As Reported by The Economic Times

The reported move by the Pakistan government to phase out major restrictions on trade with India by switching to the negative list, and doing away with that too by the end of the year, is wholly welcome. Normalising trade relations with India will help establish a template of wider normalization of mutual ties.

An indication of deep-rooted animosities and suspicions which have stymied that goal can be seen in the opposition from quarters within Pakistan to Islamabad’s declared – and logical – aim of granting India the World Trade Organization-compliant Most Favoured Nation status next year.

But the arrangement to separate commerce from thornier issues like Kashmir and Pakistan’s actions against those accused of terror attacks against India can lay a foundation for minimising mutual distrust. For New Delhi, this would be in keeping with the idea of engaging various power centres in Pakistan, given the fractured power structure in that country.

While being perfectly aware that policy on India, like in other areas deemed to be ‘strategic’ by the military, is mostly determined by the latter, the aim should be to defang and isolate hardline elements by positing the real and tangible benefits enhanced mutual trade can offer Pakistan.

And there certainly is ample scope to do that: direct Indo-Pak trade is less than 1% of their global trade; annual mutual trade was around $2.7 billion through March 2011, which, despite being up 50% from the previous year is still measly compared to, say, India’s $60 billion annual trade with China or the potential.

But a beginning has been made with Pakistani industry backing the new move, which, in turn, can help allay fears that Indian goods will swamp Pakistani markets. What will happen is the ending of trade routed through third countries (mostly Dubai).

Legitimate mutual trade can lead to both countries envisaging cooperation in a wider trading entity comprising Afghanistan and Central Asia, with obvious benefits for regional stability. This might sound utopian for now, but mutually-beneficial commerce does have a way of tempering hostilities.

Filed under: Afghanistan, China, Desi, India, Pakistan, Peace Tagged: Afghanistan, China, Dubai, India, India Pakistan Trade, MFN, Most Favored Nation, Pakistan, World Trade Organization

Amid resistance, questions on transparency, confusions and other views; PTA’s Chairman Dr. Yaseen in his recent interview have yet again expressed that 3G Spectrum Auction in Pakistan will take place next month.

The brief of Dr. Yaseen’s interview as reported by Mobile Business Briefing can be read below. Some key points have been underlined.

Pakistan is to hold 3G auctions next month and is aiming to attract 15 million mobile broadband users within the first year, the country’s regulator has told Mobile World Daily in an exclusive interview.

Dr Mohammad Yaseen, chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), said that three blocks of spectrum in the 1900/2100MHz band and another at 800MHz are to be sold off, with licences expected to be awarded to at least three operators. Both new and existing market players are invited to bid and Yaseen said the country’s regulatory framework was geared up to facilitate foreign investment.

Bids will start at US$210 million for the 1900/2100MHz spectrum and US$155 million for the 800MHz licence. In the first rollout phase, existing operators will need to launch services in four Provincial Capitals and the Federal Capital within six months after being allocated, while new players will be given a year.

Pakistan is the world’s tenth largest mobile market with around 113 mobile subscribers at year-end 2011 – but has a market penetration of just 66.5 percent.

“Keeping in view the situation for fixed line broadband in the country [under 1 percent], we expect that during first year of its introduction 3G mobile broadband services will attract approximately 15 million subscribers with a steady growth afterwards,” said Dr Yaseen. He added that the Pakistan government was looking at the mobile sector as a “major contributor” to the country’s economy. “The telecom sector contributes about 1.5 percent in the national GDP on annual basis [and] is providing direct and indirect employment opportunities to more than 1.5 million individuals. [The] government is putting all emphasis on cellular broadband proliferation for further economic growth.”

Dr Yaseen said that 3G will enable value-added services such as health, education, money and entertainment. “The majority of the population consists youth who are eager and excited to enjoy mobile entertainment and Internet service on the move,” he said.

It is worthy to note here PTA has recently sought for EOIs from consultancy firm of international repute to offer services for the auction of 3G license which is due for submission on March 26, that is three-days before the Spectrum Auction date. Also some recommendations of the Standing Comittee on IT are yet to be considered.

via MBB

By Prof Farakh A Khan

(This is continuation of my last article.. It was felt that this subject requires greater depth since people in Pakistan have distorted view of our Fata issue. The origin and evolution of Jihadi Wahhabi movement has to be put in proper perspective)

Conflict in society is the oldest human response inherited from our evolutionary animal past. As human society graduated from sticks and stones as weapons of aggression to high explosives and air war the level of carnage increased dramatically. We are now entering phase of robotic war lased with nuclear technology where power of destruction has escalated to a new level. The level of misery caused by modern wars is not acceptable anymore. War in Afghanistan either by foreign forces intervention or internal conflict for the last 50 decades has left the nation in state of perpetual war. Since Russian intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 Pakistan still has 1.7 million Afghan refugees. The conflict in Afghanistan has spilled over into Pakistan where since 2004 estimated 35,000 people have been killed and many more disabled. The only winners of war are the manufactures of arms and ammunition. For Pakistan Federally Administrated Areas (Fata) formally called the Tribal Areas has been devastated and there is no end in sight. For Pakistan Balochistan is also an area in turmoil. The Americans are also pointing fingers at our Balochistan human rights record.

Pakistan’s religious and cultural hereditary ties with Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan and Middle East have always been strong. Any development in one country has its impact on others including Pakistan. Today we are caught in conflict in Afghanistan tomorrow we may be in a bigger mess if Iran is attacked by Israel/American forces. Attack on Iran will be most unpopular with the people of Pakistan and destabilise its leadership especially the army.

Endgame in Afghanistan

The Nato/American occupation of Afghanistan since 2001 directly impacted on Pakistan especially in Fata. People Pakistan actively volunteered to resist the invading army but was initially overwhelmed by the firepower of the American guns. Historically people of Fata has seen whole host of aggressors from the West and East. Each time aggressors have called people of what are now Fata and of Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa different names at different times of history labelled as terrorists, militants, rebels, religious extremists/fanatics or freedom fighters. The ten-year war in Afghanistan has taken toll of the American purse and its fighters. The French want to pull out by next year. On the other hand the Afghan people are constantly suffering. Both sides are in fatigue mode. The Americans are openly talking to Afghan Taliban leadership since November 2010 to end American occupation of Afghanistan. The talks are at a crucial juncture where a Taliban office is to be opened in Qatar. The Americans are considering release of five Taliban leaders from infamous Guantanamo prison to be stationed in Qatar. Team led by Marc Grossman from the American side and Qari Yousaf Ahmedi from Afghan Taliban side are in discussions (DeYoung, Karen. US links Taliban talks to Karzai’s consent. Dawn/Washington Post/ Bloomberg News Service. January 13, 2012). In Qatar talks the sticking point is release of Guantanamo Taliban commanders and timing of ceasefire. The Americans want ceasefire first before prisoner release but the Taliban want start of American troop withdrawal first (US, Taliban historic talks begin in Qatar. AFP. The News. January 30, 2012). Taliban has denied any talks with the US (Taliban deny talks with ‘puppet’ govt. AFP. The News. February 17, 2012).

The Americans with their many think tanks and experience of Vietnam and Russians bitter Afghan disaster perhaps made no impact on the American leadership. The arrogance of power overrides the long-term reality of war in Afghanistan. The British with long direct experience of wars in Afghanistan were also drawn into the conflict in 2001. Their famous war hero Lord Roberts of Kandahar after the Second Afghan War (1878-80) strongly advised Britain to avoid meddling in Afghan affairs. The Treaty of Gandamak (May 26, 1879) took away foreign affairs from Afghan rulers with fatal results. The right to foreign affairs was given back after the Third Afghan War (1919) following a treaty on November 22, 1921 (Shah, 2000). This was part of the Great Game strategy. But this was long time ago.

Besides American brokered talks with Taliban Afghanistan and Pakistan wants separate talks to be held in Saudi Arabia (Afghanistan seeks Taliban talks in Saudi Arabia: officials. AFP. The News. January 30, 2012). The Americans feel greater threat from Iran and want to windup operations in Afghanistan as early as possible. For Pakistan Fata is the key problem area. If Iran is attacked then the problem shall spread to rest of Pakistan.

In a discussion on at the Karachi Literature festival on ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan: conflict, extremism and Taliban’ Dr Maleeha Lodhi claimed that Pakistan’s stand regarding Afghan solution to be achieved through dialogue was rejected by the US. Ten years later the US is trying to do the same (Ali, Imtiaz. US follows what Pakistan said 10 years ago: Lodhi. The News. February 13, 2012). In 1838 Maharaja Ranjit Singh faced a similar problem with the British intention of attacking Afghanistan. The British tried to persuade Ranjit Singh to join them in the attack. The clever illiterate Sikh ruler understood the people of Fata, then part of Afghanistan, better and politely refused but gave free passage to the British army to attack Afghanistan. The result in 1842 when the proud ‘Army of the Indus’ was annihilated as predicted by the Sikh chief.

In an address to US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence CIA Director David Petraeus claimed that Pakistan was supporting Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan, it was alleged, was supporting Haqqani Network, Commander Nazir Group and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan by providing sanctuaries and war materials. The allegation is not new but may be partly true although this was hotly denied by Pakistan (Iqbal, Anwar. Pakistan not putting sufficient pressure on Afghan Taliban: CIA chief. Dawn. February 2, 2012). On September 22, 2011 Admiral Mike Mullen claimed that ‘Haqqani Network is part of strategic arm of ISI’ (Krasmer, D Stephen, 2012). The report based on prisoner’s interrogation in Afghanistan called ‘State of Taliban’ was ‘leaked’ to the press. It implicated the ISI in helping the Taliban direct attacks against the Isaf forces in Afghanistan. The report admitted that once Nato forces leave Afghanistan the state will collapse and open it to return of Taliban (Secret Nato report accuses Pakistan of helping Taliban. The News. February 2, 2012). For Pakistan a stable Afghanistan is essential for solving Fata problem. Unfortunately its army determines Pakistan foreign policy.

There are reports that US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta is thinking of US forces combat mission to end by mid-2013, a year earlier than previous estimates (US plans to end combat mission by mid-2013. OC. Dawn. February 3, 2012). He has urged Pakistan to help stop IED attacks, which allegedly were manufactured in Pakistan and used in Afghanistan (Iqbal, Anwar. Pakistan urged to help contain IED attacks. Dawn. Dawn. February 16, 2012).

How will withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan impinge on Pakistan? Withdrawal of US forces and handing over security to the Afghans is not as simple as it was seen in Iraq. The cost of US withdrawal would be in billions of dollars every year for decades to come to sustain the Afghan National Security Forces and the Afghan economy (Sehgal, Ikram. Drawdown in Afghanistan. The News. February 9, 2012). It is interesting to note that think tanks all over the world blame America for leaving Afghanistan to its own devices after Russian army withdrawal in 1989. Now that the Americans are in full force in Afghanistan the same think tanks want them out.

