Sunday, 04 December, 2011Sunday, 04 December, 2011 08

fissures in the ties of the two countries emerged over the nuclear issue, with America pressing for economic and military sanctions on Pakistan through the Pressler Amendment. Along with the sanctions, America also decided to withhold the delivery of military equipment that Pakistan had contracted and paid for, prior to 1990, that was worth approximately $1.2 billion. And so the crisis phase of the relationship began, with America imposing more sanctions on Pakistan in 1993 over the Missile Technology Control Regime.

Pakistan simultaneously also became victim of something the neighbouring arch rival had done, through the explosion of a nuclear arsenal in 1974. The Glenn

Amendment 1977, called for “economic and military sanctions on countries which delivered or

acquired nuclear enrichment materials or technology after 1976.” Ironically therefore, India was excluded from the ambit of the nuclear non proliferation law, setting precedent for the advancement of a discriminatory nuclear non proliferation approach in the region, one that had far reaching repercussions for Pakistan. At the same time, it depicted American double standards of addressing regional issues in a fair and equitable manner.

9/11 and the War on Terror

Pakistan entered a new phase of relationship with the US post 9/11 where General Musharraf acceded to being an important ally for the US in the War on Terror. Musharraf insisted

in his many interviews that Pakistan had no other option. ‘Either you are with us, or against us,’ Pakistan was told. And thus began our compliance with the US, where much was compromised in terms of our own internal security. More than 35,000 civilians have been killed so far in terrorist activities on Pakistan as a result of this partnership. Pakistan in the last 10 years has suffered enormously, economically and politically. This has lead to the widening trust deficit between the powers to be and the masses that accuse the politicians and military men of forwarding the interests of the US.

With the US taking quite a battering in Afghanistan, the easiest scapegoat appears to be Pakistan and that is the policy America has adopted over time. Blame Pakistan for

a complete breakdown of whatever projects America is engaged in Afghanistan. However, at the outset of a worsening relationship, the communication is still there. While both the countries might have their foot on each others collar, they will have to work around this. While Pakistan is reliant on America for aid, America needs Pakistan for a safe exit from Afghanistan. Without mutual cooperation, that cannot happen. This NATO air strikes comes at the outset of continuous drone attacks in the Northern areas of Pakistan that have killed thousands if not more of innocent civilians, deaths that have been termed ‘collateral damage’ by the Western powers to be. Pakistan at this crucial moment in time needs to pause, reflect and reassess its relationship with the

US. Empty rhetoric that is followed by relentless drone attacks and a blatant denial our right to territorial integrity is furthering the rift in our relationship with the US. Words need to be followed by deeds, something completely missing here. The callous attack of premeditated murder, and infringing our sovereignty has angered many. An apology here will not suffice, neither will compensation or heart felt condolences do the trick. The government now needs to come out in the open and lay before the public a future action plan that does not compromise the Pakistani people. Because, patience is running thin, and another dent in the trust between the common man and the government might mark the death knell for the rats that scurry in the higher echelons of power. Continued on page 8

From title page

Illustrated & D

esigned by Babur Saghir

“We want a very clear message to the insurgents on both sides of the border that we are going to fight you and we are going to seek you in your safe havens, whether you’re on the Afghan side or the Pakistani side,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointedly said in Kabul last month.

This statement is typical of the high-handedness with which the US has dealt with its ‘major allies’ – Obama’s refusal to issue an apology for the recent NATO attack is another such instance. The attack on the Pakistani military post at Salala in the Mohmand Agency on the Afghan Pakistan border on Friday that killed at least 25 soldiers poses a number of questions. (1)Where is the US-Pak relationship headed after the trust between the two parties has been severely compromised. (2) What alternatives does the US have if the relationship with Pakistan deteriorates further? (3) What is America’s way forward in Afghanistan?

Intriguingly, US officials have stated that that the attack on the Pakistani check posts were in response to fire coming from the direction of the same military check posts. Senior Army officials from Pakistan have, however, termed this incident as, “a blatant act of aggression” by NATO. Moreover, DG Military Operations Pakistan, Major General Ishfaq Nadeem said NATO forces were alerted that they were attacking Pakistani posts, however the helicopter attack continued. Under this scenario, other than the decision of the cabinet committee to block NATO supply route, Pakistan has also asked America to vacate the Shamsi airbase that served as a launching pad for US drone attacks. It remains to be seen whether this tough stance is merely an attempt to appease an incensed public, or whether this truly marks a shift in the Pakistani state’s relations with the US. In all likelihood, it is the former. The year has seen a number of similar outbursts of

public outrage over American actions - the Raymond Davis affair and the Abbotabad debacle being the most significant. In each instance the government adopted similar posturing and eventually the Anti-American fervour subsided.

