Monday, November 28, 2011

Nawaz Sharif, MEMOGATE & Case of Treason.

ISLAMABAD: The commission tasked with investigating the US raid in Abbottabad in which Al-qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed has summoned former ambassador Husain Haqqani on December 14, Geo News reported. The meeting of the commission will be chaired by Justice (retired) Javed Iqbal. According to the spokesperson for the commission, the statement of PML-N leader Khawaja Asif will also be recorded during the meeting. Sources add the decision to summon Haqqani was on the request of Khawaja Asif and there would be no need to call former army officials. --- SLAMABAD: A petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) which sought a probe into the memogate scandal was admitted by the Supreme Court on Monday. Express 24/7 correspondent Masror Hausen reported that the Registrar Office of the apex court accepted the petition after scrutiny. A cause-list is expected to be drawn by the end of this week, after which a date will be scheduled for a hearing. In his petition, Nawaz requested that the court summon the respondents, including President Asif Ali Zardari, Haqqani, Mansoor Ijaz, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha, and demand an explanation. During last week’s rally in Faisalabad, the party leader had said: “If there is not an impartial inquiry into this event with the satisfaction of the people of this country, we will definitely take it up in the Supreme Court,” Sharif had said. The memogate scandal began when Admiral Mike Mullen confirmed the existence of a controversial memo, allegedly sent by President Zardari via a trusted source. Former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani resigned after being involved in the controversy. REFERENCE: Abbottabad Commission summons Haqqani Memogate inquiry: Supreme Court admits PML-N petition Published: November 28, 2011

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry ILLEGALLY Favours Nawaz Sharif

Nawaz Shareef didn't Walk through Security Gates in Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: Former Director-General of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Tariq Khosa has refused to head a one-man commission to investigate the memo scandal, DawnNews reported on Saturday. The commission was set up by the Supreme Court. Khosa, who has also served as inspector general of Balochistan police, is a brother of Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Punjab Chief Secretary Nasir Khosa. Earlier, former law minister Babar Awan had questioned Khosa’s nomination at a press conference by saying that he was a brother of the Punjab chief secretary and a judge of the Supreme Court. But those who worked with Khosa called him an ‘upright’ man and a ‘clean’ government officer. The scandal erupted when US citizen of Pakistani origin, Mansoor Ijaz, accused Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, of masterminding an alleged memo sent to a senior US military official asking for help to rein in the Pakistani military after the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in May. Haqqani denied the allegation and resigned from his position of ambassador in the wake of the controversy. REFERENCES: Tariq Khosa refuses to head commission on memogate December 3, 2011 •One-man commission named •PPP’s angry reaction •President, COAS, ISI chief to explain position: SC orders memogate inquiry, tells Haqqani not to go abroad December 2, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011, Moharram alharam 02,1433 A.H. Updated at: 1915

Lekin - 18th november 2011 part 3
Would Mr. Nawaz Sharif & Loudmouth PML - N Leaders explain the below mentioned "Treason Against The Country & Pakistan Army"


Lekin - 18th november 2011 part 4
What about this Treason by Mian Nawaz Sharif and his Party i.e. PML - Nawaz

LONDON: Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear missiles against India during the Kargil war, a new book has claimed, citing a conversation between US President Bill Clinton and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif eight years back. "When President Clinton met Sharif at Blair House (in July 1999), Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was? Did he know, for example that his military was preparing to use nuclear missiles?" the book "Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy" says. Answering Clinton's query, Sharif shook his head implying he was unaware of his military's moves, investigative journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark have claimed in their 586-page book. Warning Sharif, the President said he had a statement ready for release that would pin all the blame for Kargil on Pakistan if the Prime Minister refused to pull his forces back. Clinton further questioned Sharif on whether the Pakistani leader could be trusted on anything. The US President reminded Sharif that despite his promise to help bring Osama bin Laden to justice, the ISI had continued to work with bin Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorism and the Americans knew that. The Americans were unsure as to who was really in control in Islamabad, the authors said, as confusion prevailed over whether Sharif was in reality pushed into a war by General Pervez Musharraf, or he attempted to diminish his role in the crisis. After his meeting with Clinton, Sharif briefly left the room to seek advice. When he returned, "he was getting exhausted. He denied that he had ordered the preparation of their missile force, said he was against war but was worried for his life in Pakistan", the book said, quoting Bruce Riedel, who was at the National Security Council. "There was a break in the middle of the day: Clinton lying down on the sofa at Blair House while Sharif went to his hotel room for a nap. "When they reconvened, Clinton placed the prepared statement on the table. Sharif left the room again to read it to his advisers and then returned finally ready to order a volte-face and call for his troops to withdraw back to the line of control", Riedel said. "The mood changed in a nanosecond," he recalled. "Clinton told Sharif that they had tested their personal relationship hard that day but they had reached the right ending." Sharif posed for photographs with Clinton at the White House before returning to Dulles airport. "His mood was glum," said Riedel. "He was not looking forward to his trip home. The PM knew he had done the right thing for Pakistan and the world, but he was not sure his army would see it that way." Sharif pulled back the troops. But two months later his brother Shahbaz Sharif turned up in Washington, the book said. Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, recalled meeting him at the Willard Hotel: "We were hoping to see what new thinking there might be in engaging India. But after lunch, Shahbaz took me off to a corner table and confided that his brother was under intense pressure." A few days earlier, while attending the funeral of his father-in-law, Nawaz Sharif had been warned by Pakistan's Attorney General that he was about to be unseated in a military coup. REFERENCE: Pak was preparing to use nuke missiles during Kargil war: Book Published: Sunday, Oct 28, 2007, 10:23 IST 

Lekin - 18th november 2011 part 5

Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and some other party members were in favour of Pervaiz Musharaf because Musharaf has an ugly face and so he would not want to come on TV. And if a person do not want to come on TV then he will not impose Martial Law. And Nawaz Sharif went with the 2nd choice. Jang Oct 2010 Hamid Mir –

ISLAMABAD: General Anthony Zinni, former Commander in Chief of the US Central Command, has disclosed that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif ordered the withdrawal of troops from Kargil following a US offer of a meeting with President Clinton as a face saving to the Pakistani leader. Initially reluctant to order the withdrawal before his meeting with President Clinton, General Zinni writes that after I insisted, he (Nawaz Sharif) finally came round and he ordered the withdrawal. The meeting with President Clinton was subsequently set up for July 4, Zinni discloses, writing in his book "Battle Ready", says a press release. Gen Zinni’s account belies the claim by PML-N that Nawaz Sharif did not order the withdrawal of troops from Kargil. Recounting his meetings with Pakistani leaders in the last days of June 1999, Gen Zinni says that the problem for the Pakistani leader was the apparent national loss of face. "Backing down and pulling back to the Line of Control looked like political suicide. We needed to come up with a face saving way out of this mess. What we were able to offer was a meeting with President Clinton which would end the isolation that had long been the state of affairs between our two countries, but we would announce the meeting only after a withdrawal of force," says Gen Zinni. He writes that General Pervez Musharraf, the then Chief of Army Staff who learnt of this situation, encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear out General Zinni. Referring to the Sharif govt as freely elected but outrageously corrupt, Gen Zinni says that "the military found itself between a rock and a hard place. But there was no way to change the situation according to the normal democratic rules." Gen Zinni writes that "Sharif set in motion his own downfall by trying to fire Gen Musharraf, while Musharraf was out of the country and to put the Chief of Intelligence in his place. He had originally given Musharraf the job under the misperception that Musharraf would be easy to control. He had not reckoned on the General’s integrity. Writing of his experiences in dealing with General Musharraf, Gen Zinni says that the two of them connected quickly and easily. He describes President Musharraf as bright, sincere and personable, a fervent nationalist who nevertheless leaned towards the West. He was as appalled as Gen Karamat, the previous Army Chief, over the ever worsening corruption within the civilian govt. Referring to his meetings with Gen Musharraf, Gen Zinni calls it a great meeting despite the chill cast by our sanctions. As I was leaving, we both agreed to stay in close touch (we exchanged our home-telephone numbers). Our friendship would later prove to be enormously valuable to both our countries. REFERENCE: Nawaz ordered withdrawal from Kargil: Gen Zinni (The News International Link is Dead)

WASHINGTON, June 3: It was President Pervez Musharraf who advised former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to listen to the US proposal for withdrawing troops from Kargil, says a former US general. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who headed the US Central Command from 1997 to 2000, was sent to Pakistan as a special presidential envoy during the Kargil crisis. In his book "Battle Ready", which was published in the United States this week, Gen. Zinni dispels the general impression that it was the civilian leadership in Pakistan that sought Washington's help for arranging a respectable withdrawal from Kargil. Instead, the former general says, Pakistan's civilian leadership was worried about a loss of face that the withdrawal could have caused and to allay their fears President Bill Clinton offered a plan that could have arranged a respectable withdrawal. But even at this stage, according to General Zinni, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his civilian colleagues appeared reluctant to endorse a withdrawal. That got Musharraf's attention, and he encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear me out," writes Gen. Zinni. Sharif was reluctant to withdraw before the meeting with Clinton was announced (again, his problem was maintaining face); but after I insisted, he finally came around and he ordered the withdrawal," he adds. "He set up a meeting with Clinton in July," says Gen. Zinni while explaining how Mr Sharif arrived in Washington for the 1999 meeting with President Clinton that took place on the American Independence Day, July 4. Explaining the background of the Kargil adventure, Gen. Zinni writes: "In May, Pakistani forces made a deep incursion into an area called Kargil, on the Indian side of the Line of Control. Though there was normally fighting near the Line of Control, the area for a long time has been quite stable. There would be probes and shooting during the good months of the year, but nothing ever changed much; and in wintertime, everybody would pull back down into the valleys, and the two sides would create 'no-man's-land'. As spring came, they would go back up into their positions. Every so often, somebody on one side would be a little late getting up to their spring positions, and the other side could grab an advantage of a kilometre or so. It was "Aha, I've gotcha!" on a tactical level. But it did not really change things." "This time, however, the Pakistanis waylaid the Indians and penetrated all the way to Kargil. This was such a deep, significant penetration that it wasn't tactical; it threatened Indian lines of communication and support up to Siachen glacier." "The Indians came back with a vengeance. There were exchanges of fire, there was a mobilization of forces, there were bombing attacks, and planes were shot down." "Then the two sides started to mobilize all their forces all along the line; and it was beginning to look like the opening moves of the larger war. It got alarming." "I was therefore directed by the (Clinton) administration to head a presidential mission to Pakistan to convince Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Gen. Musharraf to withdraw their forces from Kargil." "I met with the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on June 24 and 25 and put forth a simple rationale for withdrawing; 'If you don't pullback, you're going to bring war and nuclear annihilation down on your country. That's going to be very bad news for everybody.' Nobody actually quarrelled with this rationale." "The problem for Pakistani leadership was the apparent national loss of face. Backing down and pulling back to the Line of Control looked like political suicide. We needed to come up with a face-saving way out of this mess. What we were able to offer was a meeting with President Clinton, which would end the isolation that had long been the state of affairs between our two countries, but we would announce the meeting only after the withdrawal of forces." "That got Musharraf's attention; and he encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear me out." "Sharif was reluctant to withdraw before the meeting with Clinton was announced (again, his problem was maintaining face); but after I insisted, he finally came around and he ordered the withdrawal.""We setup a meeting with Clinton in July." REFERENCE: Zinni's book throws light on Kargil withdrawal By Anwar Iqbal 04 June 2004 Friday 15 Rabi-us-Saani 1425

Nukta-e-Nazar - 24 November 2011 - Pt 1 of 3

ISLAMABAD, June 22: The prime minister's adviser for information and culture, Mushahid Hussain Sayed, said that the Kansi affair was a sensitive one and cautioned against exploiting it for political motives. In a briefing on the arrest of Aimal Kansi, he told reporters that Pakistan's priorities were very clear. "We will not give protection to any person said to be engaged in terrorism since this can be only hurting the interests of Pakistan." The PM's adviser described Aimal Kansi's case as that of a fugitive wanted for a criminal act in a "friendly country". Mushahid made it clear that Kansi was wanted for the killing of two employees of the CIA in Washington in Jan 1993. Since then, he said, he was on the run as a fugitive from justice and he was said to have taken refuge in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. He said during the last four years, several raids were conducted to arrest Kansi but he had managed to escape. "Given this context, Pakistan had no responsibility either for his actions in the United States or for providing him any sort of protection against the law," he said. Mushahid Hussain said there was no question of Kansi being some sort of a hero. "He is simply a fugitive from justice, wanted for a crime that he is alleged to have committed in the United States." REFERENCE: Action taken to protect national interests Staff Correspondent Week Ending : 28 June 1997 Issue : 03/26 DAWN WIRE SERVICE Nearly 14 years after the then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had “pleased” the Clinton administration by allowing the extradition of Mir Aimal Kansi, one of FBI’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of that time, a much tougher test awaits his younger sibling Shahbaz Sharif who finds pressure mounting on him from Washington DC for the release of the recently arrested US official/diplomat Raymond Davis. While Premier Nawaz Sharif was calling shots in the country with a two-third majority in the parliament during his second stint in power (1997-99) when Aimal Kansi was arrested from the remote town of Dera Ghazi Khan, his brother Shahbaz Sharif was holding sway in the Punjab province during the same period. Now that Raymond Davis has been arrested for shooting two people dead in Lahore nearly one-and-a-half decade after Aimal Kansi’s arrest, Shahbaz Sharif is once again the Punjab chief minister. Incidentally, the shooting spree had occurred in Nawaz Sharif’s electoral constituency of Mozang, where the PML-N has never lost an election since 1988 at least. REFERENCE: Recalling extradition of Aimal Kansi By Sabir Shah Sunday, January 30, 2011

Federal agents paid $3.5 million to informants in Pakistan and Afghanistan to help catch Mir Aimal Kansi, who was arrested in Pakistan four years after shootings outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., left two dead, a report in Newsweek said. Another report, in Time, said President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright personally contacted Pakistani President Farooq Leghari to win approval for the June 15 operation that resulted in Kansi's arrest at a hotel in Pakistan. Kansi is being held without bail in Fairfax County. REFERENCE: Report: $3.5 Million Paid to Informants June 23, 1997|From Times Staff and Wire Reports, Virginia, Nov. 18: The local court which tried and sentenced Mir Aimal Kansi to death released the evidence in his case for the media and a cursory look establishes that the confession signed by Kansi was written by the FBI agents. The evidence, besides the confessional statement, included the AK-47 gun, pistols and ammunition used in the CIA killings, pictures of the crime scene, reports of the specialists and scanning tests done on Kansi and copies of applications made by Kansi to buy firearms and seek asylum in the US. Interestingly, the documents reveal that Kansi's signatures on the confessional statement were totally different from what he normally signed on the asylum application or the forms he filled to buy the gun and two pistols. The statement, signed by Kansi on board the aircraft while on way from Pakistan to the US, was written by an FBI agent, in capital letters on two small lined papers. It was written in pure legal language and said: "I, Aimal Khan Kasi, also known as Mir Aimal Kansi, freely and voluntarily provide this statement to SA Bradley J. Garrett and SA Sean Joyce of the FBI. No threats or promises have been made to me. I can read, write and have a master's degree in English. "Approximately two-three days prior to the shooting outside CIA headquarters in January 1993, I purchased a AK-47 rifle and approx 150 rounds of AK-47 ammo. I also purchased two pistols at this time. On Monday 1-25-93 I drove my Isuzu pick-up truck to the entrance road off of HW123 in Fairfax Co VA. I had with me the purchased AK-47 and several magazines of ammo. I parked my truck in the right lane of 2 left lanes that turn into CIA headquarters. I got out of my vehicle I started shooting into vehicles stopped at a red light. I shot approximately 10 rounds shooting 5 people. I aimed for the chest area of the people shot. I then returned to my truck & drove back to my apartment in Herndon, VA after stopping at a park approx. 1 mile from the shooting. The next day I returned to Pakistan. This statement is accurate and correct. Also several days before the shooting I decided to do the shooting at the CIA or the Israeli Embassy but decided to shoot at the CIA because it was easier because CIA officers are not armed."

X signed Aimal Kasi, 6-17-97

Witness: SA signed Bradley Garrett, FBI, 6-17-97

SA S. M. Joyce, FBI, 6/17/97

The signatures of Kansi on this statement read Aimal Kasi while in all other papers which he signed on his own free will, he has written Mir Aimal. The confession was admitted as evidence in the case, despite objections by the defence but later when the defence could have pointed out the discrepancies, they never mounted any defence for Kansi and concentrated only on the post-guilty phase to try to save him from death penalty, which they ultimately could not. REFERENCE: Kansi's signature on confession statement differs Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE eek Ending : 22 November 1997 Issue : 03/47, July 2: After a prolonged wait, the Senate finally reverberated with strong exposition from the opposition leadership on the debate on adjournment motion how the law of the land and fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution were violated in the arrest and extradition from Pakistani soil of Aimal Kansi without fulfilling the due course of law. Chairman Wasim Sajjad allowed the PPP to move adjournment motion on Wednesday on extradition of Aimal Kansi. The motion was moved by all the PPP Senators. The Chairman fixed half an hour for debate on the matter. Moving the motion, Senator Raza Rabbani made a forceful speech on the matter and said that the international conventions and treaties were not followed in toto in extradition of Kansi to the United States. He showed through the help of reported interview of Interior Minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain with Pakistani and international media that the government of Pakistan was not aware of the operation employed for the arrest of Kansi. He quoted the statement of interior minister who has stated that Kansi was caught somewhere from Afghanistan and was delivered by some people from there. He said that on the contrary the Taliban held that Kansi was not caught from Afghanistan. He stated that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain had repeatedly maintained that the government of Pakistan was not aware of the circumstances of the arrest of Kansi nor was the ministry of interior involved in the arrest of Kansi. Rabbani said that it was clear that the government of Pakistan did not receive any request for extradition of Kansi from Washington. He also referred to the statement issued by the foreign office showing that it was totally unaware of the arrest and extradition of Kansi. Rabbani concluded from the whole affair involving Kansi that (1) the government of Pakistan was not associated in any way in the kidnapping of Kansi from Shalimar Hotel in DG Khan as reported extensively by international and national media, (2) sensitive government agencies were not asked for the arrest of Aimal Kansi though arrest should have been made by Pakistan's state agencies (3) treaty of extradition if there was any should have been given effect, (4) the accused should have been produced before a magistrate, (5) the accused should have been allowed to move writ before the superior judiciary if he had so desired. Senator Rabbani summed up his party's case by taking up the position that the due process of law was not implemented in the arrest and extradition of Kansi and violating the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. He held that the government of Pakistan was not aware to the procedure of the arrest of Kansi and other points relating to why and where the violation of Constitution was committed. He posed the question as to who committed aberrations of the Constitution of Pakistan. He wanted the replies to the questions posed by him from the interior minister. The questions posed by Senator Rabbani were (1) From where was Kansi arrested and by whom ? (2) Was a formal request for the arrest made and on what ground was it granted? (3) Who gave permission for the arrest? If he was arrested by the government of Pakistan ? (4) Was the procedure laid down by the process of law followed?
Earlier Senator Rabbani had said that even four days after the arrest of Kansi, no official statement came. He said that on Pakistani soil, the law is to shield any Pakistani under the law. He emphasized that his party stands against all forms of terrorism. Speaking next Opposition Leader Aitzaz Ahsan made it abundantly clear that nobody supported or condoned terrorism. He said that what the opposition was concerned about was the question of the implementation of constitution and law of the land. He said that under the constitution and law every person arrested should be produced before the magistrate within 36 hours of his arrest. He said that the government had not denied reports published in Pakistani and international media that Aimal Kansi had been arrested from Pakistani soil that is Dera Ghazi Khan and all the processes of the law were required to be fulfilled in his arrest and subsequent extradition. He made a reference to Press reports according to which US Secretary of State Albright spoke to the President of Pakistan on the matter. While speaking on the issue, Aitzaz Ahsan narrated the case of the arrest of a well-known drug mafia man and the request of then American Ambassador to him for the arrest of the wanted man. He said that the US Ambassador wanted logistics support and he told the envoy that due process of the law will be followed in the matter. Aitzaz Ahsan said that all the processes of law were followed and the man was handed over to the Americans until his appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. He said that the Americans understood and appreciated the government's position. Later Senator Qaim Ali Shah also spoke on the issue saying that in the arrest and extradition of Aimal Kansi, the Constitution was violated. REFERENCE: Opposition asks govt. why Kansi was extradited DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 05 July 1997 Issue : 03/27

Nukta-e-Nazar - 24 November 2011 - Pt 2 of 3

Subverting any Elected government is Treason against the Country as per article 6 of 1973 constitution and Nawaz Sharif and his party should be indicted for their involvement in Mehran Bank Scandal

Intense U.S. pressure has forced Musharraf to resign from the army to keep his presidency, and he is soon to lift martial law. Still at issue is how free the election will be and whether Bhutto will take office with a large governing majority. When Musharraf still resisted Washington's demands last week that he end his state of emergency, I asked Bhutto how an election could be conducted under those conditions. Her message: "Elections under martial law cannot be free or fair." It remains an open question whether an election could still be rigged by Musharraf without martial law. He has appointed local electoral officials who will take orders. Twenty million names have disappeared from the national voters list, whose preparation was financed with U.S. aid. When this was discovered, the government said that anybody on the old list would be permitted to vote. But the new list is flawed, with millions of names repeated to permit multiple votes by individuals. All this attempts at least to minimize Bhutto's majority and force her into taking a coalition partner. Musharraf's efforts to keep Bhutto out have been orchestrated for two years by retired brigadier Ijaz Shah, who left Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) to become the president's chief of civilian intelligence. The ISI, a state within a state, is aligned against Bhutto and would be at the heart of any vote-rigging. REFERENCE: Rigging Pakistan's Election? By Robert D. Novak Monday, December 3, 2007

CNN: The Secret Bhutto File on Election Rigging in Pakistan

Courtesy: videocafeblog January 01, 2008 - CNN's report on the secret Bhutto file that accusses the Pakistani government of consipiring to rig the upcoming elections before her death.

Attorney General of Pakistan Malik Mohammad Qayyum Admits Rigging


Leave Nawaz Sharif(PAUSE)....I think Nawaz Sharif will not take part in the election (PAUSE).... If he does take part, he will be in trouble. If Benazir takes part she too will be in trouble(PAUSE)... They will massively rig to get their own people to win. If you can get a ticket from these guys, take it (PAUSE).... If Nawaz Sharif does not return himself, then Nawaz Sharif has some advantage. If he comes himself, even if after the elections rather than before, …..yes…. REFERENCE: Audio - “Pakistan Goes to the Polls” Qayyum ‘was aware of rigging plan’: HRW releases tape By Iftikhar A. Khan and Masood Haider February 16, 2008 Saturday Safar 08, 1429 Pakistan: Attorney General Aware of ‘Massive’ Election-Rigging Plans Audio Recording Calls Into Question Government’s Commitment to Fair Elections FEBRUARY 15, 2008

London-based Brad Adams, director Asia region-HRW, was asked by The News to comment on Malik Qayyum’s view that the release of the audio just two days before the elections was a conspiracy. Brad replied that his organisation had got this audio recording some three days back and as being an international NGO, it had first confirmed the voice signatures of Malik Qayyum and then tried its best to contact him for his version. Brad, however, refused to mention or give any hint regarding the source from which it had taken the audio. Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director of HRW, when asked by The News that whether his NGO had got this recording from some of its staff here in Pakistan or from some intelligence agency, said that he could not speak about the source. To a question that Pakistani government sees the release of the recording as a conspiracy, he said: “Its silly to talk like that, the government should feel sorry what it has planned for elections.” Malik Qayyum told The News that HRW did not take his version and that it did not know about the identification of the person to which he was talking, which automatically raised questions about the authenticity of the recording. REFERENCE: Malik Qayyum in new row over rigging By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani AG caught on tape again; denies HRW report Saturday, February 16, 2008

A general election was held in Pakistan on 18 February 2008, after being postponed from 8 January 2008. The original date was intended to elect members of the National Assembly of Pakistan, the lower house of the Majlis-e-Shoora (the nation’s parliament). This DAWN News TV Investigation Report was aired just before that election and features people who have affected past elections and Pakistan’s democratic process in many ways including General Ali Kuli Khan Khattak, General Hamid Gul, Maj (Retd) Masood Sharif Khan Khattak, General Roedad Khan, Air Marshall Asghar Khan, Brig Imtiaz Ahmed, Maj Aamir and more. One of the main topics is Midnight Jackals, an operation conducted by the Intelligence Bureau to thwart an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government of Benazir Bhutto. Other topics include the rigging of elections, involvement of the Pakistan Army in democracy and elections, intelligence agencies involvement in elections and democracy and more. REFERENCE: DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif – 6th January 2008


[NOTE: Hamid Gul admits that ISI political role was pre Bhutto DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif -- 6th January 2008]

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. REFERENCE: The man, who rigged 2002 polls, spills the beans By Umar Cheema Sunday, February 24, 2008


[NOTE: Hamid Gul admits that ISI political role was pre Bhutto DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif -- 6th January 2008]

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) EhteshamZamir 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. REFERENCE: The man, who rigged 2002 polls, spills the beans By Umar Cheema Sunday, February 24, 2008


[NOTE: Hamid Gul admits that ISI political role was pre Bhutto DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif -- 6th January 2008]

“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.” REFERENCE: The man, who rigged 2002 polls, spills the beans By Umar Cheema Sunday, February 24, 2008


[NOTE: Hamid Gul admits that ISI political role was pre Bhutto DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif -- 6th January 2008]

LAHORE: Former Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Brigadier (r) Imtiaz said Operation Midnight Jackal was launched to topple Benazir Bhutto’s government, Dunya TV reported on Thursday. Talking to the channel, he said the operation was not a big issue, but the politicians had politicised it. He revealed that General (r) Aslam Beg, the army chief at the time, wanted to bring a change in the National Assembly through a no-confidence motion with the help of Operation Midnight Jackal, as General Beg believed that Benazir Bhutto’s policies were contrary to those of the army. He said General Beg did not agree to Benazir’s Afghan policy. The former IB chief said after Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as prime minister, General Beg and then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan had discussed at length the possibility of replacing her, adding that the operation was also launched for that reason. Brigadier (r) Imtiaz said his major mistake was his failure to refuse to obey General Beg’s orders. During a subsequent inquiry, General (r) Hameed Gul advised him not to speak against the army chief as that could raise questions about the army, he maintained. Brigadier (r) Imtiaz told the channel that he was retired on the directions of General (r) Naseerullah Babar. General (r) Asif Nawaz Janjua had suspected Imtiaz of tapping the former’s phone calls, the ex-IB chief said. Imtiaz said stayed quiet throughout his service since he did not want his institution defamed. He said president Ghulam Ishaq had offered him to join his “gang” and offered him privileges, as a cold war for power was raging between Nawaz Sharif and the then president. He said he had been meeting both the leaders and tried bring them together. The former IB chief said he was also blamed for convincing General (r) Akhtar Abdul Rehman to join then president Ziaul Haq on the flight to Bahawalpur at the eleventh hour, whereas the names of those going to Bahawalpur had already been finalised in the General Headquarters. REFERENCE: ‘Midnight Jackal’ was launched to overthrow Benazir: Imtiaz Daily Times Monitor Friday, August 28, 2009\08\28\story_28-8-2009_pg1_4


[NOTE: Hamid Gul admits that ISI political role was pre Bhutto DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif -- 6th January 2008]

REFERENCE: Politician bribery case pending for last 14 years: Asghar Khan Monday February 15, 2010 06:36PM


‘On August 10 2002, Asghar addressed a letter to the succeeding CJP, Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, its subject ‘HRC No.19/96, Air Marshal (R) Mohammad Asghar Khan versus General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg’. ‘It reads: ‘I should like to draw you attention to my letter MAK/12/5 addressed to your predecessor on 8 April 2000 requesting that the above case may please be reopened. I have received no reply to this letter and elections are due on 10 October 2002. Many of the people who are guilty of misconduct will, if the case is not heard, be taking part in the elections and the purpose of those elections will thus be defeated. I would request an early hearing and decision in this case.’ There was no response. Justice slept.’

Many of the people guilty of gross misconduct and corruption did take part in the elections and sat in our assemblies and Senate from 2002 to 2007, and many still sit after the 2008 elections. President Gen Pervez Musharraf admitted after the 2002 elections that he was helpless before the ‘system’, the parliamentary form of governance, and presumably a dishonest and corrupted election commission. He told the people that he had no option but to have in his government rogues, robbers and other criminal elements who should rightly be behind bars. We are sure that President Asif Ali Zardari holds the same opinion about the last elections which brought his party and then him to power. The indefatigable warrior, Asghar Khan, did his bit prior to the 2008 elections. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, after being declared non-functional in March 2007 was fully restored on July 20, 2007 by a Supreme Court order. On Aug 8, 2007 Asghar addressed a letter to him on the subject of HRC 19/96: ‘Sir, I seek your indulgence. My petition No.19 filed in 1996 is pending in the Supreme Court. I should be greatly obliged if you would kindly order that it be urgently heard and adjudged. I may mention that I am now 86 years of age. Thanking you in anticipation.’ Nov 3, 2007 intervened. But now, CJP Chaudhry is back and firing broadsides. Will he please resume the hearing of the battling octogenarian’s petition — a matter of concern and much importance? REFERENCE: Let justice awaken By Ardeshir Cowasjee Sunday, 30 Aug, 2009


Those who took money:

The recipients included Khar 2 million,

Hafeez Pirzada 3 million,

Sarwar Cheema 0.5 million

Mairaj Khalid 0.2 million

5,05,680" (advocate Mirza Adil Beg, Aslam Beg's nephew, the then president of the KBA, confirms that the KBA received the money)

In January 1992 USD 20,000 was sold @ 26.50 and 5,30,000 was credited to the account. Thereafter all debits: "Arshi c/o Gen. Baig (sic.) 2,90,000; Cash paid to Gen. Shab 2,40,000; Cash Friends 1,00,000 [Aslam Beg's organization, FRIENDS, Foundation for Research on National Development and Security]; Cash TT to Yamin to pay Gen. Shab 3,00,000; Cash TT to Yamin Habib 12,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash paid through YH 10,00,000 ; Cash Friends TT to Salim Khan 2,00,000 ; Cash 1,00,000 ; Cash Towards Friends 5,00,000 ; Cash Asif Shah for Benglow 35,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash TT through Yamin for Friends 1,00.000 ; Cash paid to Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim 2,00,000 [he confirms having received the money from General Beg as fees and expenses for defending him in the contempt of court charge brought against him - PLD 1993 SC310] ; Cash paid through TT to Yamin for Friends ; Cash paid to Fakhruddin G Ebrahim 1,28,640 [he confirms receipt for fees/expenses for contempt case] ; Cash Guards at 11-A 10,500 ; Cash TT for USD 240,000 Fav. Riaz Malik to City Bank (sic.) New York 68,76,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000; Cash Guards at 11-A 10,500 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 10,000; Cash mobile phone for Col. Mashadi 28,911 ; Cash TT fav. Qazi Iqbal and M Guddul 3,00,000 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 10,000 ; Cash TT to Peshawar 3,00,000 ; Cash deposited at Karachi A/C EC [Election Commission] 3,00,000 ; Cash Guards 24,000 ; Cash TT to Quetta 7,00,000 ; Cash mobile bill of Col. Mashadi 3,237 ; Cash TT to Peshawar Br. 4,00,000 ; Cash deposited at Karachi Br. 4,00,000 ; Cash Guards 11,520 ; Cash TT to Peshawar for EC 2,00,000 ; Cash TT to Quetta for EC 2,00,000 ; Cash Guards 5,760 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 5,000 ; Cash A/C Guards 8,640 ; Cash th. YH 2,00,000 ; Cash A/C Guards 5,760 ; Cash TT to Salim Khan 1,00,000."

Nawaz Sharif received (in rupees) 3.5 million,

Lt General Rafaqat [GIK's election cell] 5.6 million,

Mir Afzal 10 million,

Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi 5 million,

Jam Sadiq Ali 5 million,

Mohammed Khan Junejo 2.5 million,

Pir Pagaro 2 million,

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada 3 million,

Yusuf Haroon 5 million [he confirms having received this for Altaf Hussain of the MQM],

Muzaffar Hussain Shah 0.3 million,

Abida Hussain 1 million,

Humayun Marri 5.4 million.

Jamaat-i-Islami Rs 5 million,

Altaf Hussain Qureshi and Mustafa Sadiq Rs 0.5 million,

Arbab Ghulam Aftab Rs 0.3 million,

Pir Noor Mohammad Shah Rs 0.3 million,

Arbab Faiz Mohammad Rs 0.3 million,

Arbab Ghulam Habib Rs 0.2 million,

Ismail Rahu Rs 0.2 million,

Liaquat Baloch Rs 1.5 million,

Jam Yusuf Rs 0.75 million,

Nadir Magsi Rs 1 million,

Ghulam Ali Nizamani Rs 0.3 million,

Ali Akbar Nizamani Rs 0.3 million.

General Mirza Aslam Beg Rs 140 million;

Jam Sadiq Ali (the then chief minister of Sindh) Rs 70 million;

Altaf Hussain (MQM) Rs 20 million, Advocate Yousaf Memon ( for disbursement to Javed Hashmi, MNA, and others) Rs.50 million;

1992 - Jam Sadiq Ali Rs 150 million;

1993 - Liaquat Jatoi Rs .01 million;

1993 - chief minister of Sindh, through Imtiaz Sheikh Rs 12 million;

Afaq of the MQM Rs 0.5 million;

1993 chief minister of Sindh, through Imtiaz Sheikh, Rs. 01. million;

1993 - Ajmal Khan, a former federal minister, Rs 1.4 million;

1993 - Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister, Rs 3.5 million;

27/9/93 Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister, Rs 2.5 million;

26/9/93 Jam Mashooq Rs 0.5 million;

26/9/93 Dost Mohammad Faizi Rs 1 million;

Jam Haider Rs 2 million;

Jam Mashooq Rs 3 million;

Adnan, son of Sartaj Aziz, Rs 1 million;

Nawaz Sharif and Ittefaq Group of Companies Rs 200 million

Sardar Farooq Leghari 12/12/93 (payment set/off) Rs 30 million - 6/1/94 Rs 2.0856 million - 19/3/94 Rs 1.92 million." REFERENCES: We never learn from history – 10 (September 2, 2007) We never learn from history-8 (August 19, 2007) We never learn from history – 7 (August 12, 2007) We never learn from history – 6 (August 5, 2007) We never learn from history - 6 (Oct 31, 2004) We never learn from history-5 (Aug 25, 2002) We never learn from history-4 (Aug 18, 2002) We never learn from history-3 (Aug 11, 2002) We never learn from history-2 (Aug 04, 2002) We never learn from history [COURTESY: DAILY DAWN - ARDESHIR COWASJEE]


RAWALPINDI: The former chief of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lieutenant General(R) Hameed Gul said ISI follows government directives and admitted that Islami Jamhoori Ittehad(IJI) was formed by ISI to created balance in the political scenario. Talking to Geo News, Gul said ISI played a pivotal role in the formation of IJI after which Mian Nawaz Sharif emerged as a political leader. Gul said that he had already admitted that IJI had been formed to bring political balance; therefore, enquiry should be conducted in this connection instead of creating ambiguity. Gul says IJI formed by ISI Updated at: 1335 PST, Tuesday, August 25, 2009  Updated at: 1334 PST,  Tuesday, August 25, 2009


Asghar Khan, a man of utter integrity (which explains why he consistently failed on the political front), in 1996 wrote a letter to the then chief justice of Pakistan advising him of how in the run-up to the 1990 elections the ISI had unlawfully distributed the people`s money for political purposes. His letter was converted into Human Right Petition no.19 of 1996. It was filed against Gen Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of army staff, Lt Gen Asad Durrani, former chief of the ISI and Younus Habib of Habib Bank and then Mehran Bank. When forming the IJI, the ISI under instructions from the army chief and its own chief, used Mehran Bank funds to `buy` a large selection of politicians and functionaries who were charged with the task of `fixing` the elections so that Mian Nawaz Sharif and his merry IJI band would roundly defeat the PPP. In this, for once, the ISI pulled off a successful job. The hearing of the petition commenced in February 1997. The last hearing was on Oct 11 1999, one day before the military overthrew the second of the Nawaz Sharif governments, when the sitting chief justice announced that he had reserved judgment. Since then, Asghar Khan has sent letters to succeeding chief justices of Pakistan requesting them to `reopen` the matter — two were sent in 2002 asking for judgment to be handed down before that year`s elections, and one prior to the 2008 elections. He received no response. Now, with politics being what they are and the ISI yet again being in the foreground of matters national, could not the Supreme Court find time out from being bound up with constitutional matters, and bring this human rights petition to its logical conclusion? REFERENCE: Forgetting historyArdeshir Cowasjee | Opinion | May 15, 2011

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Turncoat Shah Mehmood Qureshi Joins Imran Khan & Kerry Lugar Bill.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s ex-foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi joined forces with cricketer-politician Imran Khan Sunday, becoming the most high-profile defector to his growing campaign to win the next general election. Qureshi made the announcement at a rally led by Khan in the southern town of Ghotki, part of the broad hinterland in the southern province of Sindh and central province of Punjab where the former minister is considered powerful. “I announce I am joining a movement, which is struggling to win justice for people,” Qureshi said of Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice) which is fast emerging as a powerful player in the run-up to elections due early 2013. Qureshi lost his position as cabinet minister in a February reshuffle. He was offered another portfolio, which he refused, and this month resigned as lawmaker representing the main ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). “Winds of change have now begun,” Qureshi told the rally attended by several thousand supporters 420 kilometres (260 miles) north of Karachi, Pakistan’s port city used by the US to ship supplies to landlocked Afghanistan. “I am embarking on a new journey and from today onwards, Shah Mehmood is part of your team,” he told Khan to thunderous applause. Qureshi fell out with President Asif Ali Zardari around the time of the reshuffle and says he withstood pressure to approve diplomatic immunity for a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis in Lahore in January. He used the rally to criticise Zardari, whose five-year mandate expires in 2013, a day after Pakistan was plunged into fresh crisis with the US over accusations that Nato air strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border. “They have indulged in loot and plunder,” he said. “The time has come to seek a fresh mandate from the people,” Qureshi added. Khan, a staunch critic of the US alliance, condemned the Nato strike and demanded that Pakistan order all CIA agents to leave in protest. “We should raise the issue at the UN Security Council because it was an attack on our country and soldiers,” he said. “We need not bow before any one. The time has come to build a new Pakistan by introducing a new system reflecting will of the people.” REFERENCE: Shah Mehmood Qureshi joins Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf

Shah Mehmood Qureshi Joins PTI - Tehreeke Insaf - Imran Khan - Ghotki Sindh Jalsa

Monday, November 28, 2011, Moharram alharam 02,1433 A.H.

When Shah Mahmood Qureshi was still Foreign Minister, he swore that Pak's nukes were "very safe". It became unsafe as soon as Shah Mehmood Qureshi leaves the Foreign Ministry & PPP Government and joins PTI:)

FM Pakistan says Nuclear Arsenal is Safe in Pakistan 2009

Shireen Mazari The Thinking Tank Leaves PTI Jang 28 Nov 2011

ISLAMABAD: While new faces are joining the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in a large numbers, its former secretary information Shireen Mazari is giving serious thoughts to quitting Imran Khan’s party sensing that he has softened his stance against the US and India after the successful October 30 Lahore rally, it is learnt. Credible sources told The News that another major reason for Shireen’s change of mind was Khan’s extremely relaxed policy of accepting new faces without considering their past. The sources said though the PTI workers were neglecting media criticism in this regard, but after the joining of Zafar Iqbal Warriach, former minister of state for interior during Musharraf’s dictatorial regime, a sense has prevailed that the party is changing into a team of Musharraf’s cronies. PTI sources said Zafar Warriach was in-charge of the slamabad administration during the incidents of Lal Masjid and dragging of the chief justice in March 2007. The sources said Shireen Mazari might quit the party if it continued for some more days as her major ideology that there must be nationalistic change in Pakistan’s foreign policy is being ignored by the party chief and she is pushed to believe that Imran wants power like other politicians by pleasing the Uncle Sam. “Shireen also believes that after joining of Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the PTI will also be changed into a status quo party like others,” they added. The sources said Shireen strongly believed that after Lahore’s show, Imran Khan had changed his strong and consistent stance against expansionist and imperialistic designs of America and against the cruelties of India. “Shireen also believes that softening of Imran’s stance regarding the US is on the ‘instruction’ of the establishment,” the sources added. REFERENCE: Shireen Mazari may quit PTI Ahmad Noorani Monday, November 28, 2011

Shireen Mazari "LOVED" Musharraf and Kargil:))))

It looks like a revenge scene from a movie but it has actually happened. After eight long years, Dr Tanvir Ahmed Khan, a former foreign secretary, reclaimed the title of Director General Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI), a post he lost to Dr Shireen Mazari in August 2002. Despite the fact that Dr Shireen has been unceremoniously removed from the post at least 15 months before the expiry of her contract in August 2009, she has earned the distinction of being the longest serving DG of the Foreign Office-controlled think tank. Dr Tanvir's held the post between 1998-2000. He was appointed around the time of the May 1998 nuclear detonation, and was in the lead of the pro-bomb lobby in Pakistan. However, after Gen Musharraf took over he lost favour with the military and was replaced by the hawkish Shireen Mazari. Shireen Mazari reacted angrily on the termination of her contract on May 14. She told the media that the news of her removal was conveyed to her by the new foreign secretary Salman Bashir. She likened her removal to the sacking of former foreign secretary Riaz Muhammad Khan. She claimed the United States government had influenced her removal as she was writing hard-hitting articles highlighting US intervention in internal Pakistani affairs. Riaz Mohammad Khan who took over as the Foreign Secretary in Feb 2005 was sacked by the PPP government last month. His term in office was due to end on Oct 1, 2008 Mazari also claimed that on May 15 she was ordered to leave the office in 15 minutes as the new DG was to take over. Clarifying, a foreign office spokesman said: "Dr Shireen Mazari had been Director General of ISSI since August 2000. She has been the longest serving Director General of the Institute. There is no particular reason to replace Dr Mazari. Dr Mazari was a contract employee and had served with great distinction. All her contract terms will be honoured. Dr Tanvir Ahmed Khan, who is a distinguished scholar and former Foreign Secretary, will take over as the new Director General (ISSI)." During her stint in ISSI, Mazari was more recognised for her hard-hitting views reflecting some portions of the establishment. She has close relations with Mushahid Husain Syed, PML-Q secretary general and his wife Dushka Syed, a professor in Quaid-e-Azam university. Mushahid, a confidante of Nawaz Sharif was briefly detained after Sharif's removal but later he became an ardent supporter of Musharaf's regime. Along with Dushka Syed, Shireen was also seen leading civil society protests in 2006 against conversion of a public park into a mini-golf court by the Capital Development Authority and in 2007 against Jamia Hafza dubbing it 'MullaGardi'. Recently she was seen openly criticising US policies and visits of PPP co-chairperson to the residence of the American ambassador. Dr Tanvir, who had served in Benazir Bhutto's first government as foreign secretary in the late 1980s, has gradually shifted from his PTV-friendly hawkish views to a more diversified outlook on security issues. In fact after his removal as DG ISSI he gradually became a leading critic of the military-led government. Last year he was present at the launch of Ayesha Siddiqa Agha's controversial book Military Inc. at a time when the government forbade all hotels and clubs not to give a place for the function. In December last year, while opposing the Musharraf emergency, he was part of 20 former ambassadors and foreign secretaries who called upon Musharraf to restore the rule of law and reinstate senior judges. Later, he also supported the PPP position that Benazir Bhutto's murder investigations should be done under UN. Dr Khan said the government had offered him four positions including that of DG ISSI. Out of those, he must have preferred going back to his old job. Islamabad has three think tanks -- Institute of Regional Studies (IRS), ISSI and Islamabad Policy Research Institute. Their functions are not much different from each other. Over the years these think tanks have failed to produce any original work that could influence or change the country's regional or domestic policy. Most of the research done by these institutes is based on secondary sources. They are mainly following the official line on controversial issues. ISSI is mainly seen as a think tank made for retired foreign secretaries who are accommodated as its DGs and Chairmen. During Dr Tanvir's first stint, there was no chairman but later Aga Shahi became its chairman. After his demise now former foreign secretary and minister Inamul Haq has been serving as its chairman. ISSI has two directors and seventeen research fellows. IRS, controlled by federal information ministry, is considered a post-retirement place for military officers. Since its inception in 1982, many retired military men have served it as its president. Many of them developed the required academic credential while on the job. The incumbent president Maj Gen. (Retd.) Jamshed Ayaz Khan took over in April 2002. Before joining the Institute, he served as Additional Secretary Defense Production (DP) Division of the Ministry of Defense from 1999-2001. The nascent IPRI was established by a group including Shireen Mazari, Mushahid Husain and Gen Syed Rafaqat, who was also the founder president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI). But soon controversy struck and the president was replaced by Brig (Ret) Sahukat Qadir who was also forced to resign. Since Oct 2000, Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, a academician who previously served as the Chairman of International Relation's Department as well as Defence and Strategic Studies Department of Quaid-e-Azam University, has been working as IPRI's President. It has been a tradition that with the change in the government the head of these institutes are also changed. No wonder Shireen's ouster was seen as the first in line. REFERENCE: Non-thinking tanks With the change in the government, the head of govt institutes are also changed. Dr Shireen Mazari's ouster is a case in point By Nadeem Iqbal

When Shah Mehmood Qureshi was Foreign Minister, the same Imran Khan was like this

Capital Talk 1st October 2009 Part 1

Mr Kerry (right) says the bill does 'not have to be changed' - A top US senator behind a major aid package to Pakistan has said there are no conditions attached to it that "impinge" on Pakistan's sovereignty. Senator John Kerry made the comment after a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The package, which Mr Kerry co-authored with Senator Richard Lugar, triples non-military aid to Pakistan to an annual outlay of $1.5bn for five years. The Kerry-Lugar bill set several conditions for the aid to Pakistan. Under the bill, the secretary of state will have to certify periodically that Pakistan is working to dismantle the illegal nuclear proliferation networks. The US also has to certify that Pakistan is no longer supporting militant groups. The aid money will be spent on various development projects. 'Correct interpretation': The Pakistani army has expressed "serious concerns" about the package and said it was uneasy about "clauses impacting on national security". But Mr Kerry told the Pakistani foreign minister - who is in Washington to highlight these concerns - that Pakistan had no reason to worry. "There is nothing in this bill that impinges on Pakistani sovereignty - period, end of issue. And we have no intention of doing so," he told reporters. "The bill doesn't have to be changed. If there is a misinterpretation, it simply has to be clarified," he said. The Kerry-Lugar bill, which has been cleared by the US Congress, does not "require anything of Pakistan that isn't already the stated policy of the government and opposition parties,"," he said. Mr Qureshi, who was in Washington only last week expressing his support for the bill, said: "It is my responsibility as a friend of this relationship - a person who wants to deepen and strengthen this relationship - that we address these concerns." "We are going to work on it collectively to give it the correct interpretation," he added. The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says this clearly suggests a disconnect between the army and the civilian leadership, which has hailed the Kerry-Lugar bill as a success of Pakistani government's engagement with the US. The aid money will not be directly handed over to Pakistan. It will be spent on different development projects through the US embassy in Islamabad. According to reports, a special unit is being established in the embassy, which will maintain accounts of the aid spent and strictly monitor it. Recently, the US said it had provided more than $3bn in aid to Pakistan since President Zardari came to power a year ago. The money was given in "combined security, economic and development assistance", US officials said. In May this year, the US announced it was sending $110m (£71m) in aid to Pakistan to help it cope with the refugee crisis caused by violence between troops and the Taliban in the north-west. REFERENCE: 'No change' to Pakistan aid bill Page last updated at 04:57 GMT, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 05:57 UK

Imran Khan In Capital Talk 1st October 2009 Part 2

Everybody is busy cooking facts; blatantly lying; spinning stories; whitewashing crucible proof; cowering behind shadowy phantoms of fear. The tattily-tangled TV channels are the worst. A bunch of armchair, soft-headed, out-of-the-loop anchors and commentators pronounce nightly judgments on Raymond Davis, allegedly an American hired-gun contracted by the CIA as their spymaster with an ambiguous diplomatic status. Watching these know-nothings is a waste of time. Whipping mass hysteria, these simple souls think they can crush America by wagging a finger and waving a fist at the world’s most powerful country. “We’ll eat grass, but not let America dictate to us” is the common refrain filling the frenzied, charged air. If truth be told, no one knows except two entities: our establishment (a handful few), and Hillary Clinton. The rest of us are gropers in the dark. The fog in our Foreign Office and the US State Department is so thick that neither has the foggiest idea on how to handle ‘Lahoregate’. At his maiden ‘coming out’ press conference in Islamabad recently, Shah Mehmud Qureshi looked more like a bull fighter than a dumped foreign minister. The matador de toros (killer of bulls) wanted to slay the bull (America) by declaring that Raymond Davis does not enjoy “blanket” diplomatic immunity. Like the matador whose bullfighting is not considered a sport but an artistic performance, the flinty-eyed Qureshi showed the red rag to the bull, carefully modulating his tone and tenor to make sure that his message did not escape any ears, particularly the PPP’s supreme headquarters. “He is propped by a very powerful presence that wants America on its bended knees,” think some who say Qureshi has turned into a steam engine railroading his way to Washington “via Pakistan’s epicentre of power.” His snub to Kerry who was here recently is like a declaration of war with America. Lest we forget, Zain H. Qureshi, who two years ago hit the headlines when his business card stated him as working for Senator John Kerry as a “Legislative Fellow” when his father was in talks with Washington on the famous Kerry Lugar Bill (KLB). I was in the US and called the senator’s office to confirm the news item appearing in the Pakistani press. The voice at the other end immediately said, “He does not work for us”. The woman appeared primed for such a question. After several aborted attempts, I finally found out from one of Kerry’s male staffers that Zain did indeed work for Kerry but had now left. Getting his son a job with Kerry when the KLB talks were at a critical stage was politically incorrect. Would one not call this a conflict of interest? Senator Kerry is a ‘Boston Brahmin’. He’s from New England aristocracy, like the Makhdooms of Multan, i.e. Shah Mahmood Qureshi and his tribe. Kerry’s claim to fame is blue-blooded ancestry, wealth, influence and the right to rule. Kerry said the following during his 2004 presidential campaign: “There’s a great passage in the Bible that says, ‘What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.’ And I think everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith. That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.” Why, then, didn’t Kerry practise what he preached. Would he have given Zain Qureshi the time of the day had the young man not been the son of Pakistan’s foreign minister? Is ‘Lahoregate’ the biggest scandal in US foreign relations since America’s spy plane U-2 was shot down over the Soviet Union territory in 1960? I well remember the scolding/veiled threat that Pakistan got from Premier Nikita Khrushchev for allowing the CIA plane to take off from its air force base near Peshawar. The affair gave President Ayub a bloody nose! “There are clear indications that there is much more to the Raymond Davis affair than the Pakistanis are letting on,” alleges a blogger. “This isn’t about murder and diplomatic immunity. Something is very wrong with this picture, and Islamabad is tightlipped because it now has evidence that Davis allegedly linked with terrorists and some of the terror activities that have been happening in Pakistan. They have already released the pictures of the equipment and the evidence that they have gathered. Of course they are still holding on to the juiciest details.” This is exactly the kind of background briefing that the Foreign Office gave well before Raymond Davis became a household name. The front-page Dawn story (Jan 16, 2011) reported the concerns Gen Kayani had conveyed to President Obama on America’s “violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, disrespect for Islam; much-touted American inner desire to de-fang and destabilise Pakistan.” The official who gave the briefing cautioned the US against “economically squeezing Pakistan, destabilising it and disturbing the societal balance.” His blunt message: “Do not try to turn Pakistan into a battlefield” while listing incidents in Karachi, the Data Darbar bombing, sectarian strife and bomb attacks as part of what could be described as an international conspiracy.” A thunderbolt sent direct to America from the GHQ and the Foreign Office should have had alarm bells ringing in the media circles. Not so. Not a whimper followed from wiseacres weighing in on US-Pakistan relations in the aftermath of Raymond Davis affair. Meanwhile ‘Raymon(d) Malik’ as Kerry called him when he arrived in Lahore and addressed a press conference, is busy as a bee collecting scraps of information that Nawaz Sharif and bro Shahbaz hold close to their chests. To add more confusion to the case, they have instructed their minions to issue press warnings like “Davis may be killed, even by the CIA”! John le Carre, Tom Clancy, Graham Greene and Ian Fleming, who have gripped us with their spy thrillers on international espionage, may have solved Davis mystery instead of our present bewildered media analysts. REFERENCE: No spin zone: Cooking facts Anjum Niaz | Opinion | February 27, 2011

Imran Khan In Capital Talk 1st October 2009 Part 3

ISLAMABAD, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi defended the controversial Kerry-Lugar bill in the parliament Friday claiming it would not harm the sovereignty and solidarity of Pakistan, according to local TV channel reports. He made the remarks while winding up a debate in the parliament on his return from Washington. The bill would not entail interference in internal affairs of the country, rather it is a manifestation of the fact that Washington desires to build long-term partnership with the people of Pakistan, Qureshi said. The minister said that he conveyed the concerns of the people of Pakistan and the two Houses of the Parliament to the U.S. leadership, which acted within 24 hours and attached two documents with it to ally "fears about it." "During my meeting with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton I categorically told her that we will never compromise on national interests and never allow micro-management of our country", he said. The minister quoted Senator Kerry and Lugar as writing in the attached documents that " we want to emphasize that the legislation does not seek to compromise on Pakistan's national security and impinge on national security or micro-manage any aspect of Pakistan 's military or civilian matters." U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday signed the Kerry-Lugar Bill into a law, which will offer Pakistan 7.5 billion U.S. dollars in aid over the next five years, a day after Congress attached an explanatory statement to address the Pakistan's concerns over parts of the legislation. According to the bill, Pakistan will also extend cooperation to U.S. in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks. Pakistani opposition parties, top army commanders and several partners in the ruling coalition have raised objections at the Kerry-Lugar Bill. REFERENCE: Pakistani FM defends U.S. aid bill in parliament 2009-10-16 19:32:54

Imran Khan In Capital Talk 1st October 2009 Part 4

143433 2/28/2008 11:09 08ISLAMABAD872 Embassy Islamabad CONFIDENTIAL 08ISLAMABAD691|08LAHORE698 “VZCZCXRO9625
DE RUEHIL #0872/01 0591109
O 281109Z FEB 08



E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/04/2018


Classified By: Anne W. Patterson, Reasons 1.4 (b), (d)

1. (C) Summary: This is one of several profiles on political leaders who will play a large role in Pakistan’s new government. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is in the process of coalition negotiations on forming a government but still faces a leadership struggle within its own ranks. With his separate power base in the party, Amin Faheem remains the front-runner for the job as Prime Minister, but PPP Co-Chair Asif Zardari sees Faheem as personally weak and politically positioned to rival Zardari. Shah Mehmood Qureshi is an experienced politician but remains controversial within the PPP in Punjab. Although polished and pro-western, Qureshi is a relative newcomer to the PPP, as he began his political career with Nawaz Sharif but fell out with him. PPP Co-Chair Asif Zardari, however, considers Qureshi a viable candidate for Prime Minister. End summary.

2. (C) Qureshi, the PPP’s Punjab President, is a smooth and sophisticated interlocutor, and he appears sincere in professing that his and PPP’s interests are congruent with those of the United States. He believes the PPP has more in common ideologically with Musharraf than with Nawaz. He is ambitious and has been self-promoting his candidacy for Prime Minister with foreign diplomats.

3. (C) Benazir Bhutto in early 2007 appointed Qureshi–a relatively junior member of the party’s leadership–president of the PPP in Punjab Province. Party insiders speculated that Qureshi’s appointment was intended to diminish the rising popularity and influence of Yousef Raza Gillani, the PPP Vice President and an alternate candidate for Prime Minister. Qureshi and Gillani are political and spiritual rivals from Multan; Qureshi’s elevation was a direct snub to Gillani and may have exacerbated splits within the provincial party. Qureshi was optimistic about his appointment as PPP Punjab President, and told post that he believed his appointment was well-received by local party leaders (REF B).

4. (C) However, some senior PPP Punjabi leaders, including Gillani, consider Qureshi an outsider and have refused to accept his leadership. Qureshi faced further isolation because he is unfamiliar with the PPP’s power structure in Punjab. As a hereditary spiritual leader, he demands separate seating arrangements at party functions, a trait that has antagonized grassroots supporters. Critics also accuse Qureshi of accepting money in exchange for granting party tickets for the February 18 parliamentary elections, although Qureshi supporters argue he is untainted by scandal or corruption.

5. (C) Zardari told NSA Tariq Aziz he was considering Qureshi as a candidate for Prime Minister. Aziz was unenthusiastic and told Zardari he thought Qureshi would not work well with other parties, was very ambitious, and might threaten Zardari’s authority. Qureshi views himself as capable and independent front-man who can advance the party’s objectives. “”If I am Prime Minister,”" Qureshi told us that “”I am not going to be Zardari’s ‘yes-man.’ I am loyal to the party and to Zardari, but I am my own man.”" Qureshi explained that if he was made Prime Minister he expected to be able to choose his own Ministers and would not passively accept directives from a behind-the-scenes Zardari.

Career and Personal History

6. (C) Qureshi originally joined Nawaz Sharif in 1985, and won seats in the Punjab Provincial Assembly in 1985, 1988, and 1990. He was Punjab’s Finance Minister (1990-1993) under Nawaz’s administration. Nawaz refused to give Qureshi a National Assembly ticket in 1993 because they differed over how to administer the province; Qureshi then left Nawaz to join the PPP. In exchange for switching sides, Qureshi won a National Assembly seat (1993) and became Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs. He lost his seat in 1997 after Nawaz swept the elections.

7. (C) Qureshi was District Nazim (mayor) of Multan

ISLAMABAD 00000872 002 OF 002

(2000-2002); party critics say he ran in the local (non-party) election without Benazir’s blessing but with Musharraf’s tacit support. Qureshi was a capable administrator and oversaw a number of development projects in the Multan district. He used his influence as a nazim to win reelection to the National Assembly on a PPP ticket (2002-2007). During this time he developed a reputation as a forceful orator and championed strengthening and reforming parliament. Qureshi’s critics, however, accuse him of failing to deliver substantial development to his Multan constituency. He retained his seat in the 2008 elections.

8. (C) Qureshi was born in Multan on June 22, 1956. He hails from a religious and politically active family and is the hereditary caretaker of two of the city’s main Sufi shrines, which provides him with substantial income. Qureshi also claims the Sufi spiritual titles of Makdhoom and Pir. His attempt to assert spiritual authority in Multan has been controversial within the city’s Sufi community, as many other Sufi leaders–including Gillani–reject his claims of spiritual authority. Their dispute probably is what led Qureshi initially to join Sharif’s party in 1985, as Gillani was already associated with the PPP. Qureshi is married with one son and two daughters. He holds a B.A. from University of the Punjab and a Masters degree from Cambridge University. Qureshi is fluent in Urdu, English, Punjabi, and Seraiki.

9. (C) Comment: We have multiple and repeated indications that Zardari does not want Faheem to be Prime Minister. Zardari considers Faheem to be weak and lazy, but the real problem we suspect is that Faheem has his own significant power base in Sindh and would not be willing to vacate the PM job if/when Zardari wants to take it over himself. Beyond Faheem, however, Zardari does not have many good choices within the party. Choosing a Punjabi like Qureshi or Gillani (see septel for his profile) could alienate the PPP’s Sindh base but could help the PPP expand its reach into the vote-rich Punjab heartland.


2008: Tariq Aziz advises Zardari against Shah Mehmood’s PM candidacyDAWN.COM (15 hours ago) Today


Thori Si siyasat Imran Khan on KL Bill Issue October 19 2009 Part 1

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has detached himself from the little known Balusa Group, a Track II initiative involving well known Pakistanis and Indians, funded by an American, Shirin Taherkheli. A spokesman at the Foreign Office when asked said that since Qureshi had taken charge as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, he no longer remained connected to the Balusa Group. Another prominent Pakistani, Major General (retd) Mahmud Ali Durrani, who will take charge as the National Security Adviser, has also been part of Balusa, but it is not known whether he would still be part of this initiative after he took over as ambassador to the United States and now after his new charge in Islamabad. Some of the others are Syed Babar Ali, General Farrakh Khan, Shaharyar Khan and Toufiq Siddiqi. On the Indian side, some of the members are General Satish Nambiar, Kuldip Nayar, Raja Mohan, Bharat Bhushan and Salman Haidar. A former RAW official is also part of this group. Toufiq Siddiqi is an environmentalist and energy expert based in Hawaii and Shirin Tahirkheli, his sister, with support from the United Nations Development Programme and the Rockefeller Foundation, brought together a group of Indian and Pakistani generals, politicians, bureaucrats and others to discuss ways to bring "sense and direction" to the India-Pakistan relationship. This loose gathering that came to be known as the Balusa Group, is named after two adjacent villages in the Pakistani Punjab. In a July-August 2005 interview with the Nepalese magazine Himal, Durrani was asked how he got involved in lobbying for transnational natural gas pipelines in the Central and South Asian region. He replied, "Shirin Tahirkheli (now in-charge at the State Department for the UN reform effort) is really the 'mother hen' of all this. I was still in service when I told her of wanting to retire and devote my life to promoting India-Pakistan peace. Within two years, she and her brother Toufiq (Siddiqi) had organised a group of Pakistanis and Indians to discuss energy cooperation. I attended the first meeting with the backing of the Pakistan military. There was a feeling that we needed peace. There was even an ex-RAW chief in our group." However, DG Institute of Strategic Studies, Dr Shirin Mazari, is skeptical about the Balusa group and says, "The Americans have increased their intrusive activities on all fronts. We have had rising Predator and missile attacks from across the international Pakistan-Afghanistan border even as US-linked/supported personnel continue to occupy positions in the corridors of power. The Balusa Group members funded through an American, Shirin Taherkheli, are a key US investment in Pakistan's power echelons that continue to pay dividends for the US, and this is only one of the many influence-generating channels." Dr Ayesha Siddiqua, an independent strategic and political analyst, who seldom agrees with Mazari, recently noted that "The PPP selected Washington's dream team to run foreign relations and national security. One is not sure that appointing Durrani as the National Security Adviser will do the job. The appointment (of Durrani) is in consideration of the general's close ties with the US Pentagon. Not to mention the fact that Durrani owes his intellectual growth to Shirin Tahirkheli, a Bush administration adviser and former senior official of the UN National Security Council". REFERENCE: FM Qureshi quits American-funded Balusa Group MONDAY, 07 APRIL 2008 16:11 The News Sunday, April 06, 2008 By Mariana Baabar

Thori Si siyasat Imran Khan on KL Bill Issue October 19 2009 Part 2

Since all the worthy columnists have exhausted the KLB, the new name for the Kerry-Lugar Bill, I have nothing remarkable to add to their sound and fury. Let's instead turn to a small housekeeping matter like: is Foreign Minister Qureshi's son working for Senator Kerry? Zain H Qureshi's (ZHQ) business card is circulating the cyberspace these days. It says that he is a legislative fellow in Kerry's Washington DC office. When I called up Kerry's office and asked for Qureshi, the voice at the other end immediately said, "He does not work for us". The woman appeared primed for such a question. She said she had received a similar query earlier that day. Incidentally the cell number on ZHQ's call card has been disconnected; while the mail box belonging to "Zain Qureshi" was "full!" So, I couldn't get to him. After a number of phone calls to Senator Kerry's office, I finally found out from one of Kerry's male staffers that ZHQ did indeed work for Kerry but had now left. Why has ZHQ gone into hiding? Did he do something wrong? Yes. And the Foreign Office finds itself between a rock and a hard place. How can it condone its boss's act of getting his son a job with Kerry when the KLB talks were at a critical stage? Even if fate smiles upon ZHQ because he's the favoured son of our foreign minister and the doors of the high and mighty in Washington open up for him, we have the right to know whenever the son's job compromises his dad's position. More importantly if it is in direct conflict with Pakistan's interests. Would you not call this a conflict of interest? Should the foreign minister resign? And if Zardari cannot afford to let him go, then the FM must seek a public apology. The Boston Brahmin, Senator Kerry is complicit in this act. Boston Brahmins are New England's aristocracy like the Makhdooms of Multan, i.e. Shah Mahmood Qureshi and his tribe. These guys claim to fame is blue-blooded ancestry, wealth, influence and the right to rule. He said the following during his 2004 presidential campaign: "There's a great passage in the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.' And I think everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith . That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith." Senator Kerry must practice what he preaches. Would he have given ZHQ the time of the day had the young man not been the son of Pakistan's foreign minister? Why do the good folks fighting Pakistan's case in Washington DC become the usual suspects? In Musharraf's time it was Dr Nasim Ashraf. One wondered whether the Maryland-based millionaire doctor's heart bled for Pakistan or for Musharraf or for himself. Today, Ambassador Husain Haqqani is under fire from certain Pakistani quarters who accuse him of working for Washington and not Islamabad. Haqqani is hitting back via email messages to anyone wondering what's cooking in Washington. Yours truly is one of the unlucky recipients. Surely our ambassador must have known that his boss's son was working for Kerry. Good counselling from Haqqani to Qureshi would perhaps have saved the latter the embarrassment he is facing today? Another glaring example of how the Democrats are enticing the Pakistani leaders is the recent banner headline: "Zardari far ahead in popularity." According to Democracy International, an affiliate of the Democratic Party of America, Zardari is ahead of Nawaz Sharif in the popularity contest. To anyone with an iota of intelligence, the timing of this screamer is suspect. What has Zardari achieved in recent days for "51 per cent" of Pakistanis to suddenly fall in love with him? His jiyalas, one fears, would declare October 1, the day the survey was announced, as the President's Day – the day of the great revelation. Declaring it a public holiday perhaps? And when the polls go against the sitting president, these foreign busybodies are kicked out of Pakistan. Gen Musharraf asked IRI (the International Republican Institute), an affiliate of the Republican Party to wind up their office in Pakistan and leave when he got bad ratings from them. Not sure if indeed it was IRI that offended Musharraf, I called up their office in Washington. "What is your column about?" asked Lisa (I couldn't catch her last name) from the press section. I told her politely that it was not possible for me to provide her details of my column. "If you can't tell me what your column is about then I can't help you," she replied sternly. This is just a small example of how Masonic these polling outfits are. They think they have the writ to go around Pakistan poking their noses into our affairs, but when it comes to asking a simple question like if Musharraf asked them to wind up their office in 2008, they get so cagey. Sadly, the epicentre of our knowledge is the received wisdom from such dodgy polls conducted by Democracy International and the International Republican Institute (IRI). Hey, where's Gallup Pakistan? Have we become so incompetent or doped that we can't even conduct popularity polls in our own country and must therefore rely on America?
We are the opium-eaters. We swallow whatever comes from Washington. While the Democrats tell us that Pakistanis love Zardari because of KLB, the Republicans via their polling affiliate the IRI sing a different tune. Their August polls conclude that "Pakistanis continue to hold onto the opinion that conditions in the country are problematic and President Zardari is perceived as being responsible." If this does not sound confusing enough to an ordinary Pakistani trying to work out the popularity ratings of Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, have another go. According to September 9 report in the Christian Science Monitor, "Zardari's popularity sags - will it undermine Pakistan's fight with Taliban?" Here's another twister from the Los Angeles Times. The headline reads: "Zardari at fault for low rating?" This gem was published on August 31. "Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari is aware that his popularity has sunk to new lows at a time when his arch rival Nawaz Sharif -- who heads the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) -- is boasting high popularity, a media report said. He is widely viewed in Pakistani society not as a helmsman, but a bystander. It's an image that is largely of Zardari's own making, say analysts who contend that he has failed to forge any kind of connection with the Pakistani public.Last but not the least is the recent poll by the Pew Research Centre, a Washington-based institute, which says that "less than a third of Pakistanis have a favourable opinion of Mr Zardari. The president was widely reviled after being accused of demanding kickbacks while he served in Benazir Bhutto's Cabinet in the late 1980s and again starting in 1993." Give us a break! If by now we don't get it that the US is using these polls as a weapon for manipulation of third world dictators (Gen Musharraf) and corrupt rulers then Pakistan, I'm afraid to say, is going down the tube fast. Conflict of interest, eh? Here's yet one more example. Do you know how many Pakistani parliamentarians and cabinet ministers hold foreign nationalities, including our president? REFERENCE: The Boston Brahmin Anjum Niaz Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Thori Si siyasat Imran Khan on KL Bill Issue October 19 2009 Part 3

The principal temple and the central fountain of Pakistani patriotism lies not on the mountains or along the shoreline of the Arabian Sea but in the imperishable land of the five rivers: Punjab the home of Pakistani patriotism and Punjab the unchallenged redoubt of that brilliant storyline, the ideology of Pakistan. Right from 1947 until the present time most of Pakistan’s tragedies have been enacted at the altar of this patriotism. As a young captain harnessed to the chariot of the 1971 war I remember the slogan pasted on the back of every car in Lahore: “Crush India”. As we went about crushing India we managed to lose half the country. It says something of our extraordinary talent for amnesia that we have managed to virtually erase that event from our collective memory. It is the same surge of emotion which leads the most vocal and indeed hoarse sections of Punjabi public opinion to anoint a misguided fanatic-turned-assassin into a public hero. There is no shortage of placards on Lahore’s roads extolling him and his glorious deed. And it is similar zeal which is in full cry as we go about raising thunderclouds of emotion in the Raymond Davis affair. Let me enter an immediate caveat so as not to be misunderstood. Davis should be dealt with according to the letter of the diplomatic law. If he is without immunity then that’s it and to this position we should stick, regardless of pressure or threats from the seat of the American empire. But why must we make a tamasha (spectacle) of everything? Why can’t we handle this affair without fuss and without the drumbeats of patriotism sounding from every rooftop? And why, as we go about fashioning a response, must we present a picture of national disarray? The presidency in a tizzy, wanting a way out of this crisis and not being able to find one; the prime minister, as always, not in charge and hoping for the whole thing to blow away; the Foreign Office on a different page from the presidency; the former foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, eager to turn this dilemma into the wages of heroism; and the guardians of national security not wholly able to avoid the suspicion that they are busy pulling the strings from behind. When the jihadi media goes into overdrive – some of the semi-literate babbling about national dignity and honour we are being treated to being quite an exercise in creative literature – and religious elements protest before the Press Club, Lahore, raising fists in the air and shouting full-throated slogans, it is possible to detect in these spirited forays the footprints of national security. Pakistan’s security establishment is a kingdom unto itself. In any given crisis or incident it is not always clear what it is trying to achieve. But since old habits die hard, the knights of this establishment always seem eager to make their presence felt. Almost as if to say, we are not to be ignored. Or ignore us at your peril. To repeat the earlier point, if Davis is without diplomatic immunity, as seems to be the case, his prosecution should go ahead, regardless of anything else. But we can proceed along this path without too much frothing at the mouth. National dignity is better served by speaking softly. And protestations about national honour would sound more convincing if we could somehow put our permanent begging bowl to one side, for some time if not permanently. Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s bravura press conference was bemusing: this is not the time to lower our heads but to raise them; I know that by speaking up harm can come to me but I will not bend when it comes to national honour; there is a lot more to tell and if the need arises I will do so. Oh really? Exaggerated as the comparison may seem, is he trying to sound like another Zulfikar Ali Bhutto? Silence would have suited Qureshi better but then silence is not a particularly Pakistani quality. True, after Qureshi’s disclosure to a section of the jihadi media that it was the considered advice of the Foreign Office that Davis did not enjoy the kind of blanket immunity the Americans were asking for, an entire pack of PPP ministers – with the Amazon freshly-inducted into the information ministry in the lead – had ripped into Qureshi for daring to speak out of turn. But there were few plaudits for this yelping performance. As former custodian of foreign policy Qureshi should have held himself to a higher standard of responsibility and avoided playing to the gallery, despite any hard feelings he may have had about not being allowed to retain the foreign ministry in the cabinet reshuffle. Robin Cook disagreed with Tony Blair on the Iraq war and delivered a masterly speech in the House of Commons, remarkable as much for its sharp logic as its understated tone. But I suppose this is a far-fetched analogy. That was the Iraq war and this is an American spook by the name of Davis. And that was Cook and this is...oh, well, let it be. We know the spine of our Foreign Office. On matters substantial it does nothing without looking over its shoulder in the direction of Aabpara where looms the architectural disaster which is our sanctum of national security. It beggars belief that the Foreign Office’s stand on this affair was not coordinated closely with the gatekeepers of Aabpara. Nothing wrong with that except that one hopes that this was only about this affair and not, through it, another attempt to undermine our already confused and fragile democratic order. Of course we should not succumb to American pressure. From day one the US embassy and consulate, not to mention the State Department, have behaved foolishly and arrogantly, piling up the pressure on Pakistan in a manner almost designed to foreclose the chance of any flexibility from the Pakistani side. Now even President Obama has spoken and Senator Kerry has visited Pakistan. It can’t get any higher than this. Which makes it all the more incumbent on Pakistan to do what is right but without giving way to emotional excess. We should have kept a closer eye on cowboys like Davis and restricted the numbers allowed into the country in the first place. We allowed Afghans a free run of Pakistan during the first Afghan ‘jihad’ and are still ruing the consequences. After 2001 we gave our American friends a too free run of the country. We tend to be immoderate both as regards as our enmities as our friendships. This said, our American alliance is in our interest. We are not in a position to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Whatever the legal or diplomatic merits of this case, some way out of this imbroglio will have to be sought. Therefore we must allow passions to cool. And it would serve our American interlocutors better if they were to curb some of their zeal for shotgun diplomacy. Superpower or no superpower this is no way to go about securing a spook’s release. Drone strikes in Fata have killed scores of civilians and we have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to them. In fact after Baitullah Mehsud’s death in a drone attack we stopped even the pretence of the ritual protest. But Davis’ gunplay took place not on a remote mountainside but in the heart of Lahore. Talk of the ugly American. He was violating the laws of geography. What the hell was he doing there? This is a question the Americans should ask of themselves. Anyway, this is a mess and also a lesson for us. When we enter into a pact with the devil – devil being a relative term...for the Americans, I am sure, we are the devil – instead of being distracted by immediate gains, we must consult the tomes of national dignity and honour beforehand instead of waiting for the dirt to hit the ceiling and then crying about lost virtue and innocence. REFERENCE: The wry taste of ultra-patriotism Ayaz Amir Friday, February 18, 2011

Thori Si siyasat Imran Khan on KL Bill Issue October 19 2009 Part 4

Mr. Shafqat Mehmood then (The News) and Now PTI had written this on Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Is this another Tashkent moment in our history? Shah Mehmood Qureshi may think so. His virtuoso press performance Wednesday, replete with dramatic pauses and high flown rhetoric, was as good an attempt as any to carve out a leadership niche for himself. Will he succeed? For those younger readers who may not be fully aware of the significance of Tashkent, this was the moment that made Zulfikar Ali Bhutto a national leader. In the public eye he became a hero when he ostensibly – it is still not clear to what extent – differed with his president, Ayub Khan, on signing a peace deal with India after the 1965 war. This was seen by the people as a betrayal. Primed by a constant anti India rhetoric and convinced of Pakistan’s military superiority, they thought that Ayub had let them down. Ousted from the cabinet a la Shah Mehmood, Bhutto rode the tiger of anti India sentiment to popular leadership. There are some similarities between today and the Tashkent moment but also many differences. There is a huge anti American sentiment in the country as there was against India then. As a platform for leadership and popularity, this has great potential. It has been recognised by others. PML-N, Tehrik-e-Insaaf and Jamaat Islami are also trying to cash in on it. The difference is that Ayub was a hated dictator with very little support among the people. PPP with all its faults, including a leadership tainted by allegations of corruption, is still a popular political party. It has opposition, lots of it, but this space is taken by PML-N and much of the religious lobby. Where would Shah Mehmood fit in? I think he understands this and therefore has pledged his undying loyalty to the ideals of Shaheeds’ Zulfikar Ali and Benazir Bhutto. But this means making an attempt for national leadership on the PPP wicket. It would entail taking on its current leadership and if possible supplanting it through grass root support of the workers. There are enough disgruntled prominent party members like Safdar Abbasi – an old classmate of Shah Mehmood – Naheed Khan, Yousaf Talpur, Sherry Rehman and others who may rally to his cause. But, would this be enough to challenge Zardari and company? More importantly, would he be able to energise the party grass root to his cause? On the face of it, it seems quite impossible. The Pakistan People’s Party has become a strange concoction. While it has genuine popular support particularly among the poor and the so called liberal elements in the society, it is also a very feudal entity. There is a strong top down control and while the party members complain all the time, they follow the leadership in the end. For any party formed around charismatic leadership, the question of legitimacy in succession becomes very important. Once the devotees – I think it would be fair call the PPP grass root followers as such – accept a political succession it is difficult for anyone else to barge in. Benazir was accepted as a legitimate successor to ZAB and after that, even his son Murtaza could not challenge her leadership. This happened despite the fact that he was a male in a feudal environment and had the support of his mother Begum Nusrat Bhutto. The question then is, has Asif Ali Zardari been accepted by the ‘jiyalas’ as the legitimate successor of Benazir? There are no easy answers. Soon after assuming the mantle of leadership, Asif Zardari led his party to power and eventually became president. Besides winning accolades for this, it also meant that all opportunities of patronage came into his hands. The grass root followers are pretty savvy and know where their interests lie. They are unlikely to challenge his leadership while he is in power. Asif has also skilfully played the Bilawal card by making him the Chairman of the party, thus ensuring a Bhutto blood link with party leadership. In feudal cultures and religious orders, this has great significance. PPP is a bit of both. Zardari has carefully covered this end by pushing Benazir’s son into the top slot. In such an environment, is it possible for any other party member, however good and important, to challenge Zardari? Shah Mehmood has many qualities. In a party rife with allegations of corruption, he is clean as a whistle. A decent man, he is also highly educated and articulate. From all accounts, he has done a very good job as foreign minister. In an ideal world, he is eminently qualified to be a leader of his political party and the country. But, how will this happen? Can he challenge Zardari and oust him? Or, if that were not possible, claim ZAB’s and Benazir’s mantle by forming a dissident wing in the party that he would call the real PPP? This has been done before without much success. Even Murtaza Bhutto could not do it. How can Shah Mehmood hope to manage it? He has some other drawbacks that within the PPP’s peculiar culture become significant. His father, Makhdoom Sajjad Hussain Qureshi, was Punjab governor during the rule of one person that each PPP member fervently hates; Zia ul Haq. Shah Mehmood himself was initially in the PML-N, was its MPA and for a while member of Nawaz Sharif’s caretaker cabinet before the 1988 election. This background can potentially be exploited by his opponents in the party. If the PPP platform is difficult, can he float another party and forge ahead? It is difficult to say anything with certainty and I do wish him luck as I have great respect for him, but it seems a very difficult task. Parties take a long time to build and even then may not succeed. An excellent example is Imran Khan, a national hero, who has not been able to translate his cricketing and philanthropic popularity into political success – so far. An opening though could come Shah Mehmood’s way the manner in which the Raymond Davis affair plays itself out. If the government takes a strong stand and refuses to bow down before American pressure, there is little chance for anyone to make political capital out of it. It may have other consequences but politically, the PPP will not suffer. If though the Zardari led regime caves in, there would be a fall out. How serious is anybody’s guess. It could be a few days of riots and protests and fizzle out in the end or it could gain momentum particularly if the PML-N decides to take to the streets. This is a bit unlikely because Nawaz Sharif has so far studiously avoided upsetting the political order; for fear of a military take over. The most likely scenario is that PPP would convince the Americans to take it easy, with the assurance that eventually Davis would be released. Zardari would drag the matter long enough for the political sting to be taken out of it. If this happens, we will be back to business as usual and little chance of any new leadership emerging including that of Shah Mehmood Qureshi. REFERENCE: Qureshi’s bid for national leadership Shafqat Mahmood Friday, February 18, 2011