Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for October, 2013

WADEREE SUMAIRA MALIK CAUGHT IN ELECTION FRAUD: SC disqualifies Sumaira over fake degree

SC disqualifies Sumaira over fake degree

 

October 29, 2013

 

 

 Unknown-4

 
 
 
 
 

 
SC disqualifies Sumaira over fake degree
 

ISLAMABAD – Disqualifying Sumaira Malik as a member of National Assembly in a fake degree case for life, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to proceed against her in accordance with law.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, hearing all the parties on October 9, 2013, had reserved the judgment which was announced on Monday in the courtroom.
The 39-page judgment, authored by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, declared the notification of March 1, 2008, declaring Sumaira Malik as a returned candidate from NA-69 (Khushab-I) in the general elections held on 18-2-2008 void. She was declared to be disqualified from becoming an MNA with all its consequences. “The court noted that as a disqualified person she has no right to represent the electorates of the country,” it added.
A supporter of Sumaira Malik, Muhammad Riaz who was present in the apex court, had a heart attack when he heard the news of her disqualification. He was taken to Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad, where the doctors pronounced him dead.
The judgment noted: “On account of such qualification she would not be entitled to contest election in future as well and if she does contest election and is declared successful, the Election Commission shall be bound to de-notify her.”
The judgment noted: “She had obtained a BA degree by way of impersonation and, depending upon the same educational qualification as it is normally disclosed by candidates in their nominations papers, she proved herself not to be a truthful person.”
She was elected an MNA on the ticket of PML-Q in the 2008 general elections. A losing candidate from the constituency, Malik Umar Aslam Awan, had filed a petition, challenging Sumaira’s victory and had alleged that the lawmaker had done her intermediate in 1981 and, in order to avoid her ineligibility, she had managed to obtain a fake BA degree.
The court has allowed appeal.

, , ,

No Comments

The Coward of Kargil Nawaz Sharif Whispered to Clinton, “They will get me Mr President.” INDIAN VIEWPOINT: NEVER CALL A DEFEAT, A DEFEAT

‘Nawaz Sharif believed Pakistan army would get him for Kargil war truce with India’

 
 
 
 
 From India Viewpoint by Press Trust of India

Even as Nawaz Sharif struck a deal with US President Bill Clinton in July, 1999, to end the Kargil conflict with India, the then premier believed that the powerful Pakistani army would “get” him for brokering a truce.

Sharif never doubted there would be a military takeover and while the agreement was being documented, he anxiously whispered to Clinton, “They will get me Mr President.”

Clinton quipped, “Yours is a rogue army. Keep them under civilian oversight”.

Nawaz then retorted, “It is not the army. It is (a) few dirty eggs.”.

These revelations were made by Malik Zahoor Ahmad, a former information minister at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, in an article posted on the website of The News daily.

Three months after the agreement, the military led by Gen Pervez Musharraf struck and ousted the civilian government led by Sharif.

Thus Nawaz Sharif conceded the area captured by  Pakistani soldiers, after destroying hundreds of Indian bunkers and killing 1000 Indian soldiers.

On the eve of July 4, 1999, the US Independence Day, Sharif quietly flew into Washington to meet Clinton to discuss an agreement to end the Kargil conflict.

 

The Coward of Kargil-Nawaz Sharif

“Coming at the height of the Kargil crisis, the visit was critical. The Prime Minister’s arrival in Washington was shrouded in mystery. The first reports of the visit came to the Pakistan Embassy not from our Foreign Office but the (US) State Department,” Ahmad wrote.

“Everyone was caught unawares. Hurried meetings were called, confidential internal memos dug up, and briefs developed to be able to lay down all the necessary ground work for the emergency high-octane meeting,” he added.

COWARD OF KARGIL NAWAZ SHARIF: Kargil War was a victory for Pakistan

KARGIL WAS A BIG SUCCESS FOR PAKISTAN: MUSHARRAF

Nawaz Sharif is mainly responsible for spreading the rumour, that FCNA was losing at Kargil. He keeps harping the same tune, even, though some Indian generals have reluctantly accepted it as a defeat of Indian Army. But, this coward leaves no opportunity to bad mouth Kargil victory.  Nawaz Sharif is an enemy of Pakistan. He puts his own interests above national interests. He felt threatened by Pakistan Army’s spectacular victory in Kargil War.

Cowardly, Kashmiri turncoat Nawaz Sharif was shocked by success of Pakistan;s Mujahedin of FCNA, who caused 3000 Indian Army Casualties, including the loss of two planes, death of one IAF Pilot and capture of Indian Pilot Lt.Nachikita by Pak Army. Being a US CIA Agent Nwaz was afraid that Musharraf and the Army would get all the glory, he ran to his patron President Clinton.

Unknown-7 
 
Islamabad: Claiming that his 1999 Kargil operation was a “big success militarily”, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has said that if the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif had not visited the US, the Pakistani Army would have “conquered” 300 square miles of India. 

 

He defended his action to launch the operation in Kargil in the wake of fresh allegations that he masterminded the intrusions. 

Referring to Lt Gen (retired) Shahid Aziz’s allegations that he had kept other military commanders in the dark about the operation, Musharraf said, “Telling everyone about it was not necessary at all”. 

He claimed Aziz had an “imbalanced personality” and had resorted to character assassination by making these accusations. 

 

“We lost the Kargil war, which was a big success militarily, because of (then premier) Nawaz Sharif…If he had not visited the US, we would have conquered 300 square miles of India,” Musharraf said in an interview with Express News channel. 

Though Pakistan had initially claimed mujahideen were responsible for occupying strategic heights along the Line of Control in early 1999, Musharraf later revealed in his autobiography ‘In The Line Of Fire’ that regular Army troops had participated in the operation. 

But Musharraf claimed the action in Kargil was a “localised” operation and not a major operation. 

“Kargil was just one of many sectors under a Major General stationed in Gilgit, (who was) in charge of the area. Exchange of fire was routine there,” he claimed. Musharraf said he would not go so far as to accuse former premier Nawaz Sharif of betrayal but his decision to withdraw from Kargil was a mistake. 

 

Unknown-2“Nawaz lost a political front which we had won militarily,” he claimed. 

The former general, who has been living in self-exile outside Pakistan since 2009, said the “prime consideration” for actions like the Kargil operation is security and secrecy. 

“So the Army leadership decides who is to be informed and when. As the operation progressed and the proper time arrived, a briefing of the corps commanders was held,” he said. 

Musharraf said he was “really astonished” that Aziz was writing about the events 10 years later. 

Blaming the nation at this juncture, as Aziz had done, seems to be “part of a conspiracy”, he claimed. 

“It was a tactical action that had a strategic importance in which no more than a few hundred persons were involved, but which engaged thousands on the Indian side and was of tremendous importance,” he claimed. 

Musharraf justified Pakistani casualties in the conflict, claiming the country lost only 270 men against India’s 1,600 soldiers. 