It would do the US well to keep in mind that if the aim is to exit Afghanistan, it cannot possibly do so without the co-operation of Pakistan. After almost a decade of war with the Taliban, the US a country that spends more on military than all other countries combined, has not been able to defeat the Taliban. Conservative estimates reveal that more than 40 per cent of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control. With heavy penetration of Taliban in many areas of Afghanistan, can the US really afford to offend Pakistan that has served as a major ally for the former in its War against Terror? A significant proportion of NATO supplies to Afghanistan are transported from Pakistan, and while the volatility in the region has compelled America to look for alternative routes, it still relies on the Pakistan route for most military supplies. The reason for US reliance on Pakistan for transport of NATO supplies is simply the cost effectiveness of the Pakistani route. All the alternative supply routes through Europe double the cost of delivery. Calculations of the US Transportation Command showed that the average cost of hauling a 20 foot container from the Northern Distribution Network between April and September, was around $12,367 whereas the cost of the same container from the Pakistan route was merely $6,700 per container. Looking back

Both countries have had a tumultuous relationship in the last few decades and America has proven to be an unreliable partner for Pakistan in its time of need. The underlying dichotomy of Pak-US relations were highlighted most prominently when America slapped Pakistan with an arms embargo, right in the middle of the 1965 war with India. This was an opportunity for

us, perhaps, to set our priorities in order and reassess our relationship with the US, but somehow that never materialized and hence our reliance on the US continued to grow.

The foreign policy of Pakistan from its inception has been mainly driven by its quest for security. India’s alliance with the Soviet Union that had overt expansionist designs in the region amplified Pakistan’s ‘insecurity’. Therefore, during the Cold War, the strategic alliance between Pakistan and the US was a marriage of necessity. The partnership that was forged as a result between the two states was mainly to contain Soviet expansionism. Therefore, during the Cold War, South Asia became a tug of war between the two superpowers. Our membership of SEATO and CENTO earned us the supposed distinction of being the most allied ally’ of the US. However, what stands out is that the partnership between Pakistan and US was mainly due to the convergence of interests of both the parties, for the US, containing the USSR, and for Pakistan, reining in India.

Most of us are already aware of the vital role Pakistan played in defeating the Soviet Union through fighting the proxy war in Afghanistan with the help of the same militant group that eventually evolved into the monster that today has America huffing and puffing in an attempt to tame it. The defeat in Afghanistan sparked the roll-back of communism, and marked the end of the Cold War. However, this did not translate into peace and stability in the region. The influx of over two million Afghan refugees to Pakistan began, and with it the influx of narcotics that were smuggled from uncontrolled Afghan areas into the Pakistan, through the porous Pak-Afghan border.

The end of the Cold War compelled the US to re-evaluate its strategic partnership with Pakistan since the marriage of necessity and convenience had served the purpose America wanted it to serve. Therefore,

the reviewBy Hashim bin Rashid

If ever we brought humans down to agree on the value: all deaths are equal, what value would the killing of 24 Pakistan army servicemen by NATO troops hold in the face of the unrecorded deaths of thousands of Pakthuns

during Pakistan army operations?So if there is a fear that this writer has chosen to play

into what is presented as populist sentiment, let it be certain it is not.

As the laurels are raised, slogans are chanted and banners raised against NATO, the question to ask is: has the Pakistan army justified the loss of Pakhtun life? Or, has, equally, the Pakistan government?

Who is being killed in Orakzai?Let us tally up some more numbers. 15th

November: 26 killed. 16th November: 26 killed. 18th November: 22 killed. 19th November: 10 killed. 20th November: 10 killed. 21st November: 21 killed. 22nd November: 10 killed. 26th November: 41 killed. 27th November: 12 killed. 29th November: 8 killed. 30th November: 14 killed.

A bit tedious is it not?The total is: 200 suspected militants killed in two

weeks from the operation by Pakistani security forces in Orakzai. The operation was launched in March.

The problem: one, there is no sense of who was killed except the label ‘militant;’ two, there is no discussion over the nature of the operation; three, there is no sense of who was killed.

The poverty of our discussion about what is going on in the North West (and I use this word for the pun in its British administrative value) is visible in this.

In military operations sanctioned in our name, people are being killed without identification and justification. The question is: how can we allow 200 people to be killed by our army without raising as much as a whimper of a whisper as to who was killed?

Even the question of which group was being fought is not answered in the press releases carried in national newspapers.

Let me remind readers that the operation has been on-going from March, which suggests over a 1,000 alleged militants being killed in Orakzai alone since March 2011.

The Pakistan army has laid siege to the North West since 2002. All in the name of protecting the rest of Pakistan. And while we may have reason to accept that as true, why is there no record of the number of people killed.

And 1,000 is a significant number, in fact, 200 militants killed in the two weeks is a significant number. So the question is: who are they?

We will not get an answer and, let us be honest, neither of us wants an answer.

As it stands, over 40,000 people have also been displaced from Orakzai. But again no one cares.

So when, at a similarly far off checkpost NATO troops kill 24 soldiers we choose to name them and raise our voice against NATO, ask for an apology and compensation.

It is not to suggest the NATO attack holds justification, it is to suggest that there is a bigger humanitarian question to be asked: who have we killed? And why?

How did it come to this?There is a simple answer: the Pakthun became a

strategic tool to the Pakistani state and agencies and still remains that.

When the Pakistan army entered the North-Western frontier in 2002, it did so on US orders, with the promise of US dollars. As it stood, the threat to those who inhabited Pakistan’s borders was not the Taliban, or any other breed of Islamist militants originating in Khyber Pakthunkhwa.

As it stood, Khyber Pakthunkhwa had, however, like the rest of Pakistan, been infested with jihadi madrassas and, to a smaller degree, militant training camps. These remnants of the 1980s Afghan jihad policy were being used for Pakistan’s ‘strategic depth’ policy towards India,

With the Pakistan army’s insistence upon maintaining hostility with India during the 1990s, which culminated in the uniltaral 1999 Kargil War launched by the army, meant these remained essential cogs within Pakistan’s security policy.

