Enhanced cooperation between Pakistan and the United States is crucial to success in the war on terror. This is only possible if the genuine security concerns and critical national interests of both parties are addressed
The missile and drone strikes in the tribal belt and the recent limited ground operation in South Waziristan by US forces sparked severe criticism and anger across the country. Even moderate and liberal forces joined hands with the conservative and religious parties in condemning the act and asking the government to take retaliatory measures by reviewing Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror.
The government will surely not go that far, but it will find it difficult to pacify the charged sentiments of the public, and of several influential groups including the strategic community.
There are several reasons why the United States is stepping up its operations inside Pakistani territory.
First, the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is on the rise and the US attributes that to the support they are receiving from militants located in FATA.
Second, the centre of gravity of the war on terror has shifted from Iraq to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Moreover, before the advent of winter, NATO-ISAF forces want to inflict maximum damage on the Taliban, including their hideouts in the tribal belt.
Third, with the US presidential election less than two months away, the Bush administration would like to demonstrate that the Republicans are tough on issues of national security. President Bush would also like to improve his legacy if possible by taking out Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman Al Zawahiri before his term expires.
Fourth, the Pentagon and the CIA believe that Pakistan’s military and its intelligence community, especially the ISI, are pursuing a dual policy of fighting Al Qaeda but being soft and even supportive of the Taliban.
Fifth, the Bush administration is taking advantage of the interregnum as the civilian government settles down. Washington also feels that the government, apart from making noise, is not in a position to take any retaliatory measures against the coalition, such as suspension of logistics and supplies, strikes in response or a review of the alliance.
The US, however, fails to realise the serious, dire consequences this policy would have on Pakistan and on regional stability, and the serious complications that would arise in US-Pakistan relations.
Pakistan’s coalition government is fully supportive of the war on terror, and is trying to widen support for this effort. Soon, it plans to initiate a debate in parliament to develop national consensus on the matter. Meanwhile, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani have reiterated in public forums that this is Pakistan’s war and have taken a firm stance against the militants.
The government is also trying to dispel the prevailing perception that this is America’s war that Pakistan is being forced to fight under pressure, and understands that galvanising public support would be an essential tool for putting pressure on and eventually isolating the militants.
In the event that the US continues to unilaterally intervene and launch land and air operations inside Pakistani territory, it would be very difficult for the government to make the people own this policy and get their support. In fact, it will further heighten the prevalent anti-American sentiment and confirm the belief that the US is deliberately destabilising a democratic government.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will welcome American intervention, as their primary aim is to create chaotic conditions to enhance their influence and hold in the tribal belt and the NWFP. Al Qaeda will also shift focus to the Pak-Afghan border as the US withdraws from Iraq.
The most problematic issue, however, will arise when the Taliban and Al Qaeda engage American forces on Pakistani soil, giving the impression that they are the ones resisting foreign aggression. In these circumstances, it will be very difficult for the Pakistani military to continue counterinsurgency operations against the militants.
A better alternative for the US would be to cooperate closely on intelligence and operational matters with Pakistan. If the US has misgivings about certain elements of the ISI or other intelligence agencies, these should be addressed jointly, given that Chief of Army Staff General Kayani and the present civilian government are committed to fighting terrorism and militancy in the tribal areas.
Obtaining the support of the tribes and working through them would be the best approach. Capture of militant leaders from FATA, who are virtual warlords of their areas, can be very useful as they are directly and indirectly supporting Al Qaeda, and have considerable information about the location and movement of its top leadership.
The Al Qaeda-Taliban combine has not renounced its resolve to attack the United States. The desire that safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal belt do not turn out to be breeding grounds for such attacks, from the American standpoint, is therefore understandable. But is killing Osama bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda figures synonymous with protecting the United States and its forces deployed in Afghanistan?
I would argue that a better approach is to make the top leadership ineffective and inconsequential. Clearly, eliminating bin Laden, Zawahiri or second-tier leaders would inflict a temporary psychological setback, but it would in turn transform them into martyrs and a great source of motivation for their followers.
The reality is that during the last seven years, Al Qaeda has not been under the direct control of bin Laden; he has merely been a source of inspiration. But this inspirational nexus exists irrespective of whether bin Laden lives or dies, and killing him may further intensify these feelings.
A far better alternative would be to allow Pakistan to regain control over the tribal belt and parts of the NWFP that have fallen into the hands of the Taliban, instead of pursuing the singular goal of killing the militants and their leadership, which will not necessarily result in control over the tribal belt. On the contrary, it would widen the area of conflict with serious consequences for the stability and integrity of Pakistan and the region. An equally significant outcome would be that the security threat to the US will increase, not decrease.
Instead, the US should address the needs of the Pashtun people that are being ignored on matters such as security, development and political power. Regrettably, the Bush administration is looking for short-term gains and quick results that are not attainable through direct action in FATA. A long-term perspective is crucial to winning this war.
Enhanced cooperation between Pakistan and the United States is crucial to success in the war on terror. This is only possible if the genuine security concerns and critical national interests of both parties are addressed.
Pakistan is unlikely to completely give up the jihadi tool against India unless the Kashmir dispute finds a satisfactory resolution. Washington pays scant attention to Pakistan’s security and strategic concerns either with respect to India or Afghanistan, giving rise to the duality in Pakistani policy looked at with such distrust by the US. Pakistan’s new government will find it relatively easier to shut down jihadi networks and dismantle them in due course based on the future of the Kashmir issue. Given that, India has a major responsibility in stabilising the region.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Random thoughts
The history of the human race is full of seemingly small incidents that have led to catastrophic results.
This holds true both for the distant past and for more recent events.
The first episode relates to the most un-diplomatic and arrogant behaviour displayed by Alauddin Khwarizm Shah. The Khwarezmid Empire was a highly developed area with a well-developed civilisation and high standard of education. It had been conquered by the famous Muslim general Qatiba bin Muslim in 714 A.D. (93 A.H.) It had beautiful gardens, lakes, rivers and orchards, and included present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Punjab and the area east of Uzbekistan and north of the Amu River. The city of Gergania was adopted as the capital and renamed Khwarizm.
Visitors to the area in those days described Gergania as the largest, most beautiful, richest city in existence. The nearby city of Khiva was maintained in its original form by the Russians as a national heritage centre of historic significance. The country’s dynasty was founded by Khwarizm Shah and his kingdom extended all the way to the Indus River. However, all the wealth and grandeur caused him to become so arrogant that he humiliated the Caliph of Baghdad, the most revered figure in the Islamic world at that time. The result was that the Caliph encouraged Genghis Khan to reign him in and cut him down to size. Though possessing a large army, Alauddin avoided direct confrontation with Genghis Khan and stayed away from the Mongol army. In this manner the public became disheartened and lost all hope of facing up to the threat.
In the year1219 AD, while Alauddin was actively trying to destabilise the whole Muslim world by inciting neighbouring Muslim kingdoms and willing to attack even Baghdad, Genghis Khanthe valiant Mongol Emperor had extended his empire to northern China and eastern Europe. Their only common border was Utrar, a frontier town in Khwarizm. Realising that Alauddin had a vast empire and was a powerful King, Genghis Khan decided to cultivate friendly relations with him. He sent a letter and gifts suggesting trade and good-neighbourly relations. Alauddin was pleased by this and sent some expensive gifts in reciprocation. Genghis Khan then sent a caravan of about 400 Muslim traders to Khwarizm, which stopped at Utrar. The governor of Utrar, Ainalgaq, was Alauddin’s uncle. When he saw all the valuable goods and the beautiful horses, he lost all sense of reality and thought only of getting hold of the goods. He falsely informed Alauddin that the traders were actually spies in disguise and should not be allowed to proceed. Alauddin, stupidly and without thinking out the consequences, ordered all the traders to be killed. Ainalgaq complied and confiscated all the goods. One trader survived, as he had been away from the camp at the time. He went back and informed Genghis Khan. Nontheless the Mongol emperor still showed tolerance and sent an emissary to Alauddin, asking him to either punish the governor for his mischief or to hand him over for dispensing justice. Alauddin , in his arrogance, had the emissary murdered. Genghis Khan sent yet another emissary, who complained about violation of diplomatic norms and Khwarizm’s stooping to disgraceful acts. This emissary was also killed. When news of this reached Genghis Khan, he is reported to have gone to a nearby hill, raised his hands towards the sky and said: “O Creator of this world, Alauddin is not a king. He is a thief. He has violated all norms of diplomacy. Please give me the strength to destroy him.” Alauddin, possessing an army of almost 500,000 soldiers and horses, sent troops to Utrar, Bokhara and Samarqand to protect them but the Mongol army swept aside all resistance like a whirlwind and wiped out each and every living soul in these cities.
