Pakistan - Who is listening?

Ashraf Jehangir Qazi

THE degenerate politics of Pakistan on public display every day is sucking the life-blood of the country. The legislative and political stratagems in support of massive and organised corruption and in defiance of the Supreme Court are holding the whole country to ransom.

The relentless plunder of the people is destroying the lives of millions upon millions of living and unborn Pakistanis. No enemy could be so hostile! Is it too late to save Pakistan? It is never too late for decent Pakistanis to change from being passive spectators and actively organise to save their country from hovering vultures. Now is a defining moment.

Fifty years ago, Pakistan was on course to be a prosperous, educated, middle-class, secure and stable country with a per capita income at least 10 times that of today. But institutionalised corruption, cynical leadership, predatory governance, subversion of national priorities, and the hijacking of the national interest have brought the country to its present pass.

No ‘saviour’ will come. Pakistan’s ‘leaders’ must be servants of people’s movements.

We are told ‘speak truth to power’. Noam Chomsky says the powerful know the truth and are very happy with it. The people need to speak truth to each other in order to realise their own power to change their circumstances and confront predators. No ‘saviour’ will come. Pakistan’s ‘leaders’ must be servants of people’s movements. CPEC and China’s invaluable friendship cannot compensate for criminal misrule.

Movements require a mobilising vision, commitment, organisation, struggle, feedback, and participatory decision-making. Otherwise, any progress will be sporadic, temporary and insufficient to overcome the political inertia. The hopeless response to constructive proposals will remain: who is listening?

The challenge is not to make sensible recommendations which are promptly ignored; it is to develop movements which ensure they cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, many think the moral strength, mental horizons, political confidence and organising capacities of the people are too limited to challenge the powers that be.

If true, Pakistan will have no future. But if slavish pessimism is rejected we can meaningfully discuss some realities and requirements a leadership committed to serving a people’s movement for national transformation should consider. The following are a few:

(i) The population of Pakistan will reach an utterly unmanageable 400 million by 2050;

(ii) Along with climate change and the risks of nuclear conflict these are existential challenges. Addressing them are overriding priorities;

(iii) There has been enormous underinvestment in the whole range of human resource development which would raise capacities to address these challenges;

(iv) Massive investments are needed for poverty reduction and transforming the health, education, sanitary, housing, mother-and-child care, basic services provision, human and gender rights protections, administrative and governance systems;

(v) The money for these investments must be largely generated from the revenues of a developing economy to preserve Pakistan’s political and economic sovereignty;

(vi) Long-term economic growth rates should be transformational (eight per cent for 30 years?) for defence expenditures, debt repayments and administration costs to be met without incurring unserviceable and ruinous debt;

(vii) Budgetary allocations and tax burdens must be transparent, rational, redistributive and pro-growth;

(viii) Social and economic inequalities should be significantly reduced while living-wage job opportunities are maximised through human resource development;

(ix) Credit Suisse recently estimated Pakistan’s middle class at over 6m. This is around 3pc of the population. A middle-class country should have a middle class approximately half the population. The structure of power and class-based governance stand in the way of addressing this situation;

(x) Defence spending that takes away from other essential spending undermines economic and national security;

(xi) Transition from a security to a development and democratic state is the condition for national security in today’s world;

(xii) Major corruption should be a capital crime. The Soft State Syndrome is fatal;

(xiii) The promotion of a ‘culture’ of rationality, innovation, and science and technology is indispensable to implement transformation policies;

(xiv) Civil-military relations mean nothing outside civilian supremacy;

(xv) Capable, responsible and accountable policymaking institutions must replace personal, uninformed, uneducated and unaccountable decision-making;

(xvi) Governance must be brought closer to the people through devolution of power;

(xvii) The formation of additional provinces should be encouraged in accordance with the wishes of the concerned people;

(xviii) Terrorism is a major challenge. Though deep-rooted it must be uprooted. It is largely the result of national and international injustice, violence and elite complicity;

(xix) Counterterrorism without addressing the root causes of terrorism is disguised state terror. Politically mainstreaming banned but renamed extremist organisations associated with terrorism is an irresponsible dereliction of duty;

(xx) Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to prevent war. They should never be considered a first-strike option;

(xxi) The protection of nuclear assets and materials is less about systems reliability; it is more about external perceptions of Pakistan’s sustained political will to deny unauthorised access;

(xxii) Without transformational change at home, foreign policy cannot develop international credibility and effectiveness;

(xxiii) The foreign service as the nation’s ‘first line of defence’ must be upgraded and empowered as a major priority;

(xxiv) A foreign minister must elicit respect and loyalty from the foreign service through his understanding of foreign policy issues and his commitment to service morale and welfare;

(xxv) The foreign minister must also carry weight in the cabinet and the corridors of power for his ministry to provide indispensable professional input for a credible foreign policy. Recent criticisms of his remarks about putting our house in order are disingenuous and infantile; and

(xxvi) Policies towards India, Kashmir, the US, Afghanistan, Iran, etc should be integrated and consistent with national transformation, 21st-century imperatives, international law, strategic partnership with China, and UN resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. Short-term policies must be embedded in longer-term policy perspectives to maximise possibilities for principled and acceptable outcomes.

All of the above is doable. But who is listening? The political system is rotten beyond polite description. A corrupt elite cannot communicate with the people. It can only deceive and ferociously defend its loot. However, a people made aware of their faith and power to be free, will listen, challenge and prevail.

Clear Signs of De Facto Martial Law in Pakistan

BY MOHAMMAD TAQI

Recent remarks by the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations make evident that the Pakistani civilian leadership has no control over the country’s domestic and foreign policies, and that the army is, in fact, in charge.