So let us conjecture into the past again.When Pakistan army generals began to beef up the

Afghan jihad in the 1980s, on US orders and with US dollars, there was barely any Islamist militants in the North-West Frontier.

The injustice committed on the Pakthuns of Pakistan spans back 30 years when, in fear of the secularist Pakthun independence movement and under military-

defined strategic interests, a cultural transformation was imposed on the Pakthun people.

The debate for Shariah within the North West only became concrete post State interference within Pakhtun culture. The immediate pre-context of the Taliban takeover of Swat in 2008 was the state-backed Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) government over the region.

Ending the War on the PakthunThe real question of the war on the North West is

not burgeoning extremism, but it is the State’s meddling with local culture for its strategic interests.

And the current showing of face to the US is just a strategic rant. How are any of the 4,000 plus Pakistani soldiers that have died stationed in the North West any different? The Pakistan army has charged the US billions of dollars for stationing troops in the North West and the entire war has been run on US money.

Surely, the floundering of the idea of sovereignty now is no more than a joke. If the Pakhtun is under siege today, it is because of 30 years of state and agency interference. And any Pakthun who spoke against the nexus between the Pakistan army and the Afghan jihadis found himself targeted. As it stands, the secularist, pro-Pakthun Awami National Party claims over 4,000 of its workers and leaders have been targeted. The point is that when we remember, exclusively, the deaths of 24 soldiers, we forget the deaths of thousands of Pakthuns and we forget it was the army’s own need for American dollars that stationed them there. It is not to suggest that the cross-border fire from NATO which killed them is just. It certainly is not and a number of international laws can be invoked.

Rather it is to suggest that the entire war against the Pakthuns is wrong, and the compensation principle must mean the Pakistan government must catalogue, compensate and apologise for every Pakthun death.

And the rest of us, while we mourn the Pakistani troops killed, must endeavor to remember the injustice we have wrought upon the Pakthun people and, if nothing else, ask for a detailed record of the people killed in the last 10 years in the North West.

Let readers be sure I write this without the expectation that a single name shall be furnished, let alone story be told. But until we do so, there will be nothing learnt and there will be no end to the insurgency and we shall remain a patriotic but morally bankrupt people.

Beyond Salala:

While honouring the 24 soldiers killed by NATO, one must not forget the unnamed and uncounted Pakhtuns killed during the army’s own strategic games in the North West

More than 35,000 civilians have been killed so far in terrorist activities on Pakistani soil as a result of our engagement in the so-called War on Terror

War on Terror - by Terror

By Ali Rizvi

Counting ever Pakhtun killed

When the Pakistan army entered the North-Western frontier in 2002, it did so on US orders, with the promise of US dollars. As it stood, the threat to those who inhabited Pakistan’s borders was not the Taliban, or any other breed of Islamist militants originating in Khyber Pakthunkhwa

2 The Elephant in the Room: Feudalism

and Pakistani politics 6 Sher Bano’s Forest

War on Terror - by Terror

CM

YK

Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s antics have once again called attention to the entrenched role of feudal lords in our political system

Without a doubt, feudalism is that evil which gnaws away at the very roots of the system, and to pretend that any sustainable solution to Pakistan’s woes is possible without addressing this issue is foolishness

Sund

ay, 0

4 De

cem

ber,

2011

By Natasha Shahid

The Elephant in the Room: Feudalism and Pakistani politics

Also, imagine if you can, its impact on the ideological

tendencies of the public in an

environment where money is

already being spent freely to

promote religious extremism and

to intimidate all dissenting voices

The assumption that political fundraising is a ‘cleaner’ option than other methods of financing campaigns is wholly untrue

The dangers of political fundraising

By Shahnaz Khan

The poet in Ejaz Rahim is wide awake to not only the stark realities of life, but also to the yearnings of a soul in distress

Lucy Morgan Edwards throws light on the assassinated CIA-backed Afghan rebel, Abdul Haq, who spent – and lost – his life trying to fight Taliban domination in Afghanistan: a feat that earned him the status of the CIA’s Hollywood Commander

Sund

ay, 0

4 Dec

embe

r, 201

1

By Syed Afsar Sajid

By Natasha Shahid Kunwar

Des

ign

ed b

y Sa

na

Ah

med

I, Confucius and Other Poems By Ejaz Rahim

Publisher: Dost Publications, Islamabad , Lahore, KarachiPages: 119 - Price: Rs.250/-04

- 05

The Assassination of Hollywood Haq

“The Afghan Solution – the Inside Story of Abdul Haq, the CIA

and How Western Hubris Lost Afghanistan”

By Lucy Morgan EdwardsPublisher: Bactria Press

Available at ReadingsPages: 365; Price: Rs1595

The poet in Ejaz Rahim is wide awake to not only the stark realities of life, but also to the yearnings of a soul in distress

Sarah Hall’s short stories deal with sombre and often violent subject matter but are handled with a deft and balanced hand

Lucy Morgan Edwards throws light on the assassinated CIA-backed Afghan rebel, Abdul Haq, who spent – and lost – his life trying to fight Taliban domination in Afghanistan: a feat that earned him the status of the CIA’s Hollywood Commander

By Justine Jordan

Sellers of the Week

BestThe Assassination of Hollywood Haq

Dark, fierce and sensual

Edwards also highlights the immense importance vested

in Abdul Haq by the West – something that should

interest the international reader now more than ever

given the current turmoil faced by the NATO forces in Afghanistan – all the while

stressing upon the intensity of the blow his death

rendered to the global efforts against Talibanist

terrorism

Most people in Pakistan have heard of the juniper forests of Ziarat in Balochistan. And for all of them

the forest comprises only of trees that grow within Ziarat town. What they don’t know is that the best parts of this, the finest juniper growth in the entire country, spread upon thousands of hectares outside Ziarat. Since few know of this fact, fewer still have seen this enchanting forest.