The most unfortunate aspect of this episode is the fact that the Caliph Al-Nasir was indulging in intrigues against Khwarizm Shah and encouraging the Mongols to attack Khwarizm. Instead of forming a united front with Khwarizm Shah and Shamsuddin Altamash, king of India, Al-Nasir refused to help Jalaluddin, Alauddin’s valiant son who had taken command of the available troops and put up stiff resistance to Genghis Khan for years. He was finally cornered on the bank of the river Indus and when he saw no way out, he and a few colleagues leapt into the river on horseback and swam to the other side. It is said that he was finally murdered by a Kurd whose brother had been slain by Khwarizmi soldiers. Thus were sown the seeds of the destruction of the Islamic Empire. Due to a last-minute change in plans by the Mongol emperor, Altamash of India was saved from Mongol wrath. In 1259 A.D. the last Caliph, Mustasim, was trampled to death by galloping horsemen on the orders of Genghis Khan’s grandson Hulagu Khan– history had taken its revenge. According to historians, the Mongols massacred more than 10 million Muslims in Bukhara, Merv, Samarqand, Bamiyan, Nishapur and Baghdad. Muslim disunity resulted in the total destruction of various kingdoms and subsequent colonialisation, first by the Mongols and then by the Russians and Europeans.
It seems people never learn from history. What happened almost 800 years ago seems to be repeating itself again. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would not be facing the situation they are in today if they had followed the Islamic religious edicts of mutual help, brotherhood, justice, kindness and avoidance of oppressive, unlawful wars. Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah was a valiant warrior and fought bravely against the Mongols but was not helped by short-sighted Muslim rulers. Ultimately the Muslims faced the wrath of the Mongols and paid the price – more than 10 million dead, cities razed and a whole Muslim empire had disappeared. In 1260 the Mongols tasted their first defeat near Nazareth at the hands of the valiant Mameluk sultan Al-Zahir Baybars of Egypt and then, in 1277, at Van near the Syrian border.
This holds true both for the distant past and for more recent events.
The first episode relates to the most un-diplomatic and arrogant behaviour displayed by Alauddin Khwarizm Shah. The Khwarezmid Empire was a highly developed area with a well-developed civilisation and high standard of education. It had been conquered by the famous Muslim general Qatiba bin Muslim in 714 A.D. (93 A.H.) It had beautiful gardens, lakes, rivers and orchards, and included present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Punjab and the area east of Uzbekistan and north of the Amu River. The city of Gergania was adopted as the capital and renamed Khwarizm.
Visitors to the area in those days described Gergania as the largest, most beautiful, richest city in existence. The nearby city of Khiva was maintained in its original form by the Russians as a national heritage centre of historic significance. The country’s dynasty was founded by Khwarizm Shah and his kingdom extended all the way to the Indus River. However, all the wealth and grandeur caused him to become so arrogant that he humiliated the Caliph of Baghdad, the most revered figure in the Islamic world at that time. The result was that the Caliph encouraged Genghis Khan to reign him in and cut him down to size. Though possessing a large army, Alauddin avoided direct confrontation with Genghis Khan and stayed away from the Mongol army. In this manner the public became disheartened and lost all hope of facing up to the threat.
In the year1219 AD, while Alauddin was actively trying to destabilise the whole Muslim world by inciting neighbouring Muslim kingdoms and willing to attack even Baghdad, Genghis Khanthe valiant Mongol Emperor had extended his empire to northern China and eastern Europe. Their only common border was Utrar, a frontier town in Khwarizm. Realising that Alauddin had a vast empire and was a powerful King, Genghis Khan decided to cultivate friendly relations with him. He sent a letter and gifts suggesting trade and good-neighbourly relations. Alauddin was pleased by this and sent some expensive gifts in reciprocation. Genghis Khan then sent a caravan of about 400 Muslim traders to Khwarizm, which stopped at Utrar. The governor of Utrar, Ainalgaq, was Alauddin’s uncle. When he saw all the valuable goods and the beautiful horses, he lost all sense of reality and thought only of getting hold of the goods. He falsely informed Alauddin that the traders were actually spies in disguise and should not be allowed to proceed. Alauddin, stupidly and without thinking out the consequences, ordered all the traders to be killed. Ainalgaq complied and confiscated all the goods. One trader survived, as he had been away from the camp at the time. He went back and informed Genghis Khan. Nontheless the Mongol emperor still showed tolerance and sent an emissary to Alauddin, asking him to either punish the governor for his mischief or to hand him over for dispensing justice. Alauddin , in his arrogance, had the emissary murdered. Genghis Khan sent yet another emissary, who complained about violation of diplomatic norms and Khwarizm’s stooping to disgraceful acts. This emissary was also killed. When news of this reached Genghis Khan, he is reported to have gone to a nearby hill, raised his hands towards the sky and said: “O Creator of this world, Alauddin is not a king. He is a thief. He has violated all norms of diplomacy. Please give me the strength to destroy him.” Alauddin, possessing an army of almost 500,000 soldiers and horses, sent troops to Utrar, Bokhara and Samarqand to protect them but the Mongol army swept aside all resistance like a whirlwind and wiped out each and every living soul in these cities.
The most unfortunate aspect of this episode is the fact that the Caliph Al-Nasir was indulging in intrigues against Khwarizm Shah and encouraging the Mongols to attack Khwarizm. Instead of forming a united front with Khwarizm Shah and Shamsuddin Altamash, king of India, Al-Nasir refused to help Jalaluddin, Alauddin’s valiant son who had taken command of the available troops and put up stiff resistance to Genghis Khan for years. He was finally cornered on the bank of the river Indus and when he saw no way out, he and a few colleagues leapt into the river on horseback and swam to the other side. It is said that he was finally murdered by a Kurd whose brother had been slain by Khwarizmi soldiers. Thus were sown the seeds of the destruction of the Islamic Empire. Due to a last-minute change in plans by the Mongol emperor, Altamash of India was saved from Mongol wrath. In 1259 A.D. the last Caliph, Mustasim, was trampled to death by galloping horsemen on the orders of Genghis Khan’s grandson Hulagu Khan– history had taken its revenge. According to historians, the Mongols massacred more than 10 million Muslims in Bukhara, Merv, Samarqand, Bamiyan, Nishapur and Baghdad. Muslim disunity resulted in the total destruction of various kingdoms and subsequent colonialisation, first by the Mongols and then by the Russians and Europeans.
It seems people never learn from history. What happened almost 800 years ago seems to be repeating itself again. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would not be facing the situation they are in today if they had followed the Islamic religious edicts of mutual help, brotherhood, justice, kindness and avoidance of oppressive, unlawful wars. Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah was a valiant warrior and fought bravely against the Mongols but was not helped by short-sighted Muslim rulers. Ultimately the Muslims faced the wrath of the Mongols and paid the price – more than 10 million dead, cities razed and a whole Muslim empire had disappeared. In 1260 the Mongols tasted their first defeat near Nazareth at the hands of the valiant Mameluk sultan Al-Zahir Baybars of Egypt and then, in 1277, at Van near the Syrian border.
Catastrophic results
In continuation of last week’s article on the same topic, the first unfortunate episode I would like to mention here is a decision made by Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Right from the time he was made commander-in-chief of the Army, he was reported to have been conspiring to usurp government powers. Lord Cockcroft, head of the British Atomic Energy Commission and father of Britain’s nuclear weapons programme, mentions in his autobiography that once, while passing through Karachi in the early fifties on his way to Australia, he met Ayub Khan at a state banquet.
He wrote that he was shocked to hear Ayub Khan openly declaring that all the local politicians were incompetent and unfit to rule the country, and that he had no option but to do something about it. All the facts about his intrigues with Ghulam Mohammad and Iskander Mirza are now well-documented. His ungrateful and insulting treatment of his benefactor, Iskander Mirza, is given in detail in Shahabnama written by Qudratullah Shahab, one time ambassador to Holland (and my witness at our marriage at the Embassy in The Hague in March 1964). When Ayub Khan took over, the Army had its heyday and many persons became rich overnight.