Taliban who?

But let us first define what Taliban means? In our language it signifies a student. A movement was triggered by few madrassa students led by Mullah Omar and later joined by the majority of Afghan people against the corrupt warlords of Afghanistan all were later called Taliban including former warlords. In Pakistan Taliban is an ideological group supporting Afghan Taliban in supply of fighters and war material. It is debated whether Taliban are products of madrassas in Pakistan. Nevertheless jihadi literature is common in our madrassas. Poor socioeconomic conditions do promote recruitment to Taliban fold. In Fata the Taliban umbrella includes besides Pashtuns other nationalities as well. They have in their midst Pakistanis mainly from Southern Punjab, Arabs, Chinese Muslims, Uzbeks and Muslims from the West. These ethnic groups are bound by religious ideology of jihad against invading American and Nato forces (Gul, Imtiaz and Jaffar, Nabil, 2012). Punjab developed massive madrassas with government help during Gen Ziaul Haq’s time to produce mujahedeen to counter Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The fallout from jihadi madrassas spilled over into sectarian violence and attacks on soft civilian targets leaving 30,000 dead. Jihadi madrassas were in place in KP (Haqqania in Okara Khattak) as well as in Karachi (Madrassa Bonaria) (Hussain, 2012). Unfortunately most people in Pakistan are convinced that attacks on Pakistani people are the work of American, Israeli and Indian intelligence agencies.

Pakistani Jihadi Organisations

With retreat of the Russian troops the jihadi organisations turned their attention towards Kashmir and India for their terrorist activities. During Gen Musharraf’s Kargil disaster (May-July 1999) these mujahedeen were wrongly portrayed as leading the attack. When these Mujahids were prevented from meddling in Kashmir and India under international pressure they moved to Fata and carried out suicide attacks in Pakistani cities (Hussain, 2012). The monster created by our intelligence agencies started to attack our own civilian population and security forces. For a while these home grown Taliban conquered Swat and were poised to establish ‘Islamic’ system of government before army crackdown in 2009.

For the western media Taliban became associates of Al Qaeda in the leadership mode and after 9/11 were the target of the American might. Let us be clear that Taliban had no role in 9/11 beyond sheltering their leader Osama. Osama being an Arab had no leadership role in the tribal society of Afghanistan or Fata. For last six years of his life he was hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan and had no role in Afghan resistance movement.

Taliban in western literature became synonymous with any religious organisation targeting the invading forces in Afghanistan and hence an enemy. The Western paranoia reached a stage where all Muslims and their religion Islam were designated as radical Islam, terrorists, militants, extremist or fundamentalists. Unfortunately other religions do not describe their ‘extremists’ in the same way as Islam. The Christian evangelists are just as radical as ‘ultra right’ Jews or ‘extremist’ Hindus. All religions have subset of people who claim to know the ‘true’ meaning of their religion but the issue is of imposing their views on others. The West should have recognised Taliban as freedom fighters against an occupying army. In fact Taliban designation covers a large number interest groups ranging from Jihadi ideologues to outright dacoits striving for loot through robbing banks or kidnapping for ransom. The Taliban do not have a standing army. The dress code has not changed over centuries, which include carrying arms, and we cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. We also have to recognise that Wahhabi interpretation of Islam did not emerge with funding from Saudi Arabia during Russian occupation of Afghanistan. In fact Wahhabi Islam reached Fata area in 1824 and soon spread to Afghanistan initially as anti Sikh and later anti British platform to oust the infidels from the Muslim society.

People admire the bravery and tenacity of Pashtuns of Fata and Afghanistan and their place in history. They have been devastated and made paupers in the name of ‘gairat’. The Afghan leadership has also been eulogised for their farsightedness and sagacity. Nothing can be far from the truth (Siddiqi, Muhammad Ali. No Sandhurst no West Point. Dawn. February 16, 2012).

Emergence of TTP

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is not a single homogeneous body. TTP was formed under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud in an agreement between 13 different armed groups in December 2007 against the Pakistani security forces, schools, mosques, markets and Nato forces in Afghanistan but it remains a loose federation of different interest groups. The Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar is striving to unite these groups to concentrate on on-going battle against the Nato forces in Afghanistan. A meeting organised by Afghan Taliban on December 11, 2011 in Datta Khel area, NWA the Afghan Taliban requested TTP to sink their differences and fight the Americans. Hakimullah Mehsud, Waliur Rehman, Maulvi Nazir and Hafiz Gul Bahadur attended the meeting. Sirajuddin Haqqani was representing the Afghan Taliban. Two representatives of Quetta Shura along with Al Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi attended the meeting. It was decided to establish a five-member Shura-e-Murakeba (Observation Council) which was launched on January 2, 2012 to sort out differences and concentrate on fighting the Americans in Afghanistan rather than take on the Pakistani security forces (Murshed, S Iftikhar. A dagger at the heart. The News. January 30, 2012).

The TTP is also involved in suicide bombing in major cities of Pakistan. The basic resentment emerged as the basis of revenge against killing of their kith and kin by the security forces and drone strikes. Revenge is basic cultural trait of the people of Fata. On the other hand killing of innocent people in Pakistan alienated any sympathy for them and went against the TTP public popularity. It is not surprising that bombing of cities in Pakistan has been put on hold. There is the issue of cross border attacks on Nato forces by some organisations in Fata. Since the Pakhtun relations lived across the porous ‘border’ (Durand Line) the TTP and other organisations were duty bound to help their brethren in Afghanistan. This has been strongly resented by the Americans and tried to put pressure on Pakistan to stop these attackers. The other aspect of Taliban ideology is found in rest of Pakistan especially in Punjab and hence called Punjabi Taliban. The Taliban belief of war against West, India and Israel and pro Taliban jihad is rampant in religious and main political parties in major urban areas of Pakistan. Majority of Taliban jihadi ideology mind set in Pakistan do not subscribe to violence as a means of change in the society. We do fear a military intervention (coup) since they are the ‘saviour of Pakistan’ and custodians of its ideology? Gen Zia’s indoctoration of the Pakistan military has played a significant role in the mind change of previous set of military commanders. Gen Hamid Gul is the prime example of jihadi generals of the past now part of ‘Defence of Pakistan Council’ organisation based on hate America, India and Israel.

Nato Invasion of Afghanistan and its Aftermath

Up to 2001 Afghanistan was an insignificant state ruled by Wahhabi leaning semi literate bunch of nobodies living in the Stone Age with scant understanding of developments in the world. They imposed their version of Wahhabi Islam. The world had forgotten Afghanistan with retreat of Russian army in 1989 till 2001. The most powerful army ever seen in the world seething with rage decided to ‘take out’ Osama after the 9/11 attack by a group of Arabs mainly from Egypt-none from Afghanistan. It seemed that the Taliban in Afghanistan would be pushover against the might of high-tech American army and their 500lb bombs dropped by air. It was predicted that Taliban would be totally eliminated by American hammering and what would be left of them shall beg for peace on American terms. Little did they realise that ten years later they would be still trying to find a way out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately the world and Pakistanis know very little about the conflict area in Afghanistan or Fata. For the world and Pakistani Fata and adjoining Afghanistan became the ‘bad lands’ and ‘most dangerous place in the world’ after 9/11. For the British in India these places were always the ‘bad lands’ only fit to train their army and seek medals for valour of their fighters against improvised lands. We need to explore the background of resistance of the people in the area before we make sweeping judgments.

The past of Afghanistan is haunting the Americans today and we need to divulge the past to understand what is happening today. We need to explore the historical role of foreign fighters and Punjabi Taliban in present context. These foreign fighters never assumed leadership role in the tribal system. The phenomenon of people crossing into Afghanistan from India to fight is not a new one.

Afghanistan Invasions in History

The Achaemenid Empire founded by Cyrus the Great (575 BC-530 BC) followed by Darius the Great (550-486 BC) included Afghanistan and part of Pakistan. Alexander’s objective was to conquer the Persian Empire and invaded Pakistan in 326 BC calling it India. He stopped at the banks of river Beas because beyond that was not India. This was a short Greek incursion of which the people of the area had no recollection. Bactrian Greeks ruled Afghanistan and northern Pakistan from 256 BC to 1^st century BC when Parthians finally defeated them. This was followed by invasion by Yuezhi (Kushan) and Scythians (Saka). The impact of invasion by different armies on local culture there is no documented evidence of change besides development of Indo-Greek sculpture used by Buddhists during Kushan period and adoption of Parthian dress of salwar kamiz by the people. In the middle of 4^th century AD Afghanistan was overrun by Epthalite branch of Huns. They finally managed to conquer most of northern India. Huns introduced title ‘khan’ into Afghanistan and Pakistan (Tanner, 2002). Besides invading armies over centuries different ethnic groups have silently moved across India from the west to permanently settle there. These migrating bands quietly integrated into the Indian society. Unfortunately these historical migrations have not been properly documented. In recent times war in Afghanistan has also displaced people. During the Russian invasion more than 3 million Afghans migrated to Pakistan. Today some 1.7 million Afghans refugees are still in Pakistan.

In more recent times the British invasion of Afghanistan by the ‘Army of the Indus’ to install a British puppet (modern American Karzai) as their ruler in 1839 led to annihilation of the army in its retreat in 1842. The Afghan invasion was pushed by the then Governor General Lord Auckland due to unfounded fear of Russian expansion into Afghanistan (this finally happened in 1979 when Russian army invaded Afghanistan). This was the time when Britain was the sole super power. British arrogance led them to disaster. To boost army’s morale Sindh was conquered in 1843. This was followed by annexation of Punjab in 1849. These British moves sent clear message about future British intentions to the hill tribes in the north west of the expanding British Empire. As early as 1847 Herbert Edwards as the British officer with the Sikh administration posted to Bannu as Assistant Resident, at that time border of ‘Eastern Afghanistan’, was able to subdue the valley and extract revenue for the Sikh Darbar (Obhrai, 1983). Starting in 1849 the British were regularly sending in punitive ‘expeditions’ into the Tribal belt. By 1857 British had launched 15 expeditions into the ‘Frontier’. By 1939 the ‘expeditions’ had increased to 58 (Barthorp, 2002). It is unfortunate to note that the British army in India used Fata as live training ground for its soldiers. But when the army faced well-equipped European armies during the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) and WW I it was found to be sadly lacking in battle skills. It was highly unethical to use the people of Fata as a military training ground for fame and glory. But if you are all powerful then ethics do not matter.