 
Courtesy
Press Trust of India
 
INDIAN VIEWPOINT: NEVER CALL A DEFEAT, A DEFEAT

EYEBALL TO EYEBALL   JULY 1999

 
India has to mask its initial intelligence failure by regaining the peaks regardless of heavy casualties. Both sides need a face-saving way out. Since early May there has been a see-saw military, political and diplomatic struggle between the two Subcontinental protagonists, Pakistan and India. Islamabad’s position has been that the guerrillas who have captured the heights overlooking the Drass-Kargil-Leh road, are Kashmiri freedom fighters struggling for their long-denied right of self-determination. 
 
 

India eventually decided, after examining the pros and cons of widening the conflict across the Line of Control (LoC) or even across the international border, on a strategy of containment within the narrower objective of regaining the Kargil heights. This narrower framework meant higher casualties on the Indian side because of the difficulty of traversing slopes against dug-in defenders where the terrain offers no cover.

New Delhi calculated that it does have the political will and military morale, despite the heavy casualties, and can sustain the cost in human and material terms. A near-consensus domestically and the willingness of the Indian military command to accept constraints allowed India to continue with an operation in which it suffered disproportionately heavy casualties.

With regard to Pakistan, the intriguing question is whether the Kargil heights seizure was part of the normal stepping up of guerrilla activity during summer, or whether it had more ambitious objectives. If it were the former, little can be added, except to mention in passing a failure of Indian intelligence. The guerrillas’ presence was only discovered by accident when two Indian army patrols happened to spot them. The true extent of the guerrilla presence did not sink in until the Indian army had carried out an aerial survey of the area, which revealed that between 400 to 700 guerrillas had seized the heights. This could have put them in a position in any future war to threaten the sole overland logistics link with the Indian forces deployed in Siachen, i.e. the Srinagar-Drass-Kargil-Leh road.

But the Kargil seizure could have other strategic objectives with military, political and diplomatic dimensions. Militarily, if the seizure could be maintained for a reasonable period of time and at least until winter sets in, it could open up possibilities of forcing either an Indian withdrawal from Siachen, or a trade-off between the Kargil heights and the Siachen Glacier.

Politically, it could reflect the impatience in Islamabad with lack of progress in bilateral discussions on Kashmir under the Lahore Declaration process after the fall of the BJP government in end-April. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India heads a caretaker government until elections are held in September-October, the hope may have been to force New Delhi back to the negotiating table in a serious mode. Diplomatically, since the bilateral process had not yielded results, an internationalisa-tion of the Kashmir issue may have been sought to bring it back onto the frontburner.

If we assume for the sake of argument that all or some of these objectives formed part of the Pakistani thrust into Kargil, or at least were taken on board once things hotted up on the Line of Control, we can examine the results achieved or likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future and then draw up a balance sheet of gains and losses.

Missing Kashmir for Kargil

Militarily, the inherent difficulty of holding on to the Kargil heights in the face of overwhelming firepower and numbers has become a key question as the battle drags on. India has weighed the costs of heavy casualties against the bigger costs of potentially adverse international intervention if the conflict is widened. It has relied on the political consensus to hold on to Kashmir no matter what the cost, which informs its domestic political spectrum (the weak and scattered chinks of rationality represented by liberal opinion notwithstanding). India’s slow but definite gains against the guerrillas have produced collateral pressures for a withdrawal of the guerrillas from what is turning into a suicidal mission.

The political timing of the Kargil seizure, if the idea was indeed to force New Delhi back to serious negotiations, could not have been worse. A caretaker government heading into an election was hardly likely to be in a position to negotiate, let alone offer any flexibility or concession on such a major issue. There has been speculation in the Indian press after the visit to Pakistan by the US emissary General Anthony Zinni regarding proposals purportedly from Islamabad for India to allow safe passage to the guerrillas, quoting the precedent of the Hazrat Bal shrine siege. Whether these reports hold any water or not is not known.

However, Western diplomatic pressure on Islamabad is mounting, especially after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington DC and London, and these could take various forms, economic, political, diplomatic. The dependence of the Pakistani economy on the goodwill of the West, and particularly the US, to keep foreign fund flows going makes Pakistan that much more vulnerable to ‘persuasion’.

It goes without saying that such ‘persuasion’ seeks to maintain the status quo on Kashmir, while advocating peaceful negotiations. Pakistan’s experience indicates that retaining the status quo has always proved favourable to India. Any disturbance of New Delhi’s hold on Kashmir, even if partial or temporary, serves to refocus the attention of the global community on a long-neglected, festering wound. But in trying to disturb the status quo in its favour, the manner in which Pakistan pursues this tactical goal is crucial. This cannot happen by ignoring the ground reality.

The Pakistani army chief, General Pervez Musharraf, put his finger on the problem by descrseems to have hardened in the West that the status quo must be restored before diplomatic “business as usual” can be resumed.

 
 
 

Even as Nawaz Sharif struck a deal with US President Bill Clinton in July, 1999, to end the Kargil conflict with India, the then premier believed that the powerful Pakistani army would “get” him for brokering a truce.

Sharif never doubted there would be a military takeover and while the agreement was being documented, he anxiously whispered to Clinton, “They will get me Mr President.”

Clinton quipped, “Yours is a rogue army. Keep them under civilian oversight”.

Nawaz then retorted, “It is not the army. It is (a) few dirty eggs.”.

These revelations were made by Malik Zahoor Ahmad, a former information minister at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, in an article posted on the website of The News daily.

Three months after the agreement, the military led by Gen Pervez Musharraf struck and ousted the civilian government led by Sharif.

Thus Nawaz Sharif conceded the area captured by  Pakistani soldiers, after destroying hundreds of Indian bunkers and killing 1000 Indian soldiers.

On the eve of July 4, 1999, the US Independence Day, Sharif quietly flew into Washington to meet Clinton to discuss an agreement to end the Kargil conflict.

 

The Coward of Kargil-Nawaz Sharif

“Coming at the height of the Kargil crisis, the visit was critical. The Prime Minister’s arrival in Washington was shrouded in mystery. The first reports of the visit came to the Pakistan Embassy not from our Foreign Office but the (US) State Department,” Ahmad wrote.

“Everyone was caught unawares. Hurried meetings were called, confidential internal memos dug up, and briefs developed to be able to lay down all the necessary ground work for the emergency high-octane meeting,” he added.

COWARD OF KARGIL NAWAZ SHARIF: Kargil War was a victory for Pakistan

 

 

 

KARGIL WAS A BIG SUCCESS FOR PAKISTAN: MUSHARRAF

Nawaz Sharif is mainly responsible for spreading the rumour, that FCNA was losing at Kargil. He keeps harping the same tune, even, though some Indian generals have reluctantly accepted it as a defeat of Indian Army. But, this coward leaves no opportunity to bad mouth Kargil victory.  Nawaz Sharif is an enemy of Pakistan. He puts his own interests above national interests. He felt threatened by Pakistan Army’s spectacular victory in Kargil War.

