By Malik Muhammad Ashraf
Needless to emphasize that presently Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the world and the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism, arguably, is the major factor in distorting its image at the global level. This scourge is a sequel to some unimaginative and self-defined strategic policies of the major global powers and equally shortsighted and groveling approach of our past rulers who in their zeal to prolong their power stints bartered away the sovereignty of the country, raising the expectations of our allies to a level where it is simply impossible to deliver without undermining our own security and compromising the national honor.
The result is that despite the fact that Pakistan as a front line state has suffered the most in men and material in the war on terror and helped in dismantling the terrorist network of Osama Bin Laden, our allies and the western countries look askance at our endeavors, doubt our commitment to the war on terror and decidedly remain oblivious to our national and strategic interests in the region.
The Western media with its all-permeating power and unfettered global outreach is also feverishly engaged in maligning Pakistan and soiling its image among the comity of nations.It is encouraging to note that in the wake of the Salala attack that killed 26 military personnel, the government and the establishment have finally been jerked out of the self-imposed slumber and complacency and a vigorous exercise is underway to redefine and recalibrate the terms of our engagement with the US and its allies in conformity with our national and security interests in the region. While recasting the new approach that will be implemented through the diplomatic channels, it is equally imperative for the government to strengthen and bolster efforts to create a better understanding of Pakistan’s position and its image internationally focusing on countering the negative propaganda against Pakistan and projecting a soft image of the country relying on the positive things that have happened and done by Pakistan not only in the war against terror but also the measures put in place to improve economic, social and political conditions in line with the globally accepted principles. The emergence of an independent judiciary and a free media in Pakistan are indeed epoch making developments.
So are the strides taken towards ensuring gender equality and emancipation of women through a number of administrative and legislative measures that strengthen Pakistan’s credentials as a progressive Islamic country. These factors can go a long way in projecting soft image of Pakistan and remove some of the mis-perceptions that exist about Pakistan at the international level. To achieve the foregoing objectives, Pakistan will have to upgrade and restructure the existing PR mechanism at the international level. Our press sections abroad unfortunately are poorly staffed and under-financed. Apart from this perennial shortcoming, we do not have any presence in important capitals of Central Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Australia.
Viewed in the backdrop of these imperatives, the three-day Consultative Conference of the Press Officers, organized by the External Publicity Wing of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in Islamabad recently, was a timely and imaginative step to deliberate on the much needed initiative in this regard. Information Minister, Dr.Firdous Ashiq Awan addressing the concluding session made a commitment that the government would spare no effort in upgrading and restructuring the working of the External Publicity Wing and the Press Sections abroad and strengthening the process of capacity building of the Press Officers through language training courses.
Some of the major recommendations made by the forum include: institutionalizing the Consultative forum, organizing exchange of visits by the senior Pakistani journalists abroad through the press sections for interaction with the media personalities of the host countries, opening of new press sections in the areas identified above, public-private partnership in projecting soft image of Pakistan, production of the publicity material in consultation with other ministries and extensive use of the social media at the national and international level.
It is hard to take issue with these long awaited commitments and the desirable initiatives identified by the forum. Pakistan badly needs to enhance the outreach of its Public Relations mechanism and hence opening of more press sections in the identified areas should be given top priority. The proposal for organizing visits of senior Pakistani journalists abroad has a considerable merit as their interaction with their counterparts can help a great deal in repudiating some of the perceptions that exist in the minds of the leaders and forums that shape the public opinion. Public-private collaboration in the domain of Public Relations will not only help in improving the quality of the effort but would lend more credibility to it.
The institutionalization of the consultative forum can also contribute to re-evaluation of the PR efforts periodically and effecting necessary changes in the adopted strategies. In the modern era, media has assumed tremendous importance and power. Diplomacy has its own advantages and efficacy, but it cannot match the power of communications in changing perceptions and attitudes of the people and influencing their judgments. Pakistan needs a sustained and well-orchestrated effort to use the power of media and the PR regime to address the issue of image building in the larger and long-term interest of the country. We need to recognize the existing and emerging regional and global realities and re-choreograph our strategies accordingly. We need to pursue our objectives with a pro-active and rational approach. There is no room for complacency. The deliberations of the consultative forum must be implemented immediately. One hopes that the Information Minister will make sure that the commitments she has made are translated into reality and this commendable initiative does not whither away like a damp squib.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Pakistan ruined by language myth
By Zubeida Mustafa
Last year I wrote a book highlighting the crisis in Pakistan's education system caused by the way languages are used and taught. Its publication prompted one critic to remark that I was trying to "backwardise" the children of Pakistan. Another said that language was not the problem; it was what we taught that needed to be addressed.
