Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts

Pakistan on Sunday said it was halting air strikes against Taliban militants in response to a month-long ceasefire announced by the insurgents a day earlier, paving the way for the resumption of peace talks.
The government entered into peace talks with the Taliban last month aimed at ending the militants' seven-year insurgency, but the dialogue broke down after militants killed 23 kidnapped soldiers.
The military responded with a series of air strikes in the volatile northwestern tribal areas that left more than 100 insurgents dead, and on Saturday the Taliban announced a month-long ceasefire aimed at resuming the stalled talks.
“After the positive announcement yesterday by the Taliban, the government has decided to suspend the air strikes which were continuing for the past few days,” Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said in a statement Sunday.
The statement added that “the government and armed forces of Pakistan, however, reserve the right for a befitting response to any act of violence (by the Taliban).”
The Taliban's ceasefire announcement on Saturday was met with scepticism by analysts who said it may have been a tactic to allow the militants to regroup after they had taken heavy losses in air strikes.
But Khan said the “government considers the announcement of stopping of violent activities by Taliban a positive development.”
He added that since the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took charge in June last year, Islamabad had not taken “any unjustified action” against the militants, choosing only to react to violence rather than initiating any new military operations.
Rahimullah Yusufzai, a member of the government's negotiation team, told AFP: “I think that the possibility of resumption of peace talks has now increased. A ceasefire was the demand of the government and the negotiations committee.
“But the ceasefire should be effective. If attacks continue then the conducive environment we are searching for won't materialise.”
Balancing act
Reacting to the minister's announcement, political analyst Raza Rumi told AFP that the government was attempting to play a balancing act and had to match the Taliban's ceasefire “to ensure right wing public opinion does not turn against them.”
“I think one issue is the government wants to appear as a peace loving political entity. But deep down there is a desire by both parties to buy more time given the way the situation is unfolding in Afghanistan.”
“They want to wait for what happens,” he said, referring to the withdrawal of Nato troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and its regional impact.
Security analyst Talat Masood, a retired general, said the ceasefire had come about because the military's air strikes had forced the Taliban back to the negotiation table, and that the government should be careful not to lose its advantage.
“One of the inherent dangers of a ceasefire is that it allows militants to regroup or reorganise. We will have to increase our intelligence to closely monitor if militants are regrouping or escaping during the ceasefire,” he said.
He added that militant groups which are not in favour of talks may try to disrupt the ceasefire.
Eleven paramilitary soldiers and one child died while 11 other people were wounded when three roadside bombs targeting a polio vaccination team in the lawless Khyber district exploded Saturday, in an attack carried out by the little-known Abdullah Izam Brigade, according to an official.
The Pakistani military earlier on Sunday deployed a helicopter gunship to kill five militants it blamed for the attack, a senior security official told AFP.
DAWN

Now, the Pakistan Air Force is committing air striking in North Waziristan against the terrorists. By now, more than 50 terrorists have been killed. The on-going strikes from the Armed forces, is the retaliation of the brutal murders of its 23 FC men by Taliban extremists. It was surely the same brutality that altogether changed the mood of both Pakistan Army as well as the Federal government. But despite seeing the beheaded bodies of our soldiers, the Taliban supporting parties are still demanding the government to stop the action in the name of restoring “peace talks”.
Ever since the statement as well as the video officially released by Taliban`s sub-group (later on also owned by TTP) came up, government officials, politicians, media and analysts have been condemning it. However, a very important thing that has been totally ignored by them is the fact that our 23 FC soldiers had been missing for about four years, i.e., since 2010. This is extremely astonishing aspect of the tragic incident which has definitely raised some important questions.
It is an open secret that it was the TTP`s massive terrorism all over the country that forced the state of Pakistan to sit on the table not to have contemporary negotiations, but practically to accommodate the Taliban`s demands in order to avoid further disaster. And of course, one of the directly or indirectly conveyed demands from TTP to the government is to release their arrested fellowmen. For sure, it is a very common tactic of war to pressurize rivals so that he can get compelled to accept your demands. Taliban did the same. But, the question is, why did the government and its armed forces not adopt the same approach against TTP so that they could get released the kidnapped FC`s personnel?
Furthermore, Taliban did not reply on only this, they also took a very bold step and formulated a strategy to get their arrested people released by themselves. Following the same, they attacked the Bannu jail and very successfully took their high profile terrorists along with them. The question arises here is, when terrorists can dare to take so bold steps against the state, why couldn`t our armed forces do so? Was it difficult for them to launch similar, rather better, operation in the TTP- held areas and get their abducted soldiers released?