Cowardly, Kashmiri turncoat Nawaz Sharif was shocked by success of Pakistan;s Mujahedin of FCNA, who caused 3000 Indian Army Casualties, including the loss of two planes, death of one IAF Pilot and capture of Indian Pilot Lt.Nachikita by Pak Army. Being a US CIA Agent Nwaz was afraid that Musharraf and the Army would get all the glory, he ran to his patron President Clinton.

Unknown-7 
 
Islamabad: Claiming that his 1999 Kargil operation was a “big success militarily”, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has said that if the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif had not visited the US, the Pakistani Army would have “conquered” 300 square miles of India. 

 

He defended his action to launch the operation in Kargil in the wake of fresh allegations that he masterminded the intrusions. 

Referring to Lt Gen (retired) Shahid Aziz’s allegations that he had kept other military commanders in the dark about the operation, Musharraf said, “Telling everyone about it was not necessary at all”. 

He claimed Aziz had an “imbalanced personality” and had resorted to character assassination by making these accusations. 

 

“We lost the Kargil war, which was a big success militarily, because of (then premier) Nawaz Sharif…If he had not visited the US, we would have conquered 300 square miles of India,” Musharraf said in an interview with Express News channel. 

Though Pakistan had initially claimed mujahideen were responsible for occupying strategic heights along the Line of Control in early 1999, Musharraf later revealed in his autobiography ‘In The Line Of Fire’ that regular Army troops had participated in the operation. 

But Musharraf claimed the action in Kargil was a “localised” operation and not a major operation. 

“Kargil was just one of many sectors under a Major General stationed in Gilgit, (who was) in charge of the area. Exchange of fire was routine there,” he claimed. Musharraf said he would not go so far as to accuse former premier Nawaz Sharif of betrayal but his decision to withdraw from Kargil was a mistake. 

 

Unknown-2“Nawaz lost a political front which we had won militarily,” he claimed. 

The former general, who has been living in self-exile outside Pakistan since 2009, said the “prime consideration” for actions like the Kargil operation is security and secrecy. 

“So the Army leadership decides who is to be informed and when. As the operation progressed and the proper time arrived, a briefing of the corps commanders was held,” he said. 

Musharraf said he was “really astonished” that Aziz was writing about the events 10 years later. 

Blaming the nation at this juncture, as Aziz had done, seems to be “part of a conspiracy”, he claimed. 

“It was a tactical action that had a strategic importance in which no more than a few hundred persons were involved, but which engaged thousands on the Indian side and was of tremendous importance,” he claimed. 

Musharraf justified Pakistani casualties in the conflict, claiming the country lost only 270 men against India’s 1,600 soldiers. 

 
 
 
Courtesy
Press Trust of India
 
 
INDIAN VIEWPOINT: NEVER CALL A DEFEAT, A DEFEAT

EYEBALL TO EYEBALL   JULY 1999

India has to mask its initial intelligence failure by regaining the peaks regardless of heavy casualties. Both sides need a face-saving way out. Since early May there has been a see-saw military, political and diplomatic struggle between the two Subcontinental protagonists, Pakistan and India. Islamabad’s position has been that the guerrillas who have captured the heights overlooking the Drass-Kargil-Leh road, are Kashmiri freedom fighters struggling for their long-denied right of self-determination. 
 
 

India eventually decided, after examining the pros and cons of widening the conflict across the Line of Control (LoC) or even across the international border, on a strategy of containment within the narrower objective of regaining the Kargil heights. This narrower framework meant higher casualties on the Indian side because of the difficulty of traversing slopes against dug-in defenders where the terrain offers no cover.

New Delhi calculated that it does have the political will and military morale, despite the heavy casualties, and can sustain the cost in human and material terms. A near-consensus domestically and the willingness of the Indian military command to accept constraints allowed India to continue with an operation in which it suffered disproportionately heavy casualties.

With regard to Pakistan, the intriguing question is whether the Kargil heights seizure was part of the normal stepping up of guerrilla activity during summer, or whether it had more ambitious objectives. If it were the former, little can be added, except to mention in passing a failure of Indian intelligence. The guerrillas’ presence was only discovered by accident when two Indian army patrols happened to spot them. The true extent of the guerrilla presence did not sink in until the Indian army had carried out an aerial survey of the area, which revealed that between 400 to 700 guerrillas had seized the heights. This could have put them in a position in any future war to threaten the sole overland logistics link with the Indian forces deployed in Siachen, i.e. the Srinagar-Drass-Kargil-Leh road.

But the Kargil seizure could have other strategic objectives with military, political and diplomatic dimensions. Militarily, if the seizure could be maintained for a reasonable period of time and at least until winter sets in, it could open up possibilities of forcing either an Indian withdrawal from Siachen, or a trade-off between the Kargil heights and the Siachen Glacier.

Politically, it could reflect the impatience in Islamabad with lack of progress in bilateral discussions on Kashmir under the Lahore Declaration process after the fall of the BJP government in end-April. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India heads a caretaker government until elections are held in September-October, the hope may have been to force New Delhi back to the negotiating table in a serious mode. Diplomatically, since the bilateral process had not yielded results, an internationalisa-tion of the Kashmir issue may have been sought to bring it back onto the frontburner.

If we assume for the sake of argument that all or some of these objectives formed part of the Pakistani thrust into Kargil, or at least were taken on board once things hotted up on the Line of Control, we can examine the results achieved or likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future and then draw up a balance sheet of gains and losses.

Missing Kashmir for Kargil

Militarily, the inherent difficulty of holding on to the Kargil heights in the face of overwhelming firepower and numbers has become a key question as the battle drags on. India has weighed the costs of heavy casualties against the bigger costs of potentially adverse international intervention if the conflict is widened. It has relied on the political consensus to hold on to Kashmir no matter what the cost, which informs its domestic political spectrum (the weak and scattered chinks of rationality represented by liberal opinion notwithstanding). India’s slow but definite gains against the guerrillas have produced collateral pressures for a withdrawal of the guerrillas from what is turning into a suicidal mission.

The political timing of the Kargil seizure, if the idea was indeed to force New Delhi back to serious negotiations, could not have been worse. A caretaker government heading into an election was hardly likely to be in a position to negotiate, let alone offer any flexibility or concession on such a major issue. There has been speculation in the Indian press after the visit to Pakistan by the US emissary General Anthony Zinni regarding proposals purportedly from Islamabad for India to allow safe passage to the guerrillas, quoting the precedent of the Hazrat Bal shrine siege. Whether these reports hold any water or not is not known.

However, Western diplomatic pressure on Islamabad is mounting, especially after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington DC and London, and these could take various forms, economic, political, diplomatic. The dependence of the Pakistani economy on the goodwill of the West, and particularly the US, to keep foreign fund flows going makes Pakistan that much more vulnerable to ‘persuasion’.

