| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| The Call Of The Camps |
| 2006-08-22 |
| When an aghast world was told about a diabolical plan to blow up 10 planes simultaneously over the Atlantic, the Pakistan government was showered with praise for its role in averting what could have been an unprecedented disaster. Islamabad preened in what it thought was its moment of glory—it breathlessly provided sketchy details about the arrest of a mastermind in Pakistan, the vital call it had intercepted asking the conspirators to bring forward the bombing date, and how its tip-off prompted an arrest spree in Britain last week. From warding off barbs about fomenting terrorism, Pakistan could now, justifiably, claim to be a terror-buster. Yet, this symphony of triumph made at least a few in Pakistan shudder.For, after all, once again an international terrorist plan had brought to the fore the Pakistani hand. Not only were 19 of the 24 arrested in Britain of Pakistani origin, there were clues linking some of them to the terrorist apparatus existing here. Before this, there had already been London's 7/7 of last year—then too, three of the four suicide bombers had been of Pakistani origin. Last week, the New York Times asked the big question: why does only Pakistan provide "such fertile soil for the cultivation of terrorist activity? This week's London case is the sixth major terrorist attack, either consummated or attempted over the last three years, to be linked to Pakistan in some fashion. It has again raised the question of whether Pakistan is doing enough to rein in terrorist groups operating on its soil". A feisty Tasnim Aslam, spokesperson at the foreign office, bristled at the question—why Pakistan? She answered, "People making such remarks about Pakistan suffer from short memory. The seeds of terrorism in this region were sown when thousands of foreigners were brought here to fight the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. These commentators on Pakistan should remember that it was certainly not Pakistan which created Al Qaeda and also that Pakistan was not in any manner responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which changed the region. We are still facing the consequences." In other words, Pakistan is entangled in the web of terrorism today because of the violent legacy it has inherited. Others, however, have begun to ponder over the phenomenon of expatriate Pakistanis masterminding international terror plots. Why do they turn to their country of origin to implement their dark dreams? Can Pakistan be blamed for the acts of those who are no longer its citizens? It's, to begin with, an issue of nomenclatures and categories the mass media employs. As Dr Shireen Mazari, who heads the Institute of Strategic Studies, says, "Of course, it doesn't come as a surprise for most of us in Pakistan to hear British Muslims suddenly referred to as Britons of Pakistani origin. That the British press fails to make similar reference to British Muslims who bring sporting honours to their country—and who also have similar 'Pakistani' connections—is now taken as a given. Frankly, one just shrugs it off with a bitter sense of hopelessness at the way references to Pakistan are made in the US and Europe." Security analyst Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood says the issue should be viewed against the backdrop of global politics. "There is a huge community in Britain with links to Pakistan. Most of the youth of this community are unemployed and not integrated into the British society. They feel completely alienated. They also see the UK linking up with the US, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon." Alienation from society, it is perceived, breeds a sense of victimisation in the youth, fuelling anger against the system. This anger needs an identifiable target, an enemy to blame his woes on. The British government's foreign policy allows this alienated youth to ascribe his individual misery to the global plight of Muslims—in itself an outcome of the actions of Big Powers. He feels the cause of the discrimination he experiences is a consequence of the state pursuing a blatant anti-Muslim agenda. For him, redemption lies in challenging and fighting the state—and a people who support it. Fantasies of vengeance overtake him. And in Pakistan, far away from London, he finds the conducive environment to convert the angry expatriate's fantasy of vengeance into reality. "They come to Pakistan and exploit their linkages here," says Masood. "After all, there are people here who are still operating militant camps. There are safe sanctuaries as well as great sympathy for those indulging in jehadi activities." No wonder, the bristling British citizen of Pakistani origin wings his way home, to prepare for the battle against his adopted country. Unlike any other place, he can justify his travel to Pakistan. "They keep coming to Pakistan to visit friends and family, and this is not something that we can stop. But they are now