Showing posts with label General Tauqir Zia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Tauqir Zia. Show all posts

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Authority & Responsibility - 16


Khan Arif wrote:

Speaking on the matter of principle the Intelligence service should be concerned with Internal and external threats to the country rather than playing the role of king-makers.

Arif N. Khan
===============================
Ahsan Siddiqui wrote:

That's a usually happens in every country. Take the example of CIA, Mossad, Khad, FBI, RAW....there always parallel run of these secret organizations.

Ahsan
======================================
Satiricus wrote:

Anwar Saeed's analysis sounds credible as he says that the likelihood is that the ISI’s modus operandi in Pakistan is pretty much the same as that of the CIA in the United States.

ns
===============================================

Dear Friends,

Where in the World the Secret Services do what the Secret Services do in Pakistan with their own citizens?

I wonder if Mr Zaid Hamid [the Pseudo Islamist of NEWSONE and apologist of Establishment and Musharraf Martial Law Regime] has read the news below or not? Read what happened under General Musharraf. Funniest thing is that the Born Again Che Guevara of Pakistan i.e. Imran Khan reached to the National Assembly in 2002 through a Rigged Election!

The man, who rigged 2002 polls, spills the beans By Umar Cheema

Sunday, February 24, 2008

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=13159


ISLAMABAD: The main wheeler and dealer of the ISI during the 2002 elections, the then Maj-Gen Ehtesham Zamir, now retired, has come out of the closet and admitted his guilt of manipulating the 2002 elections, and has directly blamed Gen Musharraf for ordering so.

Talking to The News, the head of the ISI’s political cell in 2002, admitted manipulating the last elections at the behest of President Musharraf and termed the defeat of the King’s party, the PML-Q, this time “a reaction of the unnatural dispensation (installed in 2002).”

Zamir said the ISI together with the NAB was instrumental in pressing the lawmakers to join the pro-Musharraf camp to form the government to support his stay in power.

Looking down back into the memory lane and recalling his blunders which, he admitted, had pushed the country back instead of taking it forward, Zamir feels ashamed of his role and conduct.

Massively embarrassed because he was the one who negotiated, coerced and did all the dirty work, the retired Maj-Gen said he was not in a position to become a preacher now when his own past was tainted.

He said the country would not have faced such regression had the political management was not carried out by the ISI in 2002. But he also put some responsibility of the political disaster on the PML-Q as well.

The former No: 2 of the ISI called for the closure of political cell in the agency, confessing that it was part of the problem due to its involvement in forging unnatural alliances, contrary to public wishes.

Zamir’s blaming Musharraf for creating this unnatural alliance rings true as another former top associate of Musharraf, Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani has already disclosed that majority of the corps commanders, in several meetings, had opposed Musharraf’s decision of patronising the leadership of the King’s party.

“We had urged Musharraf many times during the corps commanders meeting that the PML-Q leadership was the most condemned and castigated personalities. They are the worst politicians who remained involved in co-operative scandals and writing off loans. But Musharraf never heard our advice,” Kiyani said while recalling discussions in their high profile meetings.

He said one of their colleagues, who was an accountability chief at that time, had sought permission many times for proceeding against the King’s party top leaders but was always denied.

Kiyani asked Musharraf to quit, the sooner the better, as otherwise the country would be in a serious trouble.

Ma-Gen (retd) Ehtesham Zamir termed the 2008 elections ‘fairer than 2002’. He said the reason behind their fairness is that there was relatively less interference of intelligence agencies this time as compared to the last time. But he stopped short of saying that there was zero interference in the 2008 polls.

“You are quite right,” he said when asked to confirm about heavy penetration of ISI into political affairs during the 2002 elections. But he said he did not do it on his own but on the directives issued by the government.

Asked who directed him from the government side and if there was somebody else, not President Musharraf, he said: “Obviously on the directives of President Musharraf.”

Asked if he then never felt that he was committing a crime by manipulating political business at the cost of public wishes, he said: “Who should I have told except myself. Could I have asked Musharraf about this? I was a serving officer and I did what I was told to do. I never felt this need during the service to question anyone senior to me,” he said and added that he could not defend his acts now.

“It was for this reason that I have never tried to preach others what I did not practice. But I am of the view that the ISI’s political cell should be closed for good by revoking executive orders issued in 1975,” he said.

Responding to a question regarding corruption cases that were used as pressure tactics on lawmakers, he said: “Yes! This tool was used, not only by the ISI. The NAB was also involved in this exercise.”

Former corps commander of Rawalpindi, Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani said majority of corps commanders had continued opposing Musharraf’s alliance with top leadership of the PML-Q.

“Not just in one meeting, we opposed his alignment with these corrupt politicians in many meetings but who cared. Now Musharraf has been disgraced everywhere, thanks to his political cronies.”

Authority & Responsibility - 15


Irtiza wrote:

CIA Versus Musharraf By ZAID HAMID Tuesday, 12 August 2008.

Article Link:

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/


It was President Musharraf who was most annoyed over PPP decision to weaken ISI. It was after this disagreement with the U.S. that it was decided in Washington that he must be removed and, suddenly, we find Mr. Zardari changing tone, demeanor and language to join hands with PML (N) to impeach the besieged President.
===============================================

Dear Sir,

I wonder as to how Mr Zaid Hamid would define US-Musharraf Relations mentioned below:

By the way right from 911 Musharraf's Military Regime shook hands with the worst kind of American Mercenaries known to the Human History.

"QUOTE"

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the judicial dispute is "something that we believe the Pakistanis themselves are going to have to sort out."

U.S. backs Pakistan judicial reform and mum on judges By Paul Eckert, Asia Correspondence Reuters Thursday, February 28, 2008; 4:00 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022802731.html


During his Senate hearing on Thursday, Mr. Negroponte said, “I think we would, as a general proposition, urge that the moderate political forces work together, and of course President Musharraf is still the president of his country, and we look forward to continuing to work well with him as well.”

U.S. Embrace of Musharraf Irks Pakistanis By DAVID ROHDE Published: February 29, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/asia/29pstan.html?ex=1204952400&en=58664dfa943e52b5&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/asia/29pstan.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=58664dfa943e52b5&ex=1204952400&emc=eta1

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The U.S. has a puzzle to crack in Pakistan.

The Bush administration wants to ensure military pressure is kept up on militants in the lawless tribal areas, but U.S. support for President Pervez Musharraf risks deepening anti-American sentiment among a public already fuming over Islamabad's role in the war on terror.

US Support for Musharraf Causes Anger By JASON STRAZIUSO The Associated Press Friday, February 29, 2008; 6:12 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022900700.html


DIRTY PAST OF THE FRIENDS OF PAKISTAN'S 'ILLEGAL' REGIME AS PER US NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE.

THE NEGROPONTE FILE

NEGROPONTE'S CHRON FILE FROM TENURE IN HONDURAS POSTED

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 151 - Part 1

Edited by Peter Kornbluh

April 12 , 2005

CLOSE TIES TO HONDURAN MILITARY LEADERS

The 392 cables and memos record Negroponte's daily, and even hourly, activities as the powerful Ambassador to Honduras during the contra war in the early 1980s. They include dozens of cables in which the Ambassador sought to undermine regional peace efforts such as the Contadora initiative that ultimately won Costa Rican president Oscar Arias a Nobel Prize, as well as multiple reports of meetings and conversations with Honduran military officers who were instrumental in providing logistical support and infrastructure for CIA covert operations in support of the contras against Nicaragua -"our special project" as Negroponte refers to the contra war in the cable traffic. Among the records are special back channel communications with then CIA director William Casey, including a recommendation to increase the number of arms being supplied to the leading contra force, the FDN in mid 1983, and advice on how to rewrite a Presidential finding on covert operations to overthrow the Sandinistas to make it more politically palatable to an increasingly uneasy U.S. Congress.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/index.htm


US Support for Musharraf Causes Anger By JASON STRAZIUSO The Associated Press Friday, February 29, 2008; 6:12 AM

The Bush administration wants to ensure military pressure is kept up on militants in the lawless tribal areas, but U.S. support for President Pervez Musharraf risks deepening anti-American sentiment among a public already fuming over Islamabad's role in the war on terror.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022900700.html


As per BBC News dated 27 February 2008

Speaking in Delhi, Mr Gates said the polls had been bad for Mr Musharraf. But Mr Gates said the US hoped to continue working with the man he described as the elected president of Pakistan.

US cautions Pakistan over Taleban

Last Updated: Wednesday, 27 February 2008, 13:29 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7266873.stm


THE COMPANY ILLEGAL PAKISTANI REGIME ENJOYS

The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On

Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides

Pentagon Nominee Robert Gates Among Many Prominent Figures Involved in the Scandal

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 210

Richard Cheney -

now the vice president, he played a prominent part as a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf. He later pointed to the committees' Minority Report as an important statement on the proper roles of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Robert M. Gates -

President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)

John Negroponte -

the career diplomat who worked quietly to boost the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America as ambassador to Honduras, he also participated in efforts to get the Honduran government to support the Contras after Congress banned direct U.S. aid to the rebels. Negroponte's profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm

Authority & Responsibility - 14


Satiricus wrote:

Although many people regard Musharraf as lesser evil than the most politicians in power, they think it was certainly a great blunder on the part of Musharraf to issue National Reconciliation Ordinance as the country is being taken over by the convicts and those accused of massive corruption and misrule. He should not have allowed the cases against the politicians to linger on for over 5 years. If by virtue of NRO, the guilty persons have been released let us hope and pray that sooner or later they would be brought to justice with or without divine intervention.

ns
=====================================================



Dear Sir,

Lets just assume that every politician is corrupt but what actions were taken against them by the several Military Regimes in Pakistan who while usurping power had declared [first speech by Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf while abragating the Constitution] that 'Corruption and Corrupt Politicians have plagued Pakistan'. Rather these very corrupt politicians become supporters of Martial Law Regimes. For example what action Musharraf took against the below mentioned political family rather they are now heading the King's Party [Mr. Musharraf's Q League and several othe breakaway factions of other political parties are also in Mr. Musharraf's Camp]. The funny thing is that before 12 Oct 1999 several such corrupt politicians were in every party and suddenly they were with Musharraf. Please tell me did Mr Musharraf created the National Accountability Bureau to hoodwink common Pakistanis or just to conduct accountability of Clerk and Despatch Riders?

Read

As white as driven snow By Ardeshir Cowasjee

03 November 2002 Sunday 27 Shaban 1423

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20021103.htm



Yesterday, it was announced to a patient nation that the Kingmaker Chaudhry had nominated as his party's candidate for primeministership an equally able man, Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali of the under populated, neglected, barren land mass that forms 43 per cent of the area of this country. But perhaps and hopefully all is not plain sailing. The Chaudhry and his fellow Chaudhry, Pervez Elahi, will have to face the charges levelled against them which warrant disqualification from the political scene in Writ Petition No.18463/2002, Mian Sajid Pervez, president, [of Imran Khan's] Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf Punjab versus Federation of Pakistan, Election Commission of Pakistan, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain [Respondent No.3], Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi [Respondent No.4], Returning Officer, NA105 Gujrat II and PP 110 Gujrat III, filed in the Lahore High Court in the second half of September, by Advocate Hamid Khan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

It has been cited that under Clause (o) of sub-Article 2 of Article 8D of the Conduct of General Elections Order 2002 pertaining to the disqualification of members of our assemblies, it is stipulated that a person stands disqualified if "he has obtained a loan for an amount of two million rupees or more, from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, which stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has had such loan written off."

Similarly, Representation of People Act 1976, Section 12(2)(c), provides that a member is not qualified to sit in our assemblies if he makes: "a declaration that no loan for an amount of two million rupees or more obtained from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, or any business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid, stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has got such loan written off" This makes it quite clear that any person who has obtained a loan of Rs 2 million or more from any bank and had it written off, stands disqualified from being a member of the national or provincial assemblies. The writ petition relates that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi obtained a loan in the name of the company of which they were both directors, Punjab Sugar Mills Limited of Mian Channu, from the National Bank of Pakistan. In 1999, Rs.37.987 million was written off, which fact is recorded in the annual report of the bank for that year. At the time, Shujaat was the federal minister of interior and Pervaiz was speaker of the Punjab Assembly. The two Chaudhrys obtained another loan from the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited for their Punjab Sugar Mills Limited and in 2000 a sum of Rs 22.792 million was written off, which fact is recorded in the annual report of the Bank for that year

In His Prime By Adnan Adil

http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsJul2004/newsbeat2jul.htm


A loyalist of the Pakistan army establishment, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain finally makes it to the much coveted post of Prime Minister.

July 2004

While Shujaat Hussain and his two brothers, Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain, an MNA, and Chaudhry Shafaat Hussain, district nazim of Gujarat, and a first cousin and brother-in-law, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, the present chief minister of the Punjab, are full-time politicians, his sons, along with the sons of Chaudhry Pervez Elahi run the family business.

Shujaat Hussain entered politics following the murder of his father and, in 1982, was made a member of General Zia-ul-Haq's hand-picked consultative body, the Majlis-i-Shoora, and later elevated to the federal cabinet. In 1985, he won the non-party elections as a member of the National Assembly from Gujarat, a seat that he has won four times since, and lost only once, to the PPP's Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar in 1993. He was elected senator on losing the National Assembly election.

Shujaat Hussain is a shrewd politician; though politically inarticulate and a poor orator, he is a master in the art of wheeling and dealing. He has always remained on the side of the country's military establishment and ditched his civilian bosses and close friends and colleagues, whenever it came to a choice between the two. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain has served as federal minister with two former prime ministers, Mohammed Khan Junejo and Nawaz Sharif. He left both of them when the military proceeded against them. When General Zia removed Mohammed Khan Junejo, Shujaat Hussain joined the faction of the Pakistan Muslim League that was supporting General Zia-ul-Haq. When Nawaz Sharif fell from grace, the Chaudhrys went with General Musharraf.

In 1986, the Chaudhrys had challenged the then chief minister of the Punjab, Nawaz Sharif, through a no-confidence motion but failed to oust him. Nawaz Sharif subsequently made up with them, but he always saw them as a potential threat and kept them at arm's length. He did not allow their influence to spread and saw to it that Pervez Elahi never became chief minister of the Punjab during his tenure as prime minister of the country. When Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted on October 12, 1999, in a military coup by President General Musharraf, Hussain waited in the wings for a while to part ways but immediately distanced himself from Sharif, using one pretext or the other. Sharif became so distrustful of him that he appointed his wife, Kulsoom Nawaz, to look after the party's affairs and she, in fact, ran Nawaz's campaign for his release more effectively than party leaders like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.

What about the Scandals of Corruption by those element who are now supporting Mr Musharraf against the Impeachment.

‘Big fish’ allowed to escape net: Tariq: Ex-chief of SECP issues ‘white paper’ by Sher Baz Khan

http://www.dawn.com/2006/07/08/top2.htm


ISLAMABAD, July 7: Former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) Dr Tariq Hassan on Friday issued a ‘white paper’ on the March 2005 stock exchange crash, and claimed he had reached close to a ‘few big fish” when he was shown the door.

“The last orders on my table, when I was removed from my post on Eid day, was the appointment of forensic investigators to probe the few big brokers held responsible by the task force (for the crash),” Mr Hassan told reporters after presenting the so-called white paper to the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance and Revenue. The committee at its meeting, presided over by Chaudhry Anwar Ali Cheema, ordered the appointment of another team of forensic investigators to probe reports about involvement of 11 high-profile brokers in the Karachi Stock Exchange
crash.

The team will be presenting its report to the committee within 10-12 weeks after which those found responsible might be brought to book. Their names are also likely to be put on the Exit Control List.

“They (the government) have no other option but to continue with the reforms I had initiated but was not allowed to complete. The moral pressure on them is building and compelling them to get hold of the big fish. Otherwise, I fear form will prevail over substance,” said Mr Hassan while commenting on the committee’s decision to proceed with the probe.

MNAs from the ruling party and opposition quoted Mr Hassan as saying in the meeting that he would never retreat from his stand that he had not been allowed to go ahead with reforms. The former SECP chairman asked how could he get hold of those powerful brokers who, he alleged, had access to the prime minister.

During the nine-hour meeting, Dr Hassan faced tough questions from the Minister of State for Finance Omar Ayub Khan and Prime Minister’s Adviser Dr Salman Shah, apparently because he had mentioned their names in letters he had sent to the prime minister and accused them of pressurising him not to replace Carry-over Transaction with margin financing, one of the main causes of the crash. When Dr Hassan was busy answering journalists’ questions after the meeting in the committee room, a government official approached him and asked him to leave as Dr Salman Shah, Omar Ayub and incumbent SECP chairman Raziur Rehman were to hold a news conference.

“Dear, you people have invited me to this meeting,” said Dr Hassan to the official while leaving the room.

Ruling party MNA Kashmala Tariq told reporters that there was a threat to Dr Hassan’s life because he had taken on some powerful people. For the first 50 minutes of the meeting, Dr Hassan was not allowed to speak and it was only after a protest by opposition MNAs that he was given an opportunity to do so.

Starting his presentation, Dr Hassan quoted from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings.” SECP chairman Raziur Rehman was asked by Dr Hassan and Ms Tariq why had the reform process had been stopped and why task force’s recommendations had not been implemented, which resulted in another market crash. Insiders told Dawn that at one point Mr Omar Ayub said he had taken strong exception to Ms Tariq’s remarks when she said “our prime minister also intervenes in our stock market”. Ms Tariq was replying to Mr Omar Ayub’s comment that even the US president had intervened in the stock market on various occasions. Former KSE chairman Yasin Lakhani and Aqeel Karim Dhedi (AKD) were present on the occasion.

OPPOSITION’S DEMAND: Members of the committee from the opposition, Mujeeb Pirzada, Mohammad Laeeque Khan, Qurban Ali Shah, Khalid Iqbal Memon and Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, at a separate press conference later, said the government was responsible also for the market crash of May 2006. They said the fresh crash took place because no action had been taken against the influential brokers involved in the March 2005 crash.

The members demanded resignation of the prime minister for his alleged intervention in the stock market affairs and links with some brokers, first stopping the SECP chairman from taking action against manipulators and then sending him home when he initiated reforms. “During Shaukat Aziz’s era, first as the finance minister and later as the prime minister, the country’s stock market has crashed in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and May 2006. Therefore, we demand resignation of the prime minister,” Mr Pirzada said.

They said the committee had decided that the stock market reform process must go on.

Stock market scams State minister, adviser accused of links to brokers Rauf Klasra

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=1842


ISLAMABAD: Former chairman of Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) Tariq Hassan alleged during an NA body meeting on finance and revenue on Friday that the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Finance, Salman Shah and Minister of State Omar Ayub Khan, had links to powerful brokers, who were involved in the multibillion rupees scams in the stock exchanges.

The meeting was presided over by MNA Anwar Cheema and attended by Salman Shah, Omar Ayub Khan, top officials of the SECP and MNAs Farid Ahmed Piracha, Fouzia Wahab, Qurban Ali Shah, Mehreen Anwar Raja, Ali Asjad Mali, Robina Saadat. Powerful stockbrokers also attended the meeting. Sources said the situation became tense when Salman Shah and Tariq Hassan allegedly exchanged hot words, when the latter told the meeting how he was pressurised by these top guns to help the brokers mint money and finally he was ousted from the office.

However, both Shah and Omar denied the charges, terming it merely Hassan’s ‘personal opinion’ as there was no authentic proof available against them. Hassan did not mince his words when he said that he was under pressure even from Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to keep close contacts with top guns of stock markets, who were actually involved in the whole scam.

However, when contacted by The News to verify what he said in the committee meeting regarding the links of Salman Shah and Omar Ayub and pressure of the prime minister to keep links with powerful brokers, Tariq Hssain refused to take phone call by saying he was “busy”. One of the participants of the meeting claimed that a list of 21 key brokers, involved in the stock exchange market, was also presented before the committee members. The highlight of the meeting was the presentation of Tariq Hassan on market scams, which hit the stock market first in March 2005 and recently in May 2006. The SECP report on the scam was also discussed in the committee.

Hassan claimed that the prime minister’s adviser on finance and Omar Ayub had direct contacts with the brokers, who were actually behind the stock market crises. He also told the committee members that both the top dignitaries of the government continuously interfered in the affairs of the commission that led to erosion of his authority and that of the commission. Hassan was also quoted as telling the committee that whenever he tried to take any action against the brokers, for their foul practices, they contacted the prime minister through these two top officials. He further said his decisions were never implemented. The sources claimed that he also submitted a list of 21 brokers involved in the scam.

According to the list, following companies and brokers were involved in the scam. Those found involved in wash trading were Moosati Securities, Aqeel Karim Dady, World Wide security, AHKD Security, Munir Ahmed Kanani, Motiwala Security, and Anas Kaparia. Brokers found involved in Badla financing were Arif Habib Securities, Aqeel Karim Dady, Atlas Investment, DGM Securities Limited, Bank Investment, KASB Securities, Datsun Limited, First Capital Equity, Motiwala Securities, ME Securities, Jahangir Siddique, Akbar Ali Qasim, M Hasnain and First Equity.

The sources said that Hassan also claimed these brokers were giving money to the people on interest through Badla financing and later increased the prices of shares and resorted to wash trading. “This actually led to market crash,” Hassan was quoted as telling the committee members. The sources said that Salman Shah showed his resentment over these stunning allegations, saying it was opinion of a person and that too without any solid proof. He claimed that even the Bombay market was rocked by similar kind of crises, so it was not something extraordinary.