It goes without saying that such ‘persuasion’ seeks to maintain the status quo on Kashmir, while advocating peaceful negotiations. Pakistan’s experience indicates that retaining the status quo has always proved favourable to India. Any disturbance of New Delhi’s hold on Kashmir, even if partial or temporary, serves to refocus the attention of the global community on a long-neglected, festering wound. But in trying to disturb the status quo in its favour, the manner in which Pakistan pursues this tactical goal is crucial. This cannot happen by ignoring the ground reality.

The Pakistani army chief, General Pervez Musharraf, put his finger on the problem by describing Kargil as “a tactical, military issue”, while Kashmir as such was “a strategic, political” one. In other words, to see only the Kargil part of the picture represented by the Kashmir problem, is to miss the forest for the trees. However, in the present instance, Islamabad appears to have failed to persuade the global powers-that-be of the justness of this linkage. On the contrary, opinion seems to have hardened in the West that the status quo must be restored before diplomatic “business as usual” can be resumed.

 

 

 

 

, , , , ,

No Comments

WHY IS JF 17 THUNDER A REAL THREAT TO PAKISTAN’S ENEMIES? THUNDER IN SINO-PAKISTAN RELATIONS

 


Why is JF-17 Thunder a Real Threat by dm_50d9ab0679d41

Jf-17 Thunder Block 2THUNDER IN SINO-PAKISTANI RELATIONS

PUBLICATION: CHINA BRIEF VOLUME: 6 ISSUE: 5

December 31, 1969 07:00 PM Age: 43 yrs
By: Tarique Niazi, PAKISTAN THINK TANK ARCHIVES

Since the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1951, Sino-Pakistani relations have steadily deepened, and the two countries have never had a public disagreement over any bilateral, regional, or global issue. If there was any wrinkle in their mutual relations, it was amicably resolved in private, outside the view of the world’s eye. The key to this closeness has been the frequency of highest-level contacts between the two countries, which yielded unprecedented results. A case in point is the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Pakistan in April last year, which led to the signing of the “Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Good Neighborly Relations” (Dawn, April 6, 2005). The treaty binds both signatories to desist from joining “any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of the other side” (Ibid.).

 

Similarly, General Musharraf’s third state visit to Beijing on February 19-23, which was a week apart from President Bush’s planned visit to South Asia in March, further strengthened the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Good Neighborly Relations. On February 20, China and Pakistan signed 13 agreements in Beijing, while President Hu Jintao and General Musharraf remained present at the signing ceremony. Of these, agreements on defense production, particularly the manufacture of multi-role JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, nuclear power generation, and strategic infrastructure-building, including the widening of the Karakorum Highway, are critically important to the future direction of Islamabad’s relations with Beijing.

 

Joint Defense Production: JF-17s

 

Nothing explains Pakistan’s Sino-centric relations better than its defense and strategic ties with Beijing. Since the 1970s, these relations have continued to deepen and widen with progressive expansion in defense cooperation. Joint defense production, however, peaked in the 2000s. Today, all three branches of the Pakistani military—land, air and navy (in that order)—are equipped with Chinese weapons systems. Taxila Heavy Industrial Complex, situated near Islamabad, was the first seed of mutual collaboration that sprouted to branch off into building components for air defense. As a result, a state-of-the-art Aeronautical Complex was built at Kamra, a small town in Attock district of the Punjab province. Most recently, Beijing has offered Islamabad a helping hand in building two frigates at its naval base in Karachi, which will be a landmark breakthrough in their joint naval defense production as well. General Musharraf, at the conclusion of his five-day visit to Beijing, declared that “defense relations have been the bedrock of Sino-Pakistan relations” (Dawn, February 25). The hallmark of their decades-long defense collaboration, however, is the joint production of JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, which General Musharraf described as a “great success.” He favorably compared JF-17s with the U.S. Air Force’s F-16 fighter jets “in platform engine, maneuverability, avionics and capability of carrying various modern weapon systems” (Ibid.).

 

JF-17s are being manufactured in Chengdu, capital of China’s Sichuan province. In 1999, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Company (CATIC) signed an agreement with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) for joint production of JF-17s. Since then, CATIC, Chengdu Aircraft Designing Institute and the PAF have been working on this project. They rolled out the prototype of JF-17 on September 3, 2003, the test-flight of which satisfied both Chinese and Pakistani pilots. Almost two-and-a-half years later, General Musharraf watched the demonstration flight of the aircraft on February 22 when he visited Chengdu, Sichuan, which is China’s center of high-tech defense production. General Musharraf was so impressed by the manufacture of JF-17s that he had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between China and Pakistan to declare Sichuan and Punjab (Pakistan’s most populous province that predominantly contributes “manpower” to the country’s three services) as “sister provinces” (Dawn, February 22). Pakistan is now celebrating JF-17s as worthy substitutes for F-16s.

 

Although Pakistan did receive 40 F-16s from the U.S. in the 1980s and is expected to receive an additional 80 F-16s this year, it still faces problems in their maintenance and service as its access to spare parts and manufacture technology is highly regulated (Dawn, February 25). This is what, Pakistan thinks, makes the U.S. an “unreliable” arms supplier, pushing Islamabad into the instinctive embrace of Beijing, which it considers an “all-weather friend” (Daily Times, February 24). Since 9/11, the U.S., however, has taken important measures to rebuild Pakistan-U.S. relations into longer-lasting cooperation. A case in point is Pakistan’s upgraded status as a major non-NATO ally of the U.S. to the perceptible unease of India, its arch rival. Yet Pakistan views such steps as symbolic as compared to the emerging strategic partnership between India and the U.S.

 

Nuclear Power Production

 

Pakistan is especially wary of the Indo-U.S. agreement on the transfer of nuclear power technology to Delhi, which is expected to be finalized during President Bush’s visit to India later this week. Since the signing of the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement on July 18, 2005, when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a state visit to the U.S., Pakistan has been lobbying the U.S. to allow it the same access to nuclear power technology, but to no avail. It is not just the ruling Republican Party in the U.S. that is averse to providing Islamabad with nuclear reactors; leaders of the Democratic Party are even more adamant on this issue. Senator John Kerry, who visited Pakistan this year on January 14-15, told a news conference in Islamabad: “India is a democracy and it has adhered to the non-proliferation agreement in all the years of its involvement with nuclear facilities. This is not yet true of Pakistan, though Pakistan is moving in that direction” (The Hindu, January 16). Pakistan is, nevertheless, pursuing a plan to generate 8,000 MW of electrical power from nuclear fuel by 2020, an ambitious plan that makes it look to Beijing for support.