The particular decision of long-lasting consequences to the history of our country that I am referring to happened in 1962 when India and China went to war in NEFA. China and India had previously been bosom buddies and members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Nehru’s arrogance (“I have asked the Army to throw out the Chinese from our territory”) led to full-scale war. The Indians were defeated and demoralised and fled. China occupied a large part of Assam, which it later peacefully vacated. It was at this point that Ayub Khan made a major mistake. Many people had asked him to grasp this golden opportunity, send troops into Kashmir and close that chapter once and for all by presenting a fait accompli.
Our Army was very strong at that time and we could have taken Kashmir in a week; but to do something like that you need a Bulent Ecevit of Turkey or a Khalid Bin Walid (RA) type of personality. Instead of taking immediate action, Ayub Khan is reported to have sent a message to Nehru asking him to withdraw Indian troops from our borders and promising not to take any hostile action in return. Pakistan lost the golden chance and would not get another one like it. Had there been a democratically elected government, things would have been different, as we saw during the decision on the nuclear tests. According to international analysts, we would then not have suffered defeat in 1965, would not have faced the ignominious defeat in East Pakistan and would not have been forced into surrender on Dec 16, 1971. When the Indians got a chance in 1971, they used it efficiently and ruthlessly, and inflicted the humiliating surrender of 92,000 troops. The Indians openly bragged that when Pakistan got a golden chance, they foolishly failed to utilise it, while when they got such a chance, they used it most efficiently and wisely.
The debacle of 1971 was a direct result of Ayub Khan’s follies, the appointment of Yahya Khan as his successor and the corrupting of the Army by bringing it into politics. Since then many adventurists have usurped power and got away with it without being held responsible. Ayub Khan was the son of a Subedar Major and was only a matriculate. Military training in England was just that – military training – it had nothing to do with wisdom and maturity. The results are there for everyone to see.
Equally unfortunate for democracy in Pakistan is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision, upon the advice of his close aids, to appoint Pervez Musharraf as COAS. When the topic came up with the father of Mr Nawaz Sharif and myself once while I was there, I even told him that it would be Mr Nawaz Sharif’s undoing. Mian Sahib had no plausible answer. Sorry to say, but my forecast came true and Mian Sahib paid heavily for that decision. The penalty was paid not only by him but by the whole country. The dictatorial rule that was subsequently enforced led to the disintegration of the national fabric, ever-growing corruption and nepotism. One telephone call from US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was enough to lead to unilateral submission resulting in Pakistan becoming a partner in the death of almost two million Afghans and thousands of our own nationals.
Again we see the results of the background (the son of a clerk promoted to a section officer at the fag end of his career) and limited formal education (Intermediate) leading to lack of political acumen and wisdom. It is quite clear that there is no substitution for good, solid education. Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Gen Yahya Khan, Gen Zia-ul-Haq and Gen Musharraf, all confirmed the rule that army training is no substitute for a good university education. However, even university education is no substitute for wisdom, good character and a solid family background. Leadership, wisdom and foresight are gifts from Almighty Allah and good manners and good character come from family background.
One by one, personal decisions had devastating consequences, each in its own way, but all to the detriment of the country. Ayub Khan’s decision led to a missed opportunity to solve the Kashmir problem once and for all. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision led to the breakdown of democratic institutions and complete submission to the US. Unfortunately, we cannot always foresee what dire consequences our decisions might have. All the more reason for politicians to stop and think and take well-considered decisions for the benefit of the country.
He wrote that he was shocked to hear Ayub Khan openly declaring that all the local politicians were incompetent and unfit to rule the country, and that he had no option but to do something about it. All the facts about his intrigues with Ghulam Mohammad and Iskander Mirza are now well-documented. His ungrateful and insulting treatment of his benefactor, Iskander Mirza, is given in detail in Shahabnama written by Qudratullah Shahab, one time ambassador to Holland (and my witness at our marriage at the Embassy in The Hague in March 1964). When Ayub Khan took over, the Army had its heyday and many persons became rich overnight.
The particular decision of long-lasting consequences to the history of our country that I am referring to happened in 1962 when India and China went to war in NEFA. China and India had previously been bosom buddies and members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Nehru’s arrogance (“I have asked the Army to throw out the Chinese from our territory”) led to full-scale war. The Indians were defeated and demoralised and fled. China occupied a large part of Assam, which it later peacefully vacated. It was at this point that Ayub Khan made a major mistake. Many people had asked him to grasp this golden opportunity, send troops into Kashmir and close that chapter once and for all by presenting a fait accompli.
Our Army was very strong at that time and we could have taken Kashmir in a week; but to do something like that you need a Bulent Ecevit of Turkey or a Khalid Bin Walid (RA) type of personality. Instead of taking immediate action, Ayub Khan is reported to have sent a message to Nehru asking him to withdraw Indian troops from our borders and promising not to take any hostile action in return. Pakistan lost the golden chance and would not get another one like it. Had there been a democratically elected government, things would have been different, as we saw during the decision on the nuclear tests. According to international analysts, we would then not have suffered defeat in 1965, would not have faced the ignominious defeat in East Pakistan and would not have been forced into surrender on Dec 16, 1971. When the Indians got a chance in 1971, they used it efficiently and ruthlessly, and inflicted the humiliating surrender of 92,000 troops. The Indians openly bragged that when Pakistan got a golden chance, they foolishly failed to utilise it, while when they got such a chance, they used it most efficiently and wisely.
The debacle of 1971 was a direct result of Ayub Khan’s follies, the appointment of Yahya Khan as his successor and the corrupting of the Army by bringing it into politics. Since then many adventurists have usurped power and got away with it without being held responsible. Ayub Khan was the son of a Subedar Major and was only a matriculate. Military training in England was just that – military training – it had nothing to do with wisdom and maturity. The results are there for everyone to see.
Equally unfortunate for democracy in Pakistan is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision, upon the advice of his close aids, to appoint Pervez Musharraf as COAS. When the topic came up with the father of Mr Nawaz Sharif and myself once while I was there, I even told him that it would be Mr Nawaz Sharif’s undoing. Mian Sahib had no plausible answer. Sorry to say, but my forecast came true and Mian Sahib paid heavily for that decision. The penalty was paid not only by him but by the whole country. The dictatorial rule that was subsequently enforced led to the disintegration of the national fabric, ever-growing corruption and nepotism. One telephone call from US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was enough to lead to unilateral submission resulting in Pakistan becoming a partner in the death of almost two million Afghans and thousands of our own nationals.
Again we see the results of the background (the son of a clerk promoted to a section officer at the fag end of his career) and limited formal education (Intermediate) leading to lack of political acumen and wisdom. It is quite clear that there is no substitution for good, solid education. Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Gen Yahya Khan, Gen Zia-ul-Haq and Gen Musharraf, all confirmed the rule that army training is no substitute for a good university education. However, even university education is no substitute for wisdom, good character and a solid family background. Leadership, wisdom and foresight are gifts from Almighty Allah and good manners and good character come from family background.
One by one, personal decisions had devastating consequences, each in its own way, but all to the detriment of the country. Ayub Khan’s decision led to a missed opportunity to solve the Kashmir problem once and for all. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision led to the breakdown of democratic institutions and complete submission to the US. Unfortunately, we cannot always foresee what dire consequences our decisions might have. All the more reason for politicians to stop and think and take well-considered decisions for the benefit of the country.
Sweet talk – sour lemons
There was a lot of publicity and great expectations about President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. While not much was expected in terms of public engagements, all attention was focussed on his visit to Egypt and his address to students and faculty at the famous Al-Azhar University in Cairo. I heard that speech live and, as was to be expected, it was more rhetoric than substance.
We were given the good news that America planned to pull its troops out of Iraq by 2012. (Weren’t we given the impression during his inaugural speech that the pullout would be almost immediate?) That would indeed be surprising considering that, even after 60 years, the US still has troops in Japan, South Korea and all over Europe.