More importantly, Iran has just warned the government of Pakistan to get its abducted border security soldiers released at the earliest. In the other case, it could send its forces in Pakistan for this purpose. It should be kept in mind that the Iranian border personnel were kidnapped in the current month of February. Now, the question is, when a neighboring country is ready to send its forces in the other country (Pakistan) for the release of its people without any delay, was North or South Waziristan beyond the reach of our government and its armed forces? Did Pakistan need to seek any prior permission to enter its borer areas before it could launch any targeted or surgical operation to recover its people? When truly no, then why did the politically elected governments as well as the military establishment wait so long till they received the video of their beheaded soldiers? Now, who would come up to take the responsibility of losing our 23 FC personnel?
Very frankly speaking, no one has any doubt about that the Pakistani armed forces have the capability to very soon eradicate the TTP monsters from the entire country. But, what is emerging is that a part of our military establishment, as some retired officers of the Army, IB, ISI, MI have already expressed their views this way, is still of the opinion that Taliban and its sub-groups are “Strategic Assets” of Pakistan which can be used against our neighboring enemies in case of war. However, can Taliban, who neither hesitate to shred our innocent people through suicide attacks, nor do they ever repent after beheading our solders, be considered our Assets anyhow? Of course not!
We have just witnessed a massive pubic rally in Karachi to express solidarity not with only Armed forces, but also with the FC, Rangers, Levies and the Police who are fighting against the anti-Pakistan elements. This rally was highly important because of two aspects. Firstly, it was organized by the party (MQM) which became victim of the Army operation not only in the past, but is also once again facing similar situation form the Rangers and Police. Yet, it has given a very loud and clear message to the soldiers that it is standing with them in the on-going war.
Secondly, these are the common people who have already faced the TTP`s terrorism directly or indirectly, yet they came up for the sake of paying a tribute to their own forces against the inhuman elements. In fact, it was their loyalty and the deep respect that they were extending to their armed forces. Can Taliban who neither give dam care to the state of Pakistan nor do they have mercy for its citizens, ever be compared to the patriot Pakistanis? No Never! The Taliban`s butchery has no match with the patriotism and profound love of the Pakistanis for the country and its armed forces.
Therefore, whoever, whether in the government or military establishment, still considers Taliban as Pakistan`s strategic assets, must revisit his view and the resulted policies accordingly. Otherwise, it will be a great disappointment for the people which will not benefit Pakistan at all.
(Left) This satellite image provided by TerraServer.com and DigitalGlobe shows an image of Guantanamo Bay captured on Sept. 2, 2010 with “Penny Lane” marked in red. (Right) Abdullah Mehsud in Pakistan (comic)
On November 25, The Associated Pressreleased a news report which strengthens the beliefs held by many security analyts, that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or ‘TTP’ for short, a terrorist organization which repeatedly claims ties to the Afghan Taliban, is a fake group bred by the American intelligence community.
According to the report, the CIA had a secret facility (until 2006) near the main Guantanamo Bay prison, dubbed “Penny Lane“, where captured jihadists and fighters from Afghanistan were turned into double agents. This fundamentally required that those who agreed in being American spies would guarantee full cooperation in “killing terrorists” (or, in other words, targeting elements who are eyesore for the US).
Captives who signed up to be double agents were offered millions of dollars from the CIA’s (read American taxpayers’ money) secret account (Codename ‘Pledge’), along with safety for their families.
But that’s not all. According to a report in the Voice of Russia compiled from various established sources, a few of these prospective double agents who were apparently lured by opportunities to be filthy rich and yet retain their iconic ‘warlord’ status, would sometimes request for porn material. It is said that Penny Lane was quite comfortable, in comparison to Guantanamo Bay prison, as it had beds, private kitchens and also a small patio.
The militants who decided once and for all to end fighting American forces signed formal agreements to work for the CIA. One prisoner though, was reportedly forced into agreeing because the CIA threatened of harming his children.
The CIA + Abdullah Mehsud = TTP is born
Abdullah Mehsud can be described as one of the key founders of the TTP, an organization whose country-wide attacks in Pakistan have resulted in 15,681 armed forces casualties. Similarly, approximately 5,152 civilians have been killed and 5,678 injured in bomb blasts and suicide attacks since 2008. These statistics werepresented by legal counsels for Pakistan’s intelligence agencies at the Supreme Court on 26 March 2013.
