Friday, July 13, 2012

A Letter from Quetta - On the Plight of the Shia Hazaras


Letter from Quetta: ‘I too had a dream, but being a Pakistani Shia, it will remain a dream’
Written by S. Batool, July 13, 2012
Source

It takes a thousand voices to tell a single story, but today here’s the single voice to represent the thousand voices.

Unlike routine days, my phone beeped several times that made me wake up while I was asleep. I checked my phone and my breath was taken away, ‘Plz ask —- If she is alright, Did — go to university today? , Is —- Alright? Make sure if —- is alright…’

The darkest day to be remembered in the history of Pakistan; it was a remote control bomb blast on BUITEMS University Bus. This blast took away 6 lives leaving behind 25+ severely injured talents.

University faculty didn’t utter a single word in condemnation, this was not enough to cut apart an already wounded community that within a two-day gap, another University ‘Sardar Bahadur Khan Women’s University, Balochistan’ arranged a separate University bus for Shia Hazara students.

I was in the University that day, rumors circulated that Hazara Shia students are supposed to travel by a separate bus – this was ordered on the call of other communities’ request to the VC of the University. I didn’t doubt VC to be such a sap-head to act upon the call, however, my expectations dusted and we were asked to travel by the separate bus.

Agony hooked my mind. I felt very much alone, was over-whelmed by grief, and I expected sympathy. I found no sympathy; I saw only faces of my co-Hazara Shia students as badly mangled as mine. I looked around, hundreds of eyes were staring. Cruel, pitiless stares. Angry stares, unfeeling cold stares.

You are alone here! I murmured to myself and got on the bus provided. That day ended with utter chaos as we then landed to our places with a bang on our heads. Can they be this selfish? I could have never imagined.

Nevertheless, the next day’s sun arose with which I witnessed courage that ran chills up and down my spine because by then I had decided not to give up and stand against the melting pot of apparent Muslims, but actually terrorist jihadists attacking my faith and those cruel stares leaving me alone the previous day.

“University Buses are jammed for Alamdar Road (where Shia Hazara students reside) “was yet another blow within 2 days. This cracked up my nerves. No transport-No University-No Education, Period.

I frozed, dazed and pinned down. My mind screamed, No! Education is my right!

It was 18 June, 2012 and today it is 11 July 2012 and we are still sitting at homes as no transport facility is provided to us. Is there anyone who could show up a fraction of humanity? , Who could feel that we are also Pakistani and we have the rights to enjoy equal freedom in Pakistan?

Hear me O’ the failed Government; jailing us is not the solution, why don’t you jail those Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) rats whose residents are all known to you? They attacked on the University bus, you jammed it for us. They attacked the Passenger bus for Iran, you jammed that. Tomorrow they will attack us at our homes; will you then shift us to some mountain cage?

O the silent spectators/Government/ISI agencies , wake up, wake up from deep slumber, Today it is us, Tomorrow it will be your own daughters and sons , it is only the matter of interest – This is the only cry of my soul, a deep rumble, shattering the predawn silence.

I once had a dream, a dream of being among the graduates marching around the pavilion in caps and gowns – But being a Shia, it seems it will remain a dream.

Pen it down and know it, we are motivated to exist and resist before the inhuman acts of all the veiled and un-veiled terrorists.

I am leaving now to slay the foe
Fight the battles, high and low
I’ve grown my wings, I want to fly
Seize my victories where they lie
I want to shake the dead souls
though there are dangers , there are fears
Carve my niche, sew my seams.

A hopeful and hopeless Shia Hazara student.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Muslim and Arab Profiling in the US

The Feds are watching -- badly
By caitlin, SFGB, June 26, 2012
http://www.sfbg.com/2012/06/26/feds-are-watching-badly

The FBI's modern snoop program is racist, xenophobic, misdirected, dangerous -- and really, really stupid
So, you're a law enforcement officer in training for participation on a local Joint Terrorism Task Force. Or a student at the United States Military Academy at West Point, involved in the counterterrorism training program developed in partnership with the FBI. Or you're an FBI agent training up to deal with terrorist threats.
Get ready for FBI training in dealing with Arab and Muslim populations.
Take note that "Western cultural values" include "rational, straight line thinking" and a tendency to "identify problems and solve them through logical decision-making process" — while "Arab cultural values" are "emotional based" and "facts are colored by emotion and subjectivity."
Be advised that Arabs have "no concept of privacy" and "no concept of 'constructive criticism'" and that in Arab culture it is "acceptable to interrupt conversations to convey information or make requests."
"Westerners think, act, then feel," an FBI powerpoint briefing notes, while "Arabs feel, act, then think."
Those are some of the most dramatic examples of racial profiling and outright racist stereotyping revealed in thousands of pages of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Bay Guardian, the ACLU of Northern California and the Asian Law Caucus.
The documents show a pattern of cultural insensitivity, sometimes bordering on the ridiculous, not only tolerated by promoted as official instructions by the FBI. The records also show a broad pattern of surveillance of people who have engaged in no criminal activity and aren't even suspected of crimes, but have been targeted because of their race or religion.
Pieces of this story have come out over the past year as the ACLU has charged the FBI with racial profiling and Attorney General Eric Holder has insisted it's not happening. And some of the documents — which are not always properly dated — may be a few years old.
But none of it is ancient history: All of the material has been used by the FBI in the past few years, under the Obama administration.
This is the first complete report with the full details on a pattern of behavior that is, at the very least, disturbing — and in some parts, reminiscent of the notorious (and widely discredited) COINTELPRO program that sought to undermine and disrupt political groups in the 1960s.
The information suggests that the federal government is using methods that are not only imprecise and xenophobic but utterly ineffective in protecting the American public.
"This is the worst way to pursue security," Hatem Bazian, professor of Near East Studies at UC Berkeley, told us.