Another “great disclosure” was that there was a need for two independent states – Israel and Palestine. Have we also not been hearing this for the past 40 or 50 years? Just the other day the Israeli government announced that Mr Bush as president had secretly given tacit approval of expanding Jewish settlements (on Palestinian lands, of course). This makes one wonder what tacit promises President Obama has given to the Israelis. Only the future will tell. One thing he was very categorical about – the permanent mutual bond between the US and Israel and the fact that the US was bound to ensure Israel’s security and existence. (Even if this means the killing of thousands of Palestinians and the usurpation of more of their land. All this is considered justified, even though the Palestinians had nothing to do with the holocaust.)
Another surprising disclosure was admitting that military action was not a solution to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is the case, then why is America sending large numbers of additional troops into Afghanistan and why is the US conducting drone attacks in Pakistan in total disregard of our sovereignty? I seem to remember our leaders saying that with the inauguration of President Obama, drone attacks would ease off. We have all seen the results – even more frequent drone attacks and the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, men, women and children.
Of course, Iran’s nuclear programme did not escape attack. Iran’s peaceful programme (regularly scrutinised by IAEA inspectors) is considered to be a threat to world peace, to the USA and to the Middle East. This while the 200 or so Israeli nuclear weapons are considered “peaceful” and are not talked about at all. Have you ever heard a word by any US president against Israel’s nuclear programme, its weapons or its not joining the NPT? Never! This despite the fact that Israel showed its aggressive stance in its illegal, unprovoked pre-emptive strikes on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, which was being built, under IAEA safeguards, by the French.
President Obama offered improved relations with the Muslim world, which I believe to be no more than a “soother.” Mark my words. Nothing substantial will come of it. The rhetoric against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will continue, and so will that against Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programmes. We will be tied down economically to whatever conditions the World Bank and the IMF see fit to foist on us.
Here are a few ideas on what President Obama preaches and what he actually practices.
1. Withdrawal from Iraq put off for four years. (It is quite possible that he won’t be there for the final act and the matter lands up in the hands of another President with his own agenda.)
2. More troops for Afghanistan, despite earlier indications to the contrary.
3. More coercion and pressure on Iran to wind up its nuclear programme despite Iran’s agreement to IAEA inspections, but not a word about Israel’s nuclear weapons.
4. Reneging on promises to publish photos of the shameless, illegal torture of hundreds of detainees in Iraq and at the Guantanamo prison camp, while he had previously promised on many occasions that he would expose President Bush’s inhuman torture practices. One wonders what is wrong in accepting previous wrongdoings and ensuring that it doesn’t happen again. The American Civil Liberties Union had already made known that these included rape, water boarding, electric shocks, hanging upside down and damaging of genitals. If there was no hesitation in showing (encouraging, as a matter of fact) the genocide committed against the Jews in Nazi concentration camps, then why not the same openness here to shake American conscience (or was that, perhaps, the reason not to)? It is even more surprising when we consider the brutality meted out to President Obama’s forefathers and fellow Africans who were kidnapped, killed or sold into slavery. There was no hesitation in making those atrocities known. Painful for us is the fact that many of those kidnapped were Muslims from Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, etc. History has recorded the horrible conditions under which these hapless people were shipped to the Americas – chained and half of them dying on the way. How those sold into slavery were made to work in the fields for 18 hours a day and women were raped in order to create a never-ending workforce of mulattos. It seems to be a case of disclosing the atrocities committed by others, but keeping your own hidden.
5. While President Obama is an eloquent (rhetorical) orator, but that on its own doesn’t achieve anything. Hitler and Mussolini were also good orators but their actions and deeds were horrendous. Remember Napoleon Bonaparte’s speech to his soldiers and the Muslim clerics of Alexandria in 1798? What conciliatory terms he used, how he eulogised Islam, Muslims, their history, their culture and their contribution to civilisation. His purpose was purely to recruit traitors to overthrow the Mameluke dynasty and to make Egypt a French colony. However, the French were defeated by Muhammad Ali Pasha within two years and left Egypt. President Obama will not be able to achieve anything because he is tied down by the course set by his predecessors, by the strong Jewish lobby and by the neocons. His promises of withdrawal of troops in 2012 will be overturned by his successor. (I strongly doubt he will be re-elected.) If he were sincere, he would set a date of 2010 or 2011. The Palestinian problem will drag on indefinitely, and more Palestinian lands will be usurped to be included in the Zionist state, thanks to US support and the cowardice and incompetence of the Arab nations.
6. In 2002, 22 Arab states took the initiative to offer Israel full normalisation of relations in return for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied illegally in 1967. This initiative has been put on a backburner while the Arab countries are constantly being told “to take meaningful steps and important actions to facilitate the US to take some action.” Meaningful and important in this case may be taken to mean “don’t talk about the return of the West Bank and the rights of the Palestinian people.”
I believe that President Obama, for all his good intentions and his nice words will achieve no more than did the two Muslim presidents and the two Muslim vice presidents that India had. It will be a “puppet-on-a-string” show. As the Indian gentlemen in question could do no more than be good propaganda material for the Indian government, so Mr Obama will be for the US government. The well-entrenched establishment is too strong to be overruled and it will allow Mr Obama hardly any freedom to pursue his own policies freely. The election slogan “Change we can believe in” will soon become a forgotten page of world history. In this connection Aayats 51, 52 of Surah Maida perfectly describe the present situation. There we read: “O believer! Do not make friendship with Jews and Christians. They are friends to one another. If you make friendship with them, you will be one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. Those who are hypocrites will rush to the Jews and Christians and say they do this lest calamity befall them. It is possible that Allah may give you victory or some commandment. They will then repent for what they have concealed in their hearts.”
We were given the good news that America planned to pull its troops out of Iraq by 2012. (Weren’t we given the impression during his inaugural speech that the pullout would be almost immediate?) That would indeed be surprising considering that, even after 60 years, the US still has troops in Japan, South Korea and all over Europe.
Another “great disclosure” was that there was a need for two independent states – Israel and Palestine. Have we also not been hearing this for the past 40 or 50 years? Just the other day the Israeli government announced that Mr Bush as president had secretly given tacit approval of expanding Jewish settlements (on Palestinian lands, of course). This makes one wonder what tacit promises President Obama has given to the Israelis. Only the future will tell. One thing he was very categorical about – the permanent mutual bond between the US and Israel and the fact that the US was bound to ensure Israel’s security and existence. (Even if this means the killing of thousands of Palestinians and the usurpation of more of their land. All this is considered justified, even though the Palestinians had nothing to do with the holocaust.)
Another surprising disclosure was admitting that military action was not a solution to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is the case, then why is America sending large numbers of additional troops into Afghanistan and why is the US conducting drone attacks in Pakistan in total disregard of our sovereignty? I seem to remember our leaders saying that with the inauguration of President Obama, drone attacks would ease off. We have all seen the results – even more frequent drone attacks and the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, men, women and children.
Of course, Iran’s nuclear programme did not escape attack. Iran’s peaceful programme (regularly scrutinised by IAEA inspectors) is considered to be a threat to world peace, to the USA and to the Middle East. This while the 200 or so Israeli nuclear weapons are considered “peaceful” and are not talked about at all. Have you ever heard a word by any US president against Israel’s nuclear programme, its weapons or its not joining the NPT? Never! This despite the fact that Israel showed its aggressive stance in its illegal, unprovoked pre-emptive strikes on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, which was being built, under IAEA safeguards, by the French.
President Obama offered improved relations with the Muslim world, which I believe to be no more than a “soother.” Mark my words. Nothing substantial will come of it. The rhetoric against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will continue, and so will that against Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programmes. We will be tied down economically to whatever conditions the World Bank and the IMF see fit to foist on us.
Here are a few ideas on what President Obama preaches and what he actually practices.
1. Withdrawal from Iraq put off for four years. (It is quite possible that he won’t be there for the final act and the matter lands up in the hands of another President with his own agenda.)
2. More troops for Afghanistan, despite earlier indications to the contrary.
3. More coercion and pressure on Iran to wind up its nuclear programme despite Iran’s agreement to IAEA inspections, but not a word about Israel’s nuclear weapons.