 

Beijing has already provided Islamabad a 300-MW nuclear reactor (Chashma-I), which is sited in a small town—Chashma—of the Punjab province. Beijing has now agreed to provide another nuclear power plant—Chashma-II—which will be sited next to Chashma-I. It will take five years before Chashma-II becomes operational. In addition, Pakistan is in talks with Beijing to buy six to eight nuclear power reactors of 600 MW each over the next decade (Press Trust of India, January 3). If the talks are successful, Pakistan will buy a number of nuclear reactors at the cost $10 billion to produce 4,800 MW of electricity. Pakistan’s current production of nuclear power is just 425 MW (Ibid.). Although Pakistan denies any such talks, it did sign an agreement with Beijing on February 20 to further “deepen cooperation in peaceful application of nuclear power.” In addition, Pakistan and China signed an “energy cooperation framework agreement,” which will explore the possibility of a gas pipeline between Iran and China through Pakistan (Dawn, February 22).

 

Strategic Infrastructure: the Karakorum Highway

 

Besides, China and Pakistan are engaged in building key strategic infrastructures to further strengthen their defense ties. The construction of the Karakorum Highway (KKH)—which connects western China and its largest autonomous region of Xinjiang with Pakistan’s Northern Areas (NAs) all the way through Islamabad—was the first such major project. Since its completion in the 1970s, the Karakorum Highway has been used for limited trade and travel, however. In harsh winters, the stretch running through the Northern Areas and Xinjiang becomes unusable for motorized traffic due to heavy snowfall. Chinese and Pakistani engineers have since been trying to render it into an all-weather passageway. Yet limited trade and travel remained a poor incentive for such an expensive undertaking, until its renewed strategic significance became all too apparent in recent days. In a strict strategic sense, KKH is considered priceless. It gives Beijing unhindered access to Jammu and Kashmir in India, in addition to enabling it to the India’s movement along Aksai Chin, which China seized from India in 1962, severing India’s land-link to China’s turbulent autonomous regions of Tibet and Xinjiang. For Pakistan, the KKH is an added security for its turbulent Northern Areas, all the way up to Siachin where Indian and Pakistani troops have been in a stand-off since the mid-1980s.

 

On February 20, China and Pakistan agreed to widen KKH for larger vehicles with heavier freight. The rebuilding of KKH will enable China to ship its energy supplies from the Middle East from Gwader Port in Baluchistan through the land route of KKH to western China, which is its development hub. This alternative energy supply route will reduce Beijing’s dependence on the Malacca Straits. General Musharraf also wants to set up a “crude transit route” through Gwader Port for Beijing’s energy shipments from Iran and Africa. For this reason, Pakistan is building oil refineries, natural gas terminals, oil and gas equipment, and transit facilities in Baluchistan. China has agreed to help Pakistan with its plans for the development of its oil and gas industry. With this planned elaborate energy infrastructure, KKH has assumed an added significance as an alternative land link between China and its energy sources, of which Iran sits atop.

 

Beijing and Tehran are now all set to sign a $100 billion agreement on developing Iran’s Yadavaran oil field in southern Iran as early as March this year (Reuters, February 17). Under this agreement, China will buy 10 million tons of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from Iran each year over the next 25 years. KKH would be the shortest and safest land route to ship Iranian LNG to western China. In return for LNG, China will develop the Yadavaran oil field, which is estimated to have three billion barrels of oil and is expected to produce about 300,000 barrels of oil per day, which is equivalent to China’s current imports from Iran (Ibid.). General Musharraf wants to turn Pakistan into China’s “energy corridor” for Chinese energy imports from the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Africa (Daily Times, February 18). He also wants Pakistan to be China’s “trade corridor” for its exports to Central Asia. For the latter reason, Pakistan has recently built the Torkham-Jalalabad road in northwestern Pakistan (i.e., Pakhtunkhaw province) and Chaman-Kandahar railroad link in Baluchistan to carry Chinese manufactured goods to Central Asia through Afghanistan.

 

China generously recognizes General Musharraf’s contribution to forging even closer relations between Beijing and Islamabad. It also wants Pakistan to play a bigger role in the region, for which General Musharraf has asked Beijing to upgrade Pakistan’s observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to full membership. China will notify all SCO member states of Pakistan’s request to consider it at the SCO’s scheduled summit meeting this year (Dawn, February 20). To honor his contribution and his visit to Beijing, China put General Musharraf’s face on its postage stamps, which is a rare gesture even by Chinese standards.

 

Conclusion

 

Defense and strategic ties are the bedrock of Sino-Pakistan relations, which are too solid for any hint of weakness. Their ambitious future agenda for high-tech defense production (such as JF-17s and Frigates), nuclear power generation, and strategic infrastructure building (such as KKH and deep-sea Gwader Port) will further energize their ties. Although Sino-Pakistan relations have flourished under all military governments in Islamabad, General Musharraf has taken them to even greater heights by signing a territorial defense treaty in April last year, and literally and metaphorically putting (JF-17) “thunder” in Sino-Pakistan relations.

Sale of JF-17 Thunder jets to start next year
 
October 25, 2013
 

 
Sale of JF-17 Thunder jets to start next year
 

ISLAMABAD – Pakistan has decided to start sale of state of the art JF-17 Thunder combat jets developed in collaboration with China to other countries from next year.
According to sources, a sum of $100 million has also been released to Pakistan Ordinance Factories Wah in connection with up-gradation of its machinery.
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra has carried out up-gradation of Cobra Helicopters presently under the use of army besides installing high tech system therein. Pakistan will also import modern helicopters from Turkey. The Ministry of Defence Production sources said as many as 42 JF-17 Thunder planes have been developed so far under joint venture with China. The Pakistan Air Force has been assigned target of exporting 5 to 7 JF-17 Thunder planes next year and discussions in this regard are under way with Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Qatar and other friendly countries.
The Ministry of Defence Production officials have expressed optimism that Pakistan would succeed in exporting these modern planes during the next year.
The sources said Heavy Industries Taxila has manufactured prototype of Buraq vehicle to defuse land mines and remote control explosive material.
It has also been learnt that Pakistan is continuing dialogue process with Turkey to acquire T 120 high tech helicopters from the latter. Pakistan is also endeavouring to launch a joint venture with Turkey with reference to manufacturing of these helicopters. If both the countries don’t agree over it then Pakistan will execute agreement with Turkey to purchase these helicopters.
The sources said that PAC Kamra has refurbished several helicopters being used by Army Aviation. Pakistan has acquired these helicopters from the US and they have now been upgraded. Modern technology has been installed therein while the US voiced its concern over it.

, , ,

No Comments

Family of grandmother killed in US drone strike arrive for Congress visit

 

 

Family of grandmother killed in US drone strike arrive for Congress visit

Rafiq ur Rehman discusses his family’s journey from Pakistan to Washington DC, where they will seek answers on Capitol Hill

 

Pakistani protesters, drones, Multan

Pakistani protesters demonstrate against US drone attacks in the Pakistani tribal areas, in Multan on 14 July. Photograph: SS Mirza/AFP/Getty Images

Drawing on a pad of paper in a Washington DC hotel, Nabeela ur Rehman recalled the day her grandmother was killed. “I was running away,” the nine-year told the Guardian. “I was trying to wipe away the blood.”