CULTURAL STEREOTYPES

Dozens of documents attempt to describe "Arabs and Muslims" but other groups aren't left out of the sweeping stereotyping and blatant racism and xenophobia that the FBI has used in its training guides. One training presentation is titled "The Chinese." The materials give such tips as "informality is perceived as disrespectful." The presentation warns "expect your gift (money) to be refused" but advises to give "a simple gift with significant meaning- tangerines or oranges (with stems/leaves.)" But "never give a clock as a gift! (death!)"
And if those in the training on "The Chinese" find themselves in "interactions with the opposite sex," then "touching, too many compliments, may imply a romantic liaison is desired — be careful!"
The vast majority of the "cultural awareness" training materials imply that the authors believe that the law enforcement personnel receiving the training will never be female or interact with female members of the groups they describe. Some warn repeatedly to never ask Arabs how "females in their family" are doing in polite conversation.
A presentation on "Arab and Muslim culture" compares the western thought process with that of all Arabs. According to the FBI, westerners are "rational" thinkers; Arabs, on the other hand, are "emotion based." A slideshow on cross-cultural interrogation techniques says, "It is characteristic of the Arabic mind to be swayed more by words than ideas and more by ideas than facts."
Bazian said the FBI's generalizations about the Arab intellect are "ideological constructs reflective of the orientalist discourse."
"Many of these individuals have not done any primary sociological, psychological, or historical work in the Arab/Muslim world," said Bazian, who works on UC Berkeley's Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project. "What they basically do is take a text from a particular historical period and pick these points and put it as reflective of contemporary Muslim society. Most of these statements have no basis in any critical analysis. They're not rooted in any type of research."
Included in the FBI's recommended reading list for counterterrorism agents-in-training is the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam," in which "Islam expert Robert Spencer reveals Islam's ongoing, unshakeable quest for global conquest and why the West today faces the same threat as the Crusaders did."
It's not exactly an academically sound piece of work, Bazian told us. Spencer and his cohorts are "political hacks," the professor said. "They come from neo-con backgrounds. Even saying 'extreme right wing' is giving them credit; they're way down below the cliff. They create this contrast between western society and the rest of the world based on a nostalgic idea of western society."
Arab culture is often the target these days, but the rhetoric recalls that used during the Chinese Exclusionary Act era, and toward Latinos in the United States today, Bazian said.
"They pick on the weakest, most vulnerable people in western society at a particular time and lay blame on them," he said.
The FBI's xenophobic approach to interrogation training—which involves warning new agents that "If an Arab is scared, he will often lie to try to avoid trouble"—is not even productive, Bazian said.
"If you go to people with professional training in interrogation and investigation, they'll say none of this gives them access to security. If anything, it creates a greater global misunderstanding."

RACIAL MAPPING

And the creation of misunderstanding doesn't stop there. The FBI is also involved in an intelligence-gathering method known as racial mapping. Racial mapping involves local FBI offices tracking groups in their "domains" based on race and ethnicity.
In blog post, the ACLU writes, "Empirical data show that terrorists and criminals do not fit neat racial, ethnic, nation-origin or religious stereotypes, and using such flawed profiles is a recipe for failure." In the Counterterrorism Textbook read by all trainees the FBI seems to agree, warning multiple times that there is no such thing as a typical terrorist and that making assumptions based on stereotypes is dangerous and unproductive.
Yet the FBI files we've acquired reveal that the bureau consistently does just that. Though the Department of Justice prohibited race from being "used to any degree" in law enforcement investigations in 2003, a convenient and potentially unconstitutional exception allows racial profiling in national security matters.
When the FBI created its Domestic Investigation and Operations Guide in 2008, it used that loophole to permit the mapping of racial and ethnic demographic information and to keep tabs on "behavioral characteristics reasonably associated with a particular criminal or terrorist element of an ethnic community," the ACLU reported.
Communities in San Francisco have been the victims of this prejudicial loophole more than once. In 2009, the ACLU reported that the FBI justified mapping and investigating the Chinese American population in the city because "within this community there has been organized crime for generations." Likewise, the bureau collected demographic data on the Russian population because of the "Russian criminal enterprises" known to exist in San Francisco.
The loophole, however, may not even apply to these investigations in the first place.
According to Michael German, a 16-year veteran of the FBI and senior analyst with the ACLU, these investigations don't fit the national security description. "In intelligence notes on Chinese and Russian organized crime, those are not national security issues," German told us. "Those are all clearly criminal investigations."
German has brought attention to another troubling use of racial mapping — documents revealing that the FBI's Atlanta bureau tracks Georgia's African American population.
The stated reason is a threat of black separatist groups; the documents name the New Black Panther Party and the Black Hebrew Israelites as the black separatist groups that pose a threat.
German wrote about this problematic practice in a May 29 article on the website Firedoglake.
"The problem with these documents," German told us, "is that it's not black separatists or alleged black separatists who are being tracked — it's the entire black community in Georgia."
"Those individuals and those communities are being targeted only for their race," German said. "Were it not for their race they wouldn't be part of that assessment. There is no reason to do that, accept to treat that community differently than the way it treats other communities. It's problematic from a constitutional standpoint."
The New Black Panther Party was founded in Dallas and has mostly East Coast chapters. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate United States hate groups, "The group portrays itself as a militant, modern-day expression of the black power movement (it frequently engages in armed protests of alleged police brutality and the like), but principals of the original Black Panther Party of the 1960s and 1970s— a militant, but non-racist, left-wing organization — have rejected the new Panthers as a 'black racist hate group' and contested their hijacking of the Panther name and symbol." The Black Hebrew Israelites is another fringe group, an apocalyptic group whose ideology holds that black Americans are God's chosen people.
Both groups have written and spoken record of racist and violent rhetoric, but record of violent or criminal acts are hard to find.
"I'd say they're a fairly small part of the radical right, and generally quite small. As far as we know, there is virtually no connection between these groups and criminal activity," Mark Potok, a senior fellow with the SPLC, told the Guardian.
According to Potok, the center's list of hate groups in operation in 2011 includes four organizations classified as black separatist, which, between them, have 140 chapters. Those chapters are counted as 140 of the list's 1,018 groups.
"Most of the rest of the list are white supremacist groups," Potok notes. "There are some exceptions — anti-gay groups and anti-Muslim groups." After a quick count, Potok found 688 groups to be "straight-up white supremacist."
The majority of these hate groups may be white supremacist — but the FBI is not involved in tracking white populations.
Last October, the FBI's press office responded to the ACLU's concerns with racial mapping. "These efforts are intended to address specific threats, not particular communities," the agency's statement reads.
"These domain management efforts seek to use existing, available government data to locate and better understand the communities that are potential victims of the threats. There must be an understanding of the communities we protect in order to focus our limited human and financial resources in the areas where those resources are most needed."
With that defense, resources continue to pour into racial mapping efforts.
Black separatist organizations are not the only groups to be targeted for political beliefs. Groups such as "anarchist extremists" and "animal rights/environmental extremists" are also, according to the FBI, groups to watch out for.
A training presentation for the Bay Area's Joint Terrorism Task Force includes a list of those groups: "animal rights/eco terrorism, anarchists, white separatists, black separatists, militia/sovereign citizens, and 'lone offender'."
How do you spot a potential "animal rights extremist"? According to the documents, "ideology and concepts" found among this group includes a "complete vegan lifestyle," and activities include the promotion of "anti-capitalist literature." In other words, your roommate is probably a terrorist.