4. Reneging on promises to publish photos of the shameless, illegal torture of hundreds of detainees in Iraq and at the Guantanamo prison camp, while he had previously promised on many occasions that he would expose President Bush’s inhuman torture practices. One wonders what is wrong in accepting previous wrongdoings and ensuring that it doesn’t happen again. The American Civil Liberties Union had already made known that these included rape, water boarding, electric shocks, hanging upside down and damaging of genitals. If there was no hesitation in showing (encouraging, as a matter of fact) the genocide committed against the Jews in Nazi concentration camps, then why not the same openness here to shake American conscience (or was that, perhaps, the reason not to)? It is even more surprising when we consider the brutality meted out to President Obama’s forefathers and fellow Africans who were kidnapped, killed or sold into slavery. There was no hesitation in making those atrocities known. Painful for us is the fact that many of those kidnapped were Muslims from Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, etc. History has recorded the horrible conditions under which these hapless people were shipped to the Americas – chained and half of them dying on the way. How those sold into slavery were made to work in the fields for 18 hours a day and women were raped in order to create a never-ending workforce of mulattos. It seems to be a case of disclosing the atrocities committed by others, but keeping your own hidden.
5. While President Obama is an eloquent (rhetorical) orator, but that on its own doesn’t achieve anything. Hitler and Mussolini were also good orators but their actions and deeds were horrendous. Remember Napoleon Bonaparte’s speech to his soldiers and the Muslim clerics of Alexandria in 1798? What conciliatory terms he used, how he eulogised Islam, Muslims, their history, their culture and their contribution to civilisation. His purpose was purely to recruit traitors to overthrow the Mameluke dynasty and to make Egypt a French colony. However, the French were defeated by Muhammad Ali Pasha within two years and left Egypt. President Obama will not be able to achieve anything because he is tied down by the course set by his predecessors, by the strong Jewish lobby and by the neocons. His promises of withdrawal of troops in 2012 will be overturned by his successor. (I strongly doubt he will be re-elected.) If he were sincere, he would set a date of 2010 or 2011. The Palestinian problem will drag on indefinitely, and more Palestinian lands will be usurped to be included in the Zionist state, thanks to US support and the cowardice and incompetence of the Arab nations.
6. In 2002, 22 Arab states took the initiative to offer Israel full normalisation of relations in return for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied illegally in 1967. This initiative has been put on a backburner while the Arab countries are constantly being told “to take meaningful steps and important actions to facilitate the US to take some action.” Meaningful and important in this case may be taken to mean “don’t talk about the return of the West Bank and the rights of the Palestinian people.”
I believe that President Obama, for all his good intentions and his nice words will achieve no more than did the two Muslim presidents and the two Muslim vice presidents that India had. It will be a “puppet-on-a-string” show. As the Indian gentlemen in question could do no more than be good propaganda material for the Indian government, so Mr Obama will be for the US government. The well-entrenched establishment is too strong to be overruled and it will allow Mr Obama hardly any freedom to pursue his own policies freely. The election slogan “Change we can believe in” will soon become a forgotten page of world history. In this connection Aayats 51, 52 of Surah Maida perfectly describe the present situation. There we read: “O believer! Do not make friendship with Jews and Christians. They are friends to one another. If you make friendship with them, you will be one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. Those who are hypocrites will rush to the Jews and Christians and say they do this lest calamity befall them. It is possible that Allah may give you victory or some commandment. They will then repent for what they have concealed in their hearts.”
Investing in agriculture
The population of what now constitutes Pakistan has escalated from 30 million to 170 million. Food production should have kept pace with the rise, if not exceeded it. We are spending billions of dollars on imports of basic items like wheat, sugar, tea, spices, edible oil, pulses and vegetables. These imports are financed by ill-affordable loans at high rates. Furthermore, to make these commodities affordable for the common man, huge subsidies are given, putting further strains on the already unsustainable domestic budget resources. The import of food items at prices higher than those of the local market is also having an adverse effect on all sectors of the economy causing major inflation. (in July-December 2008 inflation on foodstuff was 31.2 percent). Long periods of load-shedding and high prices of electricity have proved to be the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back (i.e., the economy). With this, a vicious circle is started. Higher prices lead to higher wage demands, which lead to higher domestic production costs, which lead to decline in agricultural exports, which lead to layoffs of farm employees. All this apart from the adverse implications for the balance of payments.
In food autarky lies the remedy to removing fiscal deficits in our predominantly agricultural economy. Fiscal deficits lead to higher taxation affecting mostly the common man, who is already the victim of several types of indirect taxation. By the simple elimination of food imports, which is required within a short span of time if we are to see results, foreign exchange and budget deficits can at least be minimised, if not totally wiped out, and the economy stabilised.
According to the July-December 2008 Economic Review, which is available on the official website of the ministry of finance, imports under the food group escalated to $2,218,500 million–i.e., 38 percent higher than that of the same period of the previous year. Wheat alone was imported at a cost of $734 million. The Statistical Supplement of the Economic Survey indicates that subsidies during the fiscal year 2007-2008 rose to Rs407,485 million–i.e., more than half-a-billion dollars. This is more than the expenditure on defence, which stands at Rs296,077 million. A separate figure for agricultural subsidies has not been given, but it can safely be assumed that the bulk of the subsidy goes to agricultural products. If the agricultural sector is directly supported by initiating and executing new schemes, the need for this large amount in subsidies could be eliminated in 3-5 years.
Water resources
While large dams would require an eight-to-ten-year period of construction (and that too only if political and financial impediments can be sorted out), small dams are required in all the four provinces. These need not necessarily be made on rivers, where they would interfere with village life, and the flora and fauna downstream. Conservation and storage of rain- and floodwater would be sufficient. During the time of President Ayub Khan, the Small Dam Organisation of WAPDA did an excellent job in this regard. Now nobody knows whether or not this organisation still exists. Funds need to be allocated and programmes initiated to build small dams wherever feasible. During a bus journey early in the morning on way to Turfan in Xinjiang province in China in 2003, I saw hundreds of workers carrying out large earthworks with picks and shovels. These were villagers carrying out voluntary spadework to build an earth-filled dam. The rainwater thus stored would be used for growing paddy in an otherwise arid, Balochistan-like desert area. By the time we returned that same evening, visibly substantial work had been carried out.
Food storage
We lack adequate storage facilities, resulting in wastage of produce acting as a disincentive to farmers. In 2003/2004, after large wheat crops of 19.1 to 19.5 million tons were harvested, the provinces did not have proper warehouses and silos for storage and wheat was left lying at railway sidings, fields and open warehouses. Fearing that there would be major spoilage, since the monsoons follow immediately after the harvest and procurement season, I had advised the government of Gen Musharraf to distribute the surplus free to those poor entitled to zakat, to be paid for out of the zakat funds. My suggestion was not followed up, with the expected consequences. When we have again achieved surplus wheat targets. I would like to reiterate my previous suggestion of distribution to the poor, to be financed either from the zakat funds or the Benazir Income Support Programme. I would also like to suggest the building of large, prefabricated sheds for storage of food and agricultural products, which should be made available to farmers all over the country. A factory to produce such (and other) prefabricated structures would be useful and economical. Sharjah has such factories, which produce prefabricated, large sheds with excellent insulation. Such sheds were used at Kahuta and were found to be durable, practical and useful.
Setting up of provincial agricultural research councils
All the provinces should set up agricultural research councils and they should be given sufficient federal funds to provide local and foreign resources to carry out research and experimental work. Our provinces vary greatly in climate and social conditions. The provincial agricultural research councils would be better geared to solving local problems and experimenting with locally suited crops. However, federal financial and technical support is a requirement, as is also strict performance monitoring.
Agriculture investment board
To attract domestic and foreign investments in agricultural projects, the government should consider establishing an agriculture investment board solely to organise financial and technical reserves. It would be preferable for such boards to be established at provincial levels as well. The federal board could then act as a holding company to provide financial, technical and monitoring support. The setting up of such boards could also assist in the division of resources between the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, thus building up a strong base for the agricultural sector. The engineering industry has an engineering development board at the national level. It is ironic that the agricultural sector, while being the backbone of the country’s economy, does not have a national platform where issues, policies, plans and projects can be formulated and articulated at a national level to serve the farming community.
I hope that at least some of these suggestions will be considered and be incorporated in future budgets.
In food autarky lies the remedy to removing fiscal deficits in our predominantly agricultural economy. Fiscal deficits lead to higher taxation affecting mostly the common man, who is already the victim of several types of indirect taxation. By the simple elimination of food imports, which is required within a short span of time if we are to see results, foreign exchange and budget deficits can at least be minimised, if not totally wiped out, and the economy stabilised.