As a country where military dictators have ruled overtly for 36 of the 70 years of independence, while virtually none of the 17 prime ministers have completed a full term, Pakistan is no stranger to military spokespersons holding press conferences. The October 5 presser by Major General Asif Ghafoor, the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), however, was exceptionally brazen not just for its tone and tenor but also because of the scope of issues discussed. If there was any doubt before about the army being the actual ruler of the country, the army spokesperson took even that fig leaf off himself.

A bunch of docile reporters lobbed one softball question after another, as if on cue, and the director general of the ISPR fielded it with an unabashed disregard for what is or isn’t the military’s domain. Curiously, the media persons had their questions neatly and conveniently pooled under four broad categories: Pakistan’s political, economic, diplomatic and security state of affairs. It might have been a coincidence but the way General Ghafoor had to say that a particular bunch of questions are political or economic, smacked of some backroom or spur-of-the-moment collating. The whole talk came across as a colonial governor general setting the agenda for his dominion or more recently the late chief martial law administrator General Zia-ul-Haq’s information secretary Lt. General Mujeeb-ur-Rehman listing the dos and don’ts for the media.

Clearly, the director general of ISPR was telling the domestic audience that the army is in charge. But he also appeared to be sending a message abroad that, notwithstanding his lip service to the military being constitutionally under the command and control of the civilian government, they are the ones calling the shots on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. For all practical purposes, it was an announcement that a de facto martial law is in place and the Pakistani civilian leadership has no control over the country’s domestic and foreign policies. What started with tripping the post-2008 democratic setup every step of the way, tacitly egging on judiciary to dismiss two duly elected prime ministers, coercing parliament to allow a parallel judicial system in the form of military courts, has culminated in the praetorian guards’ complete chokehold on all issues, whether they are security-related or not.

Condoning of religious vigilantism

It was disconcerting to see General Ghafoor comment on Pakistan’s economy that “if it isn’t terrible, it isn’t good either” or him not interrupting the reporters who insisted on derogating the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by calling him a “na-ahel wazir-e-azam (disqualified or incompetent PM)”. The most shocking part of the whole charade, however, was when the director general of ISPR took it upon himself to delve into complex religious doctrinal issues.

When asked about a recent change and repeal in an electoral law pertaining to affirmation of the finality of the Prophet Muhammad, instead of deferring the matter to the parliament where it was being discussed, he said: “Neither the armed forces have compromised on Namoos-e-Risalat (dignity of the Prophethood) (SAW), nor would they compromise on it in future [sic]”.

He added that the military and the Muslim Pakistanis are ready to die for the sake of Namoos-e-Risalat. In a country where blasphemy allegations have led to murder of even a sitting governor of the country’s most populous province Punjab, General Ghafoor’s comment was nothing short of legitimising the weaponised anti-blasphemy laws and a tacit condoning of religious vigilantism.

It also indicates that a supposedly professional army is willing to deploy religious dogma as a lethal weapon against its political opponents. The comment had come a day after some politicians considered close to the military smeared the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) for trying to remove the said clause from the election laws.

Support for jihadist outfits

Earlier this year the military is said to have abducted five bloggers running websites critical of the army and charged them with blasphemy. These bloggers were critical not just of the military but also the jihadist outfits it has sired. Ominously, he acknowledged on the record that a process is underway in Pakistan through which the jihadist outfits Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) et al are being formally inducted into the political process. Though he claimed that the (political) government was overseeing that process, the fact the JuD’s political front the Milli Muslim League was launched against the ruling party’s candidate and the former first lady, Begum Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif, in a recent by-election, strongly indicates that it is not the current government’s project and the so-called mainstreaming of militants was pushed by the army.

What General Ghafoor’s remarks show clearly is that military is jihadised at the highest level, it has consistently used the street agitation by its religio-political quisling to pressurise successive elected governments over matters ranging from alliance with the US or peace overtures to India and is willing to use the blasphemy smear to stifle dissent.

Days earlier, the army’s paramilitary wing, the Pakistan Rangers, had stopped sitting government ministers from entering a court where Nawaz was to appear. The Rangers, de jure, are the interior ministry’s troops but ended up stopping the federal interior minister professor Ahsan Iqbal as well. When the melee resolved, it appeared the interior ministry or local commissioner had not requisitioned the Rangers’s presence for that particular day.

The interior minister went on to decry that the brigadier in-charge of the troops had gone into hiding and was not taking his calls and he would rather resign his ministry than tolerate a state within the state. Undercutting the interior minister, General Ghafoor complimented the soldiers who stopped him and came up with a bogus excuse that the troops could move without being specifically ordered to do so in every instance. Ironically, he stated that the Rangers, constitutionally, are the interior ministry’s troops but still did not refer the question to the said ministry. He took it upon himself to rationalise the unauthorised action of the paramilitary against their duly elected and appointed civilian boss. A day prior to the presser, the Rangers posted to guard the Pakistani parliament were mysteriously withdrawn from their picket as if to rub it in that army can and will get away with any excesses.

General Bajwa’s visit to Kabul

General Ghafoor dwelled quite a bit on the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s recent visit to Kabul where he met with the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani ostensibly to break the stalemate in the bilateral relations. General Ghafoor mentioned a host of topics that the COAS discussed with the Afghan leadership.

Interestingly, the army chief had neither consulted with the National Security Committee of the Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Khaqan Abbasi, nor bothered to take along an elected civilian official – including the minister of defence – on his dash to Kabul in which he promised, as per General Ghafoor, the sun and moon of defence cooperation to the Afghans. The Director General of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate Lt. General Naveed Mukhtar and career diplomats flanked the army chief in Kabul. An utter disregard for the norms of statecraft and diplomacy is not new for the Pakistan army and is its way of declaring to the neighbouring countries that they are the powers that be and no diplomatic breakthrough can be achieved over their heads. More importantly, it signals to the elected government that the Afghan and India policy remain an absolute no-go area for them.