These were typical responses from highly educated, fluent English speakers. They have glorified the English language in Pakistan to the extent that all logic has been put aside. But they wield great influence over public opinion and have even persuaded policymakers that the country's education system can be fixed by hiring teachers competent in English. Such teachers are hired by exclusive private schools, which are beyond the reach of the majority. So proficiency in English automatically becomes the preserve of the affluent.
Since I have been more concerned about the majority's problems, I have pleaded the case of the underprivileged by stating that children must initially begin their schooling in their own tongue, with which they are familiar. This will help their cognitive development and inculcate critical thinking. It will also enable them to be articulate participants in the construction of knowledge in the classroom and discourage the culture of rote learning. English should be introduced at a later stage and taught as a second language.
With the exception of a small minority of children who are bilingual even before they begin school, teaching children in a language other than their mother tongue in the early years does them harm, no matter how good their teachers may be. This approach robs the child of the natural advantage she has in her home language.
A child begins "acquiring" language from her environment soon after she is born. Children have already gained three or four years of language experience in their mother tongue when they start school. If English is to be the school language, these children lose this advantage. The benefit goes to a small minority that is bilingual from the start by virtue of their parents being the products of exclusive English-medium education.
Such is the power of myths about language in Pakistan that a public demand has been created for English. People believe that English is the magic wand that can open the door to prosperity. Policymakers, the wielders of economic power and the social elites have also perpetuated this myth to their own advantage. The door of prosperity has been opened but only for a small elite.
In a multilingual country such as Pakistan where at least eight major languages compete for supremacy, English occupies a special position by virtue of its "neutrality". But the status of English as the language of international communication exerts additional pressure. This importance is reinforced by Pakistan's employment market, which discriminates in favour of the fluent English speaker even though not every job requires an English language expert.
This language paradox has undermined our education standards. With no well-defined language as a medium of instruction policy, we have a fractured system that divides society.
There is an excellent English-based system in the private sector that is expensive and caters for a small wealthy elite. Children from the middle and lower-middle classes go to second-tier private schools charging relatively modest fees. They adopt a strange mix of languages while pretending to be English-medium. Why else would you see schools in the shantytowns of Karachi announce their Anglicised names and the fact that they are "English-medium" in Urdu script? The teachers explain in their mother tongue while teaching from English language textbooks from which the students plagiarise and memorise passages.
It is left to public-sector schools, patronised by the children of the poor, to adopt indigenous languages as the medium of instruction – rather apologetically. With the government rapidly disengaging itself from the education sector, these institutions perform dismally.
As a result, the country is in a state of linguistic confusion. On the one hand people are desperate to be seen as being proficient in English when they are actually not. At the same time they are ashamed of their own language though that is the only language they can communicate in. The ambiguity of the language of instruction policy allows schools to make their own choices, which has contributed to the present crisis in education in Pakistan. The demand for English – a trend set by the privileged elite – has put schools under pressure. Not many teachers who can teach English or teach in English are available.
That is why it would be feasible to get all schools to teach initially in the child's mother tongue while concentrating on improving standards. This would require the production of good textbooks and the training of teachers. Both of these can be done effectively in our own languages. The main challenge would be to decide judiciously which language is to be used as the medium in which region and at what stage other languages, including English, should be introduced.
Training English-as-a-second-language teachers should pose no difficulty. Such teachers can impart basic communication skills in English to their students who would be learning other subjects in their own language. Those going on to higher studies or needing greater competency in English could take up language courses that should be made widely available.
Zubeida Mustafa is an independent journalist based in Karachi. Her book Tyranny of Language in Education: The Problem and its Solution is published by Ushba
Last year I wrote a book highlighting the crisis in Pakistan's education system caused by the way languages are used and taught. Its publication prompted one critic to remark that I was trying to "backwardise" the children of Pakistan. Another said that language was not the problem; it was what we taught that needed to be addressed.
These were typical responses from highly educated, fluent English speakers. They have glorified the English language in Pakistan to the extent that all logic has been put aside. But they wield great influence over public opinion and have even persuaded policymakers that the country's education system can be fixed by hiring teachers competent in English. Such teachers are hired by exclusive private schools, which are beyond the reach of the majority. So proficiency in English automatically becomes the preserve of the affluent.
Since I have been more concerned about the majority's problems, I have pleaded the case of the underprivileged by stating that children must initially begin their schooling in their own tongue, with which they are familiar. This will help their cognitive development and inculcate critical thinking. It will also enable them to be articulate participants in the construction of knowledge in the classroom and discourage the culture of rote learning. English should be introduced at a later stage and taught as a second language.