According to the July-December 2008 Economic Review, which is available on the official website of the ministry of finance, imports under the food group escalated to $2,218,500 million–i.e., 38 percent higher than that of the same period of the previous year. Wheat alone was imported at a cost of $734 million. The Statistical Supplement of the Economic Survey indicates that subsidies during the fiscal year 2007-2008 rose to Rs407,485 million–i.e., more than half-a-billion dollars. This is more than the expenditure on defence, which stands at Rs296,077 million. A separate figure for agricultural subsidies has not been given, but it can safely be assumed that the bulk of the subsidy goes to agricultural products. If the agricultural sector is directly supported by initiating and executing new schemes, the need for this large amount in subsidies could be eliminated in 3-5 years.
Water resources
While large dams would require an eight-to-ten-year period of construction (and that too only if political and financial impediments can be sorted out), small dams are required in all the four provinces. These need not necessarily be made on rivers, where they would interfere with village life, and the flora and fauna downstream. Conservation and storage of rain- and floodwater would be sufficient. During the time of President Ayub Khan, the Small Dam Organisation of WAPDA did an excellent job in this regard. Now nobody knows whether or not this organisation still exists. Funds need to be allocated and programmes initiated to build small dams wherever feasible. During a bus journey early in the morning on way to Turfan in Xinjiang province in China in 2003, I saw hundreds of workers carrying out large earthworks with picks and shovels. These were villagers carrying out voluntary spadework to build an earth-filled dam. The rainwater thus stored would be used for growing paddy in an otherwise arid, Balochistan-like desert area. By the time we returned that same evening, visibly substantial work had been carried out.
Food storage
We lack adequate storage facilities, resulting in wastage of produce acting as a disincentive to farmers. In 2003/2004, after large wheat crops of 19.1 to 19.5 million tons were harvested, the provinces did not have proper warehouses and silos for storage and wheat was left lying at railway sidings, fields and open warehouses. Fearing that there would be major spoilage, since the monsoons follow immediately after the harvest and procurement season, I had advised the government of Gen Musharraf to distribute the surplus free to those poor entitled to zakat, to be paid for out of the zakat funds. My suggestion was not followed up, with the expected consequences. When we have again achieved surplus wheat targets. I would like to reiterate my previous suggestion of distribution to the poor, to be financed either from the zakat funds or the Benazir Income Support Programme. I would also like to suggest the building of large, prefabricated sheds for storage of food and agricultural products, which should be made available to farmers all over the country. A factory to produce such (and other) prefabricated structures would be useful and economical. Sharjah has such factories, which produce prefabricated, large sheds with excellent insulation. Such sheds were used at Kahuta and were found to be durable, practical and useful.
Setting up of provincial agricultural research councils
All the provinces should set up agricultural research councils and they should be given sufficient federal funds to provide local and foreign resources to carry out research and experimental work. Our provinces vary greatly in climate and social conditions. The provincial agricultural research councils would be better geared to solving local problems and experimenting with locally suited crops. However, federal financial and technical support is a requirement, as is also strict performance monitoring.
Agriculture investment board
To attract domestic and foreign investments in agricultural projects, the government should consider establishing an agriculture investment board solely to organise financial and technical reserves. It would be preferable for such boards to be established at provincial levels as well. The federal board could then act as a holding company to provide financial, technical and monitoring support. The setting up of such boards could also assist in the division of resources between the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, thus building up a strong base for the agricultural sector. The engineering industry has an engineering development board at the national level. It is ironic that the agricultural sector, while being the backbone of the country’s economy, does not have a national platform where issues, policies, plans and projects can be formulated and articulated at a national level to serve the farming community.
I hope that at least some of these suggestions will be considered and be incorporated in future budgets.
Nostalgic memories
Some memories are just nostalgic. I have such memories about Bhopal.
The other day I was looking through Bhopal Nama, a poetic version of the history of Bhopal, its people, language and culture compiled by my elder brother, Abdul Hafeez Khan, a poet in his own right. This book was launched in Bhopal in 2007 by Dr Balram Jhaker, governor of Madhya Pardesh, a graduate of Aitchison College, Lahore, with excellent knowledge of Urdu literature. The famous episode of Shaqqul-Qamar (cleaving asunder of the moon – Para 27 Surah Qamar) has been mentioned in Bhopal Nama. The phenomenon was sighted by Bhojpal, the then ruler and founder of Bhopal. It is said that, on seeing the moon’s cleavage and learning about our Holy Prophet (PBUH), he sent emissaries with many gifts, including betel leaves, for the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Hazrat Amir Khusro, greatest of all poets, wrote a famous couplet on this:
Sabzie o qateh baras-o-juzam
Baquole Nabie waqt Alaehissalam
(The Holy Prophet, after tasting the pan leaves, said that it could cure leukoderma and leprosy.)
Ziauddin Barni, his compatriot, wrote in Tarikh-e-Feroz Shahi that there were many poets in the reign of Sultan Alauddin Khilji, but one such as Khusro had never existed before and have never appeared since. Amir Khusro was a master in every field of prose, poetry, masnavi, ghazal, qasida, and music. He knew Urdu, Persian, Hindi, Sanskrit, Turkish, Arabic, etc. His forefathers came from Trans-Oxania and were of Turkish origin. Khusro was not only a man of letters but also an expert swordsman. Through his marriage with the daughter of Imadul Mulk, Minister of War of Sultan Balban, he was an integral part of the royalty. He was a disciple of Hazrat Nizamudin Aulia.
It is said that when Hazrat Nizamudin Aulia was sick and bedridden, Hazrat Amir Khusro used to tell him stories and anecdotes that he made up to cheer him. Here follows one, The Three Princes of Ceylon.
There was once a wise king who reigned in Ceylon. He had three sons who all excelled in learning and physical sports. One day the king decided to test them. He called them, one by one, starting with the oldest. “I am old,” he said. “You are the heir to the throne. Rule wisely, so your subjects may be loyal, and protect them well.” All the princes bowed deeply before their father and denied any wish to ascend the throne during his lifetime. Although pleased with their responses, the king, to their consternation, banished them from the kingdom. They travelled together to a neighbouring kingdom. On their way to the capital they were met by an Ethiopian who cried: “Gentle travellers! Have you seen my camel?”
“Had it lost an eye?” asked the first prince.
“Had it lost a tooth?” asked the second prince.
“Was it lame?” asked the third prince.
“Since you have seen it, tell me where to find it,” cried the Ethiopian.
“Go straight and quick,” the three princes replied simultaneously.
The Ethiopian went in search of his camel and the princes travelled on. While resting under a tree, the Ethiopian fell upon them with cries of anger declaring that he had searched all over and had not found his camel.
“Does your camel carry a jar of oil on one side and a jar of honey on the other side of its back?” asked the first prince.
“Is there a woman seated on it?” asked the second prince.
“And is not that woman in the last stage of pregnancy?” asked the third prince.
The Ethiopian angered into thinking that they must have stolen his camel if they knew so much about it, raised a hue and cry and insisted that the princes be taken to the king for punishment. When the case came before the king, the princes stated that they had travelled far and wide and, coming upon the Ethiopian, decided to have some sport in order to increase his anxiety. The king too became angered by this and had them thrown into the dungeon. Next morning the camel was duly found, with the woman still sitting on it. The king was immediately informed and the princes released and brought before him. “How did you know so much about the camel while you had never seen it?” he enquired. The princes bowed deeply before him and explained:
“I saw that only the leaves and branches on one side of the road had been eaten and thus assumed that the animal was blind in one eye?” said the first prince.
“I saw that the leaves and twigs had only been half eaten and thus assumed that the animal had lost a tooth,” said the second prince.
“I saw that the impressions left by the camel showed it to have been dragging one foot,” said the third prince.
“All very well,” said the king, “but what about your other remarks?”
“There were drops on the road. Those on one side swarmed with ants, while the ones on the other side had collected flies. This could only have been due to honey and oil,” replied the first prince.
“Marks on the road showed that, at one place, the camel had squatted. Beside those marks I saw the delicate impressions of a woman’s shoes,” replied the second prince.
“Beside those footprints I saw impressions of her hands also. Only a woman advanced in pregnancy would have to crawl in order to get on to the camel’s back,” replied the third prince.
The king, duly impressed, presented them with robes of honour and a house to live in, where he often visited them. One day he sent them roast lamb to eat and wine to drink.
“The wine seems to have human blood in it,” remarked the first Prince.