In the aftermath of the COAS Bajwa’s Kabul visit and the Rangers fiasco, the Pakistan army’s corps commanders had convened a conference but curiously did not issue an official press release immediately afterwards. When asked about it, the director general of ISPR, like a B-grade novelist, pronounced that “(their) silence is also an expression”. He went on to proclaim that “saying that there is going be a martial law should not even be talked about. We are busy in doing our duty as stated in the constitution.” The irony was perhaps lost on General Ghafoor that usurping the foreign policy, trampling upon the domestic policy by flouting the federal interior minister, bypassing the prime minister, using highly-charged religious matters to settle scores with dissenters and politicians, passing adverse remarks about the country’s economy, harassing and abducting the dissenters and running a clandestine dirty war in Balochistan is anything but constitutional. If it is run a like a martial law, spoken for like a martial law and is as pervasive as a martial law, it is a martial law, whether or not a takeover at gunpoint has taken place. And frankly, when the army can have its cake and eat it too, it would be foolish to impose an overt military dictatorship. It has successfully dislodged the country’s foremost politician in a bloodless judicial coup, has muzzled the media and manufactured consent and co-opted opposition politicians, so why would it need to go the whole hog. The answer would depend upon the extent to which the ousted Nawaz is willing to go to undo his disqualification and make a comeback.

History of military rule

The army’s current quest is to regain the space it lost after General Pervez Musharraf was eased out of presidency which he has usurped. Generally, clear-cut political victories or convincing military defeats cut the adventurist armies and their ambitions to size. In Pakistan’s case, the first military ruler General Ayub Khan had massive protests against him but was not exactly toppled. When he handed the baton to General Yahya Khan, The Economist, London, cheekily titled its March 29, 1969 editorial ‘Tweedle Khan takes over’. The 1971 defeat of the army and the independence of Bangladesh buoyed the civilian fortunes in Pakistan and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto consolidated his position vis-à-vis the army and removed the army chief. However, Bhutto revived the military’s fortunes through his own unbridled jingoism and deployment of the army to crush the secular Baloch movement for autonomy. And when Bhutto ended up in a deadlock with the opposition, the COAS Zia wasted no time in toppling and then hanging Bhutto on cooked-up murder charges.

While there was a consistent and rather robust pro-democracy movement against Zia’s dictatorship, it never did succeed in forcing him to relinquish power. An act of god or man took Zia in the clear blue skies, and eventually elections were held three months after his death. What followed was a quasi-democratic dispensation in which, to paraphrase the late PM Bhutto, the civilians were given the government but never the power to rule.

The army maintained an unconstitutional tutelary role and the civilians fell afoul whenever they attempted to question or challenge it. In the 11 years that ensued Zia’s death, military kept encroaching on the civilian space and eventually General Musharraf and his coterie launched an overt coup d’état in 1999. As Samuel Finer has discussed in The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics, a military putsch is generally function of and an interplay between an army’s disposition to intervene vis-à-vis the opportunity existing on the ground for such intervention. Pakistan’s history has shown that its army has always maintained a relentless disposition and readiness to intervene. It has capitalised on opportunity when one popped up or manufactured one if there was none on the ground.

All militaries are, however, uniquely ill-trained professionally and psychologically to rule the complex civilian societies, multi-ethnic states and modern governments and invariably fall back on collaborating and coopted civilians. We saw that in Pakistan in every single dictators’ case. After an initial rule purely by the junta, Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf all eventually brought in a coterie of pliant civilians to run the government. Discussing this design flaw in the militaries world over, Finer points out that “politically the armed forces suffer from two crippling weaknesses, which preclude them, save in exceptional cases and for brief periods of time, from running without civilian collaboration and openly in their own name … once weakness is the armed forces’ technical inability to administer any but the most primitive community. The second is their lack of legitimacy: that is to say their lack of moral title to rule”. Again, every single Pakistani dictator resorted to coercing and coopting superior judiciary and some mutation of a parliament to condone his rule.

The showdown between Nawaz and the army, with the latter attempting to clip the former’s political wings permanently, has come to a head. Whether the undeclared martial law will morph into a manifest military rule seems less likely at this stage. Army’s preference would be to keep Nawaz out of the parliament and, possibly politics, with the courts and several opposition politicians closing rank with the brass. If they are able to contain Nawaz and possibly even carve a chunk out of his PMLN party, the army would prefer to maintain the status quo where it rules through informal diktat.

On the other hand, if the army perceives that the former prime minister may be able to harness his mass support into an electoral victory in the 2018 elections, they could change tack and induce some form of an interim political setup approved by the judiciary to create a façade of legitimacy. As for Nawaz, he seems to know that without a formal political confrontation with the army, the civilians would never be able to gain the space that is constitutionally and rightfully theirs. Indications are that he still has enough fight left him for that but whether sections of his own party are ready for it is not that clear.

Zardari accuses Nawaz of trying to 'stir fight between Islamabad, Rawalpindi'

Pkistan Peoples Party (PPP) Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, in an apparent reference to recent statements by the Sharif family, on Monday said former prime minister Nawaz Sharif is trying to "stir a fight between Islamabad and Rawalpindi".

In an interview, the former president said a disqualified individual cannot become a party's president in a democratic system. 

He said that following his statement, Sharif, who was then the sitting prime minister, did not hold a meeting with him out of fear.

His statement referred to an instance when Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari were both in London nearly a year ago, where the latter approached the former for a meeting, according to some media reports.

The PPP co-chairman had gone abroad in June 2015 and stayed in Dubai and London for nearly 18 months, following his controversial statement allegedly against the military.