With the exception of a small minority of children who are bilingual even before they begin school, teaching children in a language other than their mother tongue in the early years does them harm, no matter how good their teachers may be. This approach robs the child of the natural advantage she has in her home language.
A child begins "acquiring" language from her environment soon after she is born. Children have already gained three or four years of language experience in their mother tongue when they start school. If English is to be the school language, these children lose this advantage. The benefit goes to a small minority that is bilingual from the start by virtue of their parents being the products of exclusive English-medium education.
Such is the power of myths about language in Pakistan that a public demand has been created for English. People believe that English is the magic wand that can open the door to prosperity. Policymakers, the wielders of economic power and the social elites have also perpetuated this myth to their own advantage. The door of prosperity has been opened but only for a small elite.
In a multilingual country such as Pakistan where at least eight major languages compete for supremacy, English occupies a special position by virtue of its "neutrality". But the status of English as the language of international communication exerts additional pressure. This importance is reinforced by Pakistan's employment market, which discriminates in favour of the fluent English speaker even though not every job requires an English language expert.
This language paradox has undermined our education standards. With no well-defined language as a medium of instruction policy, we have a fractured system that divides society.
There is an excellent English-based system in the private sector that is expensive and caters for a small wealthy elite. Children from the middle and lower-middle classes go to second-tier private schools charging relatively modest fees. They adopt a strange mix of languages while pretending to be English-medium. Why else would you see schools in the shantytowns of Karachi announce their Anglicised names and the fact that they are "English-medium" in Urdu script? The teachers explain in their mother tongue while teaching from English language textbooks from which the students plagiarise and memorise passages.
It is left to public-sector schools, patronised by the children of the poor, to adopt indigenous languages as the medium of instruction – rather apologetically. With the government rapidly disengaging itself from the education sector, these institutions perform dismally.
As a result, the country is in a state of linguistic confusion. On the one hand people are desperate to be seen as being proficient in English when they are actually not. At the same time they are ashamed of their own language though that is the only language they can communicate in. The ambiguity of the language of instruction policy allows schools to make their own choices, which has contributed to the present crisis in education in Pakistan. The demand for English – a trend set by the privileged elite – has put schools under pressure. Not many teachers who can teach English or teach in English are available.
That is why it would be feasible to get all schools to teach initially in the child's mother tongue while concentrating on improving standards. This would require the production of good textbooks and the training of teachers. Both of these can be done effectively in our own languages. The main challenge would be to decide judiciously which language is to be used as the medium in which region and at what stage other languages, including English, should be introduced.
Training English-as-a-second-language teachers should pose no difficulty. Such teachers can impart basic communication skills in English to their students who would be learning other subjects in their own language. Those going on to higher studies or needing greater competency in English could take up language courses that should be made widely available.
Zubeida Mustafa is an independent journalist based in Karachi. Her book Tyranny of Language in Education: The Problem and its Solution is published by Ushba
Friday, December 30, 2011
Nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan's interest
By Shahzeb Shaikha
Since the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest findings on Iran’s nuclear program and activities, policy-makers in the West and the United States in particular are weighing their options on how to respond to Iran’s continued defiance of its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations.
The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has possible military dimensions and its stated “peacefulness” lacks credibility. Alarm bells in Israel have been ringing for a long time and a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites seems imminent. Not much is being discussed in Pakistan about the implications of a nuclear Iran, precisely due to Pakistan being consumed by its own problems with the on-going political turmoil and its relations with the United States.
This is an alarming development not only for the geopolitical balance in the Middle East, but also for South Asia. A nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan’s interests. Considering that Iran’s regional interests do not align with those of Pakistan, a nuclear Iran has serious implications of greater belligerent behaviour, regional hegemony and bullying. Even though Pakistan is a nuclear state and any nuclear aggression towards us will be deterred, it would immensely reduce our leverage in relations with Iran—if any.
Being the only Muslim nuclear country, a nuclear Pakistan still has some symbolic value in the eyes of the Muslim world. Even though we are economically weak and, at the behest of foreign financial institutions and governments, our national defence posture will take a deep slide with a nuclear armed state on our western border.
The interests of Pakistan and Iran clash in Afghanistan, and Iran’s relations with our key ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, remain rocky. In the event of a military confrontation between Iran and the West, Pakistan and an unstable Iraq would be the most effected countries due to the spill-over from a potential war. At this time and most likely in the near future, at least Pakistan cannot further bear the burden of a refugee influx. In addition, India’s improving relations with Iran is also mind-boggling for our India-centric attitude and policy. Not that I am justifying this historic posture of ours, this attitude is still wide-spread in the security establishment. We must take that into account.