“It was as if it was night all of the sudden.”

The date was 24 October 2012, the eve of Eid al-Adha, the Muslim holy day. Nabeela’s father, Rafiq ur Rehman, a school teacher living in the remote Pakistani tribal region of North Waziristan, was dropping off sweets at his sister’s home when it happened.

He had hoped to make the visit a family affair but his mother urged him to go alone. Rafiq did as she wished then stopped at the local mosque for evening prayers before taking the bus home. As the vehicle came to a halt at his stop, Rehman noticed something unsettling: members of his community were preparing to bury a body at a small graveyard nearby.

“I got a little worried,” Rehman said. He asked a boy what was going on. The child informed him that the mother of a man named Latif Rehman had been killed in a drone attack. The boy did not know the man he spoke to was Latif Rehman’s younger brother.

Rafiq ur Rehman

Rafiq ur Rehman.

“That’s when I first knew,” Rehman said, describing how he learned of his mother’s death. The fruits Rehman had collected at the bazaar fell from his hands. “I just dropped everything. I was in a state of shock,” he said. Rehman feared the worst. He knew his children were with their grandmother. “I frantically ran to my house.”

Rehman arrived home to find that the charred remains of his mother had already been buried. Two of his children, Nabeela and her 12-year-old brother, Zubair, had been injured and taken to a nearby hospital, neighbors said. “At that point, I thought I had lost them as well,” Rehman said.

The children survived the attack, but their recovery process was just beginning. A year later, Rehman still has no idea why his mother, Momina Bibi, a 67-year-old midwife, was blown to pieces while tending her garden. Along with Nabeela and Zubair, Rehman has traveled to Washington DC to seek answers. On Tuesday, the family will appear before members of Congress to describe their experience, marking the first time in history that US lawmakers will hear directly from the survivors of an alleged US drone strike.

On Sunday, in their first interview with US media since arriving to the country and speaking through a translator, Rehman and his children described the day Momina Bibi was killed and their efforts since then to find justice. Zubair, now 13, said the sky was clear the day his grandmother died. He had just returned home from school. Everyone had been in high spirits for the holiday, Zubair said, though above their heads aircraft were circling. Not airplanes or helicopters, Zubair said.Drones.

“I know the difference,” Zubair said, explaining the different features and sounds the vehicles make. “I am certain that it was a drone.” Zubair recalled a pair of “fireballs” tearing through the clear blue sky, after he stepped outside. After the explosion there was darkness, he said, and a mix of smoke and debris.

“When it first hit, it was like everyone was just going crazy. They didn’t know what to make of it,” Zubair said. “There was madness.” A piece of shrapnel ripped into the boy’s left leg, just above his kneecap. A scar approximately four inches in length remains. “I felt like I was on fire,” he said. The injury would ultimately require a series of costly operations.

Nabeela, the little girl, was collecting okra when the missiles struck. “My grandma was teaching me how you can tell if the okra is ready to be picked,” she said. “All of the sudden there was a big noise. Like a fire had happened.

“I was scared. I noticed that my hand was hurting, that there was something that had hit my hand and so I just started running. When I was running I noticed that there was blood coming out of my hand.”

Nabeela continued running. The bleeding would not stop. She was eventually scooped up by her neighbors. “I had seen my grandmother right before it had happened but I couldn’t see her after. It was just really dark but I could hear [a] scream when it had hit her.”

 
 
 
 
us drone pakistan
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drone strikes have been a major source of friction between the US and Pakistan. Photo: James Lee Harper Jr/AFP/Getty Images

Early media reports, citing anonymous Pakistani officials, claimed as many as four militants were killed in the attack. The strike drew the attention of an Amnesty International researcher, Mustafa Qadri, who was investigating drone attacks in Pakistan at the time.

“We got all sorts of different stories to begin with,” Qadri told the Guardian. “One was that [Bibi] was preparing a meal for some militants and that’s why she was killed. Another one was that there was a militant on a motorbike, right next to her. And then there’s this story of, that there was a militant in a jeep, SUV, with a satellite phone, at the exact point that she’s killed, but 10 minutes earlier. He used the phone and then he drives off into the distance. And then the drones come later and they kill her. So we found that that just really did not add up.”

Qadri reached out to trusted sources in North Waziristan. The family members and their neighbors were interviewed independently on multiple occasions, unaware that a human-rights group was behind the questions they were asked. Over the course of many weeks, Qadri found the family’s account to be consistent. He determined it was highly unlikely that any militants were present at the time of the strike and that the missiles were likely fired by a US drone.

“It was a number of things,” Qadri told the Guardian. “We got the missiles, the large fragments that the family has that we got analyzed by [an] expert who says this is very likely to be a Hellfire missile. We also had family members who saw drones physically. We also have the eyewitness of the family who said they heard the noise of missiles fired from the sky and then separate noises of missiles impacting on the ground. We have the evidence of a double sound, with each single strike.”

Among the most striking evidence that the attack was carried out by a US drone, Qadri said, was the “phenomenal accuracy” of the strike. “It physically hits her,” he said, referring to Momina Bibi. “She’s literally hit flush and is blown to smithereens.”

“It’s quite awful obviously … but in this sort of a situation where the body is destroyed, clearly she’s been targeted,” Qadri added. “They meant to kill this person.”

Qadri argues that US secrecy surrounding its so-called “targeted killing” program exacerbates an already complicated set of problems in Pakistan’s tribal regions.

“That secrecy, the unaccountability, the lack of lawfulness to it, is the key problem,” he said. “In the context of Pakistan and just in the very micro sense, I don’t think drones alone is the problem. It’s the way they’re used and it’s the way they’re used in isolation, ignoring the broader factors in that region.”

The State Department, in response to questions concerning the strike, directed the Guardian to the transcript of a 22 October press briefing by deputy spokesperson Marie Harf.

“There’s a process that goes into how these operations are chosen, and as part of that process, we take every effort to limit these casualties,” Harf said, echoing claims the president made in a counterterrorism speech in May.

The briefing fell two days before the one-year anniversary of Bibi’s death. It did not address the United States‘ alleged responsibility for the attack. The CIA, which runs drone programs in Pakistan, declined to comment on the strike. The agency suggested the Guardian contact the White House. The White House did not respond.

Nabeela spent most of her days with her grandmother. “I really liked my grandma,” she said. “I enjoyed following her and learning how to do things.” Zubair said his grandmother was liked by all. “There’s no one else like her. We all loved her.” In the year since his mother’s death, Rehman said, life has changed dramatically. “Not having her is as if a limb has been cut,” he said.

For Rehman’s father, a respected headmaster a local school, the death of his wife has been devastating. The couple was unaccustomed to being apart, Rehman said. “After my mom’s death, we haven’t really seen our dad smile. It’s like he doesn’t have any more will for going on.”