“The lamb seems to have been nursed by a bitch,” remarked the second prince.
“Why complain about trifles when the king himself is not the real son of his predecessor. He has a butler’s blood in his veins,” remarked the third prince.
The king, who had been listening from an adjoining room, bristled with indignation. He appeared before them and asked them to repeat what they had just said. Though angered, he decided to investigate. He soon came to know that the grapes were from a vineyard which had once been a graveyard. After much reluctance, the shepherd confessed that, having lost a sheep to the wolves, he had decided to let the kid be suckled by his bitch. Most difficult of all was the matter of his mother. After much prevarication from her and threats from the king, she finally confessed to having had an affair with the butler. Regretting what he had set out to find, he returned to the three princes.
“I congratulate you on your remarkable intelligence” he said. “It would be unfair to keep you cooped up in one city.” With that he gave them a hundred gold pieces each and bade them farewell. The three princes then returned to the kingdom of their father. The logical reasoning used by Khusro to explain the riddles could put even Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Colombo to shame.
The other day I was looking through Bhopal Nama, a poetic version of the history of Bhopal, its people, language and culture compiled by my elder brother, Abdul Hafeez Khan, a poet in his own right. This book was launched in Bhopal in 2007 by Dr Balram Jhaker, governor of Madhya Pardesh, a graduate of Aitchison College, Lahore, with excellent knowledge of Urdu literature. The famous episode of Shaqqul-Qamar (cleaving asunder of the moon – Para 27 Surah Qamar) has been mentioned in Bhopal Nama. The phenomenon was sighted by Bhojpal, the then ruler and founder of Bhopal. It is said that, on seeing the moon’s cleavage and learning about our Holy Prophet (PBUH), he sent emissaries with many gifts, including betel leaves, for the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Hazrat Amir Khusro, greatest of all poets, wrote a famous couplet on this:
Sabzie o qateh baras-o-juzam
Baquole Nabie waqt Alaehissalam
(The Holy Prophet, after tasting the pan leaves, said that it could cure leukoderma and leprosy.)
Ziauddin Barni, his compatriot, wrote in Tarikh-e-Feroz Shahi that there were many poets in the reign of Sultan Alauddin Khilji, but one such as Khusro had never existed before and have never appeared since. Amir Khusro was a master in every field of prose, poetry, masnavi, ghazal, qasida, and music. He knew Urdu, Persian, Hindi, Sanskrit, Turkish, Arabic, etc. His forefathers came from Trans-Oxania and were of Turkish origin. Khusro was not only a man of letters but also an expert swordsman. Through his marriage with the daughter of Imadul Mulk, Minister of War of Sultan Balban, he was an integral part of the royalty. He was a disciple of Hazrat Nizamudin Aulia.
It is said that when Hazrat Nizamudin Aulia was sick and bedridden, Hazrat Amir Khusro used to tell him stories and anecdotes that he made up to cheer him. Here follows one, The Three Princes of Ceylon.
There was once a wise king who reigned in Ceylon. He had three sons who all excelled in learning and physical sports. One day the king decided to test them. He called them, one by one, starting with the oldest. “I am old,” he said. “You are the heir to the throne. Rule wisely, so your subjects may be loyal, and protect them well.” All the princes bowed deeply before their father and denied any wish to ascend the throne during his lifetime. Although pleased with their responses, the king, to their consternation, banished them from the kingdom. They travelled together to a neighbouring kingdom. On their way to the capital they were met by an Ethiopian who cried: “Gentle travellers! Have you seen my camel?”
“Had it lost an eye?” asked the first prince.
“Had it lost a tooth?” asked the second prince.
“Was it lame?” asked the third prince.
“Since you have seen it, tell me where to find it,” cried the Ethiopian.
“Go straight and quick,” the three princes replied simultaneously.
The Ethiopian went in search of his camel and the princes travelled on. While resting under a tree, the Ethiopian fell upon them with cries of anger declaring that he had searched all over and had not found his camel.
“Does your camel carry a jar of oil on one side and a jar of honey on the other side of its back?” asked the first prince.
“Is there a woman seated on it?” asked the second prince.
“And is not that woman in the last stage of pregnancy?” asked the third prince.
The Ethiopian angered into thinking that they must have stolen his camel if they knew so much about it, raised a hue and cry and insisted that the princes be taken to the king for punishment. When the case came before the king, the princes stated that they had travelled far and wide and, coming upon the Ethiopian, decided to have some sport in order to increase his anxiety. The king too became angered by this and had them thrown into the dungeon. Next morning the camel was duly found, with the woman still sitting on it. The king was immediately informed and the princes released and brought before him. “How did you know so much about the camel while you had never seen it?” he enquired. The princes bowed deeply before him and explained:
“I saw that only the leaves and branches on one side of the road had been eaten and thus assumed that the animal was blind in one eye?” said the first prince.
“I saw that the leaves and twigs had only been half eaten and thus assumed that the animal had lost a tooth,” said the second prince.
“I saw that the impressions left by the camel showed it to have been dragging one foot,” said the third prince.
“All very well,” said the king, “but what about your other remarks?”
“There were drops on the road. Those on one side swarmed with ants, while the ones on the other side had collected flies. This could only have been due to honey and oil,” replied the first prince.
“Marks on the road showed that, at one place, the camel had squatted. Beside those marks I saw the delicate impressions of a woman’s shoes,” replied the second prince.
“Beside those footprints I saw impressions of her hands also. Only a woman advanced in pregnancy would have to crawl in order to get on to the camel’s back,” replied the third prince.
The king, duly impressed, presented them with robes of honour and a house to live in, where he often visited them. One day he sent them roast lamb to eat and wine to drink.
“The wine seems to have human blood in it,” remarked the first Prince.
“The lamb seems to have been nursed by a bitch,” remarked the second prince.
“Why complain about trifles when the king himself is not the real son of his predecessor. He has a butler’s blood in his veins,” remarked the third prince.
The king, who had been listening from an adjoining room, bristled with indignation. He appeared before them and asked them to repeat what they had just said. Though angered, he decided to investigate. He soon came to know that the grapes were from a vineyard which had once been a graveyard. After much reluctance, the shepherd confessed that, having lost a sheep to the wolves, he had decided to let the kid be suckled by his bitch. Most difficult of all was the matter of his mother. After much prevarication from her and threats from the king, she finally confessed to having had an affair with the butler. Regretting what he had set out to find, he returned to the three princes.
“I congratulate you on your remarkable intelligence” he said. “It would be unfair to keep you cooped up in one city.” With that he gave them a hundred gold pieces each and bade them farewell. The three princes then returned to the kingdom of their father. The logical reasoning used by Khusro to explain the riddles could put even Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Colombo to shame.
Bhutto, GIK and Kahuta
Mr Shafqat Mehmood, analyst, columnist and former senior civil servant, wrote a column (July 10) about the meeting between Mr Bhutto, Gen Zia, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Gen Arif (COS to Gen Zia), at which Gen Imtiaz, military secretary to Mr Bhutto, was also present. Mr Mehmood mentioned that Mr Bhutto was in a bad mood and very annoyed and Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan was rather rude to him (no handshake, no greetings, etc.). While I don’t doubt Mr Mehmood’s observations, I would like to make some of my own. I came to Pakistan on vacation in 1976 and stayed on at the personal request of Mr Bhutto to work on Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Right from the beginning I had regular meetings with Mr Bhutto, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan (SG Defence), Mr Agha Shahi (SG Foreign Affairs) and Mr A G N Kazi (SG Finance). The atmosphere was always relaxed and friendly. In the very first meeting Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan requested permission to smoke – he was a chain smoker. Mr Bhutto immediately gave a nod of approval and, to put him at ease, lit a cigar himself. There were many subsequent meetings and never once did I sense any tension between Mr Bhutto and the three gentlemen. My guess is that, since Gen Zia insisted that Mr Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan accompany him to Murree to meet Mr Bhutto, Mr Khan must have felt very awkward and tense, feeling that Mr Bhutto would probably consider him a traitor and accomplice of Gen Zia, hence his strange behaviour.