An ideologically inclined state, Iran’s sectarian outlook and ambitions of regional hegemony will create further divides in the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular. One should also not forget that Iran has played a role in inciting sectarian violence in Pakistan, supporting various Shia factions against their Sunni counterparts. Attaining nuclear status would strengthen Iran’s position and possibly its belligerence in fuelling the sectarian strife.
Iran’s offensive, nonsensical and aggravating statements and position only furthers the prospect of more wars in this region. Just recently, Saudi Arabia Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was the former chief of Saudi Intelligence, expressed the Kingdom’s desire to develop nuclear weapons to counter a future Iranian threat. “It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all options” he was quoted as saying.
This is a serious development that could spark a potential arms race in the Middle East. We could engage in an intellectual debate about the rationality of these state actors and their willingness to use nuclear weapons—if they attain the capability—but the thought of them going nuclear sends a chill through the rational mind. Many in the West also fear that a nuclear Iran will become bolder in the use of its proxies, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.
It is imperative that Pakistan convene a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to pressure Iran into abandoning its continued defiance of its international obligations – the NPT and the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Pakistan, along with its allies in the Middle East, should pressure Iran to come to the negotiation table and respect its UN obligations. To avoid a potential arms race in the Middle East and a dooms-day scenario where there may be a nuclear exchange – either by states or through non-state actors – Pakistan should jump on the bandwagon into pressurizing Iran.
Pakistan could not care less about addressing the fears of the West. I suggest this because this is in Pakistan’s vital national security interests and everything should be done to avoid being sandwiched between two nuclear states. We also need to look out for our regional interests in the Middle East. A nuclearised region could have devastating human and economic implications for the region and the world. Pakistan cannot afford either in its current state of weakness.
Since the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest findings on Iran’s nuclear program and activities, policy-makers in the West and the United States in particular are weighing their options on how to respond to Iran’s continued defiance of its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations.
The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has possible military dimensions and its stated “peacefulness” lacks credibility. Alarm bells in Israel have been ringing for a long time and a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites seems imminent. Not much is being discussed in Pakistan about the implications of a nuclear Iran, precisely due to Pakistan being consumed by its own problems with the on-going political turmoil and its relations with the United States.
This is an alarming development not only for the geopolitical balance in the Middle East, but also for South Asia. A nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan’s interests. Considering that Iran’s regional interests do not align with those of Pakistan, a nuclear Iran has serious implications of greater belligerent behaviour, regional hegemony and bullying. Even though Pakistan is a nuclear state and any nuclear aggression towards us will be deterred, it would immensely reduce our leverage in relations with Iran—if any.
Being the only Muslim nuclear country, a nuclear Pakistan still has some symbolic value in the eyes of the Muslim world. Even though we are economically weak and, at the behest of foreign financial institutions and governments, our national defence posture will take a deep slide with a nuclear armed state on our western border.
The interests of Pakistan and Iran clash in Afghanistan, and Iran’s relations with our key ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, remain rocky. In the event of a military confrontation between Iran and the West, Pakistan and an unstable Iraq would be the most effected countries due to the spill-over from a potential war. At this time and most likely in the near future, at least Pakistan cannot further bear the burden of a refugee influx. In addition, India’s improving relations with Iran is also mind-boggling for our India-centric attitude and policy. Not that I am justifying this historic posture of ours, this attitude is still wide-spread in the security establishment. We must take that into account.
An ideologically inclined state, Iran’s sectarian outlook and ambitions of regional hegemony will create further divides in the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular. One should also not forget that Iran has played a role in inciting sectarian violence in Pakistan, supporting various Shia factions against their Sunni counterparts. Attaining nuclear status would strengthen Iran’s position and possibly its belligerence in fuelling the sectarian strife.
Iran’s offensive, nonsensical and aggravating statements and position only furthers the prospect of more wars in this region. Just recently, Saudi Arabia Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was the former chief of Saudi Intelligence, expressed the Kingdom’s desire to develop nuclear weapons to counter a future Iranian threat. “It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all options” he was quoted as saying.
This is a serious development that could spark a potential arms race in the Middle East. We could engage in an intellectual debate about the rationality of these state actors and their willingness to use nuclear weapons—if they attain the capability—but the thought of them going nuclear sends a chill through the rational mind. Many in the West also fear that a nuclear Iran will become bolder in the use of its proxies, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.
