Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by alipesh in Afghan -Taliban-India Axis, Afghanistan-Land of Backstabbers on June 25th, 2013
KABUL, Afghanistan—Before he set off for India with a wish list of military hardware, Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave negotiations with Pakistan one last chance — at least in principle. On April 24, he traveled to Brussels for a trilateral meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan’s chief of Army Staff, whose cooperation is seen as essential for any post-2014 peace deal with the Taliban. The protocol screw-ups were telling: A photo-op from Truman Hall, the residence of the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, shows a startled looking Kerry (standing in front of the wrong flag) betwixt the stonefaced Afghan president and his effective counterpart in Kayani. Pakistan’s civilian foreign secretary, also present on the trip, was not even in the frame.
Against this backdrop, it’s little surprise that the Afghan president had given up on Pakistan before he even touched down in Belgium. In trying to resolve the conflict with the Taliban before he leaves office next year, Karzai has repeatedly bent over backward in hopes of securing Pakistani cooperation — often risking political capital at home, where anti-Pakistan sentiment is on the rise. Now, it seems, Karzai no longer wants to wait at Pakistan’s mercy.
According to a source close to Karzai, Kayani actually agreed in the talks to help push the Taliban toward publicly agreeing to negotiate with the Afghan government, but the offer was evidently not trustworthy enough to dissuade the Afghan president from looking to Pakistan’s archrival for assistance. (The July deadline for a similar offer — made at a previous summit in Britain — for a “peace settlement” with the Taliban to be reached “over the next six months” is fast approaching with no progress.) Kerry summed it up aptly before jetting back to Washington: “We are not going to raise expectations or make any kind of promises that can’t be delivered.”
Pakistani observers say support for ending Pakistan’s historically interventionist policies has grown within the government — and to a lesser extent, within the military establishment — in recent years. But there has been little in the way of concrete change: The militant sanctuaries in Pakistan still go unmolested and the Taliban, long rumored to have close ties to Pakistan’s military establishment, have remained resolutely opposed to talks with the government in Kabul. Many believe that Pakistan, ever fearful of encirclement by India, wants to keep Afghanistan unstable after the withdrawal of NATO troops at the end of 2014.
In sharp contrast with his vocal optimism following previous dialogues, Karzai remained hushed after the Brussels meeting. Soon after he returned home, the border dispute with Pakistan turned deadly, as Afghan soldiers exchanged fire with Pakistani border guards. One Afghan soldier was killed and several Pakistani guards were reportedly wounded. In response, Karzai met with the family of the soldier who died in the clashes and declared him a national hero. The presidential palace then issued a statement on behalf of tribal elders Karzai had met, claiming that Afghan territory extends “as far as Attock,” a city located deep inside Pakistan that borders its Punjab province. For its part, the Afghan media — which mirrored public sentiment — portrayed the events as if Afghanistan were at war with its neighbor. (The Pakistani press, by contrast, hardly mentioned the event, preoccupied as it was with its own historic election.)
Then on May 21, Karzai dealt Pakistan the ultimate snub by travelling to New Delhi in search of military equipment that, according to Indian media included 105 mm howitzer artillery, medium-lift aircraft, bridge-laying equipment, and trucks. No public statements have been made specifically addressing Karzai’s request for hardware, but sources close to the Afghan president suggest that India is sending a military mission to assess Afghanistan’s needs and will most likely provide some of the equipment. After a decade of limiting its $2 billion in assistance to development and reconstruction so as not to irk Pakistan, India seems willing to up the stakes. In New Delhi’s calculation, respect for Pakistani sensitivities hasn’t protected Indians from attacks in the past. Even building a highway cost India 135 casualties — “one human sacrifice…for every kilometer and a half constructed,” as the country’s foreign minister put it.
Other government sources, both Afghan and Indian, however, say that Karzai’s request poses a number of problems, one of which is logistics. India would have to cooperate with Moscow in order to supply the Afghan government, since some of the hardware –like Antonov An-32 aircraft — is manufactured in Russia. It would also have to consult both Moscow and Tehran for transit routes in order to deliver the weapons to landlocked Afghanistan. This gives Pakistan two potential pressure points from which to exert influence over the deal. (Both Russia and Iran have their own fears about allowing arms to be sent to a volatile country so close to home.) Training and maintenance poses another challenge as hardware cannot be simply handed over to inexperienced armed forces.
In public at least, Pakistan is downplaying fears that it will try to derail the arms shipments. “As a sovereign country Afghanistan can pursue its own policies,” Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Jalil Abbas Jillani told reporters last week. “But we hope that it would mind the overall peace and security situation.”
Reference
Posted by ali rehan munir in Economics, SHARIF BROTHERS TAX CHEATS on June 25th, 2013
Majority of the Pakistanis were dejected after hearing the budget speech on the evening of June 12, 2013. Not because there was no relief for the poor as this was not expected by anybody from a government just installed and dealing with a ravaged economy but the real cause of disappointment was demonstration of lack of will to tax the rich – on the contrary increasing the brunt of indirect taxes manifold on the poor, and inflicting pain on the salaried class.
The government failed to take any credible measures for revival of the ailing economy. The major taxation proposals show that the poor will have to face more miseries – regressive taxes are on increase. On the contrary, the rich and the mighty have again managed to escape personal taxation on their colossal income and wealth. The gigantic bureaucratic apparatus – epitome of bad governance – under pressure is given 10 percent pay raise but not a single step has been taken to curtail their monstrous wasteful expenditure and monetize all their perquisites and benefits received in kind. The analyses done by independent economists and observers reveal that the government of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N),
in its maiden budget has failed to meet the economic challenges of the day confirming the oft-repeated apprehensions that no homework was done nor was there any policy paper available – PML-N like its predecessor PPPP acted on the advice of bureaucracy. There is nothing innovative in the budget. It is in fact, the 66th bureaucrat-controlled budget and what do we get? Same old rhetoric about economic revival!
What should have budget 2013-14 been like? This question was never discussed by the elected government during its election campaign or within the party. Pakistani political parties have yet not learnt that they need to have select committees working on various matters so that once in power they can implement their well-thought-for, well-debated and well-researched policies. 
Since there was no such preparation on the part of PML-N, the annual budget, as usual was hastily made in the same old mould – bureaucratic-controlled and pro-rich. Nobody realised while preparing this important document that at this juncture of history, Pakistan needs class stability to avoid chaos, civic strife, lawlessness and religious obscurantism. The burgeoning debt servicing, increased military budget, high inflation, unjust tax system, wasteful expenses, industrial slowdown, recession, and inefficiency and bad governance pose serious challenges to our economic survival. But, in the budget no serious effort is made to meet these challenges – the budget-makers were more interested to balance their books through foreign and domestic resources (some purely imaginary or unrealistic). Somebody asked, what else could one expect from an accountant? But the question is where the stalwarts were? People like Sartaj Aziz and Hafeez A Pasha, who are known economists.
Dr Hafeez Pasha in his comments on the taxation proposals of the budget, published in an English newspaper, claimed that “virtually all sectors have been tapped.” We have serious reservations about this claim. The budget has failed to provide steps to bridge the tax gap of over Rs 6,000 billion. Tax potential of Pakistan is not less than Rs 8 trillion. The simple calculation is: suppose we have 10 million individuals having annual taxable income of Rs 1.5 million (a very conservative estimate), total income tax collection from them comes to Rs 3,750 billion. If we add income tax from corporate bodies, other non-individual taxpayers and individuals having income between Rs 400,000 to Rs 1,000,000, the gross figure comes to Rs 5,000 billion. FBR collected only Rs 716 billion as income tax in 2011-12. Similarly, due to rampant corruption in sales tax, federal excise and customs duties, the total collection is not more than 30 percent of actual potential. In fiscal year 2011-12, FBR collected Rs 804.8 billion under the head sales tax, Rs 122.5 billion under federal excise duty and only Rs 216.9 billion under customs duties. The total indirect collection of just Rs 1,148.2 billion was pathetically low. It should have been at least Rs 3,500 billion. Budget needed to outline measures to bridge the prevalent tax gap without imposing any new taxes or raising the tax rates. If it is still done, we can change the entire fiscal scene of Pakistan – instead of budget deficit we would have surplus funds.
In view of above, there was no need of increasing sales tax rate or federal excise or enhancing rates for salaried persons. The need was to shift FBR’s management to an autonomous board comprising professionals and establishing an independent tax appellate system so that tax obligations are judiciously imposed and collected rather than through arbitrariness and highhandedness and that too only from those who file returns. FBR has failed to force millions to file income tax and sales tax returns but keep on creating huge demands against the existing filers. This is the reason why people do not file returns as they say once you do so then you are under constant threat of being blackmailed by officials and in case you do not oblige, you are subjected to arbitrary orders. One may ask what FBR has done about the following pointed out by Nadra:
— There are 1.611 million people who frequently embark on international tours but do not pay a single penny as income tax.
— About 584,730 Pakistanis have multiple accounts in domestic and multinational banks, but do not possess NTNs.
— Over 56,000 people live in posh areas and more than 20,000 people own luxury cars, still pay no income tax.
— There are 66,736 individual consumers who pay large utility bills, but no income tax.
— More than 13,000 people have licenses of both prohibited and non-prohibited weapons, but they do not possess an NTN.
— There are 25,130 people who are engaged in lucrative professions like medicine, engineering, law and chartered accountancy, but they do not pay a single penny as income tax.
— Nearly three million people possess a National Tax Number (NTN), but only 1.4 million of them filed income tax returns last year.
Had FBR performed its functions, we could have easily collected Rs 8,000 billion without changing anything. Even economist like Dr Hafeez A Pasha, who has been Chairman, Advisory Council of FBR, keeps on saying that our tax base is narrow. He, like many others thinks that only those who file returns are taxpayers. In fact, the total number of taxpayers is over 50 million – mobile users who pay 10 percent adjustable income and 19.5 percent sales tax. It is true that only 1.2 million out of these taxpayers filed income tax returns in 2012. Figure of 1.2 million is only that of return filers and not taxpayers. In the income tax realm, every account holder of a bank, who receives any amount of interest, is subjected to 10 percent withholding tax and is thus a taxpayer. It is worthwhile to note that in the case of individuals and association of persons, tax deducted at source is full and final discharge under section 169 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. They are merely required to file a simple statement under section 115(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ie if they do not have any other source of income. Had FBR allotted all of them NTNs, it could proudly be said that there are over 50 million registered taxpayers in Pakistan.
The real issue is non-taxation of super-rich who owe billions to the national exchequer. What has prevented the FBR to take action against them? After receiving data from Nadra, why FBR instead of taking action against them was proposing an amnesty scheme? Why no action is taken against them till today?
The revenue target fixed for FBR at Rs 2,475 billion is pathetically low when the actual potential is not less than Rs 8,000 billion. The issue is that of enforcement of tax laws compelling all the people having income of Rs 400,000 or more to file tax returns. Instead of doing this, Ishaq Dar has opted to propose more taxes on the lower income sections of the population. Increase of one percent in sales tax rate and further two percent for supplies made to non-registered persons, five percent on top of the standard 16 percent on non-registered commercial and industrial consumers of electricity and gas, increase in federal excise duty on beverages and cigarettes, expansion in items, which are chargeable to sales tax on retail prices, are all regressive tax measures. When FBR cannot enforce the existing laws, what is the guarantee that these new ones would be implemented? Obviously more corruption would follow as more people would want to evade taxes and tax officials would benefit more as they get their due share. The same would be the fate of withholding taxes on hotels, clubs, marriage halls, restaurants, cable operators, margin and trade financing, motor vehicles (in lump sum), foreign-produced films and TV serials. Who will enforce these laws? In the name of audit of withholding agents more money will go into the pockets of these unscrupulous officials.
The earmarked income support levy on moveable assets is again a wrong measure. It would be like surcharge in the 1980s and the export development surcharge/cess more recently, all proving disastrous. The assignment of taxes at the local bodied level is the answer but the governments are not ready to meet their Constitutional obligation clearly envisaged in Article 140A which says: “Each Province shall, by law, establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments.”
Shahid Hafeez Kardar, a leading economist and former finance minister of Punjab, very rightly observed: “In our case tax administration weaknesses with regard to enforcement arise because of an ineffective legal system and the lack of effective accountability of government employees. Greater publicity should be given to cases of tax evasion (only those upheld by courts or conceded to by taxpayers) in the hope that public shame would serve as one of the deterrents to tax evasion. Good governance in a structure of transparent taxation cannot be achieved with the same ease as computerisation of the taxation system through purchase of equipment and supporting software. These essentials will continue to elude us as long as the governing political system nurtured and supported by the elite is financed by black money through institutionalised instruments and mechanisms for evading taxes. How does one overhaul such a system through the transformation of the political structure is a million-dollar question that defies easy answers as to the need for tax reform built around transparent and simpler systems of taxation. However, the reality is that there are no quick fixes. Exercises to simplify tax laws and to ensure effective enforcement can take several years, as the experience of even developed countries shows – for instance, it took Canada 10 years to implement the proposals of the Carter Commission.”
Our tragedy is that on the one hand we have too many taxes in the country (federal and provincial) and on the other the benefit of revenue collection is not reaching the down-trodden. The few rich are the real beneficiaries of every luxury that is available. Fiscal gap is increasing every year bringing more miseries for the common man of Pakistan. We have utterly failed to reform our tax system, a process initiated as early as 1990s.
In fact, the real malady has not been properly studied by anybody. There is something fundamentally wrong with Pakistan’s constitutional structure of distribution of taxing powers between the federation and the federating units. In all major federations – the US, Canada and India – the federating units have the exclusive right to levy tax on transactions of goods and services within their geographical boundaries. In Pakistan, the Constituent Assembly took away this right of levying sales tax on goods from provinces in 1948 – none of the provinces ever raised a voice for its reversal. In the 7th Award as well, all the four provinces conceded that forthcoming Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods should be levied by the Centre.
The Centre has always usurped the right of the provinces to levy tax on goods and services within their territorial jurisdiction. Assignment of taxes is a vital constitutional and political issue and it is high time that the newly-elected parliament pay due attention to solution for judicious distribution of taxation rights between the Centre and the federating units. The imbalances and unjust monopoly of taxes with Islamabad is a perpetual source of disharmony between the Centre and the provinces. It is not distribution under National Finance Commission Award that matters but the question is why provinces are deprived of their right to levy taxes on goods within their territories. Why is the Centre imposing sales tax and federal excise on goods?
Federal highhandedness in tax matters has destroyed the financial and economic rights of provinces. The provinces should have the exclusive right to levy taxes on goods and services within their respective physical boundaries, but the Federal Government blatantly encroached upon their undisputed right by levying taxes on goods and services under the garb of presumptive taxes in Income Tax. Such taxes cannot be termed as taxes on income (which the federal government is empowered to levy under item 47 of the Federal List) but tax on goods and services. It is a great tragedy that this argument was not presented in the Supreme Court when the constitutionality of such provisions was challenged in 1991 and the debate merely revolved around academic discussions over the concept of income. If the federal government can treat tax on goods and services as tax on income, as held by the apex court per incuriam (a mistaken judgement) in Elahi Cotton case PLD 1997 SC 582, then what will be sanctity of division of fiscal powers provided in the Constitution of Pakistan between the Federation and the provinces.
Despite federal highhandedness in levying unjust taxes and denying the provinces their legitimate shares, the Centre has miserably failed to reduce the burgeoning fiscal deficit. Had provinces been allowed to generate their own resources, the present chaotic situation could have been averted. The federal government has the audacity to claim that provinces lack infrastructure to efficiently collect taxes – an attitude that is reflective of colonial legacy and proved wrong by the Sindh Revenue Board and Punjab Revenue Authority by collecting sales tax on services.
On the one hand the provinces have been denied autonomy and on the other, money that belonged to them – collected as federal taxes – is given to them as act of benevolence – it is adding insult to injury. This is a considered policy of control for maintaining hegemony over federating units. The provinces should have exclusive right to levy taxes on goods and services generated within their boundaries. But they should surrender right to taxation on agricultural income tax to the federation. The National Parliament and provincial parliaments should forge a consensus on this issue.
The federal government has miserably failed to tap the real revenue potential, which is not less than Rs 8 trillion. The failure of FBR on this account adversely and directly affects the provinces as they are wholly dependent on what the Centre collects and transfers to them from the divisible pool. Pakistan is thus, caught in a dilemma: Centre is unwilling to grant the provinces their legitimate taxation rights as well as collects too little to meet their overall financial demands. The size of cake – divisible pool – is so small that nothing substantial can be done for the welfare of the poor masses, no matter in which part of the country they live. The real issue of generating sufficient resources for the less privileged is still unattended.
HUZAIMA BUKHARI AND DR IKRAMUL HAQ
(The writers, tax lawyers and partners in HUZAIMA & IKRAM (Taxand Pakistan), are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences)
Courtesy: Ali Syed
Posted by Azahir in Nawaz "Badami Lassi Kim Barker Thurke" Sharif, Nawaz Dangerous, Nawaz Sharif & Kashmiri Biradari, Nawaz Sharif-The Prime Minister from Hell on June 23rd, 2013
On recharge of 100 Rupees, 34.5 tax will be deducted in the form of Tax.
Dekho Dekho Kon Aya
Ghidar Aye, Kargil Ka Bhagora Kughoo Ghidar Aya
Noam Chomsky: Under corrupt and regressive Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan has no future Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Noam Chomsky, is without doubt the most widely heard and read public intellectual alive today. Although trained in linguistics, he has written on and extensively critiqued a wide range of topics, including US foreign policy, mainstream media discourses and anarchist philosophy. Chomsky’s work in linguistics revolutionised the field and he has been described as the ‘father of modern linguistics‘. Professor Chomsky, along with other luminaries such as Howard Zinn and Dr Eqbal Ahmad, came into prominence during the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 1960s and has since spoken in support of national liberation movements (and against US imperialism) in countries such as Palestine, El Salvador and Nicaragua. In fact, his prolificacy in terms of academic and non-academic writing has earned him a spot among the ten most cited sources of all time (alongside Aristotle, Marx and Plato). Now in his mid-80s, Professor Chomsky shows no signs of slowing down and maintains an active lecturing and interview schedule. Here we caught up with him to get his views on upcoming Pakistani elections, American influence in the region and other issues. As a country which has spent almost half of its existence under some sort of direct military rule how do you see this first ever impending transition from one democratically-elected government to another? Noam Chomsky: Well, you know more about the internal situation of Pakistan than I do! I mean I think it’s good to see something like a democratic transition. Of course, there are plenty of qualifications to that but it is a big change from dictatorship. That’s a positive sign. And I think there is some potential for introducing badly needed changes. There are very serious problems to deal with internally and in the country’s international relations. So maybe, now some of them can be confronted. Coming to election issues, what do you think, sitting afar and as an observer, are the basic issues that need to be handled by whoever is voted into power? NC: Well, first of all, the internal issues. Pakistan is not a unified country. In large parts of the country, the state is regarded as a Punjabi state, not their (the people’s) state. In fact, I think the last serious effort to deal with this was probably in the 1970s, when during the Bhutto regime some sort of arrangement of federalism was instituted for devolving power so that people feel the government is responding to them and not just some special interests focused on a particular region and class. Now that’s a major problem. Another problem is the confrontation with India. Pakistan just cannot survive if it continues to do so (continue this confrontation). Pakistan will never be able to match the Indian militarily and the effort to do so is taking an immense toll on the society. It’s also extremely dangerous with all the weapons development. The two countries have already come close to nuclear confrontation twice and this could get worse. So dealing with the relationship with India is extremely important. And that of course focuses right away on Kashmir. Some kind of settlement in Kashmir is crucial for both countries. It’s also tearing India apart with horrible atrocities in the region which is controlled by Indian armed