Meanwhile, addressing a press conference after the meeting, opposition members Sardar Ayaz Sadik (PML-N), Mujeeb Pirzada, Laeeq Khan (MMA), Khalid Iqbal Memon (PPPP) and Qurban Ali Shah (PPPP) demanded resignation of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. They said the prime minister was directly involved in the March-2005 market crash. They alleged that the prime minister is directly involved in the market crash and is protecting the brokers named in the task force report prepared by the four-member committee headed by a retired justice of Supreme Court. The members also said the PM should resign and allow the National Assembly to elect a new leader of the House because he has failed to protect the rights of the people.


499 high and mighty in for trouble

SC move against misuse of farmhouses to affect rulers, generals, bureaucrats, businessmen By Rauf Klasra

The News dated October 10, 2007

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=10566


ISLAMABAD: President General Pervez Musahrraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz might be deprived of their two multi-million rupee farmhouses, which they bought in the suburbs of Islamabad in 2003, after the Chief Justice of Pakistan directed the CDA bosses on Monday to cancel allotment of all those farms which were being used for residential purposes. The farms were initially alloted at highly subsidised rates for growing vegetables and poultry farming.

The CJ’s sweeping directive to the CDA might affect the ownership of 499 top guns, who were allotted a total of 2,500 acres of land worth billions of rupees in the suburbs of Islamabad at throwaway prices in the name of meeting the rising demand for vegetables, orchards and poultry in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. It has now been brought to the notice of the court that instead of cultivating vegetables and orchards and keeping poultry, huge luxury palaces have been constructed on the plots by powerful people.

A top CDA official has claimed that the farmhouses of both the president and the prime minister also fall in the category of those farms which were not being used for the purpose for which they were originally allotted by the CDA. The CDA has quietly informed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry that President General Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz have purchased two plots measuring 5 acres and 2.5 acres respectively worth millions of rupees, which were actually meant for boosting production of poultry and vegetables in the suburbs of Islamabad. The CJ has been informed that a total of 25,000 acres of precious land worth billions of rupees in the suburbs of Islamabad was given to 499 tops guns of the country including powerful generals, bureaucrats, businessmen and officials of the secret agencies at highly subsidised rates in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s under the CDA’s policy to meet the rising demands of certain commodities in the twin cities. However, a majority of those who were allotted these plots, mostly army officers and bureaucrats, later sold them at much higher prices after the CDA brought about changes in its by-laws to accommodate some powerful people to sell these farms. Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz too have purchased farmlands from the actual owners.

The so-far secret list submitted in the court of CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry by the CDA through official letter No EMA.IN/2007 in the suo moto case No 10 of 2007 on the issue of increased prices of daily commodities, reveals that a total of 499 top guns of Pakistan were allotted these farms. But instead of producing poultry and vegetables on these big farms, they simply constructed huge palatial mansions and recreational facilities.

The names of Musharraf, son of Musharrafuddin, owner of plot No C-1/B Park Road Chak Shahzad and Shaukat Aziz, son of Sh Abdul Aziz, owner of plot No C-16, A-1, Chak Shahzad, have been submitted to the court in response to the Supreme Court orders dated July 23 and August 9. Now in the court of CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who is heading a bench to hear a case against the causes of price hike, both Musharraf and Aziz might face charges of violating the terms and conditions of CDA policy for which these plots were actually allotted.

The list containing the names of Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz in addition to 497 other high-ups was submitted before the SC by Raja Abdul Ghafoor, advocate, on record on behalf of the CDA on September 3. This correspondent has managed to get the original copy of allotment order of these farms which reveals the names of all those who exploited their power to get them at throwaway prices, but later either sold them in the open market or did not use the land for for the purpose they had got it in the first place.

Apart from the president and prime minister, Justice Dr Javed Iqbal, the son of national poet Allama Iqbal is also included in the list submitted before the Supreme Court. Justice Javed Iqbal has got one plot of 2.72 acres in 1999 in the name of launching a poultry and vegetable business from one Nazir Mohammad Sheikh. The ISI had also got certain agro farms allotted in its name.

One Mian Riazuddin was given 26.5 acres of land while another, Ghulam Abbas, was given 18 acres. The list also shows the names of former chairman Senate Wasim Sajjad, and many top military generals and other high-ranking officials and bureaucrats.

Others persons who got these plots include DG ISI Maj Gen Asad Nawaz Khan, Dr Anwar Aziz, Brig Sajawal Khan, Justice Javed Iqbal, Afzal Wali, Riffat Jamil Nishtar, Mohammad Shujaat Azeem (the brother of information minister Tariq Azim), PPPP leader Naheed Khan, Azra Wasim Sajjad, Dr Abdul Riaz, Major General S. Ali Hamid, Ms Zeba Fasih Bokhari, Sadia Hafeez Pirzada and others. This correspondent tried to get the version of the Prime Minister House but the press secretary to the PM, Shabir Anwar, did not receive the telephone calls. Likewise, Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani did not receive the calls.

According to the list, General Pervez Musharraf purchased a five-acre plot from the daughter-in-law of Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar in 2003. Ms Riffat Jamil, wife of Jameel Nishtar had bought this farm to launch her own poultry and vegetable business from a certain Hasan Qureshi who was actually allotted this plot by the CDA in 1979. General Musharraf got this plot on November 4, 2003 from Ms Riffat Nishtar. The price of the plot is not mentioned. Likewise, Shaukat Aziz bought a plot measuring 2.6 acres to launch his own poultry and vegetable business on March 14, 2003 from Murtaza Siddiqi, son of Haji M. Yousaf. This gentleman was given the plot at a throwaway price in 1985.

Following is the list of persons who were allotted these farms but sold them later:

Mehfooz Ellahi, Haji Zerwar Khan, Syed Abdul Rehman, Rana Allah Dad Khan, Maj Mohamamd Akram Khan, Ms Nasreen Akthar, Fazal Subhan Khan, DG ISI, Rasheed Ahmad Khan, Agha Aleem Ahmad, Ms Samani Rizwan, Ms Rukaya Hussain, Akthar Moeed, Mr Mohammad Ilyas, Haji Fazalur Rehman Wazir, Hasan Akthar, Ms Rodaba Shuja, Malik Mohammad Akram, Mirza Iktidar Hussain, Mr Ijaz Shafi, Riazuddin, Mr Rashid, Kh Kamran, Ms Bushara Akram, Mehboob Ellahi, Sh Azizur Rehman, Hassan Hamid, Mr Hassan Hameed, Mohammad Sarwar Khan, Ms Rani Ghulam, Mohammad Sharif, Mr Mohammad Ilyas, Mohammad Aslam Jan, Sohail Shakil, Irshad Ahmed, Anwar Saeed, Mahboobdul Haq, Ahmad Ghazal Usmani, Dr Ambreen Ahmed, Ahmed Bilal Bajwa, Javed Latif Kahloon, Suleman Corporation, Mr Sardar Zulifkar, Ms Salma Kafeel Qureshi, Sardar Zafrullah Khan, Hamayun Qureshi, Kalimur Rehman, Comd (retd.) Mehdi, S. Nasimuddin, Ch. Hashmat, Nabeeb, Miss Farhah Hussein, Ms Osma and Mustafa, Dr Anwar Aziz, Mehar Zulifkar Ali Babu, Haji Mohammad Gulbahar and others, Ms Gulzar, Ch. Abdur Rehman, Mehmood Ahmed, Col Aleemuddin, Abdul Rehman, Ms Nayyab, Brig Sajawal Khan Malik, Arshad Butt, M Ilyas, Kamal Raza, Prof Afaq Ali Khan, Mrs Shama Usman, Mian Nabeen Sami, Ms Maliha Hussain, Sher Ali Jafar, Tariq Hussain, Mohammad Hanif, Ambreen Haroon, Nisar Ahmed, Mohammad Imran Khan, Azra Sarfraz Sajad, Afaf Zohra Qadeer, Rehmanullah, Ali Haider Bilgrami, Ms Feroz Tehseen Naqvi, Major Mohammad Ali Qureshi, Usman Ahmed Janjua, Mohammad Rafiq Minhas, Mohammad Nisar, Nighat Rehman, Zohra Nasim, Shaban Askari, Rubina Qazilbash, Naz Aziz Ahmed, Maryam Ali, Muhammad Amjad, Gulrazi Shahid, Shamim Ara, Bilal Hussain, Mohammad Ahmed, Shahzad Ahmed, Mohammad Zareen Malik, Iqbal Hussain, Shireen Ansari, Ms Rifat Mani, Bashir Husain, Iram Rahim, Shamim Mehmood, Pervez Mahmood Sheikh, Afzal Wali, Haleema Haroon, Abdul Hafeez, Masood Khan, Shafiunisa, Nazar Hussain Shah, Faisal Abbas, Ms Fatima Hameed, Zamah Khawar Ansari, Zaeenul Haq, Ghazala Nargis, Ishra Iftikar, Waseem Akthar, Tajammul Hussain, Miss Sameen Siddiqu, Miss Nadia Raza Shah, Syed Mushtaq Abbas, Ch. Abdul Hameed, Begum Zohra Jalali, Mohammad Awais, Nisar Ahmed, Moin Samad Khan, Zulakaha Khanum, Shamim Khan, Ms Rohi Toyaka Ch, Ms Yamina Mittah, Abbas Hassan, Rahim Qureshi, Mudassaar Ijaz, Mohammad Irfan Ali, Ms Iffat Riaz, Ms Shaughta Ikram, Rashid Mehmood Randahwa, Shamoon
Zakriya, Shamoom Zakriya, Ali Mohammad, Fazal Din, Allah Yar, Sajjad Hussain, Mohammad Banaras Sh, Amjad Ali, Ms Allah Rakhi, Mohamamd Banara, Sh Mohammad Zuliqar, Sakhwat Hussain, Mohammad Shafiq, Irfan Hameed Khali, Haroon Khan, Ali Ejaz Hussain, Javed Iftikar, Ghulam Dewan Mustafa Khalid, Summar Atta Saeed, Usman Atta Saeed, Ch. Mohammad Saeed Bhatti, Imran, Malik Sohrab, Mohammad Javed Bhatti, Mohammad Shujat Azim, Pakistan Services Limited Islamabad, Dilshad Najamuddin, Saleem Murad, Danish Qaiser, Ijaz Hussain Awan, Asad Hayat Khan, Faisal Muneer, Khalid Bilal Usmani, Nisar Nawaz Jaffar, Mohamamd Neroze Khan, Mohammad Imran Khan, Mohammad Moinuddin Khan, Chan Mahboob, Ms Tayyab Khalil, Mohammad Amin, Mehrban Khan, Mohammad Yasin, Ch. Fazal Dad, Sher Alam Masud, Ms Sakina, Jalal Din, Iftikhar Hussain, Mohammad Younis, Mohammad Ilyas, Ali Akbar, Lal Khan, Naheed Khan, Ghulam Rasool, Rukayya Khanum Soomro, Ms Ghulam Zareen, Iabql Hussain, Ms Nusrat Sultana, Abdul Hameed, Lt Col Mubarak Ahmad Malik, Ch. Mohammad Ilyas, Nazakat Ali, Khuda Bukhsh, Ch. Tariq Fazal, Ch. Ghulam Mohammad, Jahanzeb Khan Orakzai, Mohammad Afzal, Mohammad Hussain Shah, Ms Tasneem Syed Khan, Mrs Azra Sajjad, Saeed, Ghulam Abbas, Brig Fazal, Qamar Zamand, Fazal Dad, Mr Ramla Mahmood, Mehboob and Ismail, Farhan Sadiq, Begum Almas Hamid, Amjad Imran, Tanveer Aftab, Mohammad Jamil, Ch. Mohammad Ramzan Tahir, Syed Tasleem Wasti, Mrs Zeba Fasih Bukhari, Mr Naseer Ahmed, Naseer Ahmed, Sh. Abdul Majeed, Sultan Ahmed, Mian Farooq Jamal Shah, Zareen Gul, Jamshed Hanif, Shahida Nasir, Said Hafeez Pirzada, Aziz Ahmed, Mumtazur Rehman, Abdul Sattar, Raja Riaz Ahmed, Mohammad Saeed, Faisal Mumtaz, Ms Mahrukh Kamran, Azam Jan, Mohamamd Akhlaq Memon, Amir Shafi Moguhl, Aslam Khaliq, Zafar Ali Kiani, Walayat Khan, Malik Mehboob Hussain, Muhammad Ala Raza Malik, Malik Tabaruk Hussain, Mohammad Ilyas, Malik Taj Khan, Ms Khurshaid Begum, Nazakat Hussain, Haji Mohammad Zaman, Haji Mohammad Zaman, Mirza Khan and Abdul Khalid, Mohammad Fayyaz, Zahoorudin, Tariq Mahmood, Nuzhat Iqbal, Anees Hider, Mohammad Riaz, Rahanaz Hussain, Firdus Ahmed, Asif Mahmood, Tufail Anwar Abbasi, Ajmal Fakar, Ms Ghazala Nagras, Abdul Bari, Raja Javed Ashraf, Syed Akbar Alam, Syed Mohammad Hashmi, Ikramul Haq, Nadeed Bashir, MA Lodhi, Liaqat Ali, Hassan Raza, Ms Bushra Khushnood, Ms Tricon Developers, Syed Najmul Hasan Kazmi, Sharjeel Adnan, Ms Zahida Saeed, Tanveer Ilyas, Tricon Developers, Mohammad Ashraf, Shahazad Waseem, Khanzada, Tricon Developers, Mehtab Khan, Abdul Razaq, Iqbal Ghani, Foudndar and others, Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Haji Javed Islam, Mohammad Yousaf, Malik Laiqur Rehman, Gulzar Ahmed, Sh Abdul Razak, Mohammad Ashraf,
Irum Zaman, Malik Tabarak Hussain, Ms Yasmin Fatima, Ms Mohammadi Begum, Dr Shoaib Shafi, Dr Rizwan Ch. Raja Mohammad Hanif Abbasi, Rajaz Shamshad Hussain, Raja Sajjad Hussain, Raja Sajjad Hussain, Mohammad Naeem Paracha, Jhangir Hussain, Syed Ali Zafar, Aftab Ahmed, Col Bashir Ali, Malik Mehrab, Aziz Begum, Fazal din, Balqees Begum, Syed Fayyaz, Faisal Aba Ali, Abdul Aziz, Nisar Ahmed, Iftikhar Rashid, Naeedm Bashir, Khasif Noorani, Ms Raeesa Rehman, Ghulsher Khan, Saeeda Mahmood, Ms Durre Najaf, Mahreen Gul, Ms Ch. Changez Akthar, Ms Nawaz Khan, Malik Saleem Raza, Nusrat Maqbll, Mohammad Ibraim, Amair Naeem Butt, Ms Hahajehab, Ch. Allah Din Bhatti, Rashid Aktar Chaughtai, Mohammad Sadiq Bhatti, Haji Abdul Razak, Ms Mehrraj Ent, Ms Mohammad Youqub Sughra, Khalilur Rehman, Mohammad Younis, Saifur Rehman, Mian Mohammad Afzal, Haji Gul Ahmed, Mian Abdul Rasheed, Naeem Ghani, Khalid Aziz, Mohammad Irshad, Shafaul Haq, Rashid Khan, Rajaz Mohammad Arshad, Muhammad Ishfaq, Faqir Syed Munir, Brig Abdul Ahed, Dr Fazal Karim, Sabir Khan, Ms Shamim Afridi, Legal heirs of Bajwa, Ms Majabeen Javed, Mureed Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa Khan, Ahmed Ghazal Usmani, Syed Athar Ali Shad, Ijza Shafi Gilani, Iqbal Jan, Raja Jamshed Afandi, Maj General M Ashraf Khan, Mohammad Gulzar, Ms Usman Nawaz Khokar, Mohammad Zaheer, Civil Aviation Authority, Ms Zaibun Nisa, Mian Mohammad Yaqoob, Major Majeed Khan, Syed Agha Faiz Mehdi, Raja Adlat Khan, Mohammad Khan, Tariq Saleem, Attiqur Rehman, Zafar Rahim, Naeedudin Mian, Sh Mohammad Latif, SA Qadir Gilani, Dr Mohamamd Sadiq, Muzaffar Khanum, Khawaja Farrukh Majeed, Zahid Hussain, Aziz Sultan, Mohammad Ilyas Khan, Zahoor Ahmed Khan, Asim Nazeer, Zahoor Ahmed Khan, Qasim Hayat, Malik Ghulam Abbas, Adnan Bashir, Ms Rahat Khabum, Irfanul Haq, Khurshed Hayat, Aamara Hayat, Ch. Mohamamd Iqbal, Abdul Rauf Khan, Col Farooq Rashid, Brig Mohammad Hussain, Brig Sadiq Qureshi, Major General Farhat Ali Burki, Maj General Attaur Rehman, Bilala Hussain, Raza Rehman, Anwar Aziz, Hamid Khursheed, Ms Surrya Akthar, Government of Punjab.

Talking to The News, Chairman CDA Kamran Lashari confirmed that the chief justice had issued a directive to the Authority to launch a survey of the farmhouses and determine whether or not they were being used for the purpose for which they were actually allotted.He said in light of the CJ’s directive, a survey was being launched and its report would be submitted to the court. When asked about the names of General Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz in the list of those who owned those farmhouses, which were not being used for the purpose they were allotted for, Lashari said no doubt the list contains names of many important people. But he said he had not read all those names but would follow the directions of the court and soon the report would be submitted to the chief justice.

Shaukat Aziz & Co. Plan Selling PIA’s Roosevelt Hotel in NYC for Half Its Value By Shaista Sindhu

Latest Privatization Scandal Exposes Regime Claims of Ending Corruption Parliament Tries to Block Sale Issue No 53, September 14, 2007

http://www.new-pakistan.com/issue%2053/Shaukat%20Aziz%20and%20Co%20Plan%20Selling.html


The Musharraf regime is keen to sell off the Roosevelt Hotel in New York’s midtown Manhattan district despite sustained opposition from the property’s owner, Pakistan International Airlines Investments Limited (PIAIL). Offers of as much as one billion dollars from Manhattan-based real estate developers, seeking to build a skyscraper on the valuable commercial property in the center of town, are being ignored because the government’s financial advisers — a consortium led by Citibank, “Prime Minister” Shaukat Aziz’s former employers — have put the Roosevelt’s value at about $400 million.

An article in Dawn by Khaleeq Kiani recently offered a hint of scandal in the Roosevelt Hotel matter. According to the article, the Citibank-led consortium was appointed as financial advisers for the Roosevelt Hotel sale even though Deutsche Bank’s competing offer for the advisory assignment was the lowest bid. The Citibank-led consortium will be paid at least $4.1 million for advisory services, indicating Shaukat Aziz’s keenness to maintain ties with his former (and possibly future) employer. If The Roosevelt is sold, the Citibank Consortium will be paid an additional one per cent of the bid price. Banking sources say Citibank may also enjoy an edge among lenders when the new buyer raises resources for the bid. The difference between the officially assessed value and the higher valuations floating around could end up in private accounts of those connected to the deal. The prospect of kickbacks, however, is being completely ignored by the so-called custodians of integrity in Pakistan who spent the 1990s spreading rumors of corruption in every business deal involving democratically elected politicians.

Dawn’s background interviews with those knowledgeable about the process suggest that Cushman & Wakefield, a firm that now shares the advisory contract with Citibank, had until recently offered about $400 million for Roosevelt Hotel on behalf of a third party. But soon after its appointment as one of the financial advisers, Cushman & Wakefield asked the original investor to take part in the bidding instead of making offers through C&W. “As in the Pakistan Steel Mills case, insiders question the Government’s push for an accelerated sale process while the board of directors of PIAIL, a PIA subsidiary that runs the Roosevelt, is reluctant to lose a dependable revenue-generating asset. PIAIL’s directors, including some close buddies of the prime minister, oppose the sale of Roosevelt Hotel and have proposed mechanisms including a takeover by Pakistani financial institutions or directly by the government. Given the hotel’s high value and financial health, they believe this option could give PIA the funds needed to replace its ageing fleet.

“The 20-storey Roosevelt Hotel, which has 1,013 rooms including 47 suites, was priced at $325 million in 1999 before being refurbished in 2003. Some real estate executives say the Roosevelt, which sits on a one-acre parcel bound by Madison and Vanderbilt Avenues between 45th and 46th Streets, could be demolished in the future to make way for a new skyscraper worth over $1.2 billion. It also has 15 tenants occupying some 20,000 square feet of retail space. “The Roosevelt was again in the spotlight earlier this month when a team led by PIA chairman Zafar A. Khan visited New York for a first-hand view of the asset. On his return, he echoed the recommendations of the PIAIL board and asked the federal government not to go ahead with an outright sale because the hotel had improved considerably after renovation. Insiders say that Salman Shah, the PM’s adviser on finance, shot down the idea during a meeting and told the PIA to not even think along those lines.

“When contacted, Salman Shah said the meeting in question related to the airline’s restructuring and the PIA chairman was asked to update the plan in six weeks. He said the decision to privatize Roosevelt Hotel had been taken by the cabinet and could not be undone. He said the sale was necessary in terms of finding funds for PIA’s new fleet. Asked as to why the request of the PIA board and management was not being considered, he said they should either run the airline or move into the hotel business.”

If Mr. Shah’s logic is applied in all cases, the Pakistan army should reform itself as a political party to move into the business of politics instead of straddling the dual arenas of national security and running the country. The PIAIL board of directors was recently told that assuming a bid price of $400 million, the net realizable proceeds to the PIA Corporation (PIAC) after deduction of taxes and liabilities would be only $122 million. In comparison, Roosevelt Hotel is expected to yield $7.57 million in profits this year, increasing to $22 million per year in 2017.

The sale of Roosevelt Hotel ran into snags in 2003 when the highest bidder accused a Privatization Commission task force -- led by current secretary finance Ahmad Waqar -- of non-transparency and background negotiations with lower bidders. The privatization of Roosevelt Hotel has been dogged by controversy. Since 1981, the government and the PIA board of directors have taken 15 contradictory decisions regarding the sale of the hotel.

The Loews Corporation had purchased Roosevelt Hotel for $55 million in 1979 from the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad, along with two other railroad hotels. Loews quickly resold the Roosevelt to Paul Milstein, a developer, for less than $30 million. Nine months later, Milstein leased the hotel to a joint venture of the PIA and Prince Faisal bin Khalid bin Abdel Aziz of Saudi Arabia for a rental price ranging from $2.7 million to $4 million a year.

The PIA and the Saudi prince bought the Roosevelt after a legal battle in 1999 with the Milstein family over a 20-year option to buy the hotel for $36.5 million. A landmark 2005 deal between the PIAC and Prince Faisal ended the joint ownership of three hotels under the management of the PIAIL and the assets were redistributed between the partners.

Under the deal, the PIAC got 99.1 per cent ownership of two hotels, namely the Roosevelt, New York, and the Scribe in Paris. In return, the PIA transferred a third hotel in Saudi Arabia, the Minhal Holiday Inn, Riyadh, to the Saudi prince in addition to $40 million.

Meanwhile, the proposed sale of PIA’s Roosevelt Hotel in New York was opposed by a majority of members of the Senate standing committee on defence, with several of them terming the controversial deal of the
profit-making unit reportedly at half its price a ‘national tragedy’.

The committee decided to convene another meeting on the deal allegedly being made despite opposition by the hotel’s owner -- the PIA Investments -- after seeking detailed information from the PIA board and the Privatization Commission.

Following severe criticism of the members, the Senate Standing Committee (SSCD) on Defence asked the Privatization Commission and the Ministry of Defence to halt the scheduled process of selling the New York-based Roosevelt Hotel owned by the National Flag Carrier, PIA, until the next meeting of the Standing Committee.


Shortcut & Co. Facing Serious Sleaze Allegations

Over the past year or more many Chundrigar Road–Wallas have been alleging Shortcut’s involvement in share market profiteering. Mostly they cited his burgeoning friendships with two of the biggest Stock Exchange operators as evidence of the ex-Citibanker’s alleged financial misdemeanors. Some even maintained that Shortcut’s pal ‘Mota’ acts as his middleman in Karachi.

These could have been dismissed as colourful Chundriar Road'side' gossip - just loud whispers and unproven allegations - but when the former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) openly joins in the fray the proverbial excrement has to hit the fan ( your Blogger's comment: Not that it will change anything!)

Today’s newspapers are filled with stories covering public statements made by Dr Tariq Hassan (former chairman SECP). These statements were made in Islamabad during and after a meeting of the National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance and Revenue which is investigating the US$ 13 billion crash in the stock market in March 2005.

http://politicalpakistan.blogspot.com/2006/07/shortcut-co-facing-serious-sleaze.html

Authority & Responsibility - 13

Syed Asif-ulhaq wrote:

Game Is Over For RAW, CIA & Their Collaborators In Zardari Govt. By SHIREEN MAZARI Friday, 8 August 2008.

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/

======================================================

Dear Asif Sahab,

Criticism and harsh comment are aimed at Born Again Pakistan First Type Shireen M Mazari [appointed as Director General Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) during a Pro American Military Regime of Pakistan i.e. 2002 - 2007]

I wonder what Ms Shireen M Mazari she was doing while in the Establishment if not reaping the benefits from the largees mentioned below. Where was the National Interest, National Conscience and Integrity. She must check her pay/salary cheque to ascertain from where the money came?

Where has US aid to Pakistan gone? Mariana Baabar

http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12077


ISLAMABAD: The billions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, without any accountability, has now been billed as a “tsunami of new funding”.

Washington’s Centre for Public Integrity, in its report, says that today human rights activists, critics of the Pakistani government and members of Congress want to know, where most of the money — totalling in the billions — coming through a Defence Department programme, subject to virtually no Congressional oversight, has disappeared to.

The Centre says that this is a major finding of more than a year of investigation by the Centre for Public Integrity’s International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). US military aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks includes almost $5 billion in coalition support funds, a programme controlled by the Defence Department to reimburse key allies in the global war on terror. Pentagon reports that the ICIJ obtained through the Freedom of Information Act requests show that Pakistan is the No 1 recipient of these funds — receiving more than 10 times the amount that went to the No 2 recipient, Poland — and that there is scant documentation of how the money was used.

“The American-supplied military arsenal has been used against Baloch nationalists,” Senator Baloch told ICIJ. He said he and others have gone to the State Department, “and the State Department says [the US has] given military hardware with no conditions.”

A former US official, previously based in Pakistan, acknowledged to the ICIJ that in Balochistan “the [Pakistani] army stepped in with a pretty heavy hand last year.”

U.S. Payments To Pakistan Face New Scrutiny Little Accounting for Costs To Support Ally's Troops By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 21, 2008; Page A01

Once a month, Pakistan's Defense Ministry delivers 15 to 20 pages of spreadsheets to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. They list costs for feeding, clothing, billeting and maintaining 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistani troops in the volatile tribal area along the Afghan border, in support of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

No receipts are attached.

In response, the Defense Department has disbursed about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year for the past six years, in one of the most generous U.S. military support programs worldwide. The U.S. aim has been to ensure that Pakistan remains the leading ally in combating extremism in South Asia.

But vague accounting, disputed expenses and suspicions about overbilling have recently made these payments to Pakistan highly controversial -- even within the U.S. government.

The poor showing in Monday's parliamentary election by the party of President Pervez Musharraf, whose government has overseen local disbursement of the money, may make Congress look closer at all U.S. financial assistance to the country. Questions have already been raised about where the money went and what the Bush administration got in return, given that pro-American sentiment in Pakistan is extremely low and al-Qaeda's presence is growing steadily stronger.

In perhaps the most disputed series of payments, Pakistan received about $80 million a month in 2006 and 2007 for military operations during cease-fires with pro-Taliban tribal elders along the border, including a 10-month truce in which troops returned to their barracks.

The Bush administration has acknowledged some problems, but still says that the program -- part of a costly military effort known as the Coalition Support Fund -- is worth every penny. "Yes, we may have overpaid, but it's still a good deal," said a senior administration official involved in Pakistan policy, noting that more than 1,000 Pakistani troops have been killed while assisting Operation Enduring Freedom.

"Padding? Sure. Let's be honest, we're talking about Pakistan, which has a legacy of corruption," added another U.S. official familiar with past U.S. payments. "But if they're billing us $5 billion and it's worth only $4 billion, the question is whether it's worth nickel-and-diming it if it's such a top national security objective. If it's in the ballpark, does the bigger picture call for continuing on with a process that does generate significant progress on the war on terror? They do get their hands on people we can't."

U.S. officials say the payments to Pakistan -- which over the past six years have totaled $5.7 billion -- were cheap compared with expenditures on Iraq, where the United States now spends at least $1 billion a week on military operations alone.

"My sense is that the Pakistani military would not be out on the border if not for the Coalition Support Funds. That's the baseline cost of getting them out on a mission that is really our mission," said Craig Cohen, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of a recent study on U.S.-Pakistan relations.

Yet the Bush administration has recently begun to scrutinize Pakistan's bills more closely. Washington delayed payment of about $78 million of $360 million for the March-June 2007 quarter now working its way through the reimbursement process. Pakistan will receive only $282 million later this month, U.S. officials said, with additional payment once it provides more detailed accounting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022002819.html?hpid=topnews

Authority & Responsibility - 12



Satiricus wrote:

Anwar Saeed's analysis sounds credible as he says that the likelihood is that the ISI’s modus operandi in Pakistan is pretty much the same as that of the CIA in the United States.

ns
=====================================
Bashir Syed wrote:

The ISI debacle By Anwar Syed

August 10, 2008 Sunday Sha’aban 7, 1429

http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/10/op.htm#2

====================================

Dear Sir,

Another analysis appeared in the same Daily Dawn! There is an old Commerce Rule that Authority and Responsibility goes together and there is also a saying that behind every deceit there is a crime.


Setting the record straight By Yousuf Nazar

August 10, 2008 Sunday Sha’aban 7, 1429

http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/10/ed.htm#5



THE PPP government made a faux pas in trying to bring the ISI under its control and it is probable that the move may have come under great pressure to do so after the recent bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul.

But let it be clear that the notion the ISI spends most of its time on external defence is false and that civilians should therefore not bother about it is an equally flawed argument. History does not support this view. It is also wrong to believe that the US administration’s reservations about rogue elements in the ISI are a recent or post-9/11 phenomenon.

When intelligence agencies are not accountable to the elected government and are not subject to checks and balances they can become a state within a state. The Shah of Iran’s Savak was notorious for its repression. The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was even suspected of carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the CIA was directly involved in the assassination of foreigners before it was forbidden to do so by an executive order issued by President Ford in February 1976.

Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence was formed in 1948 by the then deputy army chief of staff, Gen R. Cawthorne. Prior to the 1958 coup, the ISI reported directly to the army chief. After the imposition of martial law, the ISI began to report to President Ayub Khan. It was not Mr Bhutto who started the use of the ISI for domestic intelligence. It was under Gen Ayub Khan that the ISI became responsible for monitoring Pakistani politicians, especially those in what was then East Pakistan. Ayub expanded the ISI’s role and it was to protect Pakistan’s interests, which included the creation of a covert action division within the ISI to assist Islamic militants in north-east India, as well as to support the Sikh Home Rule Movement in the 1960s.

Altaf Gauhar, one of the most powerful bureaucrats to serve Ayub Khan, wrote a revealing piece about the nature of ISI operations in the daily Nation on Aug 18, 1997: “The president used to receive regular reports on the political situation in the country from the ISI and the MI. These reports in sealed envelopes marked ‘Eyes Only’ were usually handed over to the president by the C-in-C. On a few occasions the president gave me these reports and it seemed to me that the agencies were keeping the politicians, particularly the East Pakistanis, under close surveillance. I rarely found anything insightful in these reports. The DIB had direct access to the president and his weekly reports used to be fairly exhaustive. It was during the presidential election in l964 that the ISI and the MI became extremely active [emphasis added].”

According to Altaf Gauhar, the crisis of intelligence failure came during the 1965 war. Brig Riaz (then ISI chief) told Altaf Gauhar that he had contacts inside Occupied Kashmir and in other major Indian cities. “I will flood you with news. Don’t worry”. When the war started there was a complete blackout of news from all the intelligence agencies. When Gauhar got nothing out of the ISI for two days he went to Brig Riaz only to learn that all his contacts had gone underground.

The ISI played a key role in the Afghan war and worked closely with the CIA in what was its biggest covert operation since the Vietnam war. While much is made of its role, most Pakistani analysts have either ignored or not given due importance to the fact that oil prices collapsed in the 1980s and the Soviet Union became bankrupt.

Notwithstanding this aspect, by 1985 the tide of the war had shifted in favour of Moscow according to analysis produced that same year by Richard Clarke, who was the US deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence at the time. According to his memoirs, his boss told him: “Don’t just tell me we’re losing, Clarke, tell me what the [expletive deleted] to do about it.”

Secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger’s decision in 1986 to send Stinger missiles was crucial in turning the tide in favour of the Afghan fighters trained and backed by the ISI. By this time US aid had also been increased to $600m from $35m in 1982.

At the conclusion of the war, the CIA and the Americans abandoned the Afghans but the ISI continued to play a key role in Pakistan’s Afghan policy, including the training of the Taliban in Afghanistan. What complicated matters was the Taliban’s involvement with Osama bin Laden. The Taliban regime had provided sanctuary to bin Laden who was wanted by the US even before 9/11. President Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan in August 1998 to target what he described as one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. In his television address on Aug 20, 1998, Mr Clinton named “exiled Saudi Arabian dissident” Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. On the same day, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, told CNN and Reuters that “bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his companions.” Top Clinton administration officials suspected, even in 1998, that if “Pakistan’s ISI wanted to capture bin Laden or tell us where he was, they could have done so with little effort”, according to the Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton’s counter-terrorism chief.

The ISI’s name figured again in the aftermath of 9/11. Dawn published the following story on Oct 10, 2001.

“Director General of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced after … FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999. The FBI team, which had sought adequate inputs about various terrorists including Sheikh from the intelligence agencies, was working on the linkages between Sheikh and former ISI chief Gen Mahmud which are believed to have been substantiated, reports [the] PTI website. Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen Mahmud’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta, one of the lead terrorists in strikes at the World Trade Centre on Sept 11, it adds.”

While this news was disturbing to say the least, the objective fact remains that Gen Mahmud Ahmed, the ISI chief, was replaced barely a month after he had returned from Washington after spending about 10 days meeting top officials of the Bush administration.

The record speaks for itself. The ISI has played a key role in elections beginning with the 1965 presidential polls and in conducting Afghan policy and operations. We have hardly ever had free and fair elections and the Afghan crisis now threatens the very survival of Pakistan as it exists today.

Authority & Responsibility - 11


Khan Arif wrote:

For East Pakistan debacle the responsibility lies on ZAB and General Yahya who listened to people like Khar who said that anybody who goes to Dacca for NA, his legs would be broken by PPP. Had Yahya listened to Asghar Khan, there was chance of Pakistan remaining united as a confederation!

Arif N. Khan
============================================
Imran Majeed wrote:

bilkul i totally agree.....1971,
==============================================

Dear Sir,

If you talk of Politicians then be brave and realist and dont spare Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and that Racist Bigot Sir Syed for the following mess. They also made severe mistakes in the early years of Pakistan and so-called Interpreter and Commentator of Quran i.e. Deviant Racist Sir Syed made mistakes while discussing Bengalis as Inferior Race and that was much before partition.

September 15, 1947

Tamuddun Majlis (Cultural Society, an organization by scholars, writers and journalists oriented towards Islamic ideology) in a booklet titled State Language of Pakistan : Bengali or Urdu? demands Bengali as one of the state language of Pakistan.

The Secretary of the Majlis, at that time a Professor of Physics in Dhaka University, [Abul Kashem] was the first person to convene a literary meeting to discuss the State Language issue in the Fazlul Huq Muslim Hall, a student residence of Dhaka University.

Supporters and sympathizers soon afterwards formed a political party, the Khilafate-Rabbani Party with Abul Hasim as the Chairman. (Talukder Maniruzzaman)

November 1947

In Karachi, the representatives of East Bengal attending the Pakistan Educational Conference, called by the Minister of Education Fazlur Rahman, a Bengali, oppose Urdu as the only national language.

February 23, 1948 [Jinnah was alive]

Direndra Nath Dutta, a Bengali opposition member, moves a resolution in the first session of Pakistan's Constituent Assembly for recognizing Bengali as a state language along with Urdu and English. The resolution "... was opposed by Liakat Ali, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and other non-Bengali members in the Assembly. Regrettably, this was opposed by Khawaja Nazimuddin - hailing from the eastern wing - and a few other Bengali collaborators of the West Pakistanis in the Assembly. Later, D. N. Dutta came up with a few amendments to the original resolution, and
everytime these were opposed by the west Pakistanis and their Bengali stooges. The West Pakistanis were uncompromising to such a genuine demand of the majority Bengalis." (Rafiqul Islam)

"The demand for Bengali as one of the state language gathered the spontaneous support of the Bengali Civil Servants, academics, students, and various groups of middle class. Several members of the Provincial Assembly, including some ministers, were reportedly active in supporting the movement. By the end of February 1948, the controversy had spilled over on the streets. The East Pakistan Student League, founded in the first week of January by Mujibur Rahman, was in the forefront of the agitation." (-- Hasan Zaheer)

March 1948 (1st week) [Jinnah was alive]

A Committee of Action of the students of Dhaka University, representing all shades of opinion - leftists, rightists, and centrists - is set up with the objective of achieving national status of Bengali.

March 11, 1948 [Jinnah was alive]

Students demonstrating for Bangla as state language is baton-charged and a large number of students are arrested in Dhaka.

" The situation grew worse in the days that followed. The Quaid-i-Azam was due to visit Dhaka from 19 March. The provincial government became nervous and Nazimuddin under pressure of widespread agitation, the impending visit of the Governor-General, sought the help of Muhammad Ali Bogra to enter into negotiations with the Committee of Action. An agreement was signed by Nazimuddin with the Committee which, inter alia,
provided that

(1) the Provincial Assembly shall adopt a resolution for making Bengali the official language of East Pakistan and the medium of instruction at all stages of education;

and

(2) the Assembly by another resolution would recommend to the central government that Bengali should be made one of the state languages." (-- Hasan Zaheer)

March 21, 1948 [Jinnah was alive]

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, while on a visit to East Bengal, declares in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the "State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan."

"The remark evoked an angry protest from the Bengali youth who took it as an affront: their language Bangla (Bengali) was, after all, spoken by fifty-four percent of the population of Pakistan. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, then a university student, was among those who raised the protest slogan and was placed under detention. The Dacca University campus became the focal point for student meetings in support of the Bangla language." (--Siddiq Salik)

Jinnah meets the student representatives of Committee of Action to persuade them of the necessity of having one national language, but the students are not convinced.

"The discussion of Jinnah with the student representatives could not bear any fruit but blurred the difference between the student group led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his associates and the student group led by Shah Azizur Rahman. The National leadership resorted to repressive policies in order to crush the Bengali language and put its supporters behind bars." (-- Md. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan)

2nd Wave

January 26, 1952


The Basic Principles Committee of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan announces its recommendation that Urdu should be the only state language. In a public meting at Paltan Maidan, Dhaka, Prime Minister Nazimuddin declares that Urdu alone will be the state language of Pakistan. Both the developments spark off the second wave of language agitation in East Bengal.

January 28, 1952

The students of Dhaka University in a protest meeting call the Prime Minister and the Provincial Ministers as stooges of West Pakistan.

January 30, 1952

In a secret meeting called by the Awami League, which is attended by a number of communist front as well as other organizations, it is agreed that the language agitation can not be successfully carried by the students alone. To mobilize full political and student support, it is decided that the leadership of the movement should be assumed by the Awami League under Bhashani.

January 31, 1952

Bhashani presides over an all-party convention in Dhaka. The convention is attended by prominent leaders like Abul Hashim and Hamidul Haq Choudhury. A broad-based All-Party Committee of Action (APCA) is constituted with Kazi Golam Mahboob as Convener and Maulana Bhashani as Chairman, and with two representatives from the Awami League, Students League, Youth League, Khilafate-Rabbani Party, and the Dhaka University State Language Committee of Action.

February 3, 1952

Committee of Action holds a protest meeting in Dhaka against the move 'to dominate the majority province of East Bengal linguistically and culturally'. The provincial chief of Awami League, Maulana Bhashani addresses the meeting. On the suggestion of Abul Hashim it decides to hold a general strike on 21 February, when the East Bengal Assembly is due to meet for its budget session.

February 20, 1952

At 6 p.m. an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting processions and meetings in Dhaka City is promulgated. This order generated tension and resentment among the students.

February 21, 1952

A general strike is observed.

Noon - A meeting is held in the campus of Dhaka University. Students decide to defy the official ban imposed by Nurul Amin's administration and processions are taken out to stage a demonstration in front of the Provincial Assembly. Police starts lobbing tear gas shells to the students. Students retaliate by batting bricks. The ensuing riot spreads to the nearby campuses of the Medical and Engineering colleges.

4 p.m. -The police opens fire in front of the Medical College hostel. Five persons - Mohammad Salauddin, Abdul Jabbar, Abul Barkat, Rafiquddin Ahmed and Abdus Salam - are killed, the first three are students of Dhaka University.

"The news of the killing spread like wildfire throughout the city and people rushed in thousands towards the Medical College premises." (-- Talukder Maniruzzaman)

Inside the assembly, six opposition members press for the adjournment of the House and demand an inquiry into the incidents. But Chief Minister Nurul Amin urges the House to proceed with the planned agenda for the day. At this point all the opposition members of the Assembly walk out in protest.

February 22, 1952

Thousands of men and women throng the university, Medical College and Engineering College areas to offer prayers for the victims of the police firing. After prayers when they go for a procession, the police opens fire.

The police also fire on angry mob who burned the offices of a pro-government newspaper. Four persons are killed.

As the situation deteriorates, the government calls in the military to bring things under control. Bowing to the pressure, the Chief Minister Nurul Amin moves a motion recommending to the Constituent Assembly that Bengali should be one of the state language of Pakistan. The motion is passed unanimously.

"For the first time a number of Muslim members voted in favour of the amendments moved by the opposition, which so far had consisted of the Hindu Congress members only. The split in the Muslim League became formalized when some members demanded a separate bloc from the Speaker; the Awami (Muslim) League had attained the status of an opposition parliamentary party." (-- Hasan Zaheer)

February 23, 1952

A complete general strike is spontaneously observed, despite the resolution by the Provincial Assembly. The government again responds with repressive measures.

APCA decides to observe a general strike on February 25 to protest the government's actions.

The students of Medical College erect overnight a Shahid Minar (Martyr's Memorial) at the place where Barkat was shot to commemorate the supreme sacrifices of the students and general population. Shahid Minar later became the rallying symbol for the Bengalis.

February 24, 1952

The government gives full authority to the police and military to bring the situation in Dhaka back to normal within 48 hours.

"During these 48 hours the police arrested almost all the student and political leaders associated with the language movement." (-- Talukder Muniruzzaman)

February 25, 1952

The Dhaka University is closed sine die. "In the face of these repressive measures, the movement lost its momentum in Dhaka. But it spread widely throughout the districts ... In addition to demands for recognition of Bengali as one of state languages of Pakistan, students now began to call for the resignation of the 'bloody' Nurul Amin cabinet ... Nurul Amin claimed that the government "had saved the province from disaster and chaos" by its repressive measures. The students, however, argued that they had already "written the success story of the movement on the streets with their blood." In retrospect, whatever the merits of government and student actions, it is clear that the movement did sow the seeds of a secular-linguistic Bengali nationalism in east Bengal. Its immediate impact was to prepare the ground for the complete routing of the Muslim League in the 1954 elections by a United Front of opposition political parties, on a nationalistic planck of cultural, political and economic autonomy for East Bengal." (-- Talukder Maniruzzaman)

"The Language Movement added a new dimension to politics in Pakistan. It left deep impression on the minds of the younger generation of Bengalis and imbued them with the spirit of Bengali nationalism. The passion of Bengali nationalism which was aroused by the Language Movement shall kindle in the hearts of the Bengalis forever ... Perhaps very few people realised then that with the bloodshed in 1952 the new-born state of Pakistan had in fact started to bleed to death." (-- Rafiqul Islam)

Results

May 7, 1954

The Pakistan government recognizes Bangla as a state language.

Feb 26, 1956

The Constituent Assembly passes the first Constitution of Pakistan recognizing Bangla as a State Language.

March 23, 1956

The first Constitution of Pakistan comes into effect.

March 26, 1971

Bangladesh become an independent nation.

The Bengalis were despised as non martial by all West Pakistanis. However much later an interesting controversy developed in which the Punjabis and Hindustanis blamed each other for doing so! The Hindustanis blaming Aziz Ahmad etc and the Punjabis blaming many Hindustani ICS old foxes of the 1950s! There is no doubt that this exercise in Bengali degrading was neither totally or exclusively Punjabi led but a a true for all West Pakistanis business!

The foreign reader may note that Bengalis were despised as a non martial race from the British times. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan a Hindustani Muslim and an eminent Muslim leader of the North Indian Muslims in late 19th century made open fun of Bengalis in his various speeches, notably the one delivered at Lucknow in 1887. I.H Qureshi another prominent Hindustani Muslim and a post 1947 cabinet minister declared in a roundabout manner that the Bengalis were an inferior race. Ayub made various remarks implying that the Bengalis were an inferior race in his memoirs written in 1967.38

Selected Excerpts from “Pakistan Army Since 1965” re-drafted as an article exclusively for the “Defence Journal”. “The Pakistan Army Since 1965” is the second volume of the Two Volume history of Pakistan Army and covers Pakistan Army from 1965 till 2000.

Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC makes an interesting foray down memory lane.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/nov/pak-army.htm


Excerpts from various books related to 1971 by important players of that time

The series of assassinations in Former East Pakistan [now Bangladesh] was started from 1969 when a Shams Duaa-Haa, professor of Chemistry in Rajshahi University, was assassinated in daylight. Let me explain what the Al-Badar and Al-Shams were and are?

Al-Badar was and is militant wing of Jamait Islami and a paramilitary force formed in Bangladesh in 1971 by General Yahya INC. Al-Badar forget that what the real Jihad is ? And fight against the Muslims in Bangladesh, Bengalis use to call Al-Badar as "Butcher of Bangladesh." The Al Badar was assigned a variety of combat and non-combat tasks including taking part in the operations, spying against Bengali Intellectuals, interrogation, working as the guides for Tikka Khan and Niazi, assassination, detecting and killing Bengali intellectuals.

The force was composed of madrassah students-teachers, supporters of Muslim League and Jamait Islami. History tell us that killings which began on 25 March 1971 and sparked the Bangladesh Liberation War and also led to the deaths of at least 26,000 people as admitted by Pakistan on one hand (by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission) and 3,000,000 by Bangladesh on the other hand, (From 1972 to 1975 the first post-war prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, mentioned on several occasions that at least three million died).

Doctor Fazl Rabbi was an eye specialist; he was kidnapped by Al-Badar. Next day his body was found from a drainage line. His both eyes were vanished and there were marks of switchblade. “What should we think about such peccadilloes?”

Sources says, “accused as Butcher of Bangladesh I mean the ex-militants of Al-Badar are settled in UK and other European countries and they are appointed as cleric of mosques there. And I want to remind the readers that too, “Jamait Islami’s former leader Maulana Modudi had rejected the theory of Pakistan but since 1947, when Pakistan came into being, it is claimed by the leaders of Jamait Islami that they are playing leading role of toady.


December 16, 2007 [Daily Dawn Book Review]

Bittersweet memories Reviewed by Ayesha Azfar

GROWING up in a Pakistan bereft of its eastern wing, it would have been easy to discard the hazy memories of black paper being pasted on windows before nightfall or of ‘soldiers’ knocking on the door once in a while to pick up provisions. In fact, over the years, these recollections were reinforced by the conversations of courteous white-haired men, who ached longingly for the years before the 1971 debacle. As former civil servants, they would often talk about their postings in India, but it was their post-Partition stints in various parts of East Pakistan that were recalled by them with special affection.

It is fortunate that not all limited their reminiscences to verbal expressions. Like the late Dr Aftab Ahmad, some put pen to paper. After all, it must have been a form of personal catharsis for them, especially where East Pakistan was concerned. For having lived through the Pakistan movement and imbibed its revolutionary zeal, Partition was the fulfilment of a dream, and many among this set of venerable old men gave their best to the new country — only to see politicians and military rulers obstruct the smooth running of the administrative machinery. The frustration and sadness that resulted in the loss of the eastern wing remained with them for the rest of their lives and many died disappointed men.

But in Beyond the Vision, a compilation of articles (printed mainly in this newspaper) and papers presented internationally, in addition to a chapter on his stay in Dhaka never before published, Dr Aftab Ahmad’s reflections betray no rancour or bitterness. They are simple and forthright. Any lessons to be drawn from the East Pakistan tragedy are not propounded by him. They emerge on their own, especially in comparison to the frail state of Pakistan today. What no doubt makes his unbroken flow of memories and ideas quite remarkable are his standing as a literary scholar and his interactions with other men of letters, both in the country and outside.

Perhaps it was partly the same scholarship and depth of understanding that enabled him to sympathise with the plight of the East Pakistanis, to appreciate them as a people belonging to a vibrant culture, and as a nation, united by the bonds of language and tradition, and distinct from West Pakistanis in many ways.

It is unfortunate that when a new country is born on the basis of one identity, be it ethnic, religious or some other, there is a propensity to trample on other identities and make these subservient to the unbending rules of a statehood that frowns upon cultural diversity. It is even more tragic when the rulers are a set of men with tunnel vision, with no sense to note the numerical strength of the ones they are alienating or to be alarmed by the absence of geographical contiguity between two parts of political territory until it is too late.

Gen Ayub’s disaffection with the Bengalis was no secret and Dr Aftab Ahmad puts this in a personal perspective in his opening chapter that describes his meeting with the president who wanted him to take up the post of joint secretary at the information ministry in Dhaka. Ayub Khan, while complaining about the Bengalis’ ingratitude, showed ‘a streak of reproach bordering on contempt — the kind of contempt one has for an inferior people.’ That such an observation came from a head of state, as Dr Aftab Ahmad writes, is ‘upsetting’ to say the least.

But there were plenty in officialdom to follow Ayub Khan’s cue, even in East Pakistan. Among them was Governor Monem Khan whose idiosyncrasies give a light touch to the description of otherwise troubled times. Nevertheless, while he has dwelled on the weakness of some leaders (and defended others like Bhutto, to whom, he says, the phrase ‘udhar tum, idhar ham’ has been erroneously attributed), Dr Aftab Ahmad has criticised the tendency to name ‘individual scapegoats for our collective failures as responsible citizens…’ He has blamed civil society, especially its intellectual elite, for not being aware of the happenings in East Pakistan and also for thinking of Bengalis as a ‘trouble-making’ people — perhaps, a feature of society that holds true even today with reference to other minorities.

In the present circumstances, it would be useful to reflect on Dr Aftab Ahmad’s view that ‘what we regard as a national tragedy was for them the successful culmination of their war of independence’. Today, even after losing half the country, there is still no attempt to understand the difference in perceptions.

Finally, the point raised by Dr Aftab Ahmad: ‘was Bangladesh a logical outcome’? This collection of articles seeks to answer the question. Although written as separate essays, their direction is one, and supported by deep insights, personal experiences and the relevant historical background they give the reader a definitive answer.

EXCERPT: Remembrance of things past

The work is a memoir with details of the people and events that led to the creation of Bangladesh.

Departure from Karachi

It was a lovely winter afternoon in Karachi, with a deep blue sky and bright sunshine when we took off. As we were air borne, I started thinking about my scanty and limited knowledge of East Pakistan and the people of that wing. I knew a couple of officers of my service but did not know them well enough. They were rather reserved and mostly kept to themselves. I had visited Dhaka only once, back in 1960, to attend a PEN conference of writers to which I was invited through the courtesy of Prof Ali Ashraf of the Karachi University?s English Department, whom I came to know when I was posted in Karachi. The conference was presided over by Prof Shahid Suhrawardy, elder brother of H. S. Suhrawardy, one of Pakistan?s Prime Ministers in the ?50s. The only two persons I knew from among the participants of the conference were Begum Shaista Ikramullah and Mr G. Allana, both of whom, like myself, had been invited from Karachi. The rest of the participants were all Bengali writers and intellectuals from East Pakistan. The moving spirit of the conference was Ali Ashraf?s brother Ali Ahsan, Professor of Bengali at the Dhaka University.

The conference was held in the fall of 1960, two years after Ayub Khan?s Martial Law. Ali Ahsan had taken good care that the papers presented at the conference were mostly non-controversial, almost conformist. But this was different from the tone and tenor of the discussions that took place in the conference. In the papers presented by Munir Chaudhary of the Bengali Department of Dhaka University, there were some very positive and candid remarks about the writers? social responsibility. These remarks were indeed a breath of fresh air in the otherwise rather stilted atmosphere of the conference. I was quite impressed by them, so during the tea break I engaged Munir Chaudhary and his brother Kabir Chaudhary who was a Professor of English at a Government college in some other city, in conversation. Munir promptly invited me to tea the next evening at his University residence. There I met a few more Bengali writers and University teachers. They talked informally and more freely. I could see what the Bengali intellectuals thought of Ayub Khan's Martial Law and how it had dashed their hopes of the February 1959 General Elections under the 1956 Constitution, agreed upon between the East and West Pakistan leaders. They argued that it was an East Pakistani leader Maulvi Tamizzuddin Khan, who filed a case against the abrogation of the 1956 constitution and that it was a Punjabi Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice M. Munir, who turned it down and gave a verdict in favour of martial law. There was in their remarks an easily discernible sense of bitterness, frustration and alienation from the West Pakistani power elite.