It is imperative that Pakistan convene a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to pressure Iran into abandoning its continued defiance of its international obligations – the NPT and the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Pakistan, along with its allies in the Middle East, should pressure Iran to come to the negotiation table and respect its UN obligations. To avoid a potential arms race in the Middle East and a dooms-day scenario where there may be a nuclear exchange – either by states or through non-state actors – Pakistan should jump on the bandwagon into pressurizing Iran.
Pakistan could not care less about addressing the fears of the West. I suggest this because this is in Pakistan’s vital national security interests and everything should be done to avoid being sandwiched between two nuclear states. We also need to look out for our regional interests in the Middle East. A nuclearised region could have devastating human and economic implications for the region and the world. Pakistan cannot afford either in its current state of weakness.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Spotlight on Afghan refugees in Pakistan
By Karin Brulliard
NOWSHERA, Pakistan — A few hundred men took to the streets in a suburb of this city early this month, furiously chanting for the expulsion of neighbors they described as interlopers.
The objects of their ire were Afghan refugees, millions of whom reside here in Pakistan. They are hardly newcomers — many fled war, Russian occupation or Taliban rule years or even decades ago. Many were born in Pakistan.
But the recent demonstration was a sign of bubbling discontent about Afghans in Pakistan, who comprise the world’s largest refugee population. While their presence has long been a source of tension, Pakistani politicians and the media are increasingly exaggerating their numbers and identifying them as a problem that must be solved as the neighboring nations eye the finale of the U.S.-led Afghan war, remote as that seems for now.
On an official visit to Australia last month, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called on the international community to help repatriate Afghans, who he said were “causing numerous difficulties” and spreading polio. In a recent interview, Interior Minister Rehman Malik accused the refugees of being “involved in criminal activities,” and said sending Afghans home was among Pakistan’s priorities.
The spotlight on Afghan refugees comes as the ever-wary neighbors trade barbs about cross-border violence and a potential negotiated settlement to the war in Afghanistan. Afghan officials, like their U.S. counterparts, have blamed Pakistan for fueling the Taliban insurgency, a claim Pakistan denies. But Pakistan wants a key role in reconciliation, and the refugees — who by most accounts Pakistan has hosted fairly graciously — could provide leverage.
At the same time, persistent violence has led to a decrease in refugee returns to Afghanistan, and there is scant sign that those remaining will soon leave. Amid a failing economy and political jockeying ahead of 2013 elections in Pakistan, analysts say Afghans are convenient targets. Indeed, the argument here echoes the U.S. immigration debate, with concerns about foreigners who commit crimes, steal jobs and fail to assimilate.
“We have been treating them as our brothers,” said Sher Bahadur, 64, one Nowshera resident who joined the recent demonstration, which took place after a fight between Pakistanis and Afghans. “Now the situation is so bad that we fear they have the might, power and resources to displace us.”
The complaints are not new, but the tenor has alarmed Afghan officials. One senior Afghan official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Pakistan is showing “early signs of new pressure” over refugees. The official said it was unclear whether the motivation is a desire to see Afghans leave, win additional refugee aid or blame Afghans for Taliban activity inside Pakistan.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1.7 million registered Afghan refugees live in Pakistan; the government says the figure is around 2 million. Another 1 million are believed to be in Pakistan illegally, said Habibullah Khan, secretary of the government’s States and Frontiers Regions Division. In the first 10 months of 2011, 43,000 Afghan refugees returned home, a figure that was 59 percent lower than the same period last year, the UNHCR said.
NOWSHERA, Pakistan — A few hundred men took to the streets in a suburb of this city early this month, furiously chanting for the expulsion of neighbors they described as interlopers.
The objects of their ire were Afghan refugees, millions of whom reside here in Pakistan. They are hardly newcomers — many fled war, Russian occupation or Taliban rule years or even decades ago. Many were born in Pakistan.
But the recent demonstration was a sign of bubbling discontent about Afghans in Pakistan, who comprise the world’s largest refugee population. While their presence has long been a source of tension, Pakistani politicians and the media are increasingly exaggerating their numbers and identifying them as a problem that must be solved as the neighboring nations eye the finale of the U.S.-led Afghan war, remote as that seems for now.
On an official visit to Australia last month, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called on the international community to help repatriate Afghans, who he said were “causing numerous difficulties” and spreading polio. In a recent interview, Interior Minister Rehman Malik accused the refugees of being “involved in criminal activities,” and said sending Afghans home was among Pakistan’s priorities.
The spotlight on Afghan refugees comes as the ever-wary neighbors trade barbs about cross-border violence and a potential negotiated settlement to the war in Afghanistan. Afghan officials, like their U.S. counterparts, have blamed Pakistan for fueling the Taliban insurgency, a claim Pakistan denies. But Pakistan wants a key role in reconciliation, and the refugees — who by most accounts Pakistan has hosted fairly graciously — could provide leverage.