SPYING ON MUSLIMS

Racial mapping is not the only FBI practice that targets people just for being members of groups "associated with crimes." The FBI routinely gathers information on Muslims through deceptive "community outreach" programs.
Memoranda we've obtained reveal that FBI agents, operating under the guise of community outreach, attended various events hosted by local Muslim organizations in order to gather intelligence between 2007 and 2009.
When agents attended Ramadan Iftar dinners in San Francisco, they wrote down participants' contact information and documented their conversations and opinions. At an alleged outreach event at CSU Chico, they recorded a conversation with a student about the Saudi Student Association's activities and even took the student's picture. That information was sent to the FBI in Washington, DC, the ACLU reported.
Writing down information on individuals' First Amendment activities—in this case without any evidence that they were notified or asked—violates the federal Privacy Act, the ACLU says. Using access to community events to gather personal information undermines the FBI's stated effort to form relationships with Muslim leaders and community members.
And covert surveillance can also have an immediate and hazardous impact on the unwitting subjects.
"It's becoming more of a public discourse that these FBI background checks are affecting immigration status, the ability to send money back home, and generally creating an environment of fear," said Miriam Zouvounis, membership coordinator with San Francisco's Arab Resource and Organizing Center.
The organization has helped clients who have been detained for months because their names were mistakenly placed on a no-fly list, and others whose immigration processes have taken up to ten years because they were erroneously perceived as threatening, Zouvounis said.
"The process of information collecting on covert and overt levels is accelerating, and definitely a present reality in San Francisco. People don't want to be civically engaged if that material's being used against them," she said.

ONLINE SPYING

"Extremism online is the most serious international terrorist threat in the world." Or so says FBI training materials in a presentation entitled "Extremism online," meant for those training to be online covert employees. The documents teach OCEs to scan through comment threads and enter chat rooms, searching for people whose speech may be "operational."
This surveillance has led to investigations.
Some of the documents are individual files and summaries of individual files, and many note that the person (often someone who was convicted, so the name isn't redacted in the documents) was "detected via the Internet." Some examples: "Mohamad Osman Mohamud, detected via the Internet, discussing Jihad plans" and "Hosam Smadi, detected via the Internet: online chats." Both men were 19 when they were convicted of crimes.
These men — and the many more who have not been accused of any criminal activity but are likely under surveillance or investigation by OCEs — could have been "detected via the Internet" in a variety of ways, according to German.
"It could be that the chats were open source, or that an informant was in the chat room, or a person participating simply turned them over to the FBI, none of which would require any legal process," German explained.
"It could also be monitored under FISA [ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] or traditional criminal wiretaps, which would require court warrants (secret ones under FISA). Finally, the stored chat logs retained on third party servers could have been obtained with Patriot Act Section 215 orders, or what's called a "D" order under the Stored Communications Act (if held for over 180 days)," German detailed in an email.
So what kind of speech are OCEs looking out for to peg potential terrorist threats? The Extremism Online presentation has a list of "major themes and language used in online extremist writings," which includes Islam-related terms such as "Caliphate, Al-Ansar, Al-Rafidah, Mushrik, and Munafiq" as well as the Arabic words "Akhi, Uhkti, Ameen, Du'aa, Shari'ah, and Iman" (brother, sister, amen, prayer, Islamic law, and faith.) Other words the agents are told to look out for: "crusaders, hypocrites, dogs and pigs," and any discussion of "occupation of Muslim lands."
The FBI can really get into your business if agents confiscate your possessions. Personal computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices, according to the documents, are routinely checked out at Regional Computer Forensics Labs.
The nearest one to San Francisco is in Menlo Park, where employees brag of having investigated thousands of pieces of data.
Law enforcement routinely confiscates property after arrests, and if local cops are involved with the FBI through the Joint Terrorism Task Forces or other partnerships, they may very well send the belongings of those arrested to be checked out at a local RCFL. But there are other ways the FBI can obtain your electronics.
"Certainly the FBI has the authority to obtain computers and other devices with search warrants, either traditional search warrants where the individual is given notice or expedited warrants where the person isn't aware," German told the Guardian, noting that the second type of warrant is the preferred method, for obvious reasons, when the Feds plan to search a confiscated computer.
"The FBI also works with immigrations and customs enforcement, so laptops and other devices seized at the border the FBI can gain access to. There are myriad ways they can get them."

"DISRUPTION"

A 2009 FBI memorandum on investigating suspected terrorists reveals that the Bureau encourages its agents to implement a "disruption strategy" that German wrote is "eerily reminiscent" of the COINTELPRO tactics used to stop political organizers in the1960s. "If the risk to public safety is too great, or if all significant intelligence has been collected, and/or the threat is otherwise resolved, investigators may, with substantive desk coordination and concurrence, implement a disruption strategy," one memo reads. Investigators can conduct interviews, make arrests, or use any number of other undefined "tools" to "effectively disrupt subject's [sic] activities." Such disruption strategies have been used in the past to investigate and shut down First Amendment-protected activity, German said. The reintroduction of such tactics could open the door for a major breach of the subjects' constitutional rights.

A MATTER OF PRIORITIES

"After September 11th, 2001, the FBI realigned its mission and purpose to reflect the global and domestic threats that face the US," begins an orientation packet for members of Joint Terrorism Task Forces. "FBI director Robert M. Meuller III defined the following as the top ten priorities (in order of importance) that confront the Bureau today," Number one on the list: Protect the United States from terrorist attack.
Indeed, after 9/11, the FBI prioritized terrorism investigations, a shift from the previous focus on criminal investigations. Classified as national security threats, these investigations are not subject to the same type of privacy and anti-racial discrimination protections that other criminal investigations might be.
Terrorist threats, apparently, are to be found in mosques, in online conversations that involve criticism of US foreign policy, in entire populations of African Americans or Chinese Americans in given areas. In recent years, simply speaking Arabic online or being black makes a person a suspect and potential target of surveillance.
Look out America, especially members of that celebrated "melting pot." The feds are watching.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

As crown prince Nayef dies, Saudis move deep into the succession crisis

Below see a critical and insightful excerpt about Nayef's legacy from the NYTimes' otherwise very politely-written story. The succession crisis has been looming over the Saudis' heads for many years now. But it became more pressing when Nayef's brother, crown prince Sultan, died about eight months ago (October 22, 2011). Now Nayef has died. Prince Salman who is speculated to become the new successor is 77 and has health problems. And, the "reigning monarch, King Abdullah, is 88."