Actually I was to see more of this sense of frustration and alienation at the Finance Services Academy itself, where we had an equal number of West Pakistani and East Pakistani probationers. It was to be seen in a much sharper focus during the September 1965 war. The Academy was located at Walton in the Lahore Cantonment, an area very close to the border and the scene of action. As soon as the war started, the West Pakistani probationers left the hostel and went home whereas all the East Pakistanis had to stay on at the Academy premises; they had no choice.

My wife was still in Karachi, so I left my official residence on the campus and moved into a room in the hostel to live with the East Pakistani probationers. They were all in an extreme state of nervous tension, completely cut off from their homes with no news from their families. They remained glued to their transistor sets listening to Radio Pakistan, to All India Radio and particularly to the BBC to find out how the war was progressing. Then they would exchange notes with me and it was during this period, with the constant sound of artillery shelling during the day and tracer bombs during the night, that I came to know what their feelings were vis-୶is West Pakistanis and how they looked at things in general and at the Indo-Pak war in particular. They heaved a sigh of relief when the war ended and a cease-fire was announced.

After a few days the West Pakistani probationers came back and normality returned to the Academy, but I could then see a divergence of attitudes between West Pakistani and East Pakistani probationers in the class discussions where controversial topics did somehow crop up. They were all young men fresh from the universities, and had not yet acquired the bureaucratic habit of reticence and reserve. They did not mind saying what they felt. I remember one morning when I was going to lecture on the administrative structure in the country with reference to the constitutional provisions, Tanvir Murshed, a probationer from East Pakistan stood up and said: ?Sir this constitution begins with the declaration: ?I General Muhammad Ayub Khan hereby give this constitution to the people of Pakistan?. Sir, does any constitution in any other country of the world start with such a declaration?? Nasim Waqar, a probationer from West Pakistan, who was a law graduate, joined him and called it a one man constitution made to perpetuate himself in power. I listened to them for a while because I did not want to give them the impression that they could not have their say and then closed the subject with the remark: ?The circumstance under which this constitution was promulgated are well-known but they do not form part of our course here?.

I could then see a divergence of attitudes between West Pakistani and East Pakistani probationers in the class discussions where controversial topics did somehow crop up.

Immediately after the war a rather unpleasant incident occurred. The classes were over and the probationers were in the dining hall having their lunch. I was sitting in my office when the head bearer came and informed me that there had been a scuffle between two probationers. A West Pakistani probationer, a big hefty young man had pounced upon a rather small built East Pakistani after an argument at the dining table. The other probationers from both sides intervened and they separated them. Soon after, some of the probationers from both the wings came to report the incident to me. What had happened was that an East Pakistani accounts service probationer had expressed his satisfaction over the end of the war and the cease-fire decision to which a West Pakistani custom service probationer took exception, a heated argument followed which led to the West Pakistani pouncing upon the East Pakistani probationer. I then callzzed the West Pakistani probationer involved in the scuffle and asked him what had happened. His narration of the incident was not any different. However, the cause of his provocation and fury was that he came from Jhelum district in the Punjab and many of his family members and friends had been killed in the war, he had therefore a burning desire for revenge against the enemy and the cease-fire for him was an act of cowardice. I tried to calm him and expressed my sympathies to him, but told him there was no reason for him to pounce on someone who had a different point of view.

I then called the East Pakistani probationer and heard his story. I explained to him the frayed nerves of the West Pakistani probationer because many of his relatives and friends had been killed in the war. Finally the matter was amicably settled and both persons involved shook hands with each other. The incident by itself was a minor one but it did show the acute difference of perception of an educated West Pakistani and an educated East Pakistani on national affairs.

These were recollections of the past that came to my mind but how the future unfolds itself was also now my concern. I would be engaged in a job that was normally reserved for a CSP or an information service officer. I belonged to neither of these cadres. I did not know the language or the land and knew little about the people. The world I was entering was going to be another world where I would be a stranger and an outsider in more than one sense. My foremost problem therefore would be acceptability by the people I work for and work with. It was to them that I had to show my mettle. I was engrossed in these thoughts all through the flight across the subcontinent. The weather remained fine and the Boeing flew like a bird with no turbulence of any kind. When we were nearing Dhaka, I could see the sun setting in a slightly cloudy horizon presenting a view of magnificent colours. By the time we got down it was dark at the airport and in the city.

* * * * *

Diversity cannot be undone

The reference to the decision of the Hindu leaders of West Bengal at the time of partition to join India, in the last observation of Kamruddin Ahmed quoted from his book A Social History of Bengal (P.IX, Introduction), earlier, requires an explanation. In February 1947 when the division of Bengal became a real possibility under the Indian partition plan, Abul Hashim a leader of the Bengal Muslim League, secretly discussed with Sarat Chandra Bose, a Bengali Congress leader, plans for a united and sovereign Bengal. In May, H.S. Suhrawardy, an eminent Bengali leader of the All India Muslim League and Abul Hashim did indeed work out an agreement with the willing Congress leaders in this regard. The agreement, however, was subject to the approval of the high commands of the Muslim League and the Congress, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the Muslim League, reportedly gave his blessing to the agreement. The Congress leaders, Gandhi, Nehru and Patel and the Hindus in general were all opposed to the idea and nothing came of it.

Now the question is why did eminent Bengali Muslim leaders want an independent united Bengal and why did Jinnah give his blessings to the idea? The answer appears to be that in an independent united Bengal, Muslims would have been in a majority, though not very large. The point made by Hasan Zaheer (The Separation of East Pakistan) is well taken that for Bengali Muslim leaders.

Pakistan meant achieving state power to redress the injustices inflicted by Hindu dominance since the advent of the British, more than one and a half century earlier. As regards the Bengali language and culture, the Muslims had no problem with Hindus. They could share them and did not have to go to northern India for their cultural inspiration.

What was indeed the crux of the matter and a basic element in the cultural divide between West and East Pakistan. West Pakistan comprising Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sindh and Balochistan were part of northern India and received their cultural inspiration from their respective regional heritages. They also imbibed the central tradition of Muslim India ? a tradition developed in the United Province and Delhi, which now form part of the Indian Union, but which had been the seat of Muslim power in the subcontinent for centuries. The Urdu language is perhaps the most significant and most cherished heritage of the Muslims of India. It had developed as their main cultural language over and above the other regional languages. It is for this reason that the founding fathers wanted Urdu to be the only national language of Pakistan.

I tried to calm him and expressed my sympathies to him, but told him there was no reason for him to pounce on someone who had a different point of view.

The Urdu-Bengali controversy was only one aspect, perhaps the most important aspect, of the cultural divide. The other aspect related to the difference of attitudes between the people of the two wings towards music and dancing. In East Pakistan, people of all classes, high and low, loved these fine arts and considered them as a part of their culture. It was quite common and normal for womenfolk to sing and dance in mixed private parties and at public functions. There was no stigma attached to it nor was it considered un-Islamic. I was told by Ms Rokeya Rahman Kabeer, a former professor of history and now an eminent social worker of Bangladesh, that two of Maulvi Tamizzuddin Khan?s daughters took part in dance-play in early 1950, when Maulvi Tamizzuddin Khan was the President of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, having succeeded the Quaid-i-Azam in this position in 1948. He was a deeply religious man and prominent political leader of Muslim Bengal. In the mid and later ?60s, Firdousi Rahman and Shahnaz Begum, two well-known singers of East Pakistan, were educated girls from highly respectable families.

People in West Pakistan on the other hand, did and still do not like or allow their womenfolk to sing or dance even in mixed, private parties, leave alone public functions or on radio and television. It was considered infradig by the social elite and un-Islamic by the religious and conservative sections of society. Generally, it was taken as a sign of Hindu influence to cultivate and promote music and dancing. There was, as such, a strong prejudice amongst West Pakistanis against these fine arts which sometimes reflected itself in government policies and became a source of unnecessary irritation and resentment among East Pakistanis. For instance, Tagore songs were banned on the governmentmedia, radio and television, not realising that Bengali poetry without Tagore is like Urdu poetry without Iqbal.

I may perhaps illustrate the point further by relating an incident in which I was personally involved. It was February 1969 and the movement against Ayub Khan?s rule was in full swing. I was at that time serving in Dhaka as Joint Secretary, in-charge of the Branch Secretariat of the Central Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Suddenly the issue of the Tagore songs along with the issue of the bindia came in the forefront. I might perhaps explain that bindia is a mark, usually of crimson colour, worn commonly by Hindu women on their forehead. A certain class of modern women in East Pakistan also wore it as part of their makeup, I was told they had started doing so in greater numbers as a protest against the government policy of not allowing women to wear it while performing at public functions organised by government agencies or in television programmes because it was considered a Hindu custom. As the Bengali Language Day grew closer, there was a demand by the powerful student organisations that the day should be observed officially on the radio and television and the ban on Tagore songs and bindia should be lifted. I started receiving threatening messages from the student leaders that if the demand was not conceded, they would, burn the radio and television stations and take the members of the staff as hostages. The agitation could not be brought under control and the government had to concede the demand. So on February 21, 1969, the Bengali Language Day was officially observed on the East Pakistan radio and television, with Firdousi Rahman and Shahnaz Begum singing Tagore songs and wearing bindia on their foreheads. Whether they wore it normally or not, I do not know. But they did so on that particular day to celebrate the victory of the student community over the government.

This in substance is the story of the cultural divide and its impact on the politics of Pakistan between the years 1947-1971. The lesson it underscores is that regional ethnicity and multicultural traditions are distinctive features of today?s world. In federal structure linguistic and cultural diversity of the regions cannot be steamrolled in the vain hope of creating a unified culture. It has to be respected and accepted along with political and economic aspirations of the region. Things came to a boiling point in Pakistan because people had been denied the right to run their own affairs. During the period under review, the country remained first under the military rule of Ayub Khan and then of Yahya Khan for 13 years. One sometimes tends to speculate, that if parliamentary democracy had had the opportunity to debate and discuss controversial issues in a spirit of give and take, things would have been different, and Pakistan could have perhaps avoided the traumatic experience of a violent breakup. Or is it the fate of human beings to learn only after the events? As Kierkegard has said: ?Life can only be understood backwards, but it has to be lived forwards.?

Dr Aftab Ahmed served as Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information in Dhaka from 1968 to 1970 and was a keen observer of events in East Pakistan before and during the 1971 war.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/071216/books1.htm


Sources

1- Hasan Zaheer, The Separation of East Pakistan - The Rise and Realization of Bengali Muslim Nationalism, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 1994

2- Talukder Maniruzzaman, The Bangladesh Revolution and its Aftermath, Bangladesh Books International Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1980

3- Siddiq Salik, Witness to Surrender, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 1977

4- Rafiqul Islam, A Tale of Millions, Ananna, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 3rd edition, 1986

5- Md. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Emergence of Bangladesh and Role of Awami League, Vikas Publishing House, Delhi, India, 1982