And in those remote regions, they tell the tale of Sher Bano, a Pashtun woman.

Lore has it that Sher Bano Zungle (Jungle) was so dense a forest of juniper that sunlight scarcely reached its floor. It was roamed by wild and dangerous animals and no man dared to venture into its dark inner reaches. Not even in full daylight; less so in the dark of night for then the forest was believed to be thronged by evil spirits. As men sat around their fires at night in the security of their homes, they dared each other to this test of courage. But there was not one Pashtun brave who would take up the dare of going into the forest at night to drive a stake into the ground as proof of his having been there and returned.

One day, Sher Bano, a young woman, statuesque and beautiful, having wearied of this challenge being bandied back and forth over endless cups of whatever they drank in those days, announced she was ready to take it because no man would. And so one dark night, when the pale sliver of the new moon had set and the glens and limestone peaks were lit ghostly silver by the glow of the twinkling stars above, she was bidden Godspeed and stoutness of the heart by the women and men of her village. Wooden stake and hammer in hand Sher Bano

d i s a p p e a r e d into the gloom where the junipers reared up eerily dark.

B u t she never r e t u r n e d . E m b o l d e n e d by the light of the following day a posse went into the forest to search for her. There, in the depth of what they say was the densest of their juniper groves, they found Sher Bano dead by the stake she had driven

into the ground. Only then they saw that she had unwittingly put the picket through the hem of her dress. They realised that as this gutsy woman, having done her due, had started to rise she was held back by her caught dress. Consumed by the terror that she was being restrained by those unknown demons, she gave up her ghost. But she had done what no hero among her clan dared attempt.

To commemorate the courage of this plucky Pashtun woman, they named the forest after her. And to this day, the forest that lies in the heart of the Neshpa valley outside Ziarat is called Sher Bano Zungle.

North east of Ziarat, through the forested slopes of Sor Khezi (Red Spring) where picturesque timber and juniper bark huts lend a postcard beauty to the landscape there actually flows a clear spring. True to its name, it does indeed burst forth from a red sandstone bed by the side of the trail. Lovely stands of juniper dominate the slopes on either side of the valley. About eight kilometres west of Sor Khezi, one reaches Sher Bano’s forest.

Lore may have created a forest where the sun’s rays never reached the floor. But in truth, juniper trees grow well apart one from the other. Nonetheless, as one stands in a typical clearing, the view all around is indeed blocked by the trees. Many of these trees, perhaps over four thousand years old, have girths at man’s height of no less than seven or eight metres. Such of these trees rise nearly seventy metres tall. These are nature’s heroes.

Amid this lovely wilderness of ancient forest and bird song, there sits a tumulus of earth and juniper branches by the side of the road, shaded by immense juniper trees. This, they say, is

the last resting place of the doughty but hapless Sher Bano.

–Salman Rashid, rated as the best in the country, is a travel writer and photographer who has travelled all around Pakistan and written about his journeys.

06 -

07Su

nday

, 04 D

ecem

ber, 2

011

the

revie

w

By Salman Rashid

Many of these trees, perhaps over four thousand years old, have girths at man’s height of no less than seven or eight metres. Such of these trees rise nearly seventy metres tall. These are nature’s heroes

Sher Bano’s ForestSher Bano’s Forest

Lovely stands of juniper dominate the slopes on either side of the valley as about eight kilometres west of Sor Khezi, one reaches the last resting place of the doughty but hapless Pashtun woman

Des

ign

ed b

y A

tif R

afi

The game of survival

is all about making

adjustments and evolving

along with the shifting

circumstances. Perhaps

one of the stories that best expresses

this idea is ‘The Swiss Family

Robinson’. First published in 1812,

it is a novel about a Swiss family

shipwrecked on a deserted tropical

island. Forced to remain on the island

the stranded folk start to explore the

island and the wildlife, put up a house

in a huge tree and slowly start building

a life for themselves there. Pakistanis

would perhaps be more familiar with

the American TV series that was aired

in the 1970s. The threat of pirates, an

uncertain future and other issues of

survival ensured plenty of adventure

stories for us week after week.

There are many moments in life

when things do not always go as per

our expectations and even some when

all hell breaks loose. Yet we have to be

smart enough to carefully appraise the

situation before any knee jerk reaction

and then act accordingly. Adapting to

changing circumstances takes time

and patience. When a man switches

to a freelance home-based job after an

extensive work experience in office,

he has to adjust to altogether different

schedules and get used to the long

hours in office.

Our country has been facing several

years of persistent chaos with no end

in sight. Perpetually confused about

future strategies, and particularly

at this juncture, unsure about our

survival as a nation if we break ties

with the US. When we tune into the

local TV channels, endless debates

seem to be erupting everywhere. Do

we really have a possible solution

for this mayhem? Our plight is like

that of amateur acrobats performing

on a tight rope 100 meters above

the ground without any provision of

a net underneath

to cushion their

unexpected fall.

Independence is

the dream we started

with and where are

we today? Pakistan

is a country blessed

with abundant

natural resources

and human

resources. Fixing

our agricultural

sector though intelligent reforms

would make us self reliant and bring

in foreign exchange

through exports.