However, reports had suggested that Nawaz had declined to meet the former president. There had been no official word on the matter from either side.

"I do not care about Nawaz Sharif's luncheon; I do not eat 'Paaye'," he said, adding, "I took my own meal along whenever I had a lunch with him."

The PPP co-chairman revealed that he has received "ten messages from Nawaz Sharif since the time he started taking heat, but did not have a word with him."

"This is not a fight between Islamabad and Rawalpindi, but Nawaz wants to make it one," he said.

He maintained that sending a politician to prison does not weaken him, however,  headded, "Let's see, which jail Nawaz is sent to; in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan or Sindh."

https://www.geo.tv/latest/161902-zardari-accuses-nawaz-of-trying-to-stir-fight-between-islamabad-rawalpindi

Pakistan - نواز شریف کے داماد کیپٹن (ر) صفدر اسلام آباد ہوائی اڈے سے گرفتار

نواز شریف کے داماد اور مریم نواز کے شوہر کیپٹن (ر) محمد صفدر کو اسلام آباد ایئر پورٹ پر قومی احتساب کے ادارے نیب کے حکام نے اپنی حراست میں لے لیا ہے۔

محمد صفدر اپنی اہلیہ مریم نواز کے ہمراہ لندن میں بیگم کلثوم نواز کی عیادت کے لیے لندن گئے ہوئے تھے جہاں بیگم کلثوم نواز کا علاج جاری ہے۔

جب نیب حکام نے محمد صفدر کو اپنی گاڑی میں بٹھایا تو لیگی کارکنوں نے ان کی گاڑی کو گھیرے میں لے لیا، جب کہ مریم نواز ایک اور گاڑی میں اسلام آباد چلی گئیں۔

اس موقعے پر وفاقی وزرا کے علاوہ مسلم لیگ ن کے کارکن بھی موجود تھے جو ان کے استقبال کے لیے آئے ہوئے تھے۔

ن لیگ کے جو رہنما ہوائی اڈے پر موجود تھے ان میں سینیٹر پرویز رشید اور آصف کرمانی، دانیال عزیز، ماروی میمن، طارق فضل چودھری، اور دوسرے رہنما موجود تھے۔

اس موقعے پر مسلم لیگی رہنما آصف کرمانی نے کہا کہ اس سلسلے میں قانونی اور آئینی راستہ اختیار کیا جائے گا۔

احتساب عدالت نے اس ماہ کی دو تاریخ کو محمد صفدر کے اس وقت ناقابلِ ضمانت وارنٹ گرفتاری جاری کیے تھے جب وہ گذشتہ ماہ عدالت کے سامنے پیش نہیں ہوئے تھے۔

سپریم کورٹ میں نواز شریف اور ان کے بچوں پر پاناما پیپرز کے حوالے سے چلنے والے مقدمات میں کیپٹن صفدر کو جواب کنندہ قرار دیا گیا تھا۔

http://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-41547200

Pakistan - NAB arrests Nawaz’s son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar from Islamabad airport

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s son-in-law Muhammad Safdar have been arrested from Benazir International Airport by a special six-member NAB team.

While Maryam Nawaz had left the airport for her house as she had the option to get pre-arrest bail which she reportedly signed before leaving, the warrants of her spouse are non-bailable, which has given rise to an interesting situation and led to arrest of her spouse Capt (Retd) Safdar.

Maryam Nawaz was not arrested as she boarded a separate vehicle and headed towards a house in Sector F-7 instead of Punjab House. A large number of PML-N activists reached the Islamabad Airport to receive their leaders. They chanted slogans in favour of Nawaz Sharif.

http://www.thesindhtimes.com/pak/nab-arrests-nawazs-son-law-captain-retd-safdar-islamabad-airport/

Pakistan - نیب نے کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر کو ایئرپورٹ سے گرفتار کرلیا

نیب کی ٹیم نے مریم نواز کے شوہر کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر کو لندن سے وطن واپسی پر بینظیر بھٹو انٹرنیشنل ایئرپورٹ اسلام آباد سے گرفتار کر لیا۔ نیب نے گرفتاری سے متعلق سیکرٹری قومی اسمبلی کو پہلے ہی خط لکھ کر آگاہ کردیا تھا۔

کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر اور مریم نواز کی فلائٹ آج رات تقریبا ایک بجکر 10 منٹ پر لندن سے پاکستان لینڈ ہوئی ۔ اس موقع پر نیب کی ٹیم ایئر پورٹ پر موجود تھی۔ ٹیم نے کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدرکی گرفتاری کے لیے رن وے پر جانے کی کوشش بھی کی جس کی ان کو ایئر پورٹ انتظامیہ کی جانب سے اجازت نہیں دی گئی جس کے بعد وہ راول لاؤنج میں ہی رکی رہی ۔

مسلم لیگ ن کے رہنما پرویز رشید، آصف کرمانی، مریم اورنگزیب اور دیگر سینئر رہنما ایئرپورٹ پر موجود تھے۔ آصف کرمانی کا کہنا تھا کہ کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر کو گرفتار کیا گیا تو قانونی راستہ اختیار کریں گے۔

راول لاؤنج  میں آنے کے بعد نوازشریف کے داماد کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر کو گرفتار کرکے نیب ہیڈ کوارٹر اسلام آباد دفتر منتقل کر دیا گیا، ذرائع کے مطابق نیب کے تفتیشی مرکز میں کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر کے لئے خصوصی سیل خالی کرایا گیا تھا۔

کیپٹن صفدر کی گرفتاری  کے بعد ایئر پورٹ پر مسلم لیگ ن کے کارکنوں کی جانب سے مزاحمت کی گئی اور کارکن نیب حکام کی گاڑی کے آگے لیٹ گئے۔ اس معاملے پر ن لیگ کے رہنماؤں اور  کیپٹن صفدر کی جانب سے کارکنوں کو سمجھایا گیا اور کہا کہ کسی قسم کی مزاحمت نہ کی جائے۔

اس سے قبل نیب لاہور کی جانب سے لکھے گئے خط میں کہا گیا تھا کہ احتساب عدالت نے 2 اکتوبر کو کیپٹن ریٹائرڈ صفدر کےناقابل ضمانت وارنٹ گرفتاری جاری کیے ہوئے ہیں۔ خط کے مطابق ملزم بیرون ملک تھا اور آج رات بینظیر بھٹو انٹرنیشنل ایئرپورٹ اسلام آباد سے وطن واپس آیا ہے۔

پاکستان روانگی سے قبل مریم نواز نے کہا تھا کہ وہ عدالتوں میں پیش ہو کر نظامِ عدل کو آزمائیں گی۔ دنیا جانتی ہے کہ یہ احتساب نہیں انتقام ہے، نواز شریف کے ن لیگ کا صدر بننے پر وہ لوگ اعتراض کررہے ہیں جن کا ن لیگ سے کوئی تعلق نہیں ۔

https://jang.com.pk/latest/386128-nab-team-arrest-captain-retd-safdar

Famous Che Guevara image features on new An Post stamp

Stamp with Irish artist’s print commemorates 50th anniversary of revolutionary’s death.

 

An Post has issued a one euro stamp featuring the face of Che Guevara, a leading figure in the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s.

The stamp, which features a famous image of Guevara by Dublin artist Jim Fitzpatrick, commemorates the 50th anniversary of the revolutionary’s death on October 9th, 1967.

Born in Argentina, Guevara helped Fidel Castro overthrow the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.

His father was Ernesto Guevara Lynch, a civil engineer of Irish descent.

A quote from Ernesto, “in my son’s veins flowed the blood of Irish rebels”, features on a First Day Cover envelope to accompany the stamp.

Designed by Red&Grey, the stamp is based on Mr Fitzpatrick’s artwork, which appears on t-shirts, posters, badges and clothing worldwide and is now rated among the world’s top 10 most iconic images.

It is available from main post offices, from the stamp counters at Dublin’s GPO or online at irishstamps.ie.

Video - Comandante Che Guevara - Silvio Rodriguez

Admirers honor 'Che' Guevara 50 years after his death

By CARLOS VALDEZ AND ANDREA RODRIGUEZ

A little band of guerrillas had been on the run through rugged, mountainous terrain, struggling unsuccessfully to build support among the indigenous people of rural Bolivia as a step toward a global socialist revolution.

Finally, on Oct. 8, 1967, the army ran them down. A day afterward — apparently at the behest of the CIA — an army sergeant shot to death their leader: Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

Fifty years later, the mountain village where he was killed and the nearby town where he was buried have become shrines to a sort of socialist saint, a man whose death helped cement his image as an enduring symbol of revolt. Some there even pray to him — an outcome that likely would have outraged the iconoclastic atheist.

Thousands of activists and sympathizers from many countries poured into La Higuera and Vallegrande this week for ceremonies to commemorate Guevara led by the country's leftist president, Evo Morales, who laid flowers at a bust of the fallen guerrilla in the village on Sunday.

In Cuba, President Raul Castro — one of Guevara's old comrades-in-arms — oversaw a memorial ceremony at the large mausoleum constructed to hold the revolutionary's remains, though the main speaker was the man many believe may replace him, Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel. "The colossal example of Che endures and multiplies day by day," said Diaz-Canel, who added warnings that the United States, Guevara's chief foe, had demonstrated "a marked interest in a political and economic reconquest" of Cuba.

Guevara was the very personification of the communist dream of spreading revolution around the world.

The Argentine-born physician was radicalized by a youthful trip through South America, witnessed the CIA-backed overthrow of a leftist president in Guatemala and ran across exiled Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro while working as a photographer in Mexico.

Despite an often-debilitating asthma, he turned himself into one of the most important fighters of Castro's Cuban revolution, winning the climactic battlefield victory in the city of Santa Clara that prompted dictator Fulgencio Batista to flee the country. In the aftermath of that triumph, Guevara commanded the Havana military fortress of La Cabana, where hundreds of men accused of crimes under the Batista regime were put to death.

Castro then made Guevara into an unlikely financial bureaucrat, naming him to head Cuba's Central Bank and later the Ministry of Industry. He was famous for working long hours, and then turning up for volunteer work in the sugar fields.

But he felt the call to spread socialism to other nations. He left Cuba in 1964 to help rebels in the Congo, renouncing his Cuban citizenship but relying on Cuban aid. The mission was a flop and he had to pull out a year later.

Back in Cuba, Guevara secretly organized another revolution, this time in Bolivia. But his band there, which included several Cubans, failed to find the sort of popular support that Castro had won in Cuba during his revolution. Bolivia's army tracked Che down and killed him.

An oddly Christ-like photo of the slain Guevara emerged and helped build the image of him as a martyr. An even more famous photo of the living Che, seeming to gaze into the future, has become an icon of rebellion on t-shirts, tattoos and key rings — sometimes to the consternation of Guevara's socialist allies, who disapprove of the way it has become commercialized.

One of Guevara's younger brothers, Juan Martin Guevara, said the causes he fought for remain important.

"The inequality today is greater than when he fought, the economic concentration is much greater. What he fought for is still present," the brother said in Buenos Aires. "He would be in the same place that he always was, confronting it."