Soon after taking over, Gen Zia appointed his old colleague in the British Army, Lt Gen S Ali Zamin Naqvi as security advisor for the PAEC and KRL. Gen Naqvi and I used to meet Gen Zia late in the evenings to discuss the progress of work at Kahuta. After the imposition of martial law, Mr Kazi was sidelined and Gen Arif started participating in the board meetings. Gen Arif was very intelligent, sharp and efficient, and a no-nonsense person. He had a tremendously good memory. Gen Zia’s successful tenure was, to a great extent, due to Gen Arif’s excellent capabilities and Gen Zia used them to the full. It was a pity that Gen Arif was not given the opportunity to show his worth in his own right.
I had an extremely cordial relationship with Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan. I respected him as if he were my own father and I felt that he reciprocated my feelings. He had given instructions that I was to be allowed to see him without prior appointment. At that time he lived in a rented house near the old China Market. I often went to see him at 9 a.m. and would immediately be let in by his elderly servant. We would discuss the problems over a cup of tea and then I would leave to go to the office. Once I asked him about Gen Zia’s takeover. He told me that, on July 5, while he was taking a shower in the morning, there had been a call from the GHQ, which his wife took. When he called back he was put through to Gen Zia who told him that a coup had been staged, the government was dismissed and the Assemblies stood dissolved. He was asked to go the GHQ to discuss the future course of action. Upon reaching the GHQ, he had told Gen Zia that this action was going to harm the country, but since it could not be reversed, they should do their best to salvage whatever they could. I myself witnessed many instances where Ghulam Ishaq Khan openly differed with Gen Zia on policy matters.
Here I would like to relate an interesting episode that took place in August 1976. I had just been appointed project director of the Engineering Research Laboratories, an independent organisation. My first priority was to find a suitable site. After visiting many places, I decided on Kahuta. We had a meeting with Mr Bhutto soon after and I informed everyone present about my selection. Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan immediately proposed the formation of a committee to evaluate the site and then make recommendations, to which Mr Bhutto smilingly replied: “Khan Sahab, neither I nor you or any other person knows about the requirements of the site. If Dr Khan is satisfied, it is fine with us. These committees for everything have made a mess of our country.” With that the matter was closed.
At the meeting I also requested the prime minister to give me a small team of army civil engineers for construction of the plant. When Mr Bhutto asked why civilian contractors could not be used, I informed him that civil works was a domain infested with corruption – anything up to 50 percent. If the army officers did anything wrong, the COAS would sort them out. Mr Bhutto asked Gen Zia (then COAS) to take care of the matter. After the meeting Gen Zia asked me what type of officer I required. I told him a smart, efficient brigadier with a few other officers to help. The next morning Brig Zahid Ali Akbar Khan (later Lt Gen, corps commander and chairman WAPDA) reported to me. He was a tall, handsome and dashing officer. He complained about having been pulled out of the main service, but when I explained to him the purpose of the plant he was raring to go. We first went to Kahuta in his jeep and looked around. The next day we flew over the site in a helicopter. In two or three days he had made the line drawings and measured the area. He then went to see the defence secretary, Gen Fazle Muqeem Khan. Within a week the whole area had been acquired for defence work. I made it a point to stipulate that those effected by the project should be paid handsomely and promptly and Mr Kazi arranged to do so immediately.
Another interesting episode involving Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan is related to the powers I was given. I had prepared the papers in consultation with Brig Zahid. In one of the meetings Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan observed that the powers mentioned were enjoyed only by the prime minister. I explained that only with those powers could the project be rushed through. Mr Kazi then interjected: “Ishaq, if you want to create another PWD, then cut those powers. Let us allow him to do his job as instructed by the prime minister.” I stressed that since we would be holding meetings every month and they would be briefed about all matters, there would be no scope for anything illegal. They then agreed to post Mr I A Bhatty, a Grade 21 officer from the Finance Division to the project. I appointed him as DG Finance and Administration and all bank accounts, local and foreign, were maintained and operated by him.
Finally, I would like to emphasise that during my long association with Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Mr Agha Shahi, I never once heard any critical or sarcastic remarks against Mr Bhutto. I worked very closely with them, even to the point of being allowed to take some liberties. May Allah Almighty rest the souls of Mr Bhutto, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Mr Kazi and Mr Agha Shahi in eternal peace for laying the solid foundation of our nuclear programme. Ameen.
Soon after taking over, Gen Zia appointed his old colleague in the British Army, Lt Gen S Ali Zamin Naqvi as security advisor for the PAEC and KRL. Gen Naqvi and I used to meet Gen Zia late in the evenings to discuss the progress of work at Kahuta. After the imposition of martial law, Mr Kazi was sidelined and Gen Arif started participating in the board meetings. Gen Arif was very intelligent, sharp and efficient, and a no-nonsense person. He had a tremendously good memory. Gen Zia’s successful tenure was, to a great extent, due to Gen Arif’s excellent capabilities and Gen Zia used them to the full. It was a pity that Gen Arif was not given the opportunity to show his worth in his own right.
I had an extremely cordial relationship with Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan. I respected him as if he were my own father and I felt that he reciprocated my feelings. He had given instructions that I was to be allowed to see him without prior appointment. At that time he lived in a rented house near the old China Market. I often went to see him at 9 a.m. and would immediately be let in by his elderly servant. We would discuss the problems over a cup of tea and then I would leave to go to the office. Once I asked him about Gen Zia’s takeover. He told me that, on July 5, while he was taking a shower in the morning, there had been a call from the GHQ, which his wife took. When he called back he was put through to Gen Zia who told him that a coup had been staged, the government was dismissed and the Assemblies stood dissolved. He was asked to go the GHQ to discuss the future course of action. Upon reaching the GHQ, he had told Gen Zia that this action was going to harm the country, but since it could not be reversed, they should do their best to salvage whatever they could. I myself witnessed many instances where Ghulam Ishaq Khan openly differed with Gen Zia on policy matters.
Here I would like to relate an interesting episode that took place in August 1976. I had just been appointed project director of the Engineering Research Laboratories, an independent organisation. My first priority was to find a suitable site. After visiting many places, I decided on Kahuta. We had a meeting with Mr Bhutto soon after and I informed everyone present about my selection. Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan immediately proposed the formation of a committee to evaluate the site and then make recommendations, to which Mr Bhutto smilingly replied: “Khan Sahab, neither I nor you or any other person knows about the requirements of the site. If Dr Khan is satisfied, it is fine with us. These committees for everything have made a mess of our country.” With that the matter was closed.
At the meeting I also requested the prime minister to give me a small team of army civil engineers for construction of the plant. When Mr Bhutto asked why civilian contractors could not be used, I informed him that civil works was a domain infested with corruption – anything up to 50 percent. If the army officers did anything wrong, the COAS would sort them out. Mr Bhutto asked Gen Zia (then COAS) to take care of the matter. After the meeting Gen Zia asked me what type of officer I required. I told him a smart, efficient brigadier with a few other officers to help. The next morning Brig Zahid Ali Akbar Khan (later Lt Gen, corps commander and chairman WAPDA) reported to me. He was a tall, handsome and dashing officer. He complained about having been pulled out of the main service, but when I explained to him the purpose of the plant he was raring to go. We first went to Kahuta in his jeep and looked around. The next day we flew over the site in a helicopter. In two or three days he had made the line drawings and measured the area. He then went to see the defence secretary, Gen Fazle Muqeem Khan. Within a week the whole area had been acquired for defence work. I made it a point to stipulate that those effected by the project should be paid handsomely and promptly and Mr Kazi arranged to do so immediately.
Another interesting episode involving Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan is related to the powers I was given. I had prepared the papers in consultation with Brig Zahid. In one of the meetings Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan observed that the powers mentioned were enjoyed only by the prime minister. I explained that only with those powers could the project be rushed through. Mr Kazi then interjected: “Ishaq, if you want to create another PWD, then cut those powers. Let us allow him to do his job as instructed by the prime minister.” I stressed that since we would be holding meetings every month and they would be briefed about all matters, there would be no scope for anything illegal. They then agreed to post Mr I A Bhatty, a Grade 21 officer from the Finance Division to the project. I appointed him as DG Finance and Administration and all bank accounts, local and foreign, were maintained and operated by him.
Finally, I would like to emphasise that during my long association with Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Mr Agha Shahi, I never once heard any critical or sarcastic remarks against Mr Bhutto. I worked very closely with them, even to the point of being allowed to take some liberties. May Allah Almighty rest the souls of Mr Bhutto, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Mr Kazi and Mr Agha Shahi in eternal peace for laying the solid foundation of our nuclear programme. Ameen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)