifted the lives of masses.

Quite to the contrary the party made mistakes after mistakes refusing to accept the consequences. The party somehow convinced itself that as they had accepted Zardari so will the masses and all other stake holders. They failed again to recognise that whereas they had a personal interests in selecting him but other stakeholders did not. And to be fair to other stakeholders including Pakistani public, PPP political allied parties, opposition parties, judiciary, agitating lawyers, establishment and media time and again gave Zardari and the PPP benefit of the doubt. But time and again Mr Zardari faled all of them by breaking political promises and agreements.

The CEC, that “expressed full confidence in Mr Zardari” after each political disaster, should have foreseen the consequences that such behaviour invited and should have stood up to his style of governance. As Mr Zardari’s political behaviour became more and more erratic and unpredictable the CEC only concerned itself to repeatedly reposing its trust in him leaving people shocked and hopeless.

Mr Zardari somehow believed once ratified by CEC all his wrongs will become right. No dissenting voice was heard in public apart from rare few who didn’t matter anyway as Zardari had isolated them. Although the CEC looked after Mr Zardari’s interests they showed a blatant disregard for the interests of PPP workers, its supporters and its electorate. CEC failed in its primary function to ensure that the collective decisions were in the interests of the party, its supporters and most of all Pakistan. One wonders how do a group of such individuals, who repeatedly and deliberately fail in their sacred responsibility of looking after the interests of millions, live with their conscience on daily basis. How do they fail

repeatedly not to recognise right from wrong? How do they not feel guilty by always giving in to such demands and not thinking of the impact of such decisions on scores of people? How dare they insult the intelligence of Pakistani public by endlessly arguing in favour of their repeated betrayals of Pakistan and its public on electronic media rather than hiding behind walls. For it is Pakistan that made them who they are today and without it although they might have palaces in different countries around the world but will have no identity.

PArty leadership's decision about Zardari leadership has seriously wounded the party and it is now time for the CEC to make its mark. The senior leadership needs to come out of Zardari’s shadows and play an active role in steering the country out of this situation. Without further delay they need to strongly support and implement some long awaited and popular demands like the restoration of constitution, rationalising the cabinet and take strong measures against corruption.

If Zardari is stubborn enough to continue to disregard the senior leadership and treat them like hired managers of a private business then they need to reflect that rather than humiliating themselves on daily basis by making vain attempts to justify his selfish blunders is it worthwhile to resign from CEC and live like decent men with their heads high rather than govern with a bleeding conscience.