Abdullah Mehsud had lost a leg in a landmine explosion in 1996 and was captured sometime later by Uzbek-origin Afghan commander Abdul Rashid Dostum while fighting the Northern Alliance. He was imprisoned at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay for two years and later, to much surprise and shock, released in March 2004. What’s even more astounding is that he was also gifted a prosthetic limb by his captors, according to a statement by Brigadier General Jay Hood who was then running the camp.
A document titled JTF-GTMO Information on Detainees mentions that Abdullah Mehsud was released because he “claimed to be an office clerk and driver for the Taliban from 1996 to 1998 or 1999. He consistently denied having any affiliation with al Qaida. He also claimed to have received no weapons or military training due to his handicap (an amputation resulting from when he stepped on a land mine 10 years ago). He claimed that after September 11, 2001 he was forcibly conscripted by the Taliban military“.
This same Abdullah was later named as the commander of Al Qaeda-affiliated militants who ordered his band of subordinate fighters to kidnap two Chinese engineers (one was killed during a rescue attempt gone bad).
The Afghan Taliban were displeased with the incident and reportedly booted Abdullah Mehsud out. They were also suspicious of his activities since he was mysteriously released by the US military “crusaders” from Guantanamo.
While in Afghanistan, Abdullah Mehsud had created his own parallel “Taliban” militia and proudly claimed while giving media interviews in Afghanistan, that he was behind a series of attacks on Pakistani security forces (unlike the Afghan Taliban who were focused on fighting ISAF-NATO). Upon his return through Zhob in Balochistan province of Pakistan, security forces were aware of his presence and raided the house of Sheikh Ayub Mandokhel to capture him on 24 July 2007. Sheikh Mandokhel was a leader affiliated with the Islamist JUI-F of Maulana Fazlur Rehman. However, before he could be arrested, Abdullah blew himself up.
It is worth noting that before Abdullah Mehsud was released from Guantanamo and dropped in Afghanistan, there were no attacks taking place against Pakistani security forces. This is where a large information vacuum exists and which must be explored further. Had Abdullah Mehsud created a new “Taliban” that would be America’s own brand of Islamists?
In an article for The New Tork Times dated 22 October 2009, journalist Scott Shane quoted an unnamed Afghan Taliban official as saying that for the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), “there will not be any support from us”. He added the Afghan Taliban “don’t have interest in fighting against other countries”.
Furthermore, the Afghan Taliban commander said their mission is to get occupation forces out (of Afghanistan) and “not get into a fight with a Muslim army”.
Many journalists and security officials in Western states have been alleging since long that the Afghan Taliban are aided by the Pakistani intelligence agencies. Had that been the case, their so-called assets would have prevented Colonel (retd) Sultan Amir Tarar alias “Colonel Imam”, their former teacher from the Afghan war era, from being killed at the hands of Hakeemullah Mehsud, the recently-killed TTP chief.
There are also many other incidents such as this which suggest that had the Afghan Taliban indeed been proxies of the Pakistani agencies, as is routinely alleged, they would have instructed the TTP to stop attacks on Pakistani forces. But this never happened. Instead, as reported earlier, more than 15,000 soldiers and high-ranking armed forces personnel from Pakistan lost their lives.
But then, the question arises, who are these Pakistani Taliban fighting a Muslim army (of Pakistan) which the Afghan Taliban do not wish to fight? Are they a band of militants who were recruited by Abdullah Mehsud and later on joined hands with Baitullah Mehsud?
The ominous release of Abdullah Mehsud, when reviewed today in context of the new disclosures published by the Associated Press, lay bare historical facts and confirm the fact that he (Abdullah) had been set free because he must have agreed on becoming a double agent for the CIA, hence the safe haven in Afghanistan and US forces not capturing him there again. This also explains why his ideological descendants who later on coalesced to form the TTP are hell-bent on destroying Pakistan.
This also explains why both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban have been working on different lines, although appearing the same on the outset (basically we have the identical nomenclature to blame for mass confusion).
Felix Kuehn, renowned researcher on terrorism and author of “An Enemy We Created: The Myth of the Taliban/al-Qaeda Merger in Afghanistan 1970-2010″, said at an event organized by the Afghanistan Study Group and the Center for International Policy, that although the (Afghan) Taliban and Al Qaeda have some ties, “they are separate and distinct groups with different constituencies and different goals”. Kuehn had studied the Taliban and Al Qaeda closely while staying at Kandahar despite extreme risks to his life.