forces. This is feeding right back into society even in the domain of elementary civil rights. A good American friend of mine who has lived in India for many years, working as a journalist, was recently denied entry to the country because he wrote on Kashmir. This is a reflection of fractures within society. Pakistan, too, has to focus on the Lashkar [Lashkar-i-Taiba] and other similar groups and work towards some sort of sensible compromise on Kashmir. And of course this goes beyond. There is Pakistan’s relationship with Afghanistan which will also be a very tricky issue in the coming years. Then there is a large part of Pakistan which is being torn apart from American drone attacks. The country is being invaded constantly by a terrorist superpower. Again, this is not a small problem. Historically, several policy domains, including that of foreign policy towards the US and India, budget allocations etc, have been controlled by the Pakistani military, and the civil-military divide can be said to be the most fundamental fracture in Pakistan’s body politic. Do you see this changing with recent elections, keeping in mind the military’s deep penetration into Pakistan’s political economy? NC: Yes, the military has a huge role in the economy with big stakes and, as you say, it has constantly intervened to make sure that it keeps its hold on policy making. Well, I hope, and there seem to be some signs, that the military is taking a backseat, not really in the economy, but in some of the policy issues. If that can continue, which perhaps it will, this will be a positive development. Maybe, something like what has happened recently in Turkey. In Turkey also, for a long time, the military was the decisive force but in the past 10 years they have backed off somewhat and the civilian government has gained more independence and autonomy even to shake up the military command. In fact, it even arrested several high-ranking officers [for interfering in governmental affairs]. Maybe Pakistan can move in a similar direction. Similar problems are arising in Egypt too. The question is whether the military will release its grip which has been extremely strong for the past 60 years. So this is happening all over the region and particularly strikingly in Pakistan. In the coming elections, all indications are that a coalition government will be formed. The party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif is leading the polls with Imran Khan’s (relatively) newly-emerged party not far behind. Do you think an impending coalition government will be sufficiently equipped to handle the myriad problems facing the country that you have just pointed out, such as civil-military imbalance, drone attacks, extremist violence etc. NC: Well, we have a record for Nawaz Sharif but not the others. And judging by the record, it’s pretty hard to be optimistic. His [Sharif’s] previous governments were very corrupt and regressive in the policies pursued. But the very fact that there is popular participation can have impact. That’s what leads to change, as it has just recently in North Africa (in Tunisia and Egypt). As far as change goes, significant change does not come from above, it comes through popular activism. In the past month or so, statements from the US State Department and the American ambassador to Pakistan have indicated quite a few times that they have ‘no favourites’ in the upcoming elections. What is your take on that especially with the impending (formal) US withdrawal from Afghanistan? NC: That could well be true. I do not think that US government has any particular interest in one or another element of an internal political confrontation. But it does have very definite interests in what it wants Pakistan to be doing. For example, it wants Pakistan to continue to permit aggressive and violent American actions on Pakistani territory. It wants Pakistan to be supportive of US goals in Afghanistan. The US also deeply cares about Pakistan’s relationship with Iran. The US very much wants Pakistan to cut relations with Iran which they [Pakistan] are not doing. They are following a somewhat independent course in this regard, as are India, China and many other countries which are not strictly under the thumb of the US. That will be an important issue because Iran is such a major issue in American foreign policy. And this goes beyond as every year Pakistan has been providing military forces to protect dictatorships in the Gulf from their own populations (e.g. the Saudi Royal Guard and recently in Bahrain). That role has diminished but Pakistan is, and was considered to be, a part of the so-called ‘peripheral system’ which surrounded the Middle East oil dictatorships with non-Arab states such as Turkey, Iran (under the Shah) and Pakistan. Israel was admitted into the club in 1967. One of the main purposes of this was to constrain and limit secular nationalism in the region which was considered a threat to the oil dictatorships. As you might know, a nationalist insurgency has been going on in Balochistan for almost the past decade. How do you see it affected by the elections, especially as some nationalist parties have decided to take part in polls while others have decried those participating as having sold out to the