Video - Famous quotations from revolutionary Che Guevara

The legacy of Cuba’s revolutionary hero Che Guevaro

Pashto Music Video - Laila Khan - " Khkule Me Khanda "

Pakistan - Mainstreaming militants? Not without a political strategy

By Raza Rumi

The current efforts appear to be another attempt to continue the strategic goals vis-a-vis India and cut Nawaz Sharif, the errant boy, down to size.

The powers-that-be are all set to undertake a new experiment — mainstreaming of militants into national politics. This is yet another rushed plan that is being pushed without an open debate and a comprehensive strategy that ordinarily would require input from the Parliament and the civil society. If history is any guide, a decade later, the state might reluctantly acknowledge that it made yet another mistake.

The so-called ‘policy’ was first confirmed by a retired military general and some leaders of the ruling party and picked up by local and international press. Later, the usual denials were issued but succeeding events proved that the efforts were afoot to implement this mainstreaming experiment. Milli Muslim League (MML), a new ‘political party’ backed by Hafiz Saeed fielded an unofficial candidate in the NA 120 by-election in Lahore. Another extremist outfit -—Tehrik-e-Labaik Pakistan — fielded its candidate in the election who secured more than 6 percent of votes. The key election plank of this group was to glorify killer Mumtaz Qadri and called him a ‘martyr’.

Another jihadist leader Fazlur Rehman Khalil has indicated that he is also working on creating his own political party. Both Hafiz Saeed and Khalil are designated as international terrorists by the United States. Under Indian pressure, the US has already put a $10 million bounty on Saeed’s head.

Without developing an effective disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) strategy, the current move will only radicalize the society further Pakistan Army’s spokesman recently confirmed that there was a plan to develop a ‘constructive’ role for these groups. It’s official now.

The implementation of this mainstreaming plan was accelerated within a fortnight of Nawaz Sharif’s ouster on July 28. Media reports and statements of Sharif’s aides suggest that this plan was presented to the former Prime Minister who rejected it. Sharif’s successor may have agreed to it but civilian assent is a mere formality given how the security policy is crafted and implemented in Pakistan.

Three factors are at work here. First, there is growing international pressure for the Pakistani state to distance itself and curb the private jihad enterprises that have mushroomed in the last three decades. The Americans and Indians are now joined by China that gave a clear signal through the BRICS declaration a few weeks ago. Second, the security establishment has been grappling with this issue since Operation Zarb e Azab started. They have effectively fought the Pakistani Taliban but evidently are in a fix about the future of the erstwhile proxies. Third and perhaps more immediate in the current context is how to cut Nawaz Sharif’s vote-base — -that traditionally included the conservative groups — to size. Nawaz’s gradual shift to the centre has annoyed the Barelvi-Islamist voter.

This is not a new plan. In the 1980s, the establishment used similar schemes to undercut the popular support of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Sectarian and ethnic groups were facilitated and even armed. The country paid a price. Today when credit is taken to clean-up Karachi, no mention is made as to how armed groups in the country’s largest metropolis emerged and why. The electoral manifestation of 80’s formula emerged with the formation of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) when all the shades of rightwing groups were merged to defeat the PPP. Ironically, Nawaz Sharif was a participant in that political engineering. Three decades later, the tables have turned. Now as Imran Khan’s confidantes Sheikh Rasheed and actor Hamza Ali Abbasi’s statements suggest: the old formula wine might be served in new bottles.

The difference between IJI and the (emerging) coalition of 2017-2018 is that the latter includes groups that are armed. Without developing an effective disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) strategy, the current move will only radicalise the society further. As we witnessed during recent Lahore by-election and its aftermath, militants-based parties mobilised in the name of ‘blasphemy.’ Even more ludicrous are the calls to punish Nawaz Sharif for hanging Mumtaz Qadri thereby confirming that, when all is said and done, the state apparatus uses this law for its own benefit. Such pandering has had pernicious consequences. For instance, the regular mob lynching in the country over allegations of blasphemy.

Similarly, within the religious discourse the idea that jihad can only be declared and waged by the state, has gained currency in the wake of counter-narratives to terrorists’ propaganda. The jihadists, if they are not demobilised, will take this discourse into the mainstream. Such narratives will also intensify political competition between political actors as to who is more loyal to Islamic causes. Nothing sells like religion in our part of the world. The case of India’s religious nationalism testifies that it is not religion-specific phenomena but a function of post-colonial societies adjusting to issues of identity, neo-liberalism and modernity.

If mainstreaming is the way forward then de-mobilisation and de-weaponsation are its crucial pre-requisites. These steps must precede the reintegration of militants in the political system. Security apparatus of the state has to publicly and verifiably distance from all political activities of the militant groups. The militant groups, under the supervision of a national commission should demobilise their cadres, and deweaponise them.

Experiences from DDR in Africa and parts of Latin America have underscored that reintegrationonly works when it is framed through an organic political process. This is where the role of Pakistan’s Parliament becomes even more important. Pakistan is not a post-conflict state in tatters. It has functioning political institutions, howsoever stymied they might be. The key issue here is that the military cannot do this alone. It would require the support and input from political parties, civil society, academia (not just those who work in its ambit) and find ways that the process mainstreaming takes place within the constitutional framework.

Sadly, so far there are no signs that such an inclusive national debate is occurring. Instead, the current mainstreaming appears to be another attempt to continue the strategic goals vis-a-vis India and cut Nawaz Sharif, the errant boy, down to size. This is why the media must monitor it and urge more transparency as the process unfolds in the months to come.

Pakistan - NAB arrests Captain (retd) Safdar from outside Islamabad airport

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has apprehended Captain (retd) Safdar, the son-in-law of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, from outside Islamabad airport, Geo News learnt late Sunday.