At the same time, persistent violence has led to a decrease in refugee returns to Afghanistan, and there is scant sign that those remaining will soon leave. Amid a failing economy and political jockeying ahead of 2013 elections in Pakistan, analysts say Afghans are convenient targets. Indeed, the argument here echoes the U.S. immigration debate, with concerns about foreigners who commit crimes, steal jobs and fail to assimilate.
“We have been treating them as our brothers,” said Sher Bahadur, 64, one Nowshera resident who joined the recent demonstration, which took place after a fight between Pakistanis and Afghans. “Now the situation is so bad that we fear they have the might, power and resources to displace us.”
The complaints are not new, but the tenor has alarmed Afghan officials. One senior Afghan official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Pakistan is showing “early signs of new pressure” over refugees. The official said it was unclear whether the motivation is a desire to see Afghans leave, win additional refugee aid or blame Afghans for Taliban activity inside Pakistan.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1.7 million registered Afghan refugees live in Pakistan; the government says the figure is around 2 million. Another 1 million are believed to be in Pakistan illegally, said Habibullah Khan, secretary of the government’s States and Frontiers Regions Division. In the first 10 months of 2011, 43,000 Afghan refugees returned home, a figure that was 59 percent lower than the same period last year, the UNHCR said.
Myth and reality of war crimes in 1971 war
By Alam Rind
Fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971 left a deep scar on the souls of Pakistanis that probably won’t fill up in centuries. It is not so because the people of formal East Pakistan got separated and Bangladesh came into being; it was the manner in which all this took place. This episode can only be attributed to the failure of the leadership and their inaptness as statesmen. Economic fragmentation that took roots in Ayub era had its toll. Wide spread poverty, unemployment and lack of industrialization and development provided ideal environment for the hostile powers to sow the seeds of secessionism among the people of then East Pakistan.
It is a historic fact that Shaikh Mujibur Rahman had sought help from Indian Government to effect secession. He publicly conceded this fact in front of a huge gathering in his address on 7th June, 1972 at Ramna Race Course now Suhrawardy Udyan of Dhaka. Naeem Hasan in Mujib’s Bangladesh in the Eyes of Foreign Journalist (London 1977) had quoted the daughter of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, Shaikh Hasina Wajid (present Prime Minister of Bangladesh) that Mujib had visited Agartala in 1962 to organize help from India for secession of East Pakistan. Similar facts were also reported by an ex-MP Abdul Razzak in an interview given to weekly Meghna in September 1995. That establishes Agartala conspiracy as a fact.
It is the same venom against Pakistan that Prime Minister of Bangladesh Shaikh Hasina Wajid has ordered constitution of an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to try those Bangladeshis accused of collaboration with Pakistani forces in committing atrocities. It kills two birds with one stone. The ploy has provided her with an opportunity to take vengeance from political opponents while defaming and maligning Pakistan Armed Forces of carnage during 1971 war. Reportedly, so far only seven individuals have been arrested, two from the main opposition party Bangladesh Nationalist Party and five from Jamaat-e-Islami. Though there are serious reservations regarding capacity and impartiality of the judicial tribunal, yet, it will serve the purpose of Awami League government.
Along with Indians they have been harping for last over thirty years that more than three million people were killed in the conflict and hundreds of thousands of women were raped by Pakistani soldiers. Most of the people in Bangladesh and other parts of the world may believe this but the facts are quite contrary.
A recent book written by Sarmila Bose an Indian research scholar dubs this notion as a “narrative of the victorious side.” It was part of propaganda that suited Awami League as well as Indians. The carnage was unleashed by Indian trained Mukti Bahinis. They initially operated along the border with India and gradually penetrated deep into then East Pakistan. They brutally massacred Bayharies and other Bangalis those who were supporting united Pakistan. These illegitimate sons of the soil continued to perpetrate crimes against their own kinsmen with the brutality that matches that of terrorists, while Indian and global media continued to apportion blame on to Pakistan Army.
It is tragic that we often forget the valiance and courage with which Pakistani solders fought in East Pakistan. They were confronted with insurmountable odds while being highly diluted and resource constrained. In those difficult conditions they had almost defeated Mukti Bahinis. Indian intervention came once Indians realized that Mukti Bahinis will not be able to achieve the objective of separation of East Pakistan. Pakistani troops deployed for internal security duties were degraded to the extent that they could not change their posture with the required swiftness to check Indian onslaught. General Niazi was confronted with a difficult decision. Reinforcement was not insight and continuation of war would have meant inhalation of men under his command. His decision to surrender under no circumstances denudes Pakistani men in uniform of their high morale ascendancy and valour. Indian duplicity and propaganda has been aptly exposed by Sarmila Bose where she maintains that empirical evidence doesn’t support the claims of excesses by Pakistani troops as harped by the propagandists.
Fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971 left a deep scar on the souls of Pakistanis that probably won’t fill up in centuries. It is not so because the people of formal East Pakistan got separated and Bangladesh came into being; it was the manner in which all this took place. This episode can only be attributed to the failure of the leadership and their inaptness as statesmen. Economic fragmentation that took roots in Ayub era had its toll. Wide spread poverty, unemployment and lack of industrialization and development provided ideal environment for the hostile powers to sow the seeds of secessionism among the people of then East Pakistan.
It is a historic fact that Shaikh Mujibur Rahman had sought help from Indian Government to effect secession. He publicly conceded this fact in front of a huge gathering in his address on 7th June, 1972 at Ramna Race Course now Suhrawardy Udyan of Dhaka. Naeem Hasan in Mujib’s Bangladesh in the Eyes of Foreign Journalist (London 1977) had quoted the daughter of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, Shaikh Hasina Wajid (present Prime Minister of Bangladesh) that Mujib had visited Agartala in 1962 to organize help from India for secession of East Pakistan. Similar facts were also reported by an ex-MP Abdul Razzak in an interview given to weekly Meghna in September 1995. That establishes Agartala conspiracy as a fact.
It is the same venom against Pakistan that Prime Minister of Bangladesh Shaikh Hasina Wajid has ordered constitution of an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to try those Bangladeshis accused of collaboration with Pakistani forces in committing atrocities. It kills two birds with one stone. The ploy has provided her with an opportunity to take vengeance from political opponents while defaming and maligning Pakistan Armed Forces of carnage during 1971 war. Reportedly, so far only seven individuals have been arrested, two from the main opposition party Bangladesh Nationalist Party and five from Jamaat-e-Islami. Though there are serious reservations regarding capacity and impartiality of the judicial tribunal, yet, it will serve the purpose of Awami League government.
Along with Indians they have been harping for last over thirty years that more than three million people were killed in the conflict and hundreds of thousands of women were raped by Pakistani soldiers. Most of the people in Bangladesh and other parts of the world may believe this but the facts are quite contrary.
A recent book written by Sarmila Bose an Indian research scholar dubs this notion as a “narrative of the victorious side.” It was part of propaganda that suited Awami League as well as Indians. The carnage was unleashed by Indian trained Mukti Bahinis. They initially operated along the border with India and gradually penetrated deep into then East Pakistan. They brutally massacred Bayharies and other Bangalis those who were supporting united Pakistan. These illegitimate sons of the soil continued to perpetrate crimes against their own kinsmen with the brutality that matches that of terrorists, while Indian and global media continued to apportion blame on to Pakistan Army.
It is tragic that we often forget the valiance and courage with which Pakistani solders fought in East Pakistan. They were confronted with insurmountable odds while being highly diluted and resource constrained. In those difficult conditions they had almost defeated Mukti Bahinis. Indian intervention came once Indians realized that Mukti Bahinis will not be able to achieve the objective of separation of East Pakistan. Pakistani troops deployed for internal security duties were degraded to the extent that they could not change their posture with the required swiftness to check Indian onslaught. General Niazi was confronted with a difficult decision. Reinforcement was not insight and continuation of war would have meant inhalation of men under his command. His decision to surrender under no circumstances denudes Pakistani men in uniform of their high morale ascendancy and valour. Indian duplicity and propaganda has been aptly exposed by Sarmila Bose where she maintains that empirical evidence doesn’t support the claims of excesses by Pakistani troops as harped by the propagandists.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Pakistani nukes and slanderous reports
By Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat
Yet another fabricated report about the Pakistani nukes appeared in the international media, which was again a crude attempt to malign Pakistan and question the safety and integrity of Pak nukes.
The Atlantic magazine and the National Journal, in the December 2011 issues, labeled Pakistan as ‘The ally from hell’ and attacked the Pakistani nuclear programme. Strangely, the authors of the article, Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, who claimed to have researched the piece for six months, were totally unknown to the Pakistani Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and the Nuclear Command Authority.
In other words, they had neither approached the concerned Pakistani authorities for producing the piece nor visited the country.
According to the report, “Pakistan has begun moving its nuclear weapons in low-security vans on congested roads, to hide them from US spy agencies, making the weapons more vulnerable to theft by the militants.