From a report by Bob Dreyfuss in The Nation:
For at least three years, Kuehn and Alex Strick van Linschoten have lived and worked in Kandahar, where they’ve studied the two organizations, lived with Kandahar citizens, and met people of all political persuasions there, including Taliban commanders.
Kuehn points out that the Taliban and Al Qaeda adhere to different strains of Islamic thought, the Taliban associated with Saudi-influenced, Wahhabi-style Hanafi beliefs, and Al Qaeda associated with the more radical, more rigid Hanbali school. The Taliban, of course, are Afghans, and Al Qaeda mostly Arab and almost entirely non-Afghan. Generationally, they are different, too, with most Al Qaeda leaders older than the young commanders of the Taliban, and whereas many Al Qaeda people are professionals and well educated, the Taliban are rural, unschooled, and grew up in places like Kandahar where newspapers were nonexistent and even radios were in the hands of only a privileged few.
When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996, says Kuehn, its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions, says Kuehn.
“Osama bin Laden’s death will have zero impact on the Afghan Taliban,” says Kuehn. In part, that’s because they “didn’t have much a relationship to begin with.” Still, he says, it’s foolish to expect the Taliban to denounce Al Qaeda or to formally break with the organization, in part because bin Laden and Al Qaeda were Mullah Omar’s bridge to the Arab world. Yet when bin Laden was killed, the Taliban’s reaction was muted, and its statement—released via the Taliban’s semi-official web site—was mild and restrained. (If you haven’t spent time reading the Taliban in its own words, its web site is the place to start.)
Yet, we saw that Hakeemullah Mehsud and his groups under the umbrella of the TTP were openly supportive of, and aligned with, the global Al Qaeda. The attack on a CIA base by Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal Al-Balawi, who was seen in a video statement released by the Umar Media of TTP to be sitting next to Hakeemullah Mehsud, was most possibly a false attack which the CIA itself ordered as a stunt to prove it has no ties with the TTP.
Later, we saw Baitullah Mehsud, then Hakeemullah Mehsud (who lived in a luxurious $120,000 mansion), continue the legacy of this fake brand of Taliban. Or putting it more precisely, the CIA brand of Taliban. A group which has caused more damage to Pakistan than any other through brainwashed suicide-attack blasts, IED explosions, urban warfare, destruction of strategic defence equipment in use by the Pakistan Army, Air Force and Navy, bombing of ISI offices, murder of thousands of innocent civilians, beheading of hundreds of Pakistan Army troops, and what not.
It is most likely that the birth of these murderers’ ideology took place at the once-secret Penny Lane facility.
And when the controllers of these cheap hirelings and ignorant “holy warriors” of the Pakistani Taliban, who liaise between Langley and FATA/Afghanistan are no longer needed, they are simply disposed by being “droned” to death, just like Baitullah and Hakeemullah were. That is the destiny awaiting every worthless CIA asset.
Many sectors of the Pakistani society were well-aware of these facts but these mainstream revelations (still not complete though) are ample proof that the US has played a major role in destabilizing Pakistan, as it wants to avenge its own strategic blunders which it committed by unnecessarily invading Afghanistan.
The US needs it’s own Taliban to keep Pakistan engaged in internal house-cleaning and meanwhile give free space to India to attain what is has always desired: a large strategic stake in Afghanistan.

(Left) This satellite image provided by TerraServer.com and DigitalGlobe shows an image of Guantanamo Bay captured on Sept. 2, 2010 with “Penny Lane” marked in red. (Right) Abdullah Mehsud in Pakistan (comic)
For at least three years, Kuehn and Alex Strick van Linschoten have lived and worked in Kandahar, where they’ve studied the two organizations, lived with Kandahar citizens, and met people of all political persuasions there, including Taliban commanders.
Kuehn points out that the Taliban and Al Qaeda adhere to different strains of Islamic thought, the Taliban associated with Saudi-influenced, Wahhabi-style Hanafi beliefs, and Al Qaeda associated with the more radical, more rigid Hanbali school. The Taliban, of course, are Afghans, and Al Qaeda mostly Arab and almost entirely non-Afghan. Generationally, they are different, too, with most Al Qaeda leaders older than the young commanders of the Taliban, and whereas many Al Qaeda people are professionals and well educated, the Taliban are rural, unschooled, and grew up in places like Kandahar where newspapers were nonexistent and even radios were in the hands of only a privileged few.
When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996, says Kuehn, its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions, says Kuehn.
“Osama bin Laden’s death will have zero impact on the Afghan Taliban,” says Kuehn. In part, that’s because they “didn’t have much a relationship to begin with.” Still, he says, it’s foolish to expect the Taliban to denounce Al Qaeda or to formally break with the organization, in part because bin Laden and Al Qaeda were Mullah Omar’s bridge to the Arab world. Yet when bin Laden was killed, the Taliban’s reaction was muted, and its statement—released via the Taliban’s semi-official web site—was mild and restrained. (If you haven’t spent time reading the Taliban in its own words, its web site is the place to start.)
by Zaki Khalid
Veterans Today

NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani Islamic hardliner blamed for an attack on India’s parliament that brought the nuclear rivals to the brink of war has resurfaced after years in seclusion, setting off alarm bells in New Delhi.
Twice since the end of December, Indian authorities have issued an airport security alert, warning of an attempt by members of a Pakistan-based militant group called Jaish-e-Mohammad, or Army of Muhammad, to hijack a plane, with smaller airfields most at risk. Indian officials have said the alerts followed reports of increased activity by Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of the outlawed militant group.
Azhar was named by an Indian court as the prime suspect in a 2001 attack on India’s parliament aimed at taking top political leaders hostage. Fifteen people were killed, most of them security guards as well as the five men who stormed the complex.
Tensions between the old enemies spiralled after the attack and up to a million troops were mobilised on both sides of the volatile border. Pakistan refused to hand over Azhar to India.
The portly and bearded cleric has remained mostly confined to a compound in his home city of Bhawalpur in Pakistan’s Punjab province for years, but three weeks ago, he addressed supporters and said the time had come to resume jihad, or holy war, against India.
“There are 313 fidayeen (fighters who are ready to die) in this gathering and if a call is given the number will go up to 3,000,” he told the rally held in the city of Muzaffarabad by telephone. A Reuters journalist who was present said a telephone was held next to a microphone which broadcast his comments to loudspeakers.
Flags of Jaish, inscribed with the words “jihad”, fluttered in and around the venue of the gathering. Azhar spoke from an undisclosed location.
Indian intelligence analysts have described Azhar’s resurgence as part of a change in tactics in Pakistan as US forces withdraw from Afghanistan this year, and as Islamabad tries to clamp down on Islamic insurgents who oppose the Pakistani government.
The Indians say Pakistan’s military establishment is bringing militants like Azhar out of cold storage, with the promise of helping them fight India, while trying to stamp out the radicals they can’t control.
Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani army general, said: “It is very dangerous that the Pakistani establishment is giving space to him. They are playing with fire and the fire will engulf them.”
A former fighter for Jaish, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Azhar remained in command of the group, operating from his Bhawalpur base.
“His speech via telephone should not be a surprise for people involved in jihad, he has been controlling the organisation very actively,” the man said.
The security alerts in India occurred just days before Azhar spoke. They were not publicised but two officials, one from the domestic Intelligence Bureau and the other from the Central Industrial Security Force, said authorities had increased checks on airport staffers to ensure nobody with forged passes gained access. Security had also been increased in Delhi’s suburban rail system, where commuters go through metal detectors, are patted down and have their bags checked in x-ray machines.
Staff of the Central Industrial Security Force now work 10-hour shifts in the metro system, so there were more guards at any point.
Azhar was arrested in Indian Kashmir in 1994 while travelling on a forged Portuguese passport. India freed him and two other jailed Pakistani militants in 1999 in return for 155 passengers held hostage in an Indian Airlines aircraft that was hijacked to southern Afghanistan.
One of the other freed militants was British-born Omar Sheikh, a close associate of Azhar who was later convicted in the 2002 abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
After his release, Azhar set up the Jaish to fight Indian forces in Kashmir, the Himalayan region claimed by both countries and the trigger for two of their three wars.
“Jaish has an obsession with India that transcends Kashmir. They had so many plans. Any reactivation of Masood Azhar is cause for deep concern,” said AK Doval, a former head of India’s Intelligence Bureau and one of the foremost experts on militant groups in South Asia.
Other officials in India said the rally in Muzaffarabad and Azhar’s address wouldn’t have been possible without state clearance, a charge Pakistan strongly denies.
“He addressed a rally, but steps will be taken to ensure he doesn’t do it again,” said Tasnim Aslam, spokeswoman for Pakistan’s foreign ministry.
“It is not possible we would allow his group to cause terrorism elsewhere when it is banned for causing terrorism in Pakistan.”
She said independent investigations had often shown that attacks in India were blamed on Pakistan but sometimes caused by domestic politics or rogue members of the Indian security services.
“There’s a tendency in India to hyperventilate without finding out all the facts,” she said.
dailytimes.com.pk
“Desperate times call for desperate measures” was a common refrain in the post 9/11 world, as security establishments across the globe geared up to supposedly combat unprecedented levels of terrorism. The main reason for deploying such clichés was to provide justification for enacting new laws which were aimed at fighting terrorism but were increasingly seen to be trampling fundamental rights in the process.
In Pakistan, the state has only just woken up to the need of grappling with the threat posed by terrorism, and has recently enacted a series of laws to provide legal cover to the country’s fight against asymmetric terrorism.
The need for such legislation has arisen due to the inability of the criminal justice system in Pakistan to adequately prosecute terror suspects. Since 1990, there have been 800 incidents of terrorism in Punjab alone, of which only 475 have actually been prosecuted. A total of 2,300 suspects were named in those cases and about 2,200 were arrested. Of those arrested, about 1,650 or 75% were acquitted by the courts due to “a lack of evidence” against them. Similarly, the Marriot Hotel bombing in Islamabad – one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in Pakistan’s history – initially had 83 witnesses to the incident; eventually none came forward to give evidence in court.
In order to tackle the twin issues of terrorism and law and order in general, as well as the abysmally low prosecution rate in particular, the state has enforced three significant new laws, namely, the Fair Trial Act; the anti-terrorism law amendments and the yet-to-be-passed Pakistan Protection Ordinance. The new and proposed laws seek to provide more freedom to law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism, yet they simultaneously conflict with the fundamental rights of citizens which are guaranteed under the Constitution. While no binary answers exist to the perennial security-versus-rights argument, all erring on the side of caution should ideally be directed towards ensuring that fundamental rights are safeguarded.
The Fair Trial Act, for example, has been drafted with the general intent of preventing acts of terrorism. This can be further bifurcated into two specific purposes. Firstly, to provide legal cover for evidence collected by investigating agencies through means otherwise considered illegal (such as wiretapping and internet surveillance); and secondly, to effectively employ these surveillance methods to prevent acts of terror. The agencies authorized to use these methods of surveillancecomprise the Inter-Services Intelligence, the Intelligence Bureau, the three military intelligence agencies and the police.
Officers from the aforementioned agencies can now approach the court for the issuance of a warrant authorizing the surveillance of the accused. Section 5 of the Act articulates that a warrant can be sought if the accused is “likely to be associated with or is beginning to get associated with” the commission of an offense. The language used is vague and open ended, allowing for almost any person in most circumstances to fall within its ambit. The judicial warrant, if granted, will be for an initial period of sixty days. However, Section 14 allows for such a warrant to be renewed indefinitely.
While seeking court warrants is in line with international best practices in such matters, there is one major impediment to the court making a fair assessment. In the absence of the person being monitored, the court only has the word of the agency to go on, with no independent means of verifying the details submitted to it.
These examples from the Fair Trial Act are not meant to suggest that the entire legislation be simply rejected; they are just meant to emphasize the fact that the breach of privacy is a colossal undertaking, hence it should be approached with extraordinary care and only under special circumstances.
Similarly, the discussion on surveillance in Pakistan cannot be divorced from its historical and political context, wherein earlier public examples of politically motivated surveillance have unfortunately demonstrated the subjectivity of the Act and the potential for its misuse. One solution may be found by following the United Kingdom’s model where the expenditure, related policies, administration and interception of private communications for national security purposes are monitored by a statutory committee. This is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The UK act also restricts access to intercepted communications amongstthe various authorized agencies. There is need for a similar regulatory mechanism in Pakistan along with a requirement for the agency requesting surveillance to credibly demonstrate that all other avenues have been exhausted, or are not possible, and that surveillance is the last resort.
Like the Fair Trial Act, amendments made in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 through the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 also allow for the use of text messages, telephones calls, e-mails and other forms of communications as evidence against suspected terrorists. The new ordinance also allows the armed forces as well as the civil government to order preventive detention of any person involved in terrorist activities for a period of three months. This last provision in particular, prima facie, seems to be in direct conflict with fundamental rights.
The legal definition of “terrorism” in the original Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and its interpretation has been so broad that a wide variety of criminal offenses can be prosecuted under it. As an example, many first investigation reports (F.I.R) for homicide contain the phrase “aur mulzim aslaha lehratay hoye khauf u haras phayla kar farar ho gaye” (the accused left brandishing weapon/s and creating terror) and on that grounds alone can be taken up by the anti-terrorism courts. This dilutes the intended impact of specialized legislation and courts.
Unfortunately, the new amendments, in many ways, make the same mistake as the original act. They ignore the fact that the non-enforcement of pre-existing legislation regarding the powers granted to investigating officers in the Criminal Procedure Code and Police Rules is a significant part of the problem, which is unlikely to be addressed by making new laws or provisions.
The latest attempt by the State to promulgate laws to counter terrorism is the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO). The PPO was approved by the President on October 20, 2013 and was presented in the National Assembly on November 7, 2013. The ordinance will only come in force after it is passed by the legislature. The preamble of the PPO describes it as protection against those waging war against the state and prevention of acts threatening the ‘security of Pakistan’.
Yet, like the Fair Trial Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act, the PPO also provides vague definitions for offences considered as threats to the security of Pakistan. The expression ‘security of Pakistan’ has been defined in Article 260 of the Constitution to include ‘the safety, welfare, stability and integrity of Pakistan, but shall not include public safety as such’. The intention of the Constitution here is to apparently make an effective distinction between “security of Pakistan” and general law and order. In the case of Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan PLD (1988 SC 416), the Supreme Court observed regarding this distinction that “security of Pakistan” refers to those aggravated forms of prejudicial activities which endanger the very existence of the State, but do not include ordinary intrusion of peace.
The PPO however makes no such distinction and hence can be used for restraint of political activity. The Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), IA Rehman, has expressed similar doubts about the potential of the ordinance to be used as a legal tool to suppress human rights’ movements in the country. The ordinance also gives policing powers to the armed forces and civil armed forces, which is unusual as it takes away investigation in criminal offences from the domain of civilian oversight. The PPO also grants extraordinary andarbitrary magisterial powers to security officers, making them on-the-spot-judges by allowing them to exercise lethal force even when not in immediate physical danger themselves.
The preventive detention clause also allows the government to detain a person for a period of up to 90 days. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no person may be arrested or detained without due process. Furthermore, the ordinance potentially violates articles 9 and 10 of the constitution of Pakistan by permitting law enforcement officials to open fire on the suspicion of a scheduled offence, as well as allowing officials to arrest someone without a warrant based on “reasonable suspicion” alone.
The PPO attempts to give the impression that it is directed against an “alien enemy”, but anyone who is unable to prove his identity on the spot can be subjected to persecution under it. Moreover, the ordinance also shifts the burden of proof on the accused. For example, an accused facing a charge of being involved in committing a scheduled offence will be presumed to be guilty unless they can prove their innocence. This is clearly against the basic principle of natural justice where one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The governing principle in all three instances is that of giving more power to investigating officers and shifting investigative powers from the domain of the civilian or regular law enforcement agencies to, in most cases, the armed forces and intelligence agencies. Therefore, with efficiency and effectiveness being the prime considerations, the impact on fundamental rights (which may be overridden in certain instances) is inadequately addressed.
Despite the need for stringent laws to combat growing terrorism, the aforementioned legislative actions do not, in any significant manner, change the State and its criminal justice system’s approach towards terrorism. Most of the powers granted under these laws are already exercised by military/civilian forces in varying degrees. Hence, apart from legalizing them (which has some value), these changes achieve little else.
The problem with new legislation, particularly in times of conflict, is that it can be a cop-out. The State feels that it has at least done “something,” and waits for results to pour in as it rests on its laurels. What is more problematic and dangerous is that these new laws have not made the State any safer from terrorist threats; ironically, they have left the citizenry with even fewer rights than it had before.
By taking away or even limiting fundamental rights, the State takes it upon itself to justify such a move, and it should be able to clearly list the objectives that will be achieved by it. Many provisions in these laws, however, fail this test.
The confusion is compounded by the fact that the drafting of these laws has preceded the formulation of a national security policy.
Laws, particularly those enacted in the fight against terrorism, should be geared towards one policy and one narrative, and certainly not the other way around. The problems of capacity building, institutional co-ordination and national narrative will not be solved merely by legal reform, let alone legal reform as feeble as this.
The writer is a high court advocate, partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co, and a columnist.
Please note that the views in this publication do not reflect those of the Jinnah Institute, its Board of Directors, Board of Advisors or management. Unless noted otherwise, all material is property of the Institute. Copyright © Jinnah Institute 2014)
By Saroop Ijaz
JINNAH INSTITUTE
JINNAH INSTITUTE

The Pakistani Taliban has as many as 500 female suicide bombers ready to act, a representative of the group involved in peace negotiations said, underscoring the risk of further violence if talks fail.
The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan -- known as the Pakistani Taliban, or TTP -- sees no urgency to reach an agreement with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government, Maulana Abdul Aziz, one of three negotiators representing the TTP, said in a Feb. 7 interview at his Islamabad seminary. The two sides started talks last week.
“You should know that at the moment they have at least 400 to 500 female suicide bombers in Waziristan and other tribal areas,” said Aziz, former head cleric of Islamabad’s Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, referring to the TTP. “The government should realize the situation and their demands.”
Sharif revived peace talks with the group as pressure grows for a military strike after attacks last month killed more than two dozen soldiers, part of violence that caused the deaths of 40,000 Pakistanis since 2001. Failure to reach a deal would threaten Sharif’s efforts to bolster the $225 billion economy as the U.S. reduces troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Imran Khan, whose party runs a province bordering Afghanistan, predicted in an interview last week that terrorist attacks would prompt the talks to fail, and a military operation would start soon afterward. Khan turned down an offer from the TTP to sit on the same committee as Aziz.
‘Exaggerated Figure’
Aziz said the Taliban is most interested in implementing Sharia law in Pakistan. The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is “a very small factor” in the fight, he said, disputing statements by Khan and others.
“They are fighting for the implementation of Sharia,” Aziz said at the seminary, where some 1,300 female students are studying. “It’s the law of nature that when people don’t get their rights, they pick up arms.”
The Pakistani Taliban has demanded the withdrawal of troops from tribal areas and the release of prisoners, Dawn newspaper reported today, citing officials it did not identify. The demands stemmed from a meeting of TTP clerics over the weekend, the report said.
The number of female suicide bombers mentioned by Aziz “is a very exaggerated figure,” said Muhammad Amir Rana, director of the Islamabad-based Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies. “The Taliban are way ahead in the propaganda war, and they have given a tough time to the state,” he said. “Female suicide bombers have been used, but not too many.”
‘No Hurry’
Aziz’s brother died in 2007 along with at least 100 others when former President Pervez Musharraf ordered troops to storm the Red Mosque to end a challenge by pro-Taliban clerics seeking to impose Islamic law in the capital. The move sparked demonstrations and reprisal attacks.
Aziz, who was jailed for two years after the Red Mosque raid, last week temporarily withdrew himself from the talks because the government insisted the negotiations be held under the constitution and avoid including the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, a key TTP demand. He will remain on the TTP’s committee, he said.
“The Taliban are in no hurry,” Aziz said, when asked whether the group wanted a deal soon to avoid a military strike. “They say they are not worried about it. They have been in a state of war for the past 10 years.”
Suicide Bombers
Sharif won an election last year after pledging negotiations with the TTP, a loose group of militants operating along the Afghan border. While Sharif received the backing of all political parties in September to begin talks, the two sides had postponed meeting amid a series of suicide bombings and a U.S. drone strike that killed the TTP’s leader.
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who leads the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, has called on Sharif to take a tougher line against the militants. He said in a Jan. 28 Twitter post that Sharif was following a “policy of appeasement.”
In 2009, Taliban militants took control of Swat district in the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and imposed their strict interpretation of Islamic law, which forbade girls to attend schools. They beheaded local officials and burned schools in a two-year fight that uprooted 2 million people from their homes before a 10-week army offensive ended their rule.
Suicide bombers have been used frequently in the conflict, including two that killed more than 80 people at a Christian church in Peshawar in September. Aziz justified the use of suicide bombers, saying that they believed in the cause and were willing to sacrifice.
“If the military has weapons and air power, they have suicide bombers,” Aziz said of the Taliban. “You cannot match them. Suicide bombers even destroyed the power of America in Afghanistan.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Augustine Anthony in Islamabad at aanthony9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Ten Kate at dtenkate@bloomberg.net
Bloomberg

There is a widely held belief among the general public in Pakistan that the army is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in Pakistani politics.
It is thought, for example, that most election results are predetermined by the “agencies” – an oblique reference to the secret service apparatