Fiction and facts

Going by the conjectures of the US think tanks and contradictory statements by members of the US administration - some using all the superlatives for Pakistan and the others resorting to accusations and vitriolic that tarnish Pakistan’s image, one could draw the conclusion that this is being done to keep the Pakistan leadership guessing about their insidious plans. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and at the present a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution who had chaired an inter-agency review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Obama administration in his essay published on 23rd June 2009 in ‘Council on Foreign Relations’ wrote: “A jihadist victory in Pakistan, meaning the takeover of the nation by a militant Sunni movement led by the Taliban, would have devastating consequences. It would create the greatest threat the United States has yet to face in its war on terror. Pakistan as an Islamic-extremist safe haven would bolster al-Qaeda’s capabilities tenfold”.

Throughout his above essay, Bruce Riedel uses his wild imagination to create situations based on fiction, sets premises and draws his conclusions. He goes on to say: “To secure power, the Taliban - currently concentrated in the tribal areas west of the Indus and all along the border with Afghanistan - would need to move east. This would take them from the Pashtun-dominated regions into the Punjabi heartland, where they need to gain significantly more support”. Earlier, India, the US and the West had been trying to portray Pakistan as a state that might collapse and terrorists could lay their hands on Pakistani nukes. But seeing that Pakistan’s armed forces have demolished the infrastructure and network of the Taliban in Swat and Malakand, and are poised to take on militants in Waziristan, the US think tanks now suggest that Pakistan government should focus on extremists in Southern Punjab, which they consider a bigger threat than the Taliban in Swat and elsewhere. Anyhow, the US has the penchant for controlling Pakistani nukes but Pakistan has frustrated the plans by conducting operation against militants.

Against this backdrop, the report in national English daily that the US plans to have a bigger presence in Pakistan in the pursuit of its strategic interests in the region has raised alarm in public and government circles. The report said: “The two most obvious indications of US intentions are the upcoming large-scale staff surge at the Islamabad embassy, which includes hundreds of marines, and the massive expansion work at the embassy premises”. Some of these reservations were expressed by former foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed Khan who said indications were very clear that America wanted to “remote-control” the region from Islamabad. A former diplomat was also reported to have said: “Clearly these are people who would be coming under cover of diplomatic assignments for covert operations that would be detrimental for Pakistan’s security interests.” If this report is authentic then there is cause for alarm because it would annoy Pakistan’s friends like China that are already wary of increased US presence in the region.

Three weeks ago, national English daily in its editorial had written that American diplomats in Islamabad keep roaming free on the city roads armed with guns and revolvers and in cars bearing fake numbers. Some of them were caught but were let off the hook on the basis of diplomatic immunity. One could question as to what right they have to flout the laws of the land? Pakistan is ally in war on terror, nothing less nothing more. And if the US had given $10 billion over the period of 8 years, it wasn’t a big deal, as a major part of the funds for war on terror was in fact reimbursement of the expenses incurred on logistics for 100000 Pakistani troops deployed on Pak-Afghan border. There are 50000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan and the US spent $250 billion during the last 8 years, whereas it gave Pakistan only $ 10 billion during this period that too on verification about the progress made and number of terrorists killed in the operation. The government had calculated the financial loss incurred by Pakistan since the time it joined the war on terror, which is more than $39 billion.

Despite having given sacrifices in men and material, Pakistan was accused of diverting the meager funds the US gave for buying weapons that were India-specific. They had joined the chorus with India to take action against those who were behind the 26/11 Mumbai terrorists’ attack, but would not like to persuade India to stop training and funding insurgents in Balochistan and FATA. Well-informed sources have said that Pakistan’s political and military authorities have handed over substantial evidence to its allies, the US and NATO, regarding India’s links with Baitullah Mehsud and provision of aid to him through Indian consulate in Afghanistan. Holbrooke however assured Pakistan of taking up this matter with India at diplomatic level. Afghan government was also told to stop using Indian consulate against Pakistan. But Holbrooke said the other day that Pakistan had talked to him about Indian involvement in insurgency in Balochistan but he was not provided credible evidence.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Pakistan linked its action against the Lashkar-e-Taiba with New Delhi ending its covert operations in Balochistan. The report said that in conversations with the Obama administration, Pakistan’s army chief indicated that India needed to stop meddling in Balochistan in return for Pakistan’s actions against the Lashkar. We do not know the authenticity of these reports because there is so much deceit and deception that it is difficult to differentiate between facts and fiction, and truth and lies. Anyhow, if Pakistan has linked Pakistan’s cooperation with India’s cooperation to stop funding and training insurgents in Balochistan, it has done the right thing. In fact, Pakistan government should have made it clear right from the beginning that if India would not stop its covert operations then Pakistan would pay in the same coin. India has to realize that if it becomes part of any sinister design to destabilize Pakistan, then India would not remain as a cohesive unit in its present shape.

Though India faces separatists’ movements in about a dozen provinces together with threat from Maoists and the situation is more dismal than Pakistan yet western media suppresses these facts. The difference lies in the imaginative approach of the Indian leadership and its think tanks who has unleashed propaganda that Pakistan is on the brink of collapse. They in cahoots with the US think tanks issued new Pakistan’s maps showing FATA and NWFP and some territory of Balochistan as parts of Afghanistan. And some are working on the plan of greater Balochistan. But India is also aware of the consequences if it goes too far, which is why India’s finance minister Pranab Mukherjee has recently said that India cannot erase Pakistan.

But Pakistan should not lower its guard on the basis of such statements and should gird up its loins to meet any eventuality. It would have been better if Pakistani think tanks had come out with the maps showing how India would look like after its disintegration. They could have shown Bombay, East Punjab and Kashmir as parts of Pakistan.

Mohammad Jamil
Email: mjamil1938@yahoo.com