This, however,

does not include

‘mango diplomacy’.

The cruel tongues

that utter orders

of invading other

nations can never

really be restrained

by the sweet taste

of mangoes. They

perhaps need the

fresh taste of more

blood!

An attack on US embassy which

kills US marines is taken as an act of

aggression but the issue of hundreds

of innocent civilians being killed

regularly in drone attacks in Pakistan

is treated as the norm. The blind can

also now clearly distinguish between

our friends and foes but many in our

country are still in a state of denial.

Gaining self-reliance is by no

means an easy task, yet not an

impossible one also. The time has

come perhaps that we free ourselves

of the shackles of our master-slave

relationship. It is a simple matter of

faith over worldly reasoning. Germany

was totally destroyed after WWII,

but the Germans resolved to put the

country back on the track. Their hard

work has eventually made the nation

economically sound. Are we inferior

beings with no character and cannot

stand on our own feet?

It is often said that our projects

could never materialize without the

technological support of the United

States of America. We prefer to close

our eyes to situations where our people

show brilliance in different fields.

The cry that ‘all’ brains are leaving

this country for better prospects

abroad is exaggerated. Majority of the

technocrats in this country have still

chosen to stay back even when there

seems to be fire all around. Also, a visit

to the slums in this country can reveal

striking phenomena. How about a

small electronics store owned by a

laidback engineer where his assistant

assembles and manufactures 14” color

TV sets by using the picture tube of a

monitor from a computer? Being sold

at a cheap price, these are as durable

and functional as genuine TV sets.

And how about a deaf man working

since more than 40 years in the same

firm, and currently designing sensitive

equipments for clients in his position

as a design director?

The level of corruption in our

country is reaching

alarming heights.

The interesting thing

is that this alarm is

raised by the corrupt

themselves also. Yet

hope still lives when

you see an ordinary

cobbler charging only

20 Rupees in these

times for mending

your travel bag.

Similarly, what can

you say about a poor

man who repairs

watches going the extra mile in fixing

your watch. The honesty level is no

doubt rare here but if we stop talking

about such cases and narrating their

stories, then we are to be blamed only

for our fate! It is high time not just

to cut off NATO supplies but to rise

above any inferiority complexes that

make us bow down before oppressors.

In recent years, the Pakistani

society has witnessed a

variety of conflicts – ranging

from ethnic violence to

prolonged insurgencies.

This protracted stream of

insurgencies, civil wars and terrorist

attacks has disrupted normal

life in affected areas, unleashing

unimaginable hardships on all

those who reside there. In such

circumstances, the most vulnerable

are women and children, regardless of

the social structure in which they exist.

This phenomenon has been pointed

out by various observers and writers.

According to a report of the United

Nations, on its 10th anniversary,

UN Population Fund (UNFPA)

stated “women rarely wage war, but

they too often suffer the worst of its

consequences. Gender based violence,

including rape, is a repugnant and

increasingly familiar weapon of war.

The immediate too it takes extends far

beyond its direct victims, insidiously

tearing apart families and shattering

societies for generations to come.”

In recent years, the prolonged

Tamil insurgency in South Asia is

one such glaring example, where the

women and children have not only

suffered in terms of casualties but the

large scale displacement has wreaked

havoc on their lives as well. During

the 30 years of civil war in Sri Lanka,

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

(LTTE) carried out 378 suicide attacks

between 1987 and 2008. Out of the

killed, 274 were male and 104

were female. A similar situation

ensued when the government

forces leveled hefty attacks on

LTTE villages and hideouts – at

times with the help of the air-force.

Even more close to home, during civil

war in East Pakistan (Bangladesh),

a horrifying number of women were

tortured, raped and

killed. This is in

spite of the fact that

the sufferers were

neither part of the

combat nor did

they take up arms.

They became

victims, either

in a cross-fire

or in deliberate

actions, to

destroy the

o p p o n e n t ’ s

villages and

homes. In similar

fashion, women

of Swat and

the South

W a z i r i s t a n

agency of

F e d e r a l l y

A d m i n i s t e r e d

Tribal Areas

(FATA) became

‘ c o l l a t e r a l

damage’, invisible

to the public eye,

when in 2009

the Pakistan

army carried

out a massive

m i l i t a r y

o p e r a t i o n

against the

militants of these areas.

In Swat’s operation about 2.2

million people were displaced, a good

number of which were women and

children, while 80,000 had to leave

their homes from North Waziristan,

and around 60,000 from South

Waziristan. While women from

both areas of Swat and Waziristan

suffered, and continue to suffer,

considerable miseries in their

own way; perhaps the

more vulnerable are the

women of Waziristan.

The first reason for this

could be the dismally

low literacy rate of Waziri

women, which is just

3%, as compared

to 22.9% of the

Swati women.

This difference

makes the

p o s i t i o n

of Waziri

women more

susceptible

in the

p o s t - c o n f l i c t

scenario, as they are

not equipped with

education to face

the up-coming

f i n a n c i a l

c h a l l e n g e s

when they were

displaced and are

thus less able to

brazen the devastating

effects of conflict when

they return to their

destroyed homes.

Secondly, before the

military operation,

the infrastructure of Swat in terms of

schools, hospitals was more developed

than in Waziristan. Therefore, it will

be easier to rebuild the damaged

buildings in Swat, in the post-

operation period than Waziristan.

Thirdly, the social fabric of Waziristan

was more lopsided because Waziri

women are completely dependent

on their male family members

financially and their mobility is highly

restricted. Consequently, the level of

awareness of Waziri women remains

exceedingly low. For them the entire

world revolves around daily house-

hold matters and interaction with the

immediate family. This state of affairs

only worsened when the militants

tried to further seclude women who

already had a marginal status due to

the social structure of this area. The

Swati women enjoyed comparatively

more freedom than the Waziri women

as they could at least go for shopping,

to schools and even for jobs before the

Talibanisation of this area.

It is an accepted fact that the

post-conflict scenario has left various

challenges for the women of both

regions, particularly regarding the

acquisition of education, rehabilitation

of their destroyed homes and job

opportunities to earn their livelihood,

especially when most of the families

had lost their male members, before

and after the military operation in

these regions.

It is significant to mention here

that women of Swat and Waziristan

were already living in a secluded

society which hardly provided them

any space for outward mobility and

this condition worsened after the

Talibanisation, as mentioned above,

further left no room for women to

strive for an improvement in their

socio-economic status. According

to rough estimation, approximately

473 schools in Swat valley and FATA

were destroyed by the Taliban during

their control of the region and not

surprisingly, most of them were girl’s

schools. To add to the miseries of the

female population, the fatwas on the

mobility of working women posed

serious threats to their lives. The

sufferings of women did not end here

but entered into a new phase, when

they came back to their destroyed

homes, after losing their loved once,

as they were neither equipped with

proper education nor had experience

to confront this kind of a situation.

Although, there are a number

of studies which have dealt with

the displacement of women in the

above mentioned Pakistani situation,

none of them deals with these issues

extensively nor do they talk about

reforms and measures to reduce the

sufferings of the women in conflicts.

A cursory look will provide us with

the understanding that apart from

the centuries old tribal customs and

traditions which confined women to

an isolated and non-participatory

role, the basic problem lies in the

significantly low illiteracy rate of the

effected region. Therefore, on one

side, women should be equipped

with proper education and adequate

training to deal courageously with the

challenges of post-conflict situation,

and on the other side, male members

of society should realize that well-

equipped and motivated women can

be an asset and not a liability for them.

An attack on US embassy which kills US marines is taken as an act of aggression but the issue of hundreds of innocent civilians being killed regularly in drone attacks in Pakistan is treated as the norm

By Shehzadi Zamurrad Awan

By Syed Roman Ahsan

The plight of Pakistani women in conditions of conflict

There is an urgent need to address the human impact of the conflict in Waziristan especially with respect to women and children

Sunday, 04 December, 2011Sunday, 04 December, 2011 08

fissures in the ties of the two countries emerged over the nuclear issue, with America pressing for economic and military sanctions on Pakistan through the Pressler Amendment. Along with the sanctions, America also decided to withhold the delivery of military equipment that Pakistan had contracted and paid for, prior to 1990, that was worth approximately $1.2 billion. And so the crisis phase of the relationship began, with America imposing more sanctions on Pakistan in 1993 over the Missile Technology Control Regime.

Pakistan simultaneously also became victim of something the neighbouring arch rival had done, through the explosion of a nuclear arsenal in 1974. The Glenn

Amendment 1977, called for “economic and military sanctions on countries which delivered or

acquired nuclear enrichment materials or technology after 1976.” Ironically therefore, India was excluded from the ambit of the nuclear non proliferation law, setting precedent for the advancement of a discriminatory nuclear non proliferation approach in the region, one that had far reaching repercussions for Pakistan. At the same time, it depicted American double standards of addressing regional issues in a fair and equitable manner.

9/11 and the War on Terror

Pakistan entered a new phase of relationship with the US post 9/11 where General Musharraf acceded to being an important ally for the US in the War on Terror. Musharraf insisted

in his many interviews that Pakistan had no other option. ‘Either you are with us, or against us,’ Pakistan was told. And thus began our compliance with the US, where much was compromised in terms of our own internal security. More than 35,000 civilians have been killed so far in terrorist activities on Pakistan as a result of this partnership. Pakistan in the last 10 years has suffered enormously, economically and politically. This has lead to the widening trust deficit between the powers to be and the masses that accuse the politicians and military men of forwarding the interests of the US.

With the US taking quite a battering in Afghanistan, the easiest scapegoat appears to be Pakistan and that is the policy America has adopted over time. Blame Pakistan for

a complete breakdown of whatever projects America is engaged in Afghanistan. However, at the outset of a worsening relationship, the communication is still there. While both the countries might have their foot on each others collar, they will have to work around this. While Pakistan is reliant on America for aid, America needs Pakistan for a safe exit from Afghanistan. Without mutual cooperation, that cannot happen. This NATO air strikes comes at the outset of continuous drone attacks in the Northern areas of Pakistan that have killed thousands if not more of innocent civilians, deaths that have been termed ‘collateral damage’ by the Western powers to be. Pakistan at this crucial moment in time needs to pause, reflect and reassess its relationship with the

US. Empty rhetoric that is followed by relentless drone attacks and a blatant denial our right to territorial integrity is furthering the rift in our relationship with the US. Words need to be followed by deeds, something completely missing here. The callous attack of premeditated murder, and infringing our sovereignty has angered many. An apology here will not suffice, neither will compensation or heart felt condolences do the trick. The government now needs to come out in the open and lay before the public a future action plan that does not compromise the Pakistani people. Because, patience is running thin, and another dent in the trust between the common man and the government might mark the death knell for the rats that scurry in the higher echelons of power. Continued on page 8

From title page

Illustrated & D

esigned by Babur Saghir

“We want a very clear message to the insurgents on both sides of the border that we are going to fight you and we are going to seek you in your safe havens, whether you’re on the Afghan side or the Pakistani side,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointedly said in Kabul last month.

This statement is typical of the high-handedness with which the US has dealt with its ‘major allies’ – Obama’s refusal to issue an apology for the recent NATO attack is another such instance. The attack on the Pakistani military post at Salala in the Mohmand Agency on the Afghan Pakistan border on Friday that killed at least 25 soldiers poses a number of questions. (1)Where is the US-Pak relationship headed after the trust between the two parties has been severely compromised. (2) What alternatives does the US have if the relationship with Pakistan deteriorates further? (3) What is America’s way forward in Afghanistan?

Intriguingly, US officials have stated that that the attack on the Pakistani check posts were in response to fire coming from the direction of the same military check posts. Senior Army officials from Pakistan have, however, termed this incident as, “a blatant act of aggression” by NATO. Moreover, DG Military Operations Pakistan, Major General Ishfaq Nadeem said NATO forces were alerted that they were attacking Pakistani posts, however the helicopter attack continued. Under this scenario, other than the decision of the cabinet committee to block NATO supply route, Pakistan has also asked America to vacate the Shamsi airbase that served as a launching pad for US drone attacks. It remains to be seen whether this tough stance is merely an attempt to appease an incensed public, or whether this truly marks a shift in the Pakistani state’s relations with the US. In all likelihood, it is the former. The year has seen a number of similar outbursts of

public outrage over American actions - the Raymond Davis affair and the Abbotabad debacle being the most significant. In each instance the government adopted similar posturing and eventually the Anti-American fervour subsided.

It would do the US well to keep in mind that if the aim is to exit Afghanistan, it cannot possibly do so without the co-operation of Pakistan. After almost a decade of war with the Taliban, the US a country that spends more on military than all other countries combined, has not been able to defeat the Taliban. Conservative estimates reveal that more than 40 per cent of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control. With heavy penetration of Taliban in many areas of Afghanistan, can the US really afford to offend Pakistan that has served as a major ally for the former in its War against Terror? A significant proportion of NATO supplies to Afghanistan are transported from Pakistan, and while the volatility in the region has compelled America to look for alternative routes, it still relies on the Pakistan route for most military supplies. The reason for US reliance on Pakistan for transport of NATO supplies is simply the cost effectiveness of the Pakistani route. All the alternative supply routes through Europe double the cost of delivery. Calculations of the US Transportation Command showed that the average cost of hauling a 20 foot container from the Northern Distribution Network between April and September, was around $12,367 whereas the cost of the same container from the Pakistan route was merely $6,700 per container. Looking back

Both countries have had a tumultuous relationship in the last few decades and America has proven to be an unreliable partner for Pakistan in its time of need. The underlying dichotomy of Pak-US relations were highlighted most prominently when America slapped Pakistan with an arms embargo, right in the middle of the 1965 war with India. This was an opportunity for

us, perhaps, to set our priorities in order and reassess our relationship with the US, but somehow that never materialized and hence our reliance on the US continued to grow.

The foreign policy of Pakistan from its inception has been mainly driven by its quest for security. India’s alliance with the Soviet Union that had overt expansionist designs in the region amplified Pakistan’s ‘insecurity’. Therefore, during the Cold War, the strategic alliance between Pakistan and the US was a marriage of necessity. The partnership that was forged as a result between the two states was mainly to contain Soviet expansionism. Therefore, during the Cold War, South Asia became a tug of war between the two superpowers. Our membership of SEATO and CENTO earned us the supposed distinction of being the most allied ally’ of the US. However, what stands out is that the partnership between Pakistan and US was mainly due to the convergence of interests of both the parties, for the US, containing the USSR, and for Pakistan, reining in India.

Most of us are already aware of the vital role Pakistan played in defeating the Soviet Union through fighting the proxy war in Afghanistan with the help of the same militant group that eventually evolved into the monster that today has America huffing and puffing in an attempt to tame it. The defeat in Afghanistan sparked the roll-back of communism, and marked the end of the Cold War. However, this did not translate into peace and stability in the region. The influx of over two million Afghan refugees to Pakistan began, and with it the influx of narcotics that were smuggled from uncontrolled Afghan areas into the Pakistan, through the porous Pak-Afghan border.

The end of the Cold War compelled the US to re-evaluate its strategic partnership with Pakistan since the marriage of necessity and convenience had served the purpose America wanted it to serve. Therefore,

the review

By Hashim bin Rashid

If ever we brought humans down to agree on the value: all deaths are equal, what value would the killing of 24 Pakistan army servicemen by NATO troops hold in the face of the unrecorded deaths of thousands of Pakthuns

during Pakistan army operations?So if there is a fear that this writer has chosen to play

into what is presented as populist sentiment, let it be certain it is not.

As the laurels are raised, slogans are chanted and banners raised against NATO, the question to ask is: has the Pakistan army justified the loss of Pakhtun life? Or, has, equally, the Pakistan government?

Who is being killed in Orakzai?Let us tally up some more numbers. 15th

November: 26 killed. 16th November: 26 killed. 18th November: 22 killed. 19th November: 10 killed. 20th November: 10 killed. 21st November: 21 killed. 22nd November: 10 killed. 26th November: 41 killed. 27th November: 12 killed. 29th November: 8 killed. 30th November: 14 killed.

A bit tedious is it not?The total is: 200 suspected militants killed in two

weeks from the operation by Pakistani security forces in Orakzai. The operation was launched in March.

The problem: one, there is no sense of who was killed except the label ‘militant;’ two, there is no discussion over the nature of the operation; three, there is no sense of who was killed.

The poverty of our discussion about what is going on in the North West (and I use this word for the pun in its British administrative value) is visible in this.

In military operations sanctioned in our name, people are being killed without identification and justification. The question is: how can we allow 200 people to be killed by our army without raising as much as a whimper of a whisper as to who was killed?

Even the question of which group was being fought is not answered in the press releases carried in national newspapers.

Let me remind readers that the operation has been on-going from March, which suggests over a 1,000 alleged militants being killed in Orakzai alone since March 2011.

The Pakistan army has laid siege to the North West since 2002. All in the name of protecting the rest of Pakistan. And while we may have reason to accept that as true, why is there no record of the number of people killed.

And 1,000 is a significant number, in fact, 200 militants killed in the two weeks is a significant number. So the question is: who are they?

We will not get an answer and, let us be honest, neither of us wants an answer.

As it stands, over 40,000 people have also been displaced from Orakzai. But again no one cares.

So when, at a similarly far off checkpost NATO troops kill 24 soldiers we choose to name them and raise our voice against NATO, ask for an apology and compensation.

It is not to suggest the NATO attack holds justification, it is to suggest that there is a bigger humanitarian question to be asked: who have we killed? And why?

How did it come to this?There is a simple answer: the Pakthun became a

strategic tool to the Pakistani state and agencies and still remains that.

When the Pakistan army entered the North-Western frontier in 2002, it did so on US orders, with the promise of US dollars. As it stood, the threat to those who inhabited Pakistan’s borders was not the Taliban, or any other breed of Islamist militants originating in Khyber Pakthunkhwa.

As it stood, Khyber Pakthunkhwa had, however, like the rest of Pakistan, been infested with jihadi madrassas and, to a smaller degree, militant training camps. These remnants of the 1980s Afghan jihad policy were being used for Pakistan’s ‘strategic depth’ policy towards India,

With the Pakistan army’s insistence upon maintaining hostility with India during the 1990s, which culminated in the uniltaral 1999 Kargil War launched by the army, meant these remained essential cogs within Pakistan’s security policy.

So let us conjecture into the past again.When Pakistan army generals began to beef up the

Afghan jihad in the 1980s, on US orders and with US dollars, there was barely any Islamist militants in the North-West Frontier.

The injustice committed on the Pakthuns of Pakistan spans back 30 years when, in fear of the secularist Pakthun independence movement and under military-

defined strategic interests, a cultural transformation was imposed on the Pakthun people.

The debate for Shariah within the North West only became concrete post State interference within Pakhtun culture. The immediate pre-context of the Taliban takeover of Swat in 2008 was the state-backed Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) government over the region.

Ending the War on the PakthunThe real question of the war on the North West is

not burgeoning extremism, but it is the State’s meddling with local culture for its strategic interests.

And the current showing of face to the US is just a strategic rant. How are any of the 4,000 plus Pakistani soldiers that have died stationed in the North West any different? The Pakistan army has charged the US billions of dollars for stationing troops in the North West and the entire war has been run on US money.

Surely, the floundering of the idea of sovereignty now is no more than a joke. If the Pakhtun is under siege today, it is because of 30 years of state and agency interference. And any Pakthun who spoke against the nexus between the Pakistan army and the Afghan jihadis found himself targeted. As it stands, the secularist, pro-Pakthun Awami National Party claims over 4,000 of its workers and leaders have been targeted. The point is that when we remember, exclusively, the deaths of 24 soldiers, we forget the deaths of thousands of Pakthuns and we forget it was the army’s own need for American dollars that stationed them there. It is not to suggest that the cross-border fire from NATO which killed them is just. It certainly is not and a number of international laws can be invoked.

Rather it is to suggest that the entire war against the Pakthuns is wrong, and the compensation principle must mean the Pakistan government must catalogue, compensate and apologise for every Pakthun death.

And the rest of us, while we mourn the Pakistani troops killed, must endeavor to remember the injustice we have wrought upon the Pakthun people and, if nothing else, ask for a detailed record of the people killed in the last 10 years in the North West.

Let readers be sure I write this without the expectation that a single name shall be furnished, let alone story be told. But until we do so, there will be nothing learnt and there will be no end to the insurgency and we shall remain a patriotic but morally bankrupt people.

Beyond Salala:

While honouring the 24 soldiers killed by NATO, one must not forget the unnamed and uncounted Pakhtuns killed during the army’s own strategic games in the North West

More than 35,000 civilians have been killed so far in terrorist activities on Pakistani soil as a result of our engagement in the so-called War on Terror

War on Terror - by Terror

By Ali Rizvi

Counting ever Pakhtun killed

When the Pakistan army entered the North-Western frontier in 2002, it did so on US orders, with the promise of US dollars. As it stood, the threat to those who inhabited Pakistan’s borders was not the Taliban, or any other breed of Islamist militants originating in Khyber Pakthunkhwa

2 The Elephant in the Room: Feudalism

and Pakistani politics 6 Sher Bano’s Forest

War on Terror - by Terror

CM

YK