Rehman’s journey to the US was the idea of his attorney, Shahzad Ahkbar, an internationally-known critic of US drone policy. In the weeks following Bibi’s death, the US documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald traveled to Pakistan to shoot for a forthcoming film on drone attacks, Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars. Ahkbar introduced Greenwald to Rehman and his family.

“I could never have imagined that I would be coming to America or I’d want to come to America. I didn’t know how people were,” Rehman said. “But then Robert had come and they were listening to our story and then Shahzad, our lawyer, had told us that there are more people like Robert who would love to hear the truth and know the truth.”

Greenwald said: “When I was in Pakistan, interviewing a whole series of people, they stayed in my mind. At the moment when I was interviewing them I had this very strong feeling that it would be very helpful if Americans could see and experience a father, a teacher, children, the loss of a mother, the loss of a grandmother. Those are universals.

He added: “On the policy side, I hope the briefing will begin the process of demanding investigation. Innocent people are being killed.”

US officials say the White House does have a count of civilian drone-strike casualties. The figure, they say, is considerably lower than publicly available counts. The administration has declined to disclose its number, however, citing national security. “Some things will never be able to be made public so we can protect, indeed, our ability to continue conducting these operations to, indeed, protect our country,” Harf said last week.

Alan GraysonCongressman Alan Grayson.

Together Rehman, his attorney and the US director set out to bring the family to the US. For months they worked to secure paperwork for the children (who lacked birth certificates). Eventually Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, and a number of others extended a formal invitation. A hearing was scheduled for last month, but the event was postponed when the US state department declined to issue a visa for Ahkbar.

“I ideally wanted to come with my lawyer and it was very unfortunate that he couldn’t come along with me,” Rehman said. Despite the setback, he continued. With Grayson’s help, the family secured the Tuesday briefing in Congress.

The purpose of the briefing, Representative Grayson told the Guardian, is “simply to get people to start to think through the implications of killing hundreds of people ordered by the president, or worse, unelected and unidentifiable bureaucrats within the Department of Defense without any declaration of war.”

“Under many people’s view of international law, they’re all illegal. All these attacks are illegal. The UN charter, as was discussed with great vehemence during the recent debate about military intervention in Syria, the UN charter sanctions the use of force only when a country is under attack, in self defense, or when it’s been sanctioned by the UN security council.

“It is an abuse of the term ‘self-defense’ to say that our launching drone attacks in Yemen or elsewhere in the world qualifies. The fact that the technology is there doesn’t change the fact that it’s a use of force that ends up killing people.”

Rehman described the message he hopes to convey to the American people through the briefing: “I want them to know the drones are having an impact on our lives.”

“It’s hitting our elders. It took my mom. It’s affected my children and we haven’t done anything wrong.”

,

No Comments

آئیں اپنی آواز بلند کریں & PHOTOESSAY ON BRUTALITY OF DRONE ATTACKS ON CHILDREN

 
 
 
Tear_drop_by_JosCos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

آئیں اپنی آواز بلند کریں

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

میں تقریبا تیس منٹ تک سڑک کنارے سٹاپ پر دیگر لوگوں کیساتھ کھڑا گاڑی آنے کا انتظار کررہا تھا دن کے اوقات میں گاڑی تو آسانی سے مل جاتی ہیں لیکن رات کے وقت دس بجے کے بعد گاڑیاں بہت کم ہی چلتی ہیں اسی وجہ سے پشاور جیسے شہر میں لوگ سٹاپوں پر انتظار کرتے رہتے ہیں اور جن کےجیب میں پیسے ہوں تو وہ رکشہ یا ٹیکسی میں بیٹھ کر اپنی منزل کو روانہ ہو جاتے ہیں تقریبا پینتالیس منٹ بعد ایک گاڑی آکر رکی  اس سے کنڈیکٹر اترا اور پشاور صدر تک آواز لگائی ساتھ میں گاڑی میں بیٹھنے والوں کو کہہ دیا کہ کرایہ پندرہ روپے ہوگا  حالانکہ کرایہ دس روپے تھا  میں بھی سنی ان سنیکرتے ہوئے گاڑی میں بیٹھ گیا گاڑی روانہ ہوگئی اور کنڈیکٹر نے کرایہ مانگا میں نے جیب سے سو روپے نکال کردئیے اس نے بقایا 80 روپے مجھے دئیے میں نے اس سے پوچھا بھائی میرے دس روپے اور بھی دو کیونکہ ہشتنگری سے صدر تک کرایہ دس روپے ہے کنڈیکٹر نے جواب دیا کہ صاحب میںپانچروپے واپس کردیتا ہوں میں نے اسے کہا کہ دس روپے واپس دو  اس نے جواب دیا کہ  میں نے گاڑی میں بیٹھنے والے تمام مسافروں کو کہا تھا کہ کرایہ پندرہ روپے ہے  میں نے اس سے پوچھا کیوں یہ تمھارا فیصلہ ہے  اگر کرایہ نامہ ہے اور اس پر پندرہ لکھا ہے تو مجھ سے بیس روپے لو  لیکن اگر کرایہنامہ نہیں تو پھر مجھے دس روپے واپس کردو  کنڈیکٹر نے جواب دیا کہ بھائی میرے یہ گاڑی میری ہے اور آپ اپنے پیسے واپس لیکر اتر جائیں میں نے اسے جوابا کہا کہ گاڑی اگر تمھاری ذاتی ہے تو پھر مسافر وں کو کیوں اٹھا رہے ہوں اور سڑک جس پر تمھاری گاڑی چل رہی ہیں یہ میرے جیسے لوگوںکی ٹیکسوں کی کمائی لگی ہے اگر خان ہونگے تو اپنے لئے  مجھے تم اتار بھی نہیں سکتے  کرایہ مجھے پورا لو اور مجھے اپنے سٹاپ پر پہنچائو گے  اس پر کنڈیکٹرکو غصہ آیا لیکن مجھے کہنے لگا کہ خاموش ہو جائو  تم سے دس روپے لیتا ہوں لیکن دوسرے مسافروں کے سامنے بحث مت کرو کیونکہپھر یہ بھی نہیں دینگے  میں نے اسے کہا کہ غلط بات مت کرو مجھے اپنے پیسے واپس کرو اس نے بادل نخواستہ مجھے دس روپے واپس کردئیے اسی دوران گاڑی میں مسافر بیٹھے ہوئے تھے لیکن سب نے میرے بعد اسے پندرہ روپے دئیے اور وہ کنڈیکٹر مسافروں پر یہ احسان کرتا رہا کہ اس وقت گاڑی نہیںتھی اگر میں نے آتا تو آپ لوگ کھڑے رہتے  اس لئے میرا احسان مانو کہ میں پندرہ روپے میں تمھیں پہنچا رہا ہوں  یہ ایک چھوٹی سی مثال ہے جس سے اندازہ کیا جاسکتا ہے کہ ہمارے آگے پیچھے چھوٹے بڑے کس طرح دوسروں کی مجبوریوں سے فائدہ اٹھاتے ہیں اور ہم بے حس لوگوں کی طرح خاموشبیٹھے انہیں دیکھ رہے ہوتے ہیں کہ اگر میں نے کچھ کہہ دیا تو شائد مجھے کوئی نقصان ہو جائے ہم لوگ آواز نہیں اٹھاتے نہ ہی اپنا احتجاج ریکارڈ کرتے ہیں حالانکہ ہمیں پتہ ہوتا ہے کہ ہمارے ساتھ زیادتی ہورہی ہیں لیکن صرف اپنی بے عزتی  چھوٹے سے نقصان  ڈر اور خوف کی وجہ سے خاموش رہتےہیں اور یہی وہ چیز ہے جس کا فائدہ ان کنڈیکٹر جیسے بے حس بے غیرت لوگ اٹھاتے ہیں اور شریف لوگ کڑھتے ہی رہتے ہیں کہ شائد ہماری آواز سے کچھ نہ ہو اور یہی ہماری سب سے بڑی غلطی ہوتی ہے-