As this story indicates, "Royal succession has passed down through the roughly 35 sons of king Abdul Aziz. But with the founder’s youngest sons now in their 60s, Prince Nayef’s death again raised the question of how the monarchy would move into the third generation of princes." Not to forget the competition - potentially bloody competition - among these sons and their sons, and also the rivalry between the Sudeiris and non-Sudeiris among king Abdul Aziz's sons (and their respective sons). Sudeiris were "all born to Hassa al-Sudeiri, a favorite wife of King Abdul Aziz al-Saud." Prince Salman belongs to the Sudeiris and was promoted to the key position of minister of defense in 2011 after the death of prince Sultan.

Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, Saudi Crown Prince Who Led Crackdown on Al Qaeda, Dies
By Neil MacFarquhar, NYTimes, June 16, 2012

Excerpt:

"“He was the last of the really strong members of the Sudeiri group,” said Abdulaziz Algasim, a lawyer and activist. “There is no other such traditional, strong member. I think the royal family will move toward more of a partnership with the public.”

The prince’s death topped the trending topics on Twitter, as social media in the Middle East lit up with tributes and condolences. But there was a significant undertow of criticism, with sardonic jokes, like one about whom the government of Bahrain would now turn to for advice on repressing its Shiite Muslim majority.

Or as Issandr el-Emrani, a political commentator in Egypt who calls himself the Arabist on his Twitter page, said in a post, “At least that’s one blow to the counterrevolution this week.”

At an infamous meeting in February 2011, with the region erupting and the presidents of Egypt and Tunisia toppling, Prince Nayef summoned the leading Saudi editors and columnists to a Riyadh dinner.

In an extended tirade, he dismissed the Tunisians as basically French and the Cairenes as louche urbanites, while arguing that the Saudis remained bedrock Arabs who held their traditional political system in high esteem, according to several accounts.

A question about the improving prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Islamist group, set off a diatribe against both the treachery of the Brotherhood and the journalist who asked the question, with the prince labeling the journalist a terrorist sympathizer. The dinner went on until 4 a.m. with the prince raging about the many plots seeking to undermine the House of Saud, according to those accounts.

It was considered a classic Prince Nayef moment. While open to holding long talks with the news media and others, he was so completely assured of his own point of view and of the need to confront even the smallest real or imagined threat to the rule of the Sauds — with notable animosity toward Iran, Shiite Muslims and Islamist extremists — that he could come across as entirely unreasonable at times.

But many analysts dismissed as overly simplistic the idea that he was only the champion of conservatives in Islam’s birthplace.

Prince Nayef “is widely seen as a hard-line conservative who at best is lukewarm to King Abdullah’s reform initiatives,” said an October 2009 diplomatic cable that was leaked via WikiLeaks. “However, it would be more accurate to describe him as a conservative pragmatist convinced that security and stability are imperative to preserve Al Saud rule and ensure prosperity for Saudi citizens.”

The cable described his multifaceted personality as “elusive, ambiguous, pragmatic, unimaginative, shrewd and outspoken.” He also displayed certain touches of vanity, like dyeing his mustache black."    

On press censorship in the Zia era

This piece offers a window into press censorship during the Zia era. Also, it touches upon the current state of journalism in Pakistan, specifically its dark side: its business of profiteering, blackmailing, hyper-sensationalizing, attachment to various forms of tribalisms, and making alliances with the corrupt political forces of one kind or another. Elements of the press supported the Zia regime too, but the ethics of objectivity and principles (supporting social justice, for instance) was still the currency that most journalists lived by or held themselves accountable to. Not anymore, it seems. Not for all journalists. The off-camera discussion that is referred to in the below piece can be seen here or here (both clips are in Urdu+Punjabi).

We do not deserve this freedom
Anwar Iqbal, DAWN, June 16, 2012

We were sitting in a half-lit room in a Washington suburb. All five of us had worked as journalists in Pakistan. And what brought us today was the airing of an off camera discussion between two talk show hosts of a prominent Pakistani channel and a property tycoon.

The footage has instigated a war of sorts between news channels as they accuse each other of being corrupt, dishonest and sleazy. We came here to discuss the so-called media-gate scandal, but shame, embarrassment and guilt overwhelmed us. So we started reminiscing about our past, perhaps to avoid thinking about our inglorious present.

Those were the days when people joined journalism out of political conviction, not to make easy money or become famous. There was little money or fame in the media then.

We recalled that in the Zia era, when the press was in chains, we also met in half-lit rooms but out of fear, not shame. Such meetings were illegal and those caught almost always lost their jobs. Some were even jailed and flogged. So we met late at night in secluded places.

We remembered one such meeting that we all attended. The lights were off all over the dark city, so the full moon shone in all its glory.

Free from the dwarfing influence of the neon lights and electric bulbs, it looked beautiful. But we shut the window, lit a candle and one of us tried to read an old newspaper, which carried the story we were looking for.

The jasmine and the Queen of the Night wafted through the closed doors. But even their aroma could not make us open the window.

I could not wipe the picture off my mind. There he was, Nasir Zaidi, chained to a hospital bed with two rifle-toting police constables flanking him.

We were not friends yet, but I knew him as a gentle and soft-spoken man, respected by everybody for his honesty and an almost religious fervour for a free press. But when his time came, his honesty and softness could not protect him. He had to receive all 15 lashes on his back and was now lying on a hospital bed, chained and handcuffed like a common criminal.

His crime? He defied a dictator’s order to close down some newspapers that dared criticise the army’s interference in politics.

On May 13, 1978 the then military government in Pakistan ordered four journalists flogged for refusing to toe the official line. The government issued a brief press note to announce the verdict.

Three of them were flogged within 70 minutes after the judgment and sent to prison to complete their terms. The fourth escaped because the prison doctor declared him unfit for the lashes.

The whipping was in reprisal for a countrywide agitation by the journalists against the government’s media policy. Within a year after taking over, the martial law government had closed down 11 newspapers and fined 13 others.

Two of the journalists flogged during Gen Ziaul Haq’s martial law — Zaidi and Jafri —are my friends now. Jafri is emotional, robust and quarrelsome. Zaidi is quiet and shy. He also suffers from asthma.

We never saw him arguing with anyone. Although we were convinced that all four were innocent, we never understood how anyone could flog Zaidi. He was so friendly and polite that everybody loved him.

Even his editors never called him by his first name. He was always addressed as Zaidi Sahib. His flogging was a shock for the entire media community. I saw several of his friends crying.

Zaidi is so humble that he never discusses his sacrifices. He says that as a journalist he had a personal reason to protest the dictator’s decision to close down newspapers. Like other, he says, journalists also have the right to work and if there are no newspapers, there will be no work for journalists.

Besides, he says, journalists also have professional reasons for disliking dictators. The press, according to him, does not prosper in a controlled society. There is not much a journalist can do in a dictatorship.

