This was sent to us by a regular reader and commenter on Take Back Pakistan. After listening to it, we felt it must be heard.

We will try to post a translated version of Hamid’s assessment tomorrow so that our non-Pakistanis can understand what he said.

The army is now called a state within a state, supporter of nuclear proliferation, permeated by fundamentalists and militants in its ranks and file and an institution that pursues big business rather than focus on its primary mission.

Despite suffering over 1,500 dead (the highest figure for any army) in this war, it is still accused of playing a double game. American organisations that once praised now call it ill-organised and badly trained to fight counter insurgency operations in FATA. The hardest criticism has come on the ISI. It is repeatedly accused of hobnobbing with militants and supporting Al Qaeda. This is the outfit busy in unravelling the plethora of intrigues played by diverse actors against the sovereignty of Pakistan operating with the tacit consent of US and Afghanistan.

Methodically, a new theme is being developed. Pakistan’s obsession with India and Kashmir does not allow it to focus unilaterally in FATA. The Taliban in this context are being described as a strategic asset of Pakistan army for its security objectives. The latest accusations to surface relate to the diversion of US funds for building up capabilities against India. No reference is being made to the fact that the mishandling of the situation in Afghanistan in fact adds to Pakistan’s security concerns.

The praetorian mindset within the Pakistan army has made matters worse for the country. The last two military coups of Pakistan got legitimised due to US geo-strategic interests in the regions. 9/11 was an opportunity for an otherwise besieged General Musharraf to get the Americans off his back and use them as erstwhile allies. The short-sightedness of his policy meant that the Pakistani military has been drawn into a most hostile environment – such as in FATA and Swat – where states and a maze of non-state actors compete for influence. The surveillance, intervention and connections of competing actors in the region are so effective that it leaves the local troops with little operational initiative. Read more »

One practical lesson that I have learnt after participating in the 1965 Indo-Pak war is that the moral backing of the nation adds tremendously to the fighting prowess of the armed forces. Today the country is undergoing a serious state of war. It is another thing that the entire nation is not convinced about it and hence the support that should have come forth from the nation to back up the fighting efforts of the personnel of the security forces is absent. Drumming in the notion, among the minds of simple folks, that security forces of Pakistan are not fighting for safe guarding the integrity of the country but are acting as mercenaries fighting war for America, is the biggest success of the militants on the psychological front to keep the Pakistani nation divided on this subject and hence deny the moral support that a fighting soldier while discharging life-risking obligations expects from his countrymen. The politico-religious parties are playing a very effective role, on behalf of the militants, by propagating in the mosques, through post-Friday prayers demonstrations and by issuing statements to the press that the anti-terror war is not our war but that of America. 

Let us appraise if the ongoing bloody conflict between the security forces against militants in NWFP and FATA is our war? The Encarta World English dictionary defines war as “an armed conflict between countries or groups that involves killing and destruction.” Does not FATA, beside a major part of the NWFP, and sporadic incidents of terrorism taking place in the rest of Pakistan qualifies the country to be in a state of war? Pakistan is committed to and stands by the UN Charter not to interfere in the internal affairs of any member state of the UNO, particularly our neighbouring countries. If it is discovered that part of the country is being used by militant groups to impart professionally organised military training to the youth who are then launched against targets in our neighbours, is it not incumbent on the government in power to put an end to the blatant violation of the country’s foreign policy stand? If the militants challenge the writ of the government by putting up an armed resistance, does it not describe the situation as a state of war? Read more »