Maryam Nawaz, daughter of Nawaz Sharif, and her husband, Captain (retd) Safdar arrived at Benazir Bhutto International Airport, late on Sunday night. 

The six-member NAB team waited outside Rawal lounge for the arrest of Capt (retd) Safdar, as the airport staff stopped them from entering the lounge.

Safdar's arrest came minutes after Maryam Nawaz departed for Punjab House alone.

A number of PML-N leaders including Asif Kirmani, Marriyum Aurangzeb and Tariq Fazal Chaudhry were present at the airport.

Scores of PML-N workers gathered outside the airport, who have been protesting against the arrest of Captain (retd) Safdar. They have blocked the vehicle in which Safdar has been taken to NAB Rawalpindi office.

The workers seem adamant not to let the vehicle pass through, despite repeated calls by the party leaders present outside the airport.

Pakistan - The new PPP

Dr Asim Hussain’s statements upon his return to Pakistan speak volumes for the Peoples Party’s new political position.

The under-trial PPP leader had gone to London after the Apex court ordered removal of his name from the ECL. On arrival at Karachi airport on Friday, Asim warned former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif against criticising the establishment.

Not too long ago, PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari had to go on self-exile following a fiery speech he delivered in 2015. Zardari had referred to Dr Asim’s case as an example of political victimisation of the PPP. But after returning to the country last year, the PPP co-chairman went into the appeasement mode.

Ever since the Panama Papers scandal broke out and the matter went to the Supreme Court, the PPP has refrained from standing up with the ruling party, the way it did in 2014 at the time of PTI and PAT dharnas in Islamabad. Perhaps, this is because the PPP has realised that the politics of reconciliation was not working — especially in Punjab.

PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari often mentions that the party is in a revival phase and he refers to the party as ‘new PPP’. It turns out that the new PPP isn’t too new after all. The party has been unable to come up with any concrete policy prescriptions for the country’s numerous problems. It has yet to offer any ground-breaking solutions to issues like extremism, macroeconomic woes and socio-economic development needs.

It seems that the PPP has started to think that reviving the party is only possible if the leadership refrains from angering the powers-that-be, come what may. Whether or not this new strategy will help the party regain its lost ground in Punjab remains to be seen.

A more certain path to revival would have been improvement of the performance of the party’s government in Sindh province. In the past nine years, the provincial government’s performance has remained disappointing to say the least. Most importantly, if PPP improves itself on that front, it won’t need to compromise on its ideological principles to gain political mileage.

Who killed former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto?

Zia Ur Rehman

On a late September evening at a tea stall in Lyari, one of the poorest and until recently one of the most dangerous neighbourhoods in Karachi, a small group of Pakistan People’s Party members were discussing the verdict of a special Pakistani court on the murder of Benazir Bhutto.

Their former party chief and the first female prime minister of an Islamic state was killed on December 27, 2007 outside a large electoral gathering of her supporters in Rawalpindi when a gunman shot her and set off a bomb. At least 24 other people were killed and several more were injured.

After nearly ten years of repeated investigation by Pakistan’s chaotic judicial system and a distinct lack of interest from the government, on August 31 an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi declared Pervez Musharraf, the country’s former president and army chief to be a fugitive from justice in the Bhutto assassination case. The court also acquitted five suspected members of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, a Pakistani terror group, of all charges of conspiring to murder Bhutto.

Seven TTP militants accused of involvement in the murder have been killed in military operations since 2007. The head of the outfit, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in a drone strike in South Waziristan in August 2009.

The court also sentenced two high-ranking police officers, Khurram Shahzad and Saud Aziz, to 17 years in prison for negligence for failing to properly guard Bhutto. Shahzad hosed down the crime scene with water in less than two hours after the attack while Aziz refused repeatedly to allow a postmortem on the prime minister's body.

“I am not satisfied with the court decree. There is no clue on who killed Bhutto. The court released all the suspected militants and only punished two police officers,” said Muhammad Ali, one of the supporters of the PPP, a Pakistani liberal political party.

“It shows that no one is serious about bringing the real killers of Bhutto to justice and the government just wants to get rid of the case.”

Two months before Bhuttos’ killing, on October 18, 2007, at least 130 people, most of them also from Lyari neighbourhood, were killed when two bombs exploded in the crowd celebrating Bhutto's return to Pakistan after eight years of self-imposed exile in Dubai and London. Mr Ali was there and was slightly injured. Bhutto was unhurt.

Most party workers, like Mr Ali - indeed, many Pakistanis - are disappointed with the court verdict, as it explains nothing.

Conspiracy theories abound: was it the TTP chief Mehsud? Was the suicide bomber a TTP member? Was it Musharraf? Was the lax security the fault of Pervez Ilahi, chief minister of Punjab at the time, or Bhutto's own bodyguards? Pakistanis love conspiracy theories, says Owais Tohid, an Islamabad-based journalist who interviewed Bhutto twice after her return to Pakistan. “We as people still love to believe that America must be behind 9/11 or military dictator General Ziaul Haq's plane was blown into pieces by America's CIA or Bin laden is still alive.”

Yet from anti-terrorism courts to Scotland Yard detectives to a United Nations fact-finding mission, no one has produced anything concrete on Bhutto’s killers.

Bhutto’s children were also disappointed. Her son Bilawal, who now leads the party after graduating from Oxord University (like his mother) called the August 31 verdict “unacceptable” on Twitter and said he would "explore legal options.” His sister Aseefa said: “10 years later and we still await justice. Abettors punished but those truly guilty of my mother’s murder roam free.”

Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s husband and former president challenged the acquittal of five TTP suspects in Lahore High Court. He also objected to the 17-year prison terms for the two police officers and questioned why a case against Musharraf was separated from the Bhutto assassination case. Musharraf, who came to power in a nonviolent coup in 1999, was charged in 2014 with high treason. He spent some time under house arrest but left the country in 2016 on the pretext of needing medical treatment. Sixty-eight witnesses gave evidence in the murder trial, but legal analysts say the case lacked credibility throughout.

“The Bhutto investigation seemed to be a deliberate sabotage to not allow the investigation to lead to the logical conclusion, which in my opinion led to Musharraf and his cronies,” said Saroop Ijaz, a Lahore-based lawyer and researcher for Human Rights Watch. “The anti-terrorism court’s judgment is a farce, it fails to hold anyone directly accountable and lacks legal reasoning and moral courage.”

The court found the two police officers guilty of aiding and abetting and destroying evidence but no one guilty of the actual murder. “This is without precedent and shameful. The Benazir Bhutto trial was about holding the powerful responsible [Musharraf] and closure for hundreds of millions of Pakistanis and the investigation and the court has failed on both counts,” Mr Ijaz said. “A cataclysmic event in the country’s history appears to have ended with a whimper in court,” was the verdict of Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English newspaper. Musharraf’s political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League, also protested against the court verdict and said it would challenge it.

“Previously, it was informed that Musharraf’s case had been separated from the main case, but the decision reflected that it was given in haste, which is totally contradictory to the charges, evidences and statement in the case,” said secretary-general Dr Mohammad Amjad.

In a video posted on social media on September 21, Musharraf accused Asif Zardari of "murdering" his wife Bhutto and her brother, Murtaza, who was killed in September 1996 in a police shootout in Karachi.

In the Lahore high court, On September 29, Pakistan's civilian intelligence agency, the Federal Investigation Agency, also challenged the verdict, arguing that the five TTP members, who were acquitted in a lower court despite confessing their involvement in Bhutto's death, and the two guilty police officers should all be sentenced to death.

But lawyers for the five acquitted said the FIA's case against them was full of flaws.

Naseer Tanoli, who represents Aitzaz Shah, one of the five, said his client had been arrested a month before his arrest was recorded. “The police recovered a Tasbih [prayer beads] and some cash from him. No weapons or anything prohibited was recovered from his possession,” he said.

In April 2010, a three-member UN commission declared Musharraf’s administration responsible for failing to provide Bhutto with adequate security.

“A range of government officials failed profoundly in their efforts first to protect Ms Bhutto, and second to investigate with vigour all those responsible for her murder, not only in the execution of the attack, but also in its conception, planning and financing,” the UN report concluded.

Born in 1953 in Sindh province, educated at Oxford and Harvard, as a politician, Bhutto presented herself as moderate and democratic. Her fanily had known violence: her father, Zulfikar, who was also Pakistan’s premier in the early 1970s, was executed.

She was twice prime minister of Pakistan, from 1988 to 1990, and from 1993 to 1996, and both times, the presiding president dismissed her government for alleged corruption. After her last term, she fled abroad, returning after eight years to stand in the 2008 general election.

Tohid, the journalist, says the assassins were chasing Bhutto the moment she landed in Karachi.

“My people badly need me and I need them to end this terrorism and extremism. But it's going to be a long battle,” Bhutto told Tohid after the attack at her homecoming rally.

Analysts believe her death left a political vacuum in the country and weakened her own political party. The wave of popular sympathy triggered by her assassination strengthened the PPP's showing in the 2008 general elections. The party vowed to unravel the plot behind her death and to punish her killers. Bhutto's widower became president after the election and the party has slumped into its worst crisis ever, with poor organisation, bad governance and, most importantly, a lack of dynamic political leadership.

Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan exploited that vacuum and his party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, and its aggressive campaigns against corruption, has taken the place of the PPP.

In a by-election on September 17, the PPP came fifth in a Lahore district once considered one of its strongholds, bagging a mere 1,414 votes. The winner, the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz secured 61,254 votes.

No one from the PPP turned up to hear the court's judgment on August 31 and during its time in office, from 2008 to 2013, the party did little to investigate their leader's murder. They handed the job to the UN instead.

Not that that has stopped them using the Bhutto name when it suits them. A decade on, PPP leaders still promise to bring her murderer to justice.

“That will probably be the slogan in the next elections as well,” Tohid said.

____________

TIMELINE

June 1953: Born in Karachi

1969: Gains degree from Harvard

1973: Her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, founder of Pakistan People’s Party, becomes prime minister

1977: Awarded a second degree from Oxford University. Days after returning to Pakistan General Zia-ul-Haq seizes power from her father

1979: Her father executed by the military government

1979-84: Arrested several times and placed under house arrest for three years

1984: Returns to London and becomes leader in exile of PPP

1986: Returns to Pakistan after martial law lifted

1988: Becomes the first woman elected as prime minister of an Islamic country

1990: Dismissed from office for alleged corruption

1993: Re-elected as prime minister but faces fierce opposition.

1996: Again dismissed from office on corruption charges

1997: Her husband Asif Ali Zardari imprisoned and Bhutto goes into self-imposed exile

1999: Army chief Pervez Musharraf takes power in bloodless coup

2001: Bhutto sentenced to three years in prison for failing to appear in court to face corruption charges

2004: Bhutto and her husband receive six-month suspended sentences from a Swiss court for money laundering

October 2007: Bhutto returns to Pakistan ahead of elections

October 19: Survives suicide bombing that kills 150 people at a rally in Karachi

December 27: Bhutto is assassinated in a gun and suicide bomb attack at an election rally in Rawalpindi. Another 24 people killed

August 31, 2017: Anti-terrorism court acquits five members of Tehreek-e-Taliban of her killing and declares Musharraf a fugitive from justice in the case.

https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/who-killed-former-pakistan-prime-minister-benazir-bhutto-1.665423