military establishment? NC: Balochistan, and to some extent Sindh too, has a general feeling that they are not part of the decision-making process in Pakistan and are ruled by a Punjabi dictatorship. There is a lot of exploitation of the rich resources [in Balochistan] which the locals are not gaining from. As long as this goes on, it is going to keep providing grounds for serious uprisings and insurgencies. This brings us back to the first question which is about developing a constructive from of federalism which will actually ensure participation from the various [smaller] provinces and not just, as they see it, robbing them. It is now well-known that the Taliban’s creation was facilitated by the CIA and the ISI as part of the 1980s anti-Soviet war. But the dynamics of the Taliban now appear to be very different and complex, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as they attack governments and mainstream parties. Some people say that foreign intelligence agencies are still behind the Taliban, while others consider this a denial of home-grown problems of extremism and intolerance. How do you view the Taliban in the context of Pakistan? NC: I can understand the idea that there is a conspiracy. In fact, in much of the world there is a sense of an ultra-powerful CIA manipulating everything that happens, such as running the Arab Spring, running the Pakistani Taliban, etc. That is just nonsense. They [CIA] created a monster and now they are appalled by it. It has its roots in internal Pakistani affairs. It’s a horrible development and phenomenon which goes back to radical Islamisation under Zia and taking away the long standing rights of people in the tribal areas (who were left largely alone). The Pashtuns in particular are kind of trapped. They’ve never accepted the Durand Line nor has any Afghan government historically accepted it. Travel from what is called Pakistan to Afghanistan has been made increasingly difficult and people are often labelled terrorists, even those who might be just visiting families. It is a border which makes absolutely no sense. It was imposed by the needs of British imperialism and all of these things are festering sores which have to be dealt with internally. These are not CIA manipulations. Actually, US government policies are continuing to do exactly the same thing [produce terrorism]. Two days after the Boston marathon bombings, there was a drone strike in Yemen attacking a peaceful village, which killed a target who could very easily have been apprehended. But of course it is just easier to terrorise people. The drones are a terrorist weapon, they not only kill targets but also terrorise other people. That is what happens constantly in Waziristan. There happened to be a testimony in the Senate a week later by a young man who was living in the US but was originally from that village [in Yemen which was bombed]. And he testified that for years the ‘jihadi’ groups in Yemen had been trying to turn the villagers against the Americans and had failed. The villagers admired America. But this one terrorist strike has turned them into radical anti-Americans, which will only serve as a breeding ground for more terrorists. There was a striking example of this in Pakistan when the US sent in Special Forces, to be honest, to kill Osama Bin Laden. He could easily have been apprehended and caught but their orders were to kill him. If you remember the way they did it, the way they tried to identify his [Osama’s] position was through a fake vaccination campaign set up by the CIA in the city. It started in a poor area and then when they decided that Osama was in a different area, they cut it off in the middle and shifted [the vaccination campaign] to a richer area. Now, that is a violation of principles which go as far back as the Hippocratic Oath. Well, in the end they did kill their target but meanwhile it aroused fears all over Pakistan and even as far as Nigeria about what these Westerners are doing when they come in and start sticking needles in their arms. These are understandable fears but were exacerbated. Very soon, health workers were being abducted and several were murdered (in Pakistan). The UN even had to take out its whole anti-polio team. Pakistan is one of the last places in the world where polio still exists and the disease could have been totally wiped out from this planet like smallpox. But now, it means that, according to current estimates, there will be thousands of children in Pakistan at risk of contracting polio. As a health scientist at Columbia University, Les Roberts, pointed out, sooner or later people are going to be looking at a child in a wheelchair suffering from polio and will say ‘the Americans did that to him’. So they continue policies which have similar effects i.e. organising the Taliban. This will come back to them too.
Pakistani Reader in PKPolitics : Hussain Farooqi
“In a war situation, the civilian govt. has to play much more important roles. Our civilian leadership was absolutely incompetent. The military generals did not estimate the incompetence of the civilian leadership. That was their blunder. Nawaz Shariff was not an intelligent civilian leader like ZA Bhutto.”
.
© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
