India-Pakistan |
"Non-political forces conspired against Benazir's 1989 govt" |
2013-02-07 |
![]() He submitted the reply before the three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sh Azmat Saeed that resumed hearing into the allegations regarding misappropriation of the IB's secret funds during 2008 and 1989. Khattak, in his nine-page reply naming late President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and former Chief of the Army Staff Gen Mirza Aslam Baig ...occasionally incoherent retired four-star general who was the Chief of Army Staff of the Mighty Pak Army, succeeding the creepy General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, after the latter as the most powerful personalities, said that they wanted to keep late Benazir Bhutto out of power through their pre-poll rigging efforts in 1988 elections, which started with the formation of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI). He said: "Those, who wanted to keep PPP and Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto out of power through pre-poll activity against her, were surely going to also try and remove her from the corridors of power in the shortest possible time frame after they had been forced to hand over power to her due to the weight of the 92 PPP MNAs-elect of that time." He said being head of the IB, it was his duty to keep abreast with all such happenings that were aimed at destabilising the constitutionally elected government at that time. He maintained that they knew about such a move ahead of its tabling in the Parliament. The former IB chief, referring to the IJI's vote of no-confidence on October 23, 1989, said that everything was wrong with such a vote when the moving force behind it was not political. He said that with the with the complete backing of the former COAS Mirza Aslam Baig, the former president, and the then Punjab government, Benazir Bhutto was only reduced to the limits of the federal capital with no access to intelligence from military intelligence agencies, and therefore the ex-PM was heavily dependent upon the IB about such movements. "I must say here in very unambiguous terms, that even if any government of Pakistan when placed under extreme unconstitutional pressures, does spend any funds to ward off unconstitutional steps aimed at dismantling that government, there would be nothing illegal about," he added. He said that he was on the right side of the constitution against extra-constitutional efforts and had to suffer extensively for that reason. Refuting claims of a report by an English daily, Khattak said that he outrightly denied the aspersions that the amounts during his period as IB chief were distributed right, left and center with ulterior motives. He said that he had appeared before the Lahore High court during February 1992 and maintained that those funds were indeed spent towards furthering the national interest. He further said that the case was heard in 1991-92 in the LHC in connection with the accountability cases prepared by the then presidency under the direct supervision of former President GIK and his 'henchmen', including Roedad Khan. Khattak maintained that since 21 years had passed and he did not recollect what he had argued before the LHC, but added: "I do remember having said and conclusively proved before the court that the amounts mentioned were actually spent for the bona fide purposes that they were meant for." He contended that since no wrongdoings had been committed in his case, the LHC had shelved the case 21 years ago. During the hearing, the chief justice directed Khattak to submit his reply with the registrar office. Masood also apprised the bench that whatever he had written in his reply was based upon his memory and the court could contact the LHC registrar to obtain facts surrounding the case. Tariq Lodhi, another former DG IB, also appeared in response to a notice and submitted a reply claiming confidentiality. The bench directed him to go through its earlier order. It also allowed Attorney General Irfan Qadir to make certain submissions on behalf of the current incumbent DG IB. The bench told him that whatever objections he had, he could produce them in writing in the next hearing. |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
Civil war? |
2009-02-17 |
By Masood Sharif Khan Khattak Civil war is a war between groups meant to take control of a region or a nation. A civil war will always have two sided violence meant to bring about a governmental change or to enforce a substantial change in the policies of an incumbent government. The Geneva Conventions consisting of four treaties signed between 1864 and 1949 essentially deal with humanitarian concerns regarding non-combatants and POWs during a war between two or more countries. Although not explicit on what a civil war is the Geneva Conventions do identify the factors that can make situations qualify as 'wars that are not of an international character'. Those factors are (1) that those in revolt must be in possession of a part of the territory of the violence torn country (2) that the insurgents must be able to exercise de facto civil authority in the territory that they claims to control (3) that the insurgents must have recognition as belligerents; and (4) that the legal government of that country must be compelled to take recourse to deploying its regular military forces against the belligerents. The belligerents in Pakistan control the entire FATA as well as the settled district of Swat. Their activities largely go unchallenged by state authorities. Even with the Army deployed in Swat the political leadership cannot go to Swat and hold open courts to listen to the grievances of the people there. In Peshawar too the government is confined. In FATA the writ of the state stands entirely eroded. In short the belligerents in Pakistan do effectively hold a vast tract of Pakistani territory. The belligerents also exercise de facto civil authority over Swat and FATA to varying degrees in different areas. The belligerents exercise civil authority in parts of FATA and in all of Swat to the extent of holding courts and execution of the sentences awarded by those courts. In light of the third factor necessary for a conflict to fall in the category of a war that is 'not of an international character' the insurgents must have recognition of being belligerents. For an internal conflict to be called a civil war the forces opposing the state have to be belligerent. So what is a belligerent? A belligerent is one who fights or engages in war. The fighters in FATA and Swat can be called by any name; yet, their characterization as belligerents is something that cannot be controversial. The fourth condition that qualifies for any armed conflict to be 'a war that is not of international character' is the deployment of the regular armed forces of the country against its belligerents. In Pakistan, the regular Army, since 2003, has suffered nearly two thousand killed and many more wounded in action against the belligerents proving that Pakistan faces two sided violence in which the regular armed forces of Pakistan are confronted by well armed belligerents. The Pakistan Air Force has been freely called into action in Swat and FATA. The above commentary clearly indicates that the situation in Pakistan's northwest qualifies to be 'a war that is not of an international character'. Therefore, it is time Pakistan recognizes realities and understands that a bloody civil war is raging in the country and that this civil war has the potential of spreading across Pakistan. The situation needs to be faced squarely. An all out military operation alone will never yield results. A multi faceted approach is now necessary for a final and durable solution failing which Pakistan's future will remain in the balance. Priceless Pakhtun blood cannot be shed endlessly without serious implications for Pakistan. Gen Musharraf's unplanned and haphazard military deployment in FATA in 2003 aggravated the situation and Pakistan now needs to resolve matters instantly. It is unfair on the Pakistan Army to make it fight an endless war within its own territory with colossal collateral damage. Pakistan Army needs to be preserved. Even the western leaders now talk of a non military composite political solution to Afghanistan which has a direct bearing on Pakistan's northwest. The political leaders now need to initiate political steps towards resolving the violence. The writer is a former director-general of the Intelligence Bureau and former vice-president of the PPP Parliamentarians |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
PPP will never accept president in uniform |
2007-06-10 |
![]() In an exclusive interview with Khaleej Times during a visit to Dubai recently, he said it is time for General Musharraf to hang his boots and leave after holding fair, free and transparent elections. We should, as a nation, vow never to accept another President in uniform, he said adding that the time to put Pakistan First has truly come for Musharraf. The very idea of trying to have the same assemblies re-elect Musharaf (with or without uniform) will be the proverbial last straw on the camel's back, he said. I say very emphatically that this is something Musharaf can never achieve he just cannot, Khan said. "There cannot be a deal between the PPP and General Musharraf by which the status quo continues with the only change of for PML (Q) read PPP. |
Link |