اب اسی چیز کو آپ بڑے کینوس پر دیکھ لیں کیا یہ ملک کل کے چور وں اور آج کے ڈاکوئوں کیلئے بنا ہے جو جمہوریت کی راگ الاپ رہے ہیں ملک میں جمہوریت کی مضبوطی جیسے نعرے بلند کرکے اس قوم کو بے وقوف بنا رہے ہیں ایک دوسرے کو باری آنے پر حکومت دینے والے میڈیا اور اپنے چندخوشامدی صحافیوں کو استعمال کرکے پوری قوم کا استحصال کررہے ہیں لیکن اس ملک سے کوئی آواز ہی نہیں اٹھ رہی ہر شخص یہی سوچ کر خاموش بیٹھ جاتا ہے کہ میرے آواز بلند کرنے سے کچھ نہیں ہوگا کیا یہ ملک مخصوص خاندانوں اور ان کے بچوں کیلئے کھیلنے کا میدان ہے کہ جب ان کا دل چاہاسیاست کے میدان میں آئے ایک دوسرے کے خلاف آواز بلند کی اور ہم جیسے بے وقوف صحافی ان کی آواز بن گئے اور پوری قوم کو چور اور ڈاکوئوں کے پیچھے لگا دیا اور آوے اور جاوے کے نعرے لگنے شروع ہوگئے-آوے جاوے کی سیاست کرنے والے اور بھاری مینڈیٹ لیکر آنیوالوں کا یہ حال ہےکہ دو ماہ میں بجلی کی قیمتیں کہاں سے کہاں تک پہنچا دی ہیں کل تک عزت غیرت کے دکانداری کرنے والے آج قرضے مانگ کر اس قوم کو بیڑہ غرق کرنے پر تلے ہوئے ہیں سابق حکمرانوں کو اس صورتحال کا ذمہ دار ٹھہرا کر اب حالات بہتر کرنے کے دعوے کئے جارہے ہیں اب کوئی یہ نہیں پوچھتا کہپانچ سال تک تو آپ ہی ان کے اپوزیشن لیڈر بنے ہوئے تھے اور انکو سپورٹ کررہے تھے خوشامدی چمچوں اور مخصوص صحافیوں کی مدد سے اپنا کام نکالنے والے یہ لیڈر قوم کو بتانا پسند کرینگے کہ آخر کیا وجہ ہے کہ جب بھی بیرون ملک دورہ ہوتا ہے اپنے خاندان کے بچوں کو سرکاری خرچ پر دورےکیوں کرواتے ہیں کیا عوام کا ٹیکس ان کی اور ان کے خاندان کی عیاشیوں کیلئے ہے کہ جب چاہا بیرون ملک دورے پر نکل گئے اور بعد میں ایجنڈا طے کردیاکہ ہم نے یہ کرنا اور یہ کردیا –

رون حملے کررہے ہیں اس سے قبل بھی یہی ڈرامہ جاری تھا اور یہ ڈرامہ اب بھی جاری ہے ہاں کل اگر آپ چوروں کیساتھ ملے ہوئے تھے تووہ چور آجڈاکوئوں کاساتھ د ے رہے ہیں خارجہ اور دفاع کے وزارت رکھنے والے حکمرانوں کا یہ حال ہے کہ انہیں امریکی سفیر رچرڈ اولسن نے ائیرپورٹ پر ریسیو کیا کوئی اعلی عہدیدار انہیں ریسیو کرنے ہی نہیں یا نہ ہی سٹیٹ گیسٹ کے طور پر انہیں بلایا گیا تھا اسی وجہ سے ہوٹل میں رہائش اختیار کی جس کیادائیگی بھی پاکستان کے بھوکے  ننگے عوام ہی کرینگے انہی کیساتھ مشیر کے طور پر کام کرنے والے ایک صاحب نے کچھ دن قبل بیان دیا تھا کہ امریکہ بہادرپاکستانی حکمرانوں سے افغانستان سے نکلنے کے بعد تعاون سمیت غداری کے الزام میں گرفتار ہونیوالے ڈاکٹر شکیل کی رہائی چاہتے ہیں جس کامطالبہ بھی کیا گیا لیکن یہ بات چھپا لی گئی اور صحافیوں کے سوال کرنے پر اس پر گول مول جواب دیدیا گیاپہلے سب کچھ غلط تھا اور اب ٹھیک کرنے جارہے کے نام پر کونسل آف یورپ کنونشن کے معاہدے کرنے والے حکمران کیا یہ بتانا پسند کرینگے کہ کیا یہ غداروں کو نکالنے کیلئے راستہ فراہم کرنانہیں ہے-باتیں تو بہت ساری ہیں لیکن کیا یہ آواز بلند کرنا صرف صحافیوں کا کام ہے کیا اس ملک کے عوام شعور نہیں رکھتے جو آئی ایم ایف کے غلام حکمرانوں سے یہ سوال کرے کہ آخر انہیں کس چیز کی سزا دی جارہی ہیں اور یہ حکمران کب تک عوام کیساتھ جھوٹ بولتے رہیں گے – سو موجودہ حالاتمیںیہ اس ملک کے ہر شہری کا فرض ہے کہ اپنی آواز بلند کریں سوال کریں کب تک خاموش رہینگے صرف اس طرح کے پیغامات موبائل فون پر ایک دوسرے کو بھیجنے سے سے کچھ نہیں چلے گا کہ شیر کتے سے زیادہ کھاتا ہے –

 
 

— 

Musarrat Ullah Jan
Blogger , Photo Journalist , Columnist

 سرکار کے کھاتے میں امریکہ یاترا کرنے والے حکمرانوں سے کوئی یہ پوچھے کہ ڈو مور کا مطالبہ کرنے والے امریکی کیسے آپ کی مرضی کے بغیر ڈ

 
 

 

,

No Comments