A free press and a dictatorship are like oil and water; they don’t mix. And he has a point. In a controlled press, most of the words are handed down by the dictator’s ministry of information and journalists simply reprint or broadcast them.

Nobody knows it better than journalists from Muslim nations. Before the Arab spring, which started only last year, almost all of them had totalitarian regimes. From Central and South Asia to the Middle East, the media was run by the rulers. Journalism, as it is known in democracies like India or the United States, does not exist.

The government already ran the electronic media and newspapers, too, were brought under direct government control through coercive laws that closed all options for freedom.

Every evening we had to take our newspapers to the information department where a bureaucrat — and sometimes a military officer, usually a major — would read the entire paper, front to back. They would take out anything they did not like.

The government issued broad guidelines to newspaper editors: They could not publish anything against the government — federal, provincial, or local. Any news that a government officer thought could incite people against the rulers was censored. Criticism of the army, the judiciary or the religious establishment was not allowed. Even stories that could arouse sexual feelings were censored.

Newspapers also needed permission to re-print what had already been published, such as excerpts from a book or a poem. Many times the censor officers showed their personal likes and dislikes in selecting news items. For example, if a newspaper wanted to carry a feature on open sewers in an area where a censor officer lived, he could take it out if he thought it would make his neighbourhood look bad.

Sometimes even film reviews were censored if the officer happened to like the film that the writer was criticising. All decisions were arbitrary. There was no appeal.

Journalists hated these restrictions. The rules denied them some of their basic rights and spawned various professional problems. It was already difficult to find stories that would not cross the guidelines.

But even when they did, they were not sure if the censor board would approve the stories, so they had to write two or three covering stories for every story they feared could be censored.

The officials insisted on seeing the pages after they were designed, complete with headlines and photos. This meant that a story removed by the officials disturbed the entire layout and the whole page had to be redesigned. Sometimes it also disturbed other pages where the censored story was carried over.

Those were not the days of computers; everything had to be done with scissors and glue, such changes often delayed the newspaper. To overcome this problem, editors tried to complete the pages as early as possible. Thus they often missed important late events. But sometimes missing a story also annoyed the government. Authorities believed newspapers missed stories on purpose to let people know how strict the censorship was.

The intention behind all these restrictions was to teach self-censorship to the journalists. The government wanted them to learn how to write “positive” stories. It wanted to create a docile and subservient press. But this did not work. Most journalists resisted these restrictions at every stage.

In the beginning most newspapers refused to fill the space left behind by a censored story. Instead they just printed a sketch of a pair of scissors in that space to show that the news item or article had been censored.

Sometimes one newspaper would have several scissor-filled spaces. This made the government look bad and so the censor officers prevented newspapers from doing it.

The newspapers then found another device. They would print a neutral, non-offensive headline and the writer’s byline but leave the rest of the space empty. Thus sometimes a newspaper would have eight stories, which only had headlines and bylines. The government also banned this practice.

Now newspapers started printing irrelevant or unimportant stories on the front or back pages to fill a censored space, stories that would not have been published at all in a more normal world. When the government banned this too, Pakistani journalists learned to write between the lines.

In the beginning, they were not sure whether the readers would understand what they were trying to say. But the readers proved more intelligent than the writers thought. Readers understood everything and would often do their own investigations, based on the clues they found in a newspaper.

If they read about a sudden shortage of tomatoes and eggs in a particular market, and another story somewhere else in the newspaper reported that a federal minister had visited the market the same day, they guessed that the minister had had to face a barrage of rotten vegetables when he visited the mall.

Sometimes newspapers just published the sketch of a story, allowing the readers to fill in the gaps. In the early 1980s a worker of Murtaza Bhutto’s Al Zulfikar group fired a rocket at Zia’s helicopter near Islamabad, the next day’s newspapers had a story about a rocket fired at an unknown helicopter and urged the police and intelligence agencies to be more vigilant against terrorists. The censor officers were not aware of the attack, so they allowed it to be published. And the next day everybody knew that someone had tried to kill Zia.

Scores of political jokes started making rounds: some new, others adapted from the outside world to suit the local situation. The journalists struggled and the people supported them. But this enthusiasm did not lead to a popular uprising. It was more a passive resistance.

In Pakistan people seem to have a lot of patience. No matter how bad the situation, they can sit and wait. They wait for years until their patience runs out. Then they wake up, hold rallies and processions.

The rallies lead to countrywide strikes. Buses and shops are burnt, people are killed, and the government changes with the help of both violent and peaceful methods.

But before it can lead to a real change, people go back to their passive mood. So the change is always cosmetic.

Only a few faces change; the system remains as oppressive as ever. We get another set of corrupt rulers. We curse them, but we learn to live with them until the next uprising.

However, we always believed that the media was an agent of change. It rejected the status quo. It was with the underdog. How wrong we were!

Sacrifices offered by people like Zaidi did bring freedom to the media but the free media in Pakistan is no longer an agent of change.

It is part of the establishment now.

Journalists play the same game that others in the establishment do, of becoming rich and powerful overnight. And the so-called media-gate scandal shows that they are no better than eggs and tomatoes. Anyone can buy them if he is willing to pay the right price.

I never thought I would want the censorship back. I still do not.

But I must admit that we were better human beings when we were in chains. We do not deserve this freedom.

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Rannie Amiri: The Bahrain Uprising in Numbers

Please note that this piece was published at the end of last year, so the numbers may be a bit dated. But the ground situation does not appear to have improved on any of these perimeters since then. Meanwhile, the people's protests against the Khalifa regime have been regularly occuring. Most recently, there was a massive turnout on March 9, 2012 (see BBC, Raw-footage).

The Bahrain Uprising in Numbers
by Rannie Amiri, December 29, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/rannie-amiri/2011/12/28/the-bahrain-uprising-in-numbers/

Population of Bahrain: 1.2 million

Number of citizens: 535,000

Percentage of citizens who are Shia Muslim: 70

Percentage of those in government: 13

Number of senior positions they fill in the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, the National Guard, the Supreme Defense Council, and the Royal Court: 0

Percentage in the Ministry of Finance: 10

Percentage in the Ministry of Information: 6

Percentage in the judiciary: 5

Of the 1,000 National Security Apparatus employees, percentage who are non-Bahraini: 64

Percentage who are Shia Bahraini: less than 5

Of the 20,000 paramilitary Special Security Forces, percentage who are non-Bahraini: 90

Percentage who are Shia Bahraini: 0

Number of elected Bahrainis from all sects who sit on the country’s all-powerful Shura Council: 0

Day pro-democracy protests began in Bahrain as part of the Arab Spring: Feb. 14, 2011

People who took to the streets: 300,000

Proportional equivalent if Egyptians had done likewise: 40 million

Evidence that Iran instigated the demonstrations: 0

Day Saudi Arabia invaded to put down the uprising: March 14, 2011

Number of Saudi, UAE, and Qatari troops who arrived in armored vehicles: 1,500

People killed since Feb. 14: 50

Fatalities as a result of tear gas shot into residential homes or birdshot fired at close range: 30

Age of youngest victim: 5 days

Arbitrary arrests: 1,500

Civilians sentenced by military courts: 208

Physicians sentenced for offering medical treatment to demonstrators: 20

Cumulative jail terms levied: 2,500 years

Citizens currently accused of violating freedom of speech or assembly laws: 1,000

Documented cases of torture and ill-treatment since the revolt began: 1,866

Bahraini officials held responsible for killings or the systemic use of torture: 0

Mosques destroyed: 40+

Journalists targeted: 90+

Workers fired for supporting, taking part, or suspicion of having taken part in pro-democracy activities: 2,710

University students expelled for the same reasons: 477

Prisoners of conscience: 500

Bahrain’s rank among countries in political prisoners per capita: 1st

Proposed U.S. arms sales to Bahrain: $53 million

Years the al-Khalifa family has ruled Bahrain: 228

Days left in power: numbered

Thanks to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and other NGOs for helping compile these figures.

Fisk and Safi on the Afghan Massacre and Media

Below, see two pieces on the media coverage of the recent Afghan massacre. In the first piece, Fisks suggests that frustration and revenge may be more common among the US soldiers, instead of exceptions among few individuals, because of losing the Afghan war. But the media presented the massacre in exactly the latter terms, as exceptions. I would add that the soldiers could also be driven by revenge just because of it, and a sense of national superiority and tribalism, for these attitudes are strongly cultivated in their military training. Also see Omid Safi's piece quoted below with my comments.

Madness is not the reason for this massacre
Robert Fisk, March 17, 2012,
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-madness-is-not-the-reason-for-this-massacre-7575737.html

I'm getting a bit tired of the "deranged" soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was "deranged". Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly "deranged" in Kandahar province.

"Apparently deranged", "probably deranged", journalists announced, a soldier who "might have suffered some kind of breakdown" (The Guardian), a "rogue US soldier" (Financial Times) whose "rampage" (The New York Times) was "doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness" (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn't kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?

The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised – censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn't forget – and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army's top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of Allen's words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.

Allen told his men that "now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots". They should, he said, "resist whatever urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like this when you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued. "There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are."

Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to "take vengeance" on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I've met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.

Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the "experts" when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the "deranged" bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn't know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.

We've all had our little massacres. There was My Lai, and our very own little My Lai, at a Malayan village called Batang Kali where the Scots Guards – involved in a conflict against ruthless communist insurgents – murdered 24 unarmed rubber workers in 1948. Of course, one can say that the French in Algeria were worse than the Americans in Afghanistan – one French artillery unit is said to have "disappeared" 2,000 Algerians in six months – but that is like saying that we are better than Saddam Hussein. True, but what a baseline for morality. And that's what it's about. Discipline. Morality. Courage. The courage not to kill in revenge. But when you are losing a war that you are pretending to win – I am, of course, talking about Afghanistan – I guess that's too much to hope. General Allen seems to have been wasting his time.

--------
--------

Below, also see Omid Safi's piece on the Afghan massacre. Omid Safi compares the media coverage of the Afghan massacre to the coverage of the 2009 Fort-Hood-shooting (by a person from Muslim background). Safi limits himself to criticizing the media's double standards. He also hopes that, "future investigations would demonstrate that Hasan’s actions were indeed the actions of a lone person, not part of a broader campaign."

I feel that he could have made a more incisive argument there, questioning if the Fort Hood issue should be seen as a "Muslim" issue at all. Furthermore, he could have scrutinized the pressure and politics that compell American Muslims to respond to Fort-Hood-like events in an apologetic way. In other words, why is it that American Muslims as a collectivity feel threatened and compelled to issue apologetic statements (to the general Americans) anytime someone does something in any part of the world.

Also, are there good and bad Muslim causes from an Islamic perspective, some of which may have resorted to violent struggle as their mode of resistance? Would the American Muslims support the good resistance causes that involve killing of oppressors -- for instance, that in Palestine and Lebanon? And how would that synchronize with the moral compass that Safi presents at the end of his piece? Could such a compass also de-legitimize the legit movements (in addition to removing the messy history from the equation in each case, putting the oppressor and oppressed, powerful and powerless, all on the same level)? (On these critical questions, also see: Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: Cracking the Media Code from IslamicInsights.com).

There may be a lead in the MLK quote that Safi refers to while describing his moral compass. To quote MLK in full: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The "content of character" may be a way to add the needed distinctions to Safi's moral compass. How do we judge the good and bad character and from whose perspective and with what assumptions and politics would be the key questions.

When Americans Kill vs. When Muslims Kill
by Omid Safi, Mar 19, 2012
http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/omid-safi/when-americans-kill-vs.-when-muslims-killl3

The news from Afghanistan over the last few weeks has been heart-wrenching, devastating, and infuriating. An American soldier named Robert Bales (on the left in the image below) walked into the midst of an Afghan civilian community, and shot 16 people dead, including 9 children and 3 women.

The shooting in Afghanistan has eerie echoes of the Fort Hood Shooting from November 5th, 2009, when an American Muslim military member, Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire inside a military base, and killed 13 people.

And yet the media coverage of the two episodes has been diametrically opposed. When Americans kills, it is portrayed as an aberration, an act of a tormented and troubled individual. When Muslims kill, it is covered as a signal of a communal, global genocidal tendency. Let’s go over some details.

Here is how Fox covered the shootings by Major Malik Nadal in the Fort Hood shootings:

The murders at Ft. Hood are about the radicalization of individuals by an extremist ideology -- jihadism -- which fuels acts of terror.
The main question we should be asking is when did Hasan become radicalized and who indoctrinated him?


Fox’s “analysis” was written by Walid Phares, the same person that Mitt Romney had picked as his Middle East foreign policy adviser. The very same person who has been identified as a major Islamophobes, and involved in massacres in Middle East.

Phares and Fox News take great pains to point out that Nadal’s actions are not about one individual man, but part of a grander Islamist war against America. Here is what they say:

Instead it is part of a wider ideological war, generated by radicalization and inciting individuals to perform such acts.
"Lone wolf" or not, organized or not, fully self-aware perpetrator or not, influenced by overseas radicals or not, this massacre of servicemen has moved America from stage to another.