kept under surveillance...this is one way out," says General Shaukat Sultan, spokesperson for the President's office. It was in fact the surveillance by Pakistani intelligence which enabled them to track down Rashid Rauf, a British citizen, who subsequently spilled the beans about the terrorist plot in custody. Again, it's claimed here that it was Pakistani intelligence which intercepted the call to London asking the plotters to go ahead with the bombing. In a way, British citizens of Pakistani origin have been coming here for jehadi training for many years now. But what has changed is the new target of their ire. As former ambassador Hussain Haqqani, who's worked closely with both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, points out, "What has changed now is that British jehadi recruits are not content with fighting in localised conflicts like Chechnya, Palestine, Bosnia or Kashmir. They are thinking of ways to bring the jehad to Britain and the United States, who they consider as major powers responsible for the misery of the world's Muslims." Indeed, the Pakistani hand in future international terror plots will continue to surface as long as a terror infrastructure exists here. Says Haqqani, "Al Qaeda and its ilk still seem to think of Pakistan as a possible safe haven, notwithstanding the arrest of many individual terrorists here." This impression about Pakistan as a safe haven persists because President Pervez Musharraf refuses to unequivocally eschew the terrorist option as far as Kashmir and Afghanistan are concerned. The current issue of English monthly Herald has the cover story, 'Waiting Game', based on its reporter's visit to Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) camps at Garhi Habibullah in the Frontier province. The reporter says the state has cut off funds to these camps; that inmates have little hope of crossing the LoC as handlers have asked them to cool their heels. The militants, however, have still not been dispersed. The question now is: why hasn't the state dismantled these camps altogether? Former ISI chief, Gen Hamid Gul, says this is because the government's decision to cap terrorism is merely a short-term strategy. He argues, "When a soldier joins the Pakistan army, he is taught that India is the enemy and Kashmir is to be liberated.If you have abandoned Kashmir, you might as well abandon the army." Surely, Musharraf can't abandon the army, and logically therefore he can't abandon either the Kashmir issue or the militants. The Herald also notes, "Apparently, more than a thousand trained militants from Indian-administered Kashmir are currently stranded in three HM camps in the Hazara region of the Frontier province alone.... Thousands of other militants find themselves similarly confined to camps run by half-a-dozen smaller Kashmiri groups or predominantly Pakistani outfits such as the LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul Mujahideen and Al-Badr Mujahideen in the Frontier and Azad Kashmir. " Even as these militants play the waiting game, many fear they will gradually integrate with Al Qaeda. It's only a matter of time and perhaps the right price before the 'gatekeepers' of global terrorism reach out to these idle militants and incorporate them into their international activities. |
| Posted by:john |
| #3 Perv is the key player. His sole claim to power is that his is the biggest faction in a fractured country. His motivation is to rule over the whole enchilada. But to get to where he wants to be, he has to build up his power at the expense of his enemies, not an easy thing to do. If he screws up even once, he loses his head. The US has seriously imbalanced things in his favor, and in very subtle ways. Already his army and ISI have been partially purged, and much of Baluchistan has been cooled. The army keeps getting better and better weapons and support, and the rising tide lifts his ship. Next, he either confronts the radicals in his government, and their political parties; or he subdues the Wazoos. Either path is fraught with danger. But gradualism wins out. A time or two he has overextended, such as demanding registration of foreigners in Madrassas. Losing these battles cost his some face, and his program some time to recover. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-08-22 20:19 |
| #2 so why are Pakis so unemployed and seething? Perhaps because madrassahs SCREWED them out of an education instead forcing indoctrination into their head bonking brains? Kill a few Imams, close the madrassahs, and educate your people. At least then they'll understand why the nuclear glow came over their scarred wasteland |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-22 19:46 |
| #1 The current issue of English monthly Herald has the cover story, 'Waiting Game', based on its reporter's visit to Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) camps at Garhi Habibullah in the Frontier province. I posted this a few days ago |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-22 19:11 |