Before Sikh invasion of Peshawar (1818) the city was the summer capital of Kabul ruler. The city was finally annexed by the Sikhs in 1834 and was ruled by Gen Paolo Avitabile. His reign of terror was known as ‘gallows and gibbets’ (Wikipedia, 2012). The first British envoy Mountstuart Elphinstone visited the Afghan king in Peshawar in 1807 (Schofield, 2003). During the Sikh Darbar the Sikhs held the plains but the mountains in the west remained independent. By 1818 the Sikhs had taken Peshawar valley but part of the territory was given as Jagir to three brothers of Kabul ruler Amir Dost Mohammad. Till 1834 the Afghans were ruling Peshawar as Jagirdars of the Sikhs before it was annexed. Peshawar was the summer capital of ruler of Kabul. The Sikh army under the dreaded general Hari Singh Nalwa defeated the Afghan army in Nowshera and in 1838 Sikh Kardars replaced the Afghan administrators. Sikh garrisons were placed in Peshawar, DI Khan, Kohat and Teri. After the First Sikh War under a treaty signed on December 16, 1846 British formed Council of Regency and Hazara, Bannu, Kohat, DG Khan and DI Khan were placed under the British Assistant Residents. Chief Commissioner ruled Punjab in 1849 and in 1859 by Lt Governor. North-West Frontier got its Lt Governor in 1932. In the districts British Deputy Commissioners were appointed. During the Sikh wars Amir Dost Mohammad of Afghanistan moved into the Peshawar valley up to the Indus in December 1848. He made a grave miscalculation by sending a contingent of cavalry to aid the dying Sikh rule against the British.

During the Sikh rule Peshawar valley (Kabul River) up to Jamrud in the west was held with great atrocities. In 1849 the British took over the Sikh Darbar territories and established pickets (check posts) along the eastern banks of Indus and in Kabul River valley along the bases of mountains to restrain raids from tribes beyond in the mountains. The British were now in direct contact with Afghanistan and Persia. The first incursion of the British forces through what was Afghan tribal area took place when their army attacked Ghazni and Kabul in 1839 what became the disastrous 1^st Anglo-Afghan War (also called Auckland’s folly) (Barthorp, 2002). This was followed by revenge attack in August 1842 when the invading British forces (‘Avenging Army’) under Gen Pollock and Gen Nott brutally killed people of all ages and both sexes. This according to Duke of Wellington was ‘Restoration of Reputation in the East’. Kabul was sacked and bazaar burnt but this time the ‘Avenging Army’ retreated quickly.

Role of ‘Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics’ in History

The origin of ‘Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics’ needs to be explained. From times immemorial the Pakhtun belt now located between Afghanistan and Pakistan has not changed although they were Hindus at one time then converted to Buddhism and finally to Islam. Babar (early 16^th century) records his attack into Bonair to gather livestock and make a pyramid of heads of the local population (a Turkish tradition of Central Asia). At the time of Emperor Akbar, who held Kabul as a province of his empire, the Mughal policy was to pay some tribes for safe passage and to send expeditions to others. The unrest of Fata tribes instigated by Pir-e-Roshan (Sheikh Bazid Ansari) and his descendants, formally of South Waziristan Agency resident of Jalandhar (now in India) hence technically  ‘foreign fighters’, against religious doctrine of Deen-e-Elahi and occupation of Pakhtun homeland by Mughals was a severe test for Akbar’s armies. He sent in 15 expeditions to counter the jihadis in Tirah and Waziristan and after much bloodshed (including loss of his court jester Raja Birbal) he managed to make the area peaceful through diplomacy (Hosain, 1938; Shah, 2000). The tribes were in constant war with each other but united against any invader usually led by a religious figure. Nothing has changed since.

In more recent times Wahhabi cleric Syed Ahmed Shah moved from Bareilly, India, to what is now Fata to incite the tribes against Sikh rule in Punjab in 1824. In 1830 Syed Ahmed Shah, having not received any support from the tribes, was killed fighting the Sikh army in Balakot where he was buried.  His 300 surviving followers retreated to Sitana in Bonair and settled on the property of Syed Akbar Shah who became their Amir. The subsequent resistance movement was Wahhabi in nature. They were displaced from time to time but managed to establish ‘training’ centres in Tirah, Chamarkand and other places. Bonair became a serious problem for the British in 1852 when ‘Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics’, as labelled by the British, with the help of Hasanzai tribe took over the Kotla fort belonging to Nawab of Amb. An expedition was launched against them in 1853 and the fort was taken back.  At the time of Mutiny of 1857 the Hindustani fanatics led by Maulvi Inayat Ali Khan caused some problems. Their village called Narinji was attacked in July and later in August 1857 by a British force and set on fire. According to Major Vaughan “Not a house was spared; even the walls of many were destroyed by elephants…Three prisoners were taken—one was a Bareilly Maulvi, second a Chamla standard-bearer and the third a vagrant of Charonda; they were all subsequently executed.” Next was attack on the village of Sitana led by Sir Sydney Cotton. The Hindustanis came into attack dressed in white in silence and ‘every Hindustani in the position was either killed or taken prisoner (Nevill, 1910; Wylly, 1912).

Hindustani Wahhabi in Bonair 1860s

The scenes of massacres were still fresh in the memory of the tribes when the British forces launched Frontier War in 1863. The idea of this war was to teach a lesson to the tribes of Bonair to stop raids into the settled areas under British control and to ‘Hindustani fanatics’ of Wahhabi Islam who considered the British as occupier of their lands across India making jihad legitimate. The British felt that ‘Hindustanis’ were also spreading Wahhabi Islam in Fata and had to be stopped (Albinia, 2008).

To oppose British occupation the ‘Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics’ were receiving funds from ‘Southern’ Bengal’ with its headquarter in Patna in Bihar. The arms and ammunition was coming from the Gulf and Afghanistan. Later armaments were supplied from ‘Mesopotamia’. The Mulka village in Mahabun Mountains of Syeds of Bunair housed left overs of Syed Ahmed Shaheed (d 1830) uprising against Sikh rule, was eventfully burnt by the locals under a British detachment in 1863. Between 1850 and 1863 the British launched 20 expeditions into the mountains beyond the plains occupied by the British forces. Each time the number of invading forces increased. In Sitana campaign (1863) more than 5,000 troops were used and later enforced. The initial force was trapped in Ambela Pass and Gen Sir Sydney Chamberlain was evacuated with severe wounds. The cost of the expedition was worrying for the British administration. The opposing tribesmen had few matchlock guns and mostly relied on swords and hurling stones. Swords were used in close quarter action (Adye, John. Sitana: a mountain campaign of the borders of Afghanistan in 1863. Published 1866). In 1860s the Afghan jezail with a range of 300 yards was better then the Brown Bess used by the British army. The introduction Snider and later Lee Metford and Martinis rifles (1897) with smokeless powder backed by artillery gave the British again the advantage. Finally the introduction of machinegun (Gatling and Maxim) made the British army a superior force. At the same time the tribes managed to acquire new weapons and balance was again maintained (Skeen, 1932). By 1906 Muscat imported 278,000 pounds worth of rifles from four European countries. The arms were transported to Mekran coast by boat and from their Afghan camel caravans took them to Southern Afghanistan and sold to the tribes. The British tried to block the movement by sea and land (Wylly, 1912).

The main issue of attacks by the British beyond its borders into Tribal Areas of Afghanistan (now Fata) was raids (cattle lifting) by tribes supported by ‘Hindustani Fanatics’ in the area. We must realise that the people living in inhospitable mountains had limited agricultural resource, living partly a nomadic life and raids in the more prosperous plains. In 1858 the British army raid destroyed Sitana, Bonair on the southern slopes of Mahabun Mountains. The British claimed that part of Amb State which was under British protection had been invaded by ‘Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics’ and had to be evicted by the British Army. This was followed by destruction of ‘Hindustani settlement’ of Mulka located on the northern slopes of Mahabun Mountains in 1863. The British army in another raid destroyed ‘Hindustani village’ of Mundee in 1864. The other British approach was to block supplies, funds and fighters from British India. For the people of Fata fear of British occupation of Sindh and later Punjab was an indication of their advancement and occupation of their areas  (Punjab Administration Report, 1863-64 and 1867-68). The retaliatory raids into Tribal Territories by British forces became a nuisance for the poor. The tribes requested the Hindustani Jihadis to move their training camps into remote areas or leave the area. The Jihadis from outside Fata returned following Russian invasion in 1979.

20^th century Wahhabi Movement in India

There was resentment against British occupation of India among the educated youth in India. The Wahhabi doctrine of jihad carried intense appeal for these men. They decided to launch their jihad from Pakhtun tribes of British and Afghan frontier. They hoped that Afghanistan and Turkey would help them to conquer India. Large number of educated Muslims in India decided to move into the Tribal Area and some into Afghanistan in 1905. These British citizens called ‘Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics’ were interned in Afghan territory at Jallalabad by the Afghan king Amir Habibullah Khan under pressure from the British. Influential Indians in Afghan court finally released them. Although highly educated young anti British volunteers were influenced by Deoband School led by Sheikhul Hind Maulana Mehmoodul Hassan they were looked upon with suspicion. The money was supplied from across India from Calcutta, Patna and Punjab. However they were sadly disillusioned with the state of affairs they found in Afghanistan. There was no rule of law and the justice system was a replica of ancient system where the only the king finally gave his verdict. There was no system of education and this is where the ‘Young Afghans’ with the help of young Indian students led by Dr Abdul Ghani from various parts of India proposed to bring change. A society with proposed constitution and educational awareness threatened Amir Habibullah’s rule. In 1909 Dr Abdul Ghani and 38 British subjects members of Mashroota movement were interned in the Ark Fort Kabul while seven Afghani citizens were blown from artillery pieces. The Islamic Wahhabi renaissance of Afghanistan with system of the West ended with complete disillusionment of educated Muslims of India. Amir Habibullah was assassinated in 1919 and the new Amir Amanullah released them.

The Muslims of India during the WW I felt betrayed by the British when it went to war against Turkey a Muslim country and the home of the Khalifa of the Muslim World. This was the Khalafat Movement joined by Hindus and Sikhs as a means to ouster of the British from India. The Muslim preachers across India were asking for jihad against the infidels in particular an end of Indian occupation by the British.

Another jihadi group of about 20,000 people entered Afghanistan from India during Khalafat Movement of 1920. A poor country like Afghanistan could not afford to house and feed these people who has burnt their boats in India and had nothing to live on. Most moved back to India but a small hard core remained but their cause was doomed. By this time the political scene had changed. Russia as a communist state was expanding into Central Asian states also became enemy of the religion and hence of Muslims. Some Mujahids became communists. Many of jihadis in Kabul were seeking communist help to push the British out of India. Other Indians wanted help from Turkey but the country was in dire strait and refused anything to do with these Indian ‘revolutionaries’. There were endless intrigues within the Indian ranks in Russia, which did not help their cause. Amir Amanullah was advanced financial support and fearful of Russian intention he aligned with the British and would not tolerate anti British moves in his kingdom. Many of new jihadi arrivals moved to Fata and settled in older Hindustani settlements. For the British transportation of explosives was worrying and made efforts to stop this. They used secret agencies to affectively stop funding of Hindustani settlements from their sympathisers in India. The jihadi movement by Hindustani Fanatics continued till the 1930s but were a spent force and did not pose any danger to the British authorities. Only two Hindustani settlements were remaining in Fata.

The movement for jihad by Hindustani Wahhabi volunteers had sever setbacks from changing world scene and from within their ranks. However one cannot but admire these people from relatively affluent background in India chose a life of immense struggle and hardships. With no military training they faced hostile tribes, corrupt police, suspicious rulers and dacoits these people were moving across Asia and Europe despite poor resources. Their travels in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Turkey could have given credit to any Western explorer of that time (Shah, 2000). With the Russian and later American invasion the old ‘Hindustani’ now Pakistani Mujahids started to stream into Afghanistan to fight the invaders. Nothing has changed.

Fata during the British Raj

The Agencies of Fata were created firstly of Khyber to keep a hold on the Pass in 1878. Following cession of Kurram by the Afghan government in 1879 it was made an agency in 1892. The Malakand, Tochi and Wana (later Waziristan) were developed between 1895 and 1896.  The people of Waziristan were up in arms against demarcation of western border based on strategic heights rather than tribal lines. To force the tribes in accepting Durand Line Waziristan Field Force was organised in 1894. In 1901 the settled districts were made into province of North West Frontier and the Agencies separated (Obhrai, 1983). Starting in 1920 railway line from Peshawar was extended to Landi Kotal (Bayley, 1926).

The British continued its policy in Fata of ‘Butcher and Bolt’ in retaliation of tribal raids. After subduing the lashkar the villages of ‘miscreants’ were torched or blown up, the crops burnt, waterways destroyed, livestock rounded up and economic blockade of the offending area put in place. Each time a new agreement was made with the tribal elders. Starting in 1917 the British troops used ‘Air Service’ to attack the Mehsud tribal lashkar. In response the old style of Lashkar attack was abandoned. In 1930s Chief of the Air Staff Sir Hugh Trenchard proposed use of fighter aircraft to keep the tribes in check rather than rely on slow cumbersome land expeditions. He was overruled due financial constraints (Barthorp, 2002). Now drone strikes by the Americans and bombing by Pakistani F16 are trying to do the same. With advancement of military technology armoured cars and later light tanks were used. In Tirah the tribes were asked to remove ‘Turk and Afghan’ settlers (now foreign fighters) which they did sending them back to Afghanistan (Obhrai, 1938). It seems that nothing has changed in the 21^st century. Unfortunately we have no written record of the suffering or body count of people during various invasions and devastations caused by armies entering the area.

The British policy regarding Fata had been shifting. John Lawrence was in favour of ‘backward school’ making the Indus as the final ‘natural’ border. Sir Mortimer Durand advocated a ‘scientific frontier’, which was a soft face of ‘forward policy’ (Diver, 1935). The Durand Line split the ancient tribal system to secure military vantage points for the British. Whatever the policy development work in the area was limited to making roads to facilitate movement of troops at short notice. When the British left in 1947 Pakistan reversed the Fata ‘forward policy’ and pulled out the regular troops from Fata. We had peace in Fata till 2004.

Recent Developments in Fata

Let us jump to recent events shaking Fata and Afghanistan. The bookshops today are full of bewildering array of old and new publications on Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda (see Bibliography). Most of the modern authors have little understanding of the area, people or its history under discussion. Even the Pakhtuns of KP have vague understanding of the people of Fata. Fata tribes are individually unique and do not fit into a single cultural pattern. Al Qaeda, initially an all-Arab group, as an entity appeared on our radar screen through American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Al Qaeda led by Arabs has a foreign agenda and is irrelevant for Pakistan’s Fata problem.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 galvanised the tribes and people of the country and Fata against the occupiers. This time Russian had helicopters, APCs and tanks but in this asymmetrical war the Afghans had the terrain on their side and supplies of manpower and ammunition from America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Al Qaeda, a small splinter group, was born out of this triple marriage. The supply of Stringer missiles by the Americans negated Russian air power. On our visit to Bokhara in 1995 it was sad to note a large soldiers graveyard in the local park killed in Afghanistan-a needless butchery of the youth of Bokhara.

The American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 united the Fata tribes once again into military opposition. People of Pakistan are also opposed to American intervention in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Fata. They are supplying manpower and funds to Taliban as seen in 1860s. The ‘Hindustani fanatics’ are now ‘foreign fighters’ or called ‘Punjabi Taliban, Arab fighters or Uzbeks’. The Fata Pakhtun ‘raiders’ of 1863 were transformed into Mujahedeen during Russian occupation and then into Taliban when the Americans came in. AK47, 50 calibre machinegun, sniper rifle, Improvised Explosive Device (IED), landmines, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) and suicide bombers now affectively replace the Stringer missiles. The Pakhtuns are innovative. Pakistan became an enemy of the Taliban fighting the American and Nato armies because of Pakistan governments support to Americans in the form of supplies and drone attacks. We saw spate of suicide and IED blasts in major cities of Pakistan.

The incidence of Lal Masjid in Islamabad and then attack of the Pakistani army into South Waziristan in 2004 was the last straw for peace. Most of the students who died in Lal Masjid in the army assault were from Fata and KP. Then came the incidence of US troops killing 24 FC soldiers in cold blood in North Waziristan on November 26, 2011, which was followed by retaliatory freeze of Nato supplies through Pakistan and returning of Shamsi Air Base used for drone strikes in Fata. Earlier CIA agent Raymond Davis was held for shooting two motorcyclists in Lahore and then released after payment of blood money under Islamic law. He was never tried for murder of two young men in America. This was followed by the killing of Osama in an American raid in Abbottabad, which produced bad blood between the two countries. The people of Pakistan were told of thousands of visas issued by Pakistani embassy in US to dubious people considered as CIA agents.

Ten Years of American Occupation of Afghanistan

America is bleeding in Afghanistan like its predecessor the Russians. The 1^st World armies require expensive services and equipment, which are not appropriate for war in the 3^rd World. With killing of Osama the main reason for invasion of Afghanistan has been removed. The original motivational force for the American troops in the field was to make America ‘safe’ and revenge for 9/11 by removing Al Qaeda leadership has been achieved. The Americans have killed enough innocent Afghans to settle revenge for 9/11. The civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2011 were estimated as 3,021, which was more than 8% in 2010. A total of 4,507 civilians were wounded. These deaths were attributed to militants (77%) and 14% due to Isaf and Afghan forces. The number of suicide bombings (450) increased by 8%. Homemade explosive landmines killed 967 people (Johson, Kay. Civilian deaths in Afghan war hit record high. Dawn. February 5, 2012). A report by Amnesty International claims that 500,000 Afghans are homeless due to on-going war. About 400 people are made homeless on daily basis (War, neglect leave 500,000 Afghans homeless, says AI. Agencies. The News. February 24, 2012). Today Americans are questioning the basic reason for US invasion of Afghanistan (Cloughley, Brian. Afghan war is based on lies and deception. Counterpunch/Daily Times. February 20, 2012).

The US soldiers in the field are now fighting a non-ideological war where it is now ‘them or us’. It is not surprising that American soldiers have been caught taking fingers as souvenirs and urinating on dead Afghans. It is time they got out without giving an impression that they have their tail between the legs. In any case Americans do not need troops on the ground in Afghanistan to ward off any untoward incidence. They have 50 bases in the Middle East and Qatar and Bahrain bases are not far from Afghanistan. For surveillance the Americans have ample supply of drones and settilites. Their troops can be moved into Afghanistan at short notice. I do not see how the Americans can maintain Karzai as the leader of Afghans once they leave.

Fata Solution-Options

The other player in Afghan scene is Pakistan. Afghan leadership never had soft corner for the Pakistan. The bone of contention between the two is the 2,640 km 1893 Durand Line Agreement inherited from the British for fixing ‘spheres of influence’ between the two countries. Thus the British claimed Fata and what is now most of KP as their ‘sphere of influence’. Today neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan can dictate to the Fata tribes. Both keep Durand Line as a porous border and bone of contention. The attacks into Pakistan by Taliban or its splinter groups have been worrying. Like the British earlier the American and Pakistani leadership have made agreements with the various groups of Pakistani Taliban and tribes, which each side claim were broken by the other. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have to give a clear programme for the betterment of the people.

Legally the situation in Fata and Balochistan is quite similar. In Balochistan Area A, which is only 3% of the province is under direct provincial rule where the administration is functioning. In Area B (97%) the Sardars have been given the responsibility of governance and maintenance of private armies. In Fata, since there were no tribal chiefs, governance was given to the tribes with the right of the central government to intervene under Frontier Crime Regulation. The ancient tribal autonomy is the main issue for integration of Fata into mainstream of Pakistan. There have been many suggestions for bringing Fata into the mainstream of Pakistan. Since last year political parties have been allowed to function in Fata. Some claim that Fata should change its status from ‘sphere of influence’ into a province of Pakistan. Then there are others who want Fata to become part of corrupt Khyber Pakhtunkhawa province (Afridi, Ghulam S. Fata’s integration. Dawn. February 8, 2012). The political solution has to emerge from the people of Fata and cannot be dictated by the Pakistan government. The present military policy of creating displacement of the population (IDPs) followed by indiscriminate destruction of what little livelihood of the people of the area had has been a disastrous policy. The ‘hull’ (solution) for Fata is not war but economics and education. In any case Pakistan cannot financially afford even low-level military intervention in the area. Pakistan was spending (directly and indirectly) Rs259.10 billion on ‘war on terror’ in 2005 but by 2010 this was increased to Rs2,975.04 billion. Another estimate claims that Pakistan is loosing Rs3 billion daily and Rs93 billion every month on ‘war on terror’ (Abbasi, Ansar. Pakistan lost Rs7,020b, got only Rs990b. The News. February 8, 2012). The cost of human lives lost and those maimed is also significant (Shah, Akhtar Hussain in Stabilising Afghanistan, 2011).

Historically Afghanistan was on the trade route from Central Asia and Iran to India. Later the Russians joined in. With communist take over of Russia (1917) the borders were hermitically sealed and the ancient trade movement stopped. Afghanistan became dependent on India and later Pakistan for its basic needs.

From times immemorial Afghanistan and Fata was trading and providing heavy work to India till the Russia, British and later Pakistan came to define borders. Horses and cloth were brought in from Iran and Central Asia to be sold in India. Dry fruit sale was in their hands all over India. Heavy work such as building mud walls and providing wood to the rural areas in India was the work of these hardy men from the mountains. Today Fata has a million armed men but is heavily dependent on food, electricity, infrastructure, fuel and some places gas from Pakistan. Only 7% of land in the area is cultivable. Fata survives on smuggling, heroin export, and jobs in local militia and in rest of Pakistan. We are not sure of mineral wealth of Fata since no survey has been carried out. Thanks to the Americans we now know that neighbouring Afghanistan is full of mineral wealth including rare earth minerals (Simpson, 2011). Before the Russian invasion there was insignificant poppy growth in Afghanistan. Today they are producing 5,800 tons of opium a year and the American army has failed to make a dent on heroin production or its export (Cloughley, Brian. Doing Afghan drugs. Daily Times. January 29, 2012). Fata is one important outlet for heroin export and source of earning for the poor people.

We also need to evaluate the impact of developments in Afghanistan on Pakistan. First and foremost Talibanisation to a degree has taken place in Pakistan where most people are supportive of Islamisation, which cannot be equated with Talibanisation. The first step towards Islamisation of Pakistan took place with Objectives Resolution in 1949. Since then the rulers of Pakistan have used Islam to promote their rule over the country. Some of the so-called religious scholars have used Islam for financial gains or to grab power. Money has flowed from local and foreign sources in support of different factions. Religion has become the biggest industry in Pakistan. Religion has also been source of deadly conflict within Pakistan as different sects jockey for power.

The Arab Spring in Middle East and North Africa has drifted to Islam as a source of inspiration. Even Turkey with years of enforced secularism as visualised by its army is trying to find Islamic values. The lack of understanding by the West of the Muslim World is the basis of the problem of being threatened by Islam. There is also much confusion among the Muslim World as to what is Islamic and is coloured by cultural past of each society in the Muslim World. On the other hand Muslims should understand that ‘Islam is (not) in danger’ and they do not require armed conflict to achieve their goal. The Muslim World has to realise that we are now living in a global village and cannot survive in isolation as being tried by Iran. Most of all the West needs to understand the mind set of emerging Muslim World. A free stable Afghanistan needs to evolve from Stone Age and not forced at gunpoint to perceived Western values and governance. Afghan peace would bring peace in Fata. Rest assured the Afghans or people of Fata are not going to declare war on the West.

There is a strong parallel between Russian and later American invasions. The Russians came into Afghanistan to make them communists while the Americans after the period of rage want to build a capitalist system in their style of democracy. Neither of these super powers have made any dent on the Afghans. Change comes from the mind and not guns. This was the effort of Bacha Khan the Frontier Gandhi. He was essentially a social worker and not a politician dubbed as a traitor by the Pakistani leadership. We should use the carrot rather than the stick to solve Fata problem. There has been in place Fata Development Authority for many years it has dismal record of socio-economic development as compared to rest of Pakistan. Fata also has Fata Disaster Management Authority collaborating with UN Development Programme, which requires $200 million (Ali, Zulfiqar. Donors seek access to monitor Fata uplift. Dawn. February 15, 2012). Poor figures of health and education are alarming. We do not have correct information since the army feeds it and we have no independent observers in the area (Qureshi, Shafiullah. Fata failure. The News. January 29, 2012).

Guns shall make the Fata situation worse since there is no military solution. Above all we need professional research of the area and a ten years planned strategy with the consent of the Fata tribes. The old social structure has been altered with massive influx of arms and ammunition during Russian invasion. The old British administrative system is in tatters. The Political Agent and Malik equation and the jirga system have been dismantled. We are not dealing with old Fata anymore. Solution of Fata has to emerge from its people. Before we plan for a long-term policy for Fata it has to be taken off the hands of the Pakistan Army.

PS. Today Pakistan faces a more serious problem of separatist nationalist movement in Balochistan, which unlike Fata is not a religious issue. Unfortunately successive governments in Pakistan have been in a state of denial and used the gun to make Balochistan fall in line. This time it is not going to work.

Radicalisation of Pakistani society unleashed by Gen Zia fast gaining ground is also a major issue yet to be addressed (Hussain, 2012).

Selected Bibliography

1. Adye, John. Sitana: a mountain campaign of the borders of Afghanistan in 1863. ASIM: BOO6PE65CC. Published 1866.
2. Ahmed, Khalid. The mystery of what Pakistan wants. Friday Times. Jan 2/Feb 2, 2012.
3. Al Qaeda in its own words. Edited by Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2008.
4. Albinia, Alice. Empires of the Indus. John Murray, London. 2008.
5. Baha, Lal. NWFP: administration under British rule 1901-1919. National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research, Islamabad. 1978.
6. Barthorp, Michael. Afghan wars and the North-West Frontier 1839-1947. Cassell & Co, London. 2002.
7. Bayley, Victor. Permanent way through the Khyber. Jarrolds Publishers, London. MCMXXXIV (1924).
8. Bellew, HW. Afghanistan and the Afghans: brief review of the history of the country and account of its people. Samson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London. 1879.
9. Bergen, Peter L. Holy war Inc: inside the secret world of Osama bin Laden. Phoenix, London. 2002.
10. Borovik, Artyom. The hidden war: a true story of war in Afghanistan. Faber and Faber Ltd., London. 1991.
11. Bruce, Richard Isaac. The forward policy and its results. 1898.
12. Burns, Alexander. Cabool: a personal narrative of a journey to, and residence in that city, in the years 1836, 7, and 8. Reprint Ferozesons Ltd., Lahore. 1961.
13. Caroe, Olaf. The Pathans. Reprint by Oxford University Press, Karachi. 1975.
14. Charny, IW. Fighting suicide bombing: a worldwide campaign for life. Praeger Security International, Westport. 2007.
15. Deshpande, Anirudh. British military policy in India, 1900-1945. Vanguard Books, Lahore. 2005.
16. Diver, Maud. Kabul to Kandahar. Peter Davis, London. 1935.
17. Docherty, Paddy. The Khyber Pass: a history of empire and invasion. Oxford University Press, Karachi. 2007.
18. Dupree, Louis. Afghanistan. Oxford Pakistan Paperback, Karachi. 1997.
19. Edwards, Herbert B. A year on the Punjab Frontier in 1848-49. Vol. I & II. Reprint Ferozesons Ltd., Lahore. 1963.
20. Elliott, JG. The Frontier 1839-1947: the story of the North-West Frontier of India. Cassell, London. 1968.
21. Fata- a most dangerous place. Principle Author Shuja Nawaz. Centre for Strategic & International Studies. 2009.
22. Griffiths, John C. Afghanistan. Pall Mall Press, London. 1967.
23. Gul, Imtiaz and Jaffar, Nabila. Taliban and the Pakistani politics. Friday Times. Jan 2/Feb 2, 2012.
24. Hamilton, Angus. Afghanistan. William Heinemann, London. 1906.
25. Hopkirk, Peter. The Great Game: on secret service in High Asia. John Murray, London. 1990.
26. Hosain, Mohammad. A few phases of the Afghans in Jullundur Busties. 1938.
27. Hussain, Mujahid. Punjabi Taliban: driving extremism in Pakistan. Pentagon Press, New Delhi. 2012.
28. Hussain, Zahid. The scorpions tail. Free Press, New York. 2010.
29. Jalal, Ayesha. Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South Asia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 2008.
30. Jan, Abid Ullah. Afghanistan: the genesis of the final crusade. Pragmatic Publication. Ottawa. 2006.
31. Journals and diaries of the Assistants to the Agent, Governor-General North West Frontier and Resident at Lahore 1846-1849. First edition 1911. Reprint Sang-e-Meel. 2006.
32. Khan, Mohammad Hosain. A few phases of the Afghans in Jullundur Basties. 1938.
33. Khan, Wajahat S. The other guy’s endgame—Part I. Friday Times. Jan27/Feb-2, 2012.
34. Khan, Wajahat S. The other guy’s endgame—Part II. Friday Times. February 3-9, 2012
35. Krasmer, D Stephen. Getting tough with Pakistan. Foreign Affairs. January/February. 2012.
36. Kroernig, Matthew. Foreign Affairs. January/February. 2012.
37. Lahood, Nelly. The jihadis’ path to self-destruction. Hurst & Co. London.2010.
38. Lieven, Anatal. Pakistan a hard country. Allen Lane, UK. 2011.
39. Matinuddin, Kamal. Power struggle in the Hindukush Afghanistan (1978-1991). Services Book Club, Lahore. 1991.
40. Mir, Amir. Talibanisation of Pakistan. Pentagon Security International, New Delhi. 2009.
41. Murray, Hallan AH. The high-road of Empire. John Murray, London. 1905.
42. Nevill, HL. Campaigns on the North-West Frontier. First published 1910. Reprint Sang-e-Meel Publications. 2003.
43. Nichols, Robert. Settling the Frontier: land, law and society in the Peshawar Valley, 1500-1900. Oxford University Press. 2001.
44. Obhrai, Divan Chand. The evolution of North-West Frontier Province. First published 1938. Reprint Saeed Book Bank, Peshawar, 1983.
45. Omissi, David. The Sepoy and the Raj: the Indian Army, 1860-1940. Macmillan Press Ltd, Houndmills. 1994.
46. Pakistan: the militant jihadi challenge. Asia Report No. 164. March 13, 2009. Pennell, TL. Among the wild tribes of the Afghan Frontier. Seeley &Co., London. 1909.
47. Post Taliban. Complied and edited by Ahmed Salim. Sang-e-Meel Publication, Lahore. 2003.
48. Rashid, Ahmed. Decent into chaos. Allen Lane, UK. 2008.
49. Razvi, Mujtaba. The frontiers of Pakistan: a study of Frontier problems in Pakistan’s foreign policy. National Publishing House Ltd., Karachi. 1971.
50. Ridedel, Milton A. In search for Al Qaeda: its leadership and future. Vanguard Books, Lahore. 2009.
51. Saleem, Shahzad. Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: beyond bin Laden and 9/11. Pluto Press, London. 2011.
52. Shah, Zahid. Muslim freedom fighters of India based in Central Asia. Area Study Centre (Russia & CA) Peshawar University and Hanns Seidel Foundation. 2000.
53. Schofield, Victoria. Afghan frontier: feuding and fighting in Central Asia. Tauris Parke Paperbacks, London. 2003.
54. Simpson, Sarah. Afghanistan’s buried riches. Scientific American. October 2011.
55. Skeen, Andrew. Tribal fighting in NWFP. First published 1932. Reprint Vanguard Books, Lahore. 2009.
56. Stabilising Afghanistan: regional perspective and prospects. Edited by Maqsudat, Hassan Nuri, Mohammad Munir and Aftab Hussain. Islamabad Policy Research Institute. Hanns Seidel Foundation. 2011
57. Steven, Coll. Ghost Wars. Penguin Books. 2004.
58. Stewart, Jules. The Khyber Rifles: from the British Raj to Al Qaeda. Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill. 2006.
59. Sykes, Percy. A history of Afghanistan. Vol. I & II. First published 1940. Reprint Al-Biruni, Lahore. 1979.
60. Tanner, Stephen. Afghanistan: a military history from Alexander the Great to the fall of Taliban. Oxford University Press, London. 2002.
61. The Second Afghan War: 1878-80. Complied by Charles Metcalfe MacGregor and India Army Intelligence Branch. Army Education Press. 1975.
62. Thomas, Lowell. Beyond Khyber Pass. Hutchinson & Co., London. 1920s.
63. Warren, Alan. Waziristan, the Fiqir of Ipi, and Indian army- the North West Frontier Revolt of 1936-37. Oxford University Press, Karachi. 2000.
64. Wylly, HC. From the Black Mountain to Waziristan. Macmillan and Co., Ltd. London. 1912.
65. Yate, AC. Travels with the Afghan Boundary Commission. William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh. 1886
66. Zaeef, Abdul Salam. My life with the Taliban. Hachette, India. 2010.

Appendix

Chronological Table of North West Frontier Campaigns (Barthorp, Michael, 2002).

http://www.awaztoday.com/playshow/20202/Islamabad-Tonight-23rd-February-2012.aspx
http://www.zemtv.com/2012/02/23/islamabad-tonight-on-aaj-news-23rd-febuary-2012/
http://www.friendskorner.com/forum/f247/video-islamabad-tonight-nadeem-malik-23rd-february-2012-a-265475/
http://www.pakistanherald.com/Program/Islamabad-Tonight-February-23-2012-Nadeem-Malik-9798

ISLAMABAD TONIGHT

WITH NADEEM MALIK

23-02-2012

TOPIC- BALOCHISTAN PROBLEM

GUESTS- HARBYAR MAREE, BARAHAMDAGH BUGTI, NISAR KHORRO, JAVED HASHMI

HARBYAR MAREE A BALOCH NATIONALIST LEADER said that he has no contact with the government of Pakistan. He said that he is trying to be in touch with every country of the world on Balochistan problem. He said that he has no relationship with Asif Ali Zardari. He said that he was hopeful that Balochistan problem will be resolved in the Peoples Party government but it is proven to be worst than military era. He said that Baloch used to be killed in ambush in the past but in the Peoples Party government they are being killed openly. He said that an action was taken against Baloch when ZA Bhutto was in the government and it is being repeated again. He said that the first condition to talk to Pakistani government is that they confess that they have taken over Balochistan by force. He said that the second condition is that they must leave Balochistan.

BARAHAMDAGH BUGTI A BALOCH NATIONALIST LEADER said that he does not like to have contact with non serious people (Rehman Malik). He said that he is not in contact with Pakistan government. He said that he will only talk to Pakistan government in the presence of America and NATO. He said that his elders talked to the Pakistan government but what was the result?

NISAR KHORRO OF PPPP said that the Balochistan problem is not new it is continuing from previous governments. He said that during Musharaf government Baloch problem went to the extreme. He said that Musharaf said that he will hit Baloch from where they can not even imagine. He said that Baloch leaders were part of the government during Peoples Party and PML-n governments in the past. He said that Baloch leaders made mistake by not participating in the elections of 2008. He said that Benazir Bhutto tried to take along all deprived sections but she did not survive. He said that the PPPP government has taken some positive steps by apologizing Baloch people and giving the provincial autonomy. He said that the situation is not improving because of mutilated corpses of Baloch people found every day. He said that up to some years ago Baloch were the part of the government but Musharaf turned it around. He said that it is easy to voice for separation but it is very difficult to actually achieve it. He said that the top leadership in the government should come forward and give message to Baloch people that we can get along together. He said that if the government and Baloch leaders will sit together the ways to move forward will be found.

JAVED HASHMI OF PTI said that the way we have treated Baloch people how they can trust us after that. He said that we made Baloch people realize that they are small unit and we can keep them suppressed. He said that the Baloch Sardars are talking the truth and we should face the reality. He said that America after defeat in Afghanistan is trying to ignite our region by giving statement of Balochistan problem. He said that Peoples Party is responsible for the wrong doings of Bhutto era and PML-N is responsible for its wrong doings. He said that the gas is found in Balochistan but they got it in 1985 as compare to Karachi and Lahore in 1953. He said that living with in Pakistan the rights of Baloch people have to be given.

–

Filed under: CURRENT AFFAIRS

Britain Wajid Shamsul Hassan

Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Britain Wajid Shamsul Hassan
said that Pakistan would be left with no option but to support Iran if
Israel attacks it.

In an interview Hassan expressed his concerns over the United
States’ “Drone Wars” that have taken the lives of hundreds of innocent
civilians in Pakistan.

“We know the damage — destroyed schools,
communities, hospitals. They are civilians — children, women, families.
Our losses are enormous,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

“I
think time is running out until the Pakistan government can take a
stand. They will have to at some stage take punitive actions to stop
them. They have got means to take such actions to defend their own
frontier and territories,” Hasan further added.

READ MORE

This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…

During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.

When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.

Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State:  The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.

Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.

Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.

Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy:  Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.

Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.

1. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
2. Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
3. Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
4. Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:  A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
5. Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.

The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”

It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.

Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.

When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.

(To be continued…)

This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…

During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.

When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.

Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State:  The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.

Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.

Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.

Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy:  Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.

Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.

1. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
2. Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
3. Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
4. Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:  A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
5. Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.

The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”

It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.

Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.

When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.

(To be continued…)

Since the Internet experienced an explosion of growth near the turn of the century, it’s had a revolutionized the way that we do a number of things. No single area of our lives may have been as impacted by the Internet as education. Even with the Internet still in its relative infancy, it’s already changed [...]

Related posts:

1. Declining education – A matter of demolishing bridges
2. Education: Not a priority for the Pakistan government?
3. Pakistani College Students Maintaining Their Culture in the United States
4. HTC Flyer, Dell Streak & Samsung Galaxy Tab Now with wi-tribe Internet Packages
5. Broadband Internet must for Professional Journalists

By Surojit Gupta for The Times of India

Trade ties between India and Pakistan are expected to get a boost as New Delhi reaches out to the business community across the border, starting Monday to assure them about the positive impact of normal trade ties. Commerce minister Anand Sharma will undertake a rare journey to Pakistan, leading a large delegation of senior officials and top businessmen as the two hostile neighbours take baby steps to normalise trade and economic relations.

The private sector led by industry chambers has put up an “India show”, in Lahore and Karachi – the first ever trade exhibitions from India where over 100 exhibitors are participating. Firms representing pharmaceuticals, textile, gems and jewellery, chemicals and petro-chemicals are showcasing products.

The move is a follow up to the efforts to normalise trade ties. The Pakistan government announced granting of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India in November last year. But, criticism from a section of industry in Pakistan has forced Islamabad to take measured steps on the issue. But, officials said they were optimistic that by the end of 2012, the transition to full MFN status would be complete.

Officials said they will launch outreach programme to assure businessmen in Pakistan that Indian goods will not swamp the Pakistan market if trade is normalised. “We will tell them that there are enough trade safeguards measures to ensure that Indian goods do not flood the Pakistani market. Let us first liberalise trade and see the impact,” said a senior government official.

Pakistan allows exports to India but has a positive list of 1,938 items which are officially allowed to be imported from India. Latest data shows that formal trade between India and Pakistan rose to $2.7 billion in 2010-11 from $144 million in 2001, while informal trade including third country trade is estimated at $10 billion, according to a Ficci status paper. “I have no doubt in my mind that bilateral trade, which currently stands at $3 billion, can be raised to $10 billion if trade through third countries (Dubai, Singapore and Central Asian countries) is channelised into direct exchange between the two countries,” said R V Kanoria, president, Ficci.

The government has undertaken a series of measures to increase bilateral trade. There is a move to open a second gate at the Attari-Wagah border, which is expected to increase the number of trucks crossing the border to 500-600 daily from 150-200 at present. Pakistan has agreed to remove restrictions on the number of commodities traded by the land route once the infrastructure in Wagah is ready, while both countries have agreed to avoid arbitrary stoppage of goods at ports. Suggestions have been made for opening up of an additional land route at Monabao-Khokhara Par on the Sindh border for faster movement of goods.

“We are taking significant steps to improve the border infrastructure. India has invested nearly Rs 150 crore to develop infrastructure at the Integrated Check post near Attari,” said a senior government official. He said the visa regime for business travel is also expected to be liberalised soon with multiple entry visas for 10 Indian cities, along with exemptions for police reporting. The formal announcement is expected to be made soon. Talks to expand trade in petroleum products are progressing, while efforts are also on to start negotiations for trade in electricity between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Both sides have agreed on grid-connectivity between Amritsar and Lahore, which would pave the way for trade of up to 500 MW of power.

Trade experts said they were optimistic about the latest moves and said the effort will go a long way in helping faster regional integration. “The positive spin off for normalisation of trade is enormous. Pakistan has given signals and India now needs to take the initiative. Normalisation of bilateral trade relations will help in putting much of the political bickering on the backburner,” said Biswajit Dhar, director-general at Research and Information System for Developing Countries, an economic and trade thinktank. Experts said there was huge potential for forging joint ventures between Indian and Pakistani companies in sectors such as information technology, fish-processing, drugs and pharmaceuticals, agro chemicals, chemicals, automobile ancillary and light engineering.

Pakistanis for Peace Editor’s Note- The best chance of peace between India and Pakistan can only be achieved through trade and normalization of ties. The India Show at the Lahore International Expo Centre Feb 11-13 will go a long ways to bridging the gap and move us closer to achieving peace one day, which is the best scenario for both nations long term.

Filed under: Desi, India, Pakistan, Pakistanis, Peace, SAARC Tagged: Amritsar, Anand Sharma, Attari, Attari-Wagah Border, Biswajit Dhar, Dubai, Ficci, India, India Inc, India Pakistan Trade, India Show, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Lahore Expo Center, MFN, Monabao-Khokhara Par, Most Favored Nation, Most Favoured Nation, New Delhi, Pakistan, Pakistan-India Relations, R V Kanoria, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, Singapore, The India Show, Trade Tariffs

By Shaukat Masood Zafar Pakistan is facing many serious problems nowadays, but the problem of price-rise is the most serious one. The government of Pakistan and LPG producers has recently dropped three more bombshells on the people of Pakistan by increasing the price of oil products. Though many of the petroleum products are deregulated now [...]

Related posts:

1. Connivance of Plutocrats of PPP & PML(N) is increasing Wheat Prices in Pakistan
2. Controlling inflation in Pakistan
3. Pakistan government rolls back current fuel price rise
4. Pak Economy heading towards hyperinflation
5. Reforms in Economy-Now or Never

Prof Farakh A Khan’s exclusive contribution for PTH

The aggressors have called people of what are now Fata and of Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa different names at different times of history labelled as terrorists or freedom fighters. The ten-year war has taken toll of the American purse and its fighters. On the other hand the Afghan people are constantly suffering. The Americans are openly talking to Afghan Taliban leadership since November 2010 to end American occupation of Afghanistan. The talks are at a crucial juncture where a Taliban office is to be opened in Qatar. The Americans have released five Taliban leaders from infamous Guantanamo prison to be stationed in Qatar. Team led by Marc Grossman from the American side and Qari Yousaf Ahmedi from Afghan Taliban side are in discussions (DeYoung, Karen. US links Taliban talks to Karzai’s consent. Dawn/Washington Post/ Bloomberg News Service. January 13, 2012). The Americans feel greater threat from Iran and want to windup operations in Afghanistan as early as possible.

We need to explore the background of resistance of the people in the area before we make sweeping judgments.

The invasion of Afghanistan by the British ‘Army of the Indus’ in 1839 led to annihilation of the army in its retreat in 1842. The Afghan invasion was pushed by the then Governor General Lord Auckland. This was the time when Britain was the sole super power. British arrogance led them to disaster. To boost army’s moral Sindh was conquered in 1843. This was followed by annexation of Punjab in 1849. These British moves sent clear message about future British intentions to the hill tribes in the north west of the expanding British Empire. Starting in 1850 the British were regularly sending in punitive expeditions into the Tribal belt.

During the Sikh Darbar the Sikhs held the plains but the mountains in the west were independent. Places like Hazara, Bannu, Kohat, DG Khan and DI Khan in the later Sikh period were under the British Deputy Commissioners. During the Sikh wars Amir Dost Mohammad of Afghanistan moved into the Peshawar valley up to the Indus. He made a grave miscalculation by sending a contingent of cavalry to aid the dying Sikh rule.

During the Sikh rule Peshawar valley (Kabul River) up to Jamrud in the west was held with great atrocities. In 1849 the British took over the Sikh Darbar territories and established pickets (check posts) along the eastern banks of Indus and in Kabul River valley along the bases of mountains to restrain raids from tribes beyond in the mountains. The first incursion of the British forces through what was Afghan tribal area took place when their army attacked Ghazni and Kabul in 1839 what became the disastrous 1st Afghan War. This was followed by revenge attack in 1879-80 (2nd Afghan War) when the invading British forces brutally killed people of all ages and both sexes. The scenes of massacres were still fresh in the memory of the tribes when the British forces launched Frontier War in 1863. The idea of this war was to teach a lesson to the tribes of Bonair to stop raids into the settled areas under British control and to ‘Hindustani fanatics’ of Wahhabi Islam who considered the British as occupier of their lands across India making jihad legitimate. The British felt that Hindustanis were also spreading Wahhabi Islam in Fata and had to be stopped (Albinia, Alice. Empires of the Indus. John Murray, London. 2008).

The Hindustani Wahhabi Fanatics were receiving funds from ‘Southern’ Bengal. The Mulka village of Syeds of Bunair housed left overs of Syed Ahmed Shaheed (d 1830) in Mahabun Mountains was eventfully burnt by the locals under a British detachment. Between 1850 and 1863 the British launched 20 expeditions into the mountains beyond the plains occupied by the British forces. Each time the number of invading forces increased. In Sitana campaign (1863) more than 5,000 troops were used and later enforced. The initial force was trapped in Ambela Pass and Gen Sir Sydney Chamberlain was evacuated with severe wounds. The cost of the expedition was worrying for the British administration. The tribesmen had few matchlock guns and mostly relied on swords and stones. Swords were used when they came close to the enemy (Adye, John. Sitana: a mountain campaign of the borders of Afghanistan in 1863. Published 1867).

The main issue of attacks by the British beyond its borders into Tribal Areas of Afghanistan was raids (cattle lifting) by tribes supported by ‘Hindustani Fanatics’ in the area. In 1858 the British army raid destroyed Sitana on the southern slopes of Mahabun Mountains. This was followed by destruction of ‘Hindustani settlement’ of Mulka located on the northern slopes of Mahabun Mountains in 1863. The British army in another raid destroyed ‘Hindustani village’ of Mundee in 1864. The other British approach was to stop supplies of funds and fighters from British India. For the people of Fata fear of British occupation of Punjab was an indication of their advancement and occupation of their areas (Punjab Administration Report, 1863-64 and 1867-68).

The British continued its policy of ‘Butcher and Bolt’ in retaliation of tribal raids. After subduing the lashkar the villages of ‘miscreants’ were torched or blown up, the crops burnt, waterways destroyed and cattle rounded up. Each time a new agreement was made with the tribal elders. Starting in 1917 the British troops used ‘Air Service’ to attack the tribal lashkar (now drone strikes by the Americans and bombing by Pakistani F16). In Tirah the tribes were asked to remove ‘Turk and Afghan’ settlers (foreign fighters) which they did sending them back to Afghanistan (Obhrai, 1938). It seems that nothing has changed in the 21st century.

From times immemorial the Pakhtun belt now located between Afghanistan and Pakistan has not changed although they were Hindus at one time then converted to Buddhism and finally to Islam. Babar (early 16th century) records his attack into Bonair to gather cattle and make a pyramid of heads of the local population (a Turkish tradition of Central Asia). The tribes were in constant war with each other but united against any invader. Nothing has changed.

When the British left in 1947 Pakistan reversed the ‘forward policy’ and pulled out the troops from Fata. We had peace in Fata till 2004.

Let us jump to recent events shaking Fata and Afghanistan. The bookshops today are full of bewildering array of publications on Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda. Most of the modern authors have little understanding of the area, people or its history under discussion. Al Qaeda as an entity appeared on our radar screen through American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Al Qaeda has a foreign agenda and is irrelevant for Pakistan’s Fata problem.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 galvanised the tribes and people of the country against the occupiers. This time Russian had helicopters and tanks but in this asymmetrical war the Afghans had the terrain on their side and supplies of manpower and ammunition from America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Al Qaeda was born out of this triple marriage. The supply of Stringer missiles by the Americans negated Russian air power. The American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 united the Fata tribes once again into military opposition. People of Pakistan are also opposed to American intervention. They are supplying manpower and funds to Taliban as seen in 1860s. The ‘Hindustani fanatics’ are now ‘foreign fighters’ or called ‘Punjabi Taliban’. The Pakhtun ‘raiders’ of 1863 were transformed into Mujahedeen during Russian occupation and then into Taliban when the Americans came in. AK47, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and suicide bombers now affectively replace the Stringer missiles. The Pakhtuns are innovative. Pakistan became an enemy of the Taliban fighting the American and Nato armies because of Pakistan government support to Americans in the form of supplies and drone attacks. We saw spate of suicide and IED blasts in major cities of Pakistan.

The incidence of Lal Masjid in Islamabad and attack of the Pakistani army into South Waziristan in 2004 was the last straw for peace. Most of the students who died in Lal Masjid in the army assault were from Fata and KP. Then came the incidence of US troops killing 24 FC soldiers in cold blood in North Waziristan followed by freeze of Nato supplies through Pakistan and returning of Shamsi Air Base used for drone strikes in Fata. Earlier CIA agent Raymond Davis was held for shooting two motorcyclists in Lahore and then released. This was followed by the killing of Osama in an American raid in Abbottabad, which produced bad blood between the two countries. The people of Pakistan were told of thousands of visas issued by Pakistan to dubious people considered as CIA agents.

America is bleeding like its predecessor the Russians in Afghanistan. The 1st World armies require expensive services, which are not appropriate for war in the 3rd World. With killing of Osama the main reason for invasion of Afghanistan has been removed. The motivational force for the American troops in the field was to make ‘America safe’ by removing Al Qaeda leadership has been achieved. The Americans have killed enough Afghans to settle revenge for 9/11. The US soldiers in the field are now fighting a war where it is ‘them or us’. It is time they got out without giving an impression that they have their tail between the legs. Americans do not need troops on the ground in Afghanistan to ward off any untoward incidence. They have 50 bases in the Middle East and Qatar and Bahrain bases are not far from Afghanistan. For surveillance the Americans have ample supply of drones and settilites. Their troops can be moved into Afghanistan at short notice. I do not see how the Americans can maintain Karzai as the leader of Afghans once they leave.

The other player in Afghan scene is Pakistan. Afghans never had soft corner for the Pakistan. The bone of contention between the two is the 2,640 km 1893 Durand Line Agreement inherited from the British for fixing ‘spheres of influence’ between the two countries. Thus the British claimed Fata and what is now most of KP. Today neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan can dictate to the Fata tribes. Both keep Durand Line as a porous border and bone of contention. The attacks into Pakistan by Taliban or its splinter groups have been worrying. Like the Americans Pakistani leadership has made agreements with the various groups of Pakistani Taliban, which each side claim were broken by the other.

The ‘hull’ for Fata is not war but economics. Fata is heavily dependent on food, electricity, infrastructure, petrol and some places gas from Pakistan and survive on smuggling and jobs in rest of Pakistan. We are not sure of mineral wealth of Fata since no survey has been carried out. We should use the carrot rather than the stick to solve Fata problem. Gun shall make the situation worse. Above all we need professional research of the area and a ten years planned strategy with the consent of the Fata tribes. Before we plan for a long-term policy for Fata it has to be taken off the hands of the Pakistan Army.

Selected Bibliography
Elliott, JG. The Frontier 1839-1947: the story of the North-West Frontier of India. Cassell, London. 1968.

Wylly, HC. From the Black Mountain to Waziristan. Macmillan and Co., Ltd. London. 1912.

Steven, Coll. Ghost Wars. Penguin Books. 2004.

Barthorp, Michael. Afghan wars and the North-West Frontier 1839-1947. Cassell & Co, London. 2002.

Jan, Abid Ullah. Afghanistan: the genesis of the final crusade. Pragmatic Publication. Ottawa. 2006.

Ridedel, Milton A. In search for Al Qaeda: its leadership and future. Vanguard Books, Lahore. 2009.

Razvi, Mujtaba. The frontiers of Pakistan: a study of Frontier problems in Pakistan’s foreign policy. National Publishing House Ltd., Karachi. 1971.

The Second Afghan War: 1878-80. Complied by Charles Metcalfe MacGregor and India Army Intelligence Branch. Army Education Press. 1975.

Caroe, Olaf. The Pathans. Reprint by Oxford University Press, Karachi. 1975.

Pakistan: the militant jihadi challenge. Asia Report No. 164. March 13, 2009.

Fata- a most dangerous place. Principle Author Shuja Nawaz. Centre for Strategic & International Studies. 2009.

Obhrai, Divan Chand. The evolution of North-West Frontier Province. First published 1938. Reprint Saeed Book Bank, Peshawar, 1983.

Saleem, Shahzad. Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: beyond bin Laden and 9/11. Pluto Press, London. 2011.

Hussain, Mujahid. Punjabi Taliban: driving extremism in Pakistan. 2012.

For me its just another morning, just another day but there are few unfortunate Pakistanis for whom its another beginning of an unending horrific tale. What’s their fault? Why are they being treated in every inhumane way? Let’s take an over view and try to unveil many faces who claim themselves to be working hard for the common man of Pakistan.

Image source:beats24*7.com

Shamsul Anwar is a poor, unfortunate father of nine innocent children including two twin daughters and seven sons. He has served in Pakistan Army as a Lance Naik for some seventeen years and got retired in 1992. He had everything to be grateful to Allah even after his retirement. However, he had yet to face the biggest trauma of his life in the return of his sincere efforts, and his love for his homeland.According to The News  , he caught a terrorist red-handed, who was then busy in planting explosives in Jamia Masjid of Dhoke Gujran at Misrial Road, Rawalpindi back in 2001. The News, further reported that 17 more of the terrorists belonging to the same group were arrested, who were later on shifted to an undisclosed place. After, some five years of this incident, terrorists played a nasty game to avenge this brave man of the nation. They kidnapped two of his sons, Muhammad Yaseen and Faizullah aged 16 and 14 respectively from the school in broad day light. 

Terrorists demanded a huge money which ofcourse he was in no state to pay. Shamsul Anwar then contacted police and Army, where he had spent 17 years working for his country men. Sadly, police department shun him away with its traditional humiliating attitude and army too couldn’t help him. I personally feel that when 70% of the country budget is being spent on Pakistan Army,then why Army couldn’t find any budget to get his son released? Aren’t we- The people of Pakistan growing a White Elephant in the form of Pakistan Army? Do we give these many taxes only for generals and colonels of our army? I respect Pakistan Army with all my heart, but this account and several others are disappointing. Army is unable to stop NATO attacks, unable to stop terrorist activities of America & backwater, unable to detect any drones- and so unable to take any suitable action against our enemies. Do we need such an army? An army who has failed to protect its country men?   

Shamsul Anwar, got the pieces of his eldest son in a gunny bag. Terrorists had killed his son in the most brutal way. Not even this, they even recorded the whole tragedy and gifted the CD with his son’s body pieces to him. This is not the end of the horrific story, brace your mind for even more terror to come. His second son was released by the captors after a long bondage on the payment of a heavy ransom which he paid by selling out his home and some vehicles. Miserably, his second son was injected with poisonous medicines during the captivity and was diagnosed with Blood Cancer. Piteous  father had no money left for the treatment of his young son after paying the ransom. He therefore contacted Imran Khan-Chairman of PTI to help him. Alas! Imran Khan who seems to be the apple of all hearts these days, could pay him only Rs 20,000 with a reference chit of Shaukat Khanam Hospital. Administration estimated a bill of Rs 1.2 million!

I just wonder that if Shaukat Khanum has no funds even for this man, then whom for? I don’t consider the stats available on his sites authentic that claim to treat thousands of people for free per year. We all know that Pakistan government has failed, but people of Pakistan are expecting  a “safe, peaceful revolution” from Imran. All the youth seems to be blind for him, but I always feel confused about him. For me he has a contradictory personality. When he is asked that why does he meet Munter secretly, then he shuns such questions by adopting a humiliating way! 

Shamsul Anwar- The unlucky father is these days screaming out loud for the release of her daughter from the same group of captors. Who is going to help him? the so called NGOs, army or the Symbol of  Hope- Imran khan? 

Let us wait together, for these faces to be unveiled. Meanwhile watch these puppets controlled by agencies! 

UPDATE: Few bloggers have given some account numbers to send in donations. However I don’t consider them authentic. It might be a fraud, even if it is not- It will activate many other kidnappers demanding heavy ransoms. I would also suggest to not to contact him at the given contact numbers, available at internet. We should pray that authentic NGOs or individuals who have gained enough trust from public, come forward to help this man.  IF you want to send donations, contact them.

Citizens’ statement of concern about the democratic process in Pakistan democratic and safety of human rights defenders, to be released to the media on Jan 5, 2012 (to endorse, please enter your information in the form at this link)

We, the undersigned, express our grave concern that Pakistani human rights defenders are being threatened and intimidated for their stance in the ‘memogate’ case. We are also concerned at the danger this crisis poses to Pakistan’s democratic political process that had taken a step forward with the elections of 2008.

No elected civilian government in Pakistan has yet completed its tenure and handed over power to the next government following democratic elections. If the current government manages to do this, it will be a first step in an ongoing process that is essential to Pakistan’s peace, progress and prosperity in the long run.

Those under threat include former Ambassador of Pakistan to the US, Husain Haqqani, who returned to Pakistan and tendered his resignation in order to ensure a free and fair inquiry into the ‘memogate’ matter that he is accused of engineering.

The so-called ‘memogate’ affair revolves around a letter that Amb Haqqani is accused of sending to then US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen allegedly at the behest of Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari, seeking American help to prevent a military coup in Pakistan. Mansur Ijaz, an American businessman of Pakistani origin, delivered the note to former US National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones to pass on to Adml Mullen allegedly at Amb Haqqani’s behest. Amb Haqqani has denied writing any such memo at anyone’s behest or asking Ijaz to deliver it to anyone.

Amb Haqqani has been barred from leaving the country, which is a denial of his fundamental right as a free citizen of Pakistan. Under threat both by the ‘religious’ extremists and the security agencies, he is currently a virtual prisoner confined for his own safety to the Prime Minister’s residence.

Also facing threats is his lawyer, former Supreme Court Bar Association President, Asma Jahangir, who has termed the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 30, 2011 a “victory” for the security establishment that she alleges is behind the case.

Amb Haqqani’s wife, Farahnaz Ispahani, a Member of Pakistan’s Parliament, also threatened, is currently in the US where she had come for medical checkups. Columnist Marvi Sirmed, who has written fearlessly against the ‘religious’ extremists and in support of Amb Haqqani, has also been receiving threats, Columnist Marvi Sirmed, who has written fearlessly against the ‘religious’ extremists and in support of Amb Haqqani, has also been receiving threats, as has senior journalist Najam Sethi. There are numerous other journalists and activists who live under threat for their outspoken views; some are forced to seek politial asylum abroad. This is essentially the case with anyone in Pakistan who counters or challenges the narrative of the ideological security state.

Without going into merits of the case, obvious contradictions in the ‘evidence’, or political motivations behind it, it is evident that it is at the crux of a matter vital to Pakistan’s politics, that is, whether Pakistan is going to be run by a civilian elected government along the lines of a parliamentary democracy that ensures fundamental rights, or along the lines of a ideological narrative dictated by the security establishment that holds fundamental rights subservient to its interpretation of ‘national security’.

Too many people in Pakistan have fallen to the ideological monster unleashed by the establishment pursuing a narrow, ideological interpretation of ‘national security’. It is time for a fundamental paradigm shift in Pakistan’s politics, to allow the nation to fulfill its potential as a progressive, forward looking South Asian nation at peace with its neighbours and the world. We urge the Pakistan government, judiciary and security establishment to play their constitutional roles, cooperate with each other and focus on re-establishing the rule of law and in order to make this possible.

In the meantime, be aware that the world is watching to ensure that no harm comes to those who are taking a stand towards this end.

Endorsed (listed alphabetically; names still coming in are being updated; please endorse at this link):
• A. Chhachhi, Sociologist, Netherlands
• Abdul Ghafoor Chaudhry Social Activist Canada
• Abdul Hamid Bashani Khan, Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Canada
• Abdullah Hussein Novelist Lahore
• Afzal Tahir Kashmir International Front/United Kashmir Journal, London, United Kingdom
• Ahmad Rafay Alam, Lawyer
• Ali Kazmi Student Islamabad, Pakistan
• Ali Arqam Blogger, Social Activist Peshawar
• Ammar Yasir, Marketing Head, Tea Break Networks Karachi
• Annie Syedah Student United States
• Anushka Jatoi Student Karachi
• Asif Khan Earth Day Network Washington DC
• Ayesha Humayun Khan Citizen of Pakistan Dubai
• Ayesha Jalal, historian, Boston/Lahore
• Ayesha Siddiqa, Political Scientist, Pakistan
• Beena Sarwar, journalist
• Faisal Mahmood Officer in National Bank Malir
• Faraz Sheikh, social activist, Lahore
• Farooq Tariq, spokesperson Labour Party Pakistan, Lahore
• Fazil Jamili, Poet, Journalist
• Fakhar Ul-Islam Project Manager United Kingdom
• Fayaz Ahmad Historian Peshawar
• Ghazi Salahuddin, journalist and columnist, Karachi
• Hamad Ur Rehman CEO/ a human and social rights activist. Lyallpur.
• Haris Gazdar, researcher
• Harsh Kapoor, South Asia Citizens Web (sacw.net)
• Ibrahim Sajid Malick, Technologist, New York
• Dr. Ijaz Khan Professor of International relations University of Peshawar
• Dr. Ilmana Fasih, physician, health activist, blogger Canada
• Iqbal Alavi, social activist
• Irfan Mufti South Asia Partnership Pakistan Lahore, Pakistan
• Kamyla Marvi Citizen Karachi
• Khawar Mumtaz, Shirkat Gah. Pakistan
• Kiran Nazish Journalist, Activist, Lahore
• Karamat Ali, Labour Rights and Peace activist
• Meera Ghani, Environmental and Peace Activist, Belgium
• Mehmal Sarfraz, Journalist, Lahore
• Mehr Alwy Finance Manager UK
• Michael Renner Researcher U.S. / Germany
• Dr. Mohammad Taqi, Physician & Columnist
• Muhammad Idris Khattak Researcher OSI Pakistan
• Mohsin Sayeed Journalist Karachi
• Moniza Inam, journalist, Dawn, Karachi
• N. D. Pancholi, Secretary, Indian Renaissance Institute, Ghaziabad (UP), India
• Nadeem Yousafi Businessman Peshawar, Pakistan.
• Noman Quadri, student
• Noorjehan Bilgrami Artsist Karachi
• Dr. Osama Siddique, Law Professor, Pakistan
• Pervez Hoodbhoy, Physicist
• Dr Pritam Singh DPhil, Reader in Economics, Faculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University, UK
• Qurratulain Zaman Media Consultant, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
• S. Abbas Raza, Editor, 3QuarksDaily.com
• S. M. Naseem, economist
• Saba Hamid, Actor, Pakistan
• Saba Quraishi, activist, United States
• Sabahat Ashraf (“iFaqeer”) Communcator. Citizen. Fakir. Silicon Valley, California
• Sadiqa Salahuddin, educationist, Indus Resource Centre, Pakistan
• Saleha Haque Student University of Salford, UK
• Sana Saleem Activist, Blogger Karachi
• Sarah Suhail Lawyer
• Sehba Sarwar Writer
• Shahla Haeri, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Boston University
• Shandana Mohmand, Political Scientist, UK
• Shahnawaz Student Karachi
• Shama Noman Educationist
• Shayan Afzal Khan, Citizen and activist, Pakistan
• Shahzad Ahmad Country Coordinator, Bytes for All, Pakistan
• Siddharth Nayak Managing Director , The Jurists ; President : All India Law Students Association New Delhi
• Soulat Pasha director Titan Energy Karachi
• Tahera Ahmad Physician Germany
• Tahir Saeed Senior clinical psychologist Ireland
• Tazeen Project Director, Intermedia
• Waqas Ali CRSD Peshawar
• Yasser Latif Hamdani, Lawyer
• Zeeba T. Hashmi Citizen Lahore
• Zohra Yusuf, human rights activist
• Zulfiqar Shah, The Institute for Social Movements, Pakistan Hyderabad