Of course future investigations would demonstrate that Hasan’s actions were indeed the actions of a lone person, not part of a broader campaign.

In short, when a deranged Muslim kills Americans, Fox News tells us that it is “the largest terror act since 9/11,” and "it's jihadist evil and terrorism." When a deranged American kills Muslims, such as the actions of Robert Bales in Afghanistan in February 2012, Fox News and its subsidiaries behave in an entirely different fashion. We are offered the following litany of explanations and justifications:

*There was alcohol involved.
* it is an isolated act of a “troubled” person that in no way shape or form reflects on the noble ideals of America or Americans.
*The soldier was housed in the “most troubled” base in America.
*He was on his fourth tour of duty, and neither he nor his family wanted to go back.
*he simply “snapped.”
*He was experiencing martial difficulties.

The headline from Fox news read: “Money, career woes reportedly plagued Afghan Killing Suspect.” The first sentence of the article reads: “Bypassed for a promotion and struggling to pay for his house, Robert Bales was eyeing a way out of his job at a Washington state military base months before he allegedly gunned down 16 civilians in an Afghan war zone, records and interviews showed as a deeper picture emerged Saturday of the Army sergeant's financial troubles and brushes with the law.”

In short, the assumption that when we Americans kill, it is an aberration from our good nature. Even if the act is abominable, it is said to be purely an individual act totally disconnected from any larger institutional or political context. However, when Muslims kill, it is a sign of a world-wide, evil ideology of jihad and terrorism.

I have searched in vain to find a commentator in the United States that grasps the above double standard, and have not so far seen that insight in a mainstream American press. The only place I have seen it is in the UK, by Robert Fisk: Fisk correctly points that that most Western journalists use descriptions like how Robert Bailes was “"Apparently deranged", "probably deranged", "might have suffered some kind of breakdown" (The Guardian), a "rogue US soldier" (Financial Times) whose rampage was "doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness" (Le Figaro).

It is these types of double standards that are at the heart of the hypocrisy of our current situation vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. What we should be saying is simply this: the life of each and every person in the world, civilian or military, American, Afghani, Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqi, Iranian, male or female, rich or poor, gay or straight, carries exactly and identically the same intrinsic value. Just as Dr. King taught us that the measure of a character is not connected to the color of our skin, we should be demanding that the measure of a human life is not connected to the nationality of the victim or the assailant. All human lives are sacred, all are sacrosanct. And all violations of human lives are equally morally repugnant.

Taking that type of an approach would restore a sense of dignity and honor to our standing in the world community, and it would allow us to recover the moral dignity that we have squandered over the last ten years.

----

About Omid Safi: Safi is a bona fide scholar on Sufism and used to be part of the (now defunct) Progressive Muslim Union (PMU) of North America. He emphasizes compassion, love, and theological plurality drawing from the resources of various sufi traditions. On PMU-NA, see (with a pinch of salt):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Muslim_Union

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/mwu_muslim_wakeup_and_pmu_progressive_muslims_union_progressive_voices/

http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/2005/07/omid-safi-declares-takfir-on-irshad.html

Monday, March 12, 2012

Younus Habib spills the beans in the Mehrangate-IJI case

This is a window into the politics of the upper echelons of power in Pakistan. It is also another reminder of the moral bankruptcy of those who run this country.

Money arranged at behest of Ghulam Ishaq, Aslam Beg: Habib

Islamabad: A frail-looking Younus Habib, who headed the now defunct Mehran Bank, spilled the beans in the Mehrangate-IJI case on Thursday when he revealed in his first-ever statement before the Supreme Court that he had been forced by former president late Ghulam Ishaq Khan and former army chief Aslam Beg to arrange Rs340 million in the “supreme national interest”.



Nasir Iqbal, Dawn, March 9, 2012
Link: http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/09/younus-habib-says-money-arranged-at-behest-of-ghulam-ishaq-aslam-beg-rs340m-lavished-in-national-interest.html

Mr Habib, who was on wheelchair, said he had also been jailed for serving the “so-called supreme national interest”.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez accepted his sworn handwritten statement which the elderly banker first said should be treated as a confidential document, but later agreed to read it loudly in the open court.

The bench had taken up the 1996 petition of Tehrik-i-Istiqlal chief Air Martial (retd) Asghar Khan accusing the ISI of financing several politicians during the 1990 elections to create the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) and prevent Benazir Bhutto’s PPP from winning. The ISI allegedly dished out Rs140 million for the purpose. The petition was based on the affidavit of former ISI chief Asad Durrani.

On Thursday, the court ordered defence ministry’s director (legal) Mohammad Hussain Shahbaz to submit reports on the working of security and intelligence agencies from 1990 till date. The documents would remain confidential “in the interest of the nation”.

Younus Habib said Gen Aslam Beg and ISI’s Brigadier Hamid Saeed had provided number of certain accounts in UBL, ABL and MCB for depositing the amount while the counterfoil of the deposit slip had been handed over to one Colonel Akbar.

Both Gen Aslam Beg and Asad Durrani were in the court, quietly listening to Mr Habib’s affidavit.

“In all I was asked to arrange Rs350 million by the former president and the army chief before the 1990 general elections,” said Mr Habib while reading out the affidavit.

Of the Rs345 million, Rs140 million was paid through Gen Aslam Beg to politicians — Rs70 million to former Sindh chief minister Jam Sadiq Ali who was provided another Rs150 million (from Mehran Bank’s funds) for arranging licence to set up Mehran Bank, Rs15 million to Pir Pagara through Jam Sadiq, Rs70 million to Younus Memom on the instructions of Ishaq Khan and Gen Beg for the politicians who wished not to receive the money directly from the ISI. Some of the money was also dished out to the Army Welfare Trust.

Younus Habib, who joined the Habib Bank Limited in 1963 as a clerk and retired as the bank’s Sindh chief in 1991, tendered an apology for his involvement in the scam and threw himself at the mercy of the court.

He admitted that he used to talk to Gen (retd) Beg frequently and it was in March 1990 that the latter wanted him to arrange Rs350 million before the elections. A few months later, he said, he had been invited by Gen Beg to attend the installation ceremony of Col Commandant Sindh regiment where he was treated like chief guest.

Mr Habib submitted a photograph, along with his affidavit, in which he is seen with former president Ishaq Khan and a uniformed army officer having conversation with Gen Beg.

The court made the photograph part of the record.

He said a meeting later arranged at the Balochistan House in Islamabad was attended only by him, Ishaq Khan and Gen Beg. “I was told by Ishaq Khan that the money ought to be arranged by hook or by crook.”