After the US raid that killed Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May at his Pakistani compound reinforced Islamabad’s longstanding fears that Washington could try to dismantle the country’s nuclear arsenal.
“As a result, the head of the Strategic Plans Divisions (SPD), which is charged with safeguarding the atomic weapons, was ordered to take action to keep the location of nuclear weapons and components hidden from the United States.
“But instead of transporting the nuclear parts in armored, well-defended convoys, the atomic bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads...”
Not long ago, Charles Blair of FAS Terrorism Analysis Project had claimed that Pakistan’s growing nuclear weapons arsenal was at a greater risk due to the emergence of powerful militant groups in country’s security services (of course, the groups were never identified because they did not exist).
However, he was contradicted by George Perkovich of Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, who admitted that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are the safest, most secure things in Pakistan.
After the publication of this report, a North Korean official produced a letter claiming that Pakistan had supported North Korea in its nuclear programme for money. The letter was a fake. As quickly as it was raised, the issue died down.
The writers of such reports have failed to factor in the reality that criticality of nuclear weapons for country’s defence and international sensitivities are known to the Pakistani security establishment, government and policy makers.
Also, Pakistan has taken several measures—most advanced, highly sophisticated and foolproof in all respects —to safeguard the nuclear components which are dispersed throughout the country and whose location is unknown except to the concerned people. The country has spent a considerable amount on this account.
During Gen Musharraf’s rule, Americans had made several offers to provide security systems for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons but the Strategic Plans Division restricted the US role to training only. According to reports, Pakistan exercised its right to pick and choose from the checklist offered by the US. Indeed, it is foolish to believe that non-state actors or militants can take over the country’s fissile material.
Finally, a cautionary note. Any country that makes an attempt which endangers Pak nuclear assets would bring about an unprecedented and strong reaction from the country’s armed forces and public. Certainly, a critical point to remember for those who might be considering taking short-sighted, narrow-minded, highly dangerous steps.
Yet another fabricated report about the Pakistani nukes appeared in the international media, which was again a crude attempt to malign Pakistan and question the safety and integrity of Pak nukes.
The Atlantic magazine and the National Journal, in the December 2011 issues, labeled Pakistan as ‘The ally from hell’ and attacked the Pakistani nuclear programme. Strangely, the authors of the article, Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, who claimed to have researched the piece for six months, were totally unknown to the Pakistani Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and the Nuclear Command Authority.
In other words, they had neither approached the concerned Pakistani authorities for producing the piece nor visited the country.
According to the report, “Pakistan has begun moving its nuclear weapons in low-security vans on congested roads, to hide them from US spy agencies, making the weapons more vulnerable to theft by the militants.
After the US raid that killed Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May at his Pakistani compound reinforced Islamabad’s longstanding fears that Washington could try to dismantle the country’s nuclear arsenal.
“As a result, the head of the Strategic Plans Divisions (SPD), which is charged with safeguarding the atomic weapons, was ordered to take action to keep the location of nuclear weapons and components hidden from the United States.
“But instead of transporting the nuclear parts in armored, well-defended convoys, the atomic bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads...”
Not long ago, Charles Blair of FAS Terrorism Analysis Project had claimed that Pakistan’s growing nuclear weapons arsenal was at a greater risk due to the emergence of powerful militant groups in country’s security services (of course, the groups were never identified because they did not exist).
However, he was contradicted by George Perkovich of Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, who admitted that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are the safest, most secure things in Pakistan.
After the publication of this report, a North Korean official produced a letter claiming that Pakistan had supported North Korea in its nuclear programme for money. The letter was a fake. As quickly as it was raised, the issue died down.
The writers of such reports have failed to factor in the reality that criticality of nuclear weapons for country’s defence and international sensitivities are known to the Pakistani security establishment, government and policy makers.
Also, Pakistan has taken several measures—most advanced, highly sophisticated and foolproof in all respects —to safeguard the nuclear components which are dispersed throughout the country and whose location is unknown except to the concerned people. The country has spent a considerable amount on this account.
During Gen Musharraf’s rule, Americans had made several offers to provide security systems for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons but the Strategic Plans Division restricted the US role to training only. According to reports, Pakistan exercised its right to pick and choose from the checklist offered by the US. Indeed, it is foolish to believe that non-state actors or militants can take over the country’s fissile material.
Finally, a cautionary note. Any country that makes an attempt which endangers Pak nuclear assets would bring about an unprecedented and strong reaction from the country’s armed forces and public. Certainly, a critical point to remember for those who might be considering taking short-sighted, narrow-minded, highly dangerous steps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)