Crossing the red line
April 22nd, 2011
After the failure of the ISI-CIA meeting in Washington, the Pak-US military top brass, too, has apparently not seen eye to eye on their diverging policies on terrorism. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen flew in seemingly holding an olive branch and saying the two countries could not afford to allow their anti-terrorism alliance to unravel, but ended up saying things that denote just such an unravelling. Before going in for the important meetings in Rawalpindi, he stuck to the red line often read out to Pakistan: “It’s fairly well-known that the ISI has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani Network. Haqqani is supporting, funding, training fighters that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners. And I have a sacred obligation to do all I can to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
But he also appended to this his resolve not to let the bilateral equation collapse when he said: “The ability to sustain a very difficult period as we have recently, between Pakistan and the United States, is in some ways indicative of the strength of the relationship. That doesn’t mean we don’t have challenges to continue to address, because we do.” This ‘very difficult’ recent period was characterised by a furore in Pakistan over the arrest of a CIA agent who had killed two Pakistanis in Lahore and the subsequent demand by Pakistan that the CIA cut back on its activities in Pakistan and put on record the functions of American officials coming in on diplomatic passports. The US admiral, in fact, publicly admitted this, saying that it was a “setback” to relations between the two countries.
Part of Pakistan’s response to Admiral Mullen’s remarks, as reported in the press, may not be considered very convincing except to the Pakistanis, 70 per cent of whom express dislike of the US and some even recommend cutting off relations with it. Officials say the Haqqani connection is not there and that “even if you are enemies, you have a relationship”. The upshot is that Pakistan is not willing to change its current policy on North Waziristan and may not be interested in explaining the real reason why it doesn’t want to send in the troops to remove the Haqqanis and other foreign terrorists from there, in that they could be used as bargaining chips when the Afghan chessboard is reconfigured, say, following an American troops pullout. However, sooner or later, the militants who have found a safe haven in North Waziristan will have to be attacked. The more credible part of the response, that the military is too thinly spread since it is operating in other militancy-prone areas, might actually be a more fruitful subject of discussion with the Americans.
The US military chief could not be drawn out on drone attacks, but that is the burning issue in Pakistan on which the military again reiterated its stance, that they are harmful for security and peace in the region. In fact, the military is now backed by all political parties, both in power and those in the opposition. The widening opposition to the drones, coming now also from the PPP and the ANP, has perhaps been crystallised by the virtual non-implementation of the Kerry-Lugar funds after the legislation was passed in 2008. At that time, the fact that it would give a hefty allocation for civilian sectors in Pakistan was much-hyped, but so far only a tenth of the funds have actually made their way into Pakistan.
If Admiral Mullen thinks that both sides will equally strive not to allow the alliance from unravelling, he will have to make sure that advantages from this alliance are equally shared. Also, the Americans have to do something to negate the impression among many Pakistanis that when things get tough for them in Afghanistan, they start passing the buck to Pakistan. For the latter, it is important to separate ‘incapacity’ from ‘strategy’ and come clean on why it is not taking on the terrorists on its soil.
Another atrocity
April 22nd, 2011
Mukhtaran Mai is a winner. We all know this and the realities cannot be changed by the verdict of any court. Since she suffered a brutal gang rape in 2002 on panchayat orders in her village in Muzaffargarh district, as punishment for her brother’s affair with a woman from a powerful clan, Mai has fought back with extraordinary courage. She has emerged as a spokeswoman for wronged women, established schools for girls and refused to allow the powerful to stand in her way. The apex court verdict delivered on April 21, acquitting five of the six men accused of raping her, counts as yet another atrocity against a woman who has suffered the most terrible abuse but refused to surrender her dignity or give up her efforts to help other women find empowerment.
Hearing Mai’s appeal against a Lahore High Court verdict which overturned a death sentence delivered against all six perpetrators, the Supreme Court upheld the order ruling the men be released. Only one, Abdul Khaliq, serving a life sentence is to remain behind bars. The members of the panchayat who meted out the awful punishment also escape penalty. The message that goes out for the future is clear: Rape victims, even those willing to speak out, have no power and stand little chance of attaining justice.
The court, of course, is constrained to act only on the basis of information put before it. Women’s rights groups who have criticised the ruling have also noted that flawed and indifferent police investigations often determine court actions. For the police, rape and other crimes against women are almost never a priority.
This is all the more true when victims, like Mai, lack status. The investigative procedure, too, has many loopholes. The saddening verdict reveals all this and exposes the ability of courts to stand by victims. We can only hope now that this case will result in the process being amended so that other victims can be spared the long ordeal of Mukhtaran Mai, who now also faces a threat from the five men set free by the court.