Mr Habib said he had told them that arranging such a huge amount was not possible through legal means for which he had to manipulate the system. At this Ishaq Khan told him that he would have to do whatever he could for the national cause.

Mr Habib’s bag of surprises had a few other information. On Sept 29, 1990, he said, a meeting had been held in the Q block of the Islamabad Secretariat in which former attorney general late Aziz A. Munshi and Roedad Khan (probably the then chief of a cell to initiate cases against Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto) had been pressurised to lodge a complaint against Mr Asif Zardari implicating him in the Fauzi Ali Kazmi Tax Free Plaza scam.

Younus Habib was arrested on the orders of Roedad Khan at Karachi airport when he refused to oblige. He was kept in an FIA cell for five to six days. While in custody, Mr Habib said, he concluded that he had to arrange the money and was also bullied through the courtesy of Jam Sadiq Ali.

Mr Habib said the case had been dubbed the Mehran Bank scandal, but actually the amount had been provided by the HBL and the NBP.

When former prime minister Benazir came to power for the second time, she ordered an audit of the bank.

Earlier, two sealed documents (four folders), one comprising a report by a commission tasked to review the working of security and intelligence agencies, were opened in the court. The other document contained two audio-cassettes and unsigned statements/cross-examination of Maj-Gen (retd) Naseerullah Babar and Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani recorded during an in-camera session of the court.

The court noted that its office had also tried to find out whether the examination of Naseerullah Babar and Asad Durrani was recorded because no such document was on record.


WHO RECEIVED HOW MUCH

According to Younus Habib:
•Rs140 million was paid through Gen Beg to politicians;
•Rs70 million to former chief minister Sindh Jam Sadiq Ali;
•Rs15 million to Pir Pagara through Jam Sadiq;
•Rs70 million to Younus Memom on the instructions of then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Gen Beg for the politicians who wished not to be paid directly from the ISI;

•Some amount was also dished out to the Army Welfare Trust.

According to the affidavit of former DG ISI Asad Durrani:

•Nawaz Sharif received Rs3.5 million;
•Mir Afzal Khan Rs10 million;
•Lt-Gen Rafaqat Rs5.6m for distribution among journalists;
•Abida Hussain Rs1 million;
•Jamaat-i-Islami Rs5 million;
•Altaf Hussain Qureshi Rs0.5 million;
•Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi Rs5 million;
•Jam Sadiq Rs5 million;
•Mohammad Khan Junejo Rs0.25 million;
•Pir Pagara Rs2 million;
•Maulana Salahuddin Rs0.3 million;
•Humayun Marri Rs1.5 million;
•Jamali Rs4 million;
•Kakar Rs1 million;
•K. Baloch Rs0.5 million
•Jam Yousuf Rs0.75 million
•Bizenjo Rs0.5 million;

•Various small groups in Sindh received Rs5.4 million.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Shia killing on the rise in Pakistan

The last two months have witnessed a surge in Shia killing, with tragic instances in Kohistan (K-PK), Parachinar (FATA), Khanpur (Punjab), and Quetta, Karachi, and D.I. Khan. The causes, again, are complex, and the local, national, and international forces all appear entangled. For one, I doubt that Jundallah (based in the Balochistan province, which claimed responsibility of the Kohistan attack on Feb 28) could have done this attack without support of the local militant groups in that remote area of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province (that is, if Jundallah did indeed carry out this attack). Jundallah's Washington connection is also well known. The attackers were also said to be wearing army uniforms.

On the interconnections among various militant groups and their foreign supporters as identified in wikileaks cables, see here.

The Pakistani media -- and police -- often frames the target killing of the Shias as a "sectarian conflict". The label implies that Pakistani Sunni and Shia communities are fighting against each other. That is far from the truth. The label also hides the fact that both Shias and Sunnis have been killed by the same militant groups (for instance, see here and here). The label, moreover, gives a sense of symmetry ("Sunnis kill Shias, then Shias kill Sunnis"), whereas in reality a disproportionally high number of Shias have been killed or injured in recent years. It is more appropriate to call the recent surge as "Shia" killing, not "sectarian" killing. Each incident also requires a nuanced analysis of the causes (consider, for instance, the entangled causes surrounding the December 2009 Ashura blast in Karachi).

Saudis and UAE fund extremist groups in Southern Punjab, Pakistan - Wikileaks

With a pinch of salt, check out these two videos. The first is by Dawn News in Urdu, uploaded on youtube on May 22, 2011, that quotes a leaked cable of Bryan D. Hunt, a US diplomat in the Lahore consulate. The report suggests that some extremist groups in Southern Punjab receive more than 10 million dollars annually directly from Saudi Arabia and UAE.



The report, however, maligns whole maslaks (Islamic schools of thought) instead of focusing on the specific extremist-leaning organizations (belonging to these maslaks or otherwise), like Sipahe Sahaba, Jamatud Dawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. The following cable from the same diplomat, published by Dawn, names these specific groups. It also emphasizes the mutual connection among these groups (the connection extends beyond Southern Punjab). The cable also suggests that Qaddhafi's Libya may also have supported the extremist groups in Pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/26/2009-was-qaddafi-funding-sipahe-sahaba.html

Next, another clip in Urdu, uploaded on youtube on March 2, 2012, where some Ahle Hadith ulama reject and protest the militant agenda of Lashkar-e-Tayiba and Jamatud Dawa. (This particular clip does not contain any condemnation of these militant groups' anti-Shia ideology and activities.)

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Iran's nuclear threat: New revelations or change in IAEA's leadership?

Has IAEA found new evidence or discovered undisclosed sites in Iran recently that's fueling its growing concern over Iran's nuclear program, or is it the change in IAEA's leadership that explains the different attitude? The renowned journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker on Nov 18, 2011:

"The shift in tone at the I.A.E.A. seems linked to a change at the top. The I.A.E.A.’s report had extra weight because the Agency has had a reputation for years as a reliable arbiter on Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, who retired as the I.A.E.A.’s Director General two years ago, was viewed internationally, although not always in Washington, as an honest broker—a view that lead to the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. ElBaradei’s replacement is Yukiya Amano of Japan. Late last year, a classified U.S. Embassy cable from Vienna, the site of the I.A.E.A. headquarters, described Amano as being “ready for prime time.” According to the cable, which was obtained by WikiLeaks, in a meeting in September, 2009, with Glyn Davies, the American permanent representative to the I.A.E.A., said, “Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the group of developing countries], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” The cable added that Amano’s “willingness to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his strategy … bodes well for our future relationship.”"

See the full text here

----
On the topic, see a recent interview of Mohammad Javad Larijani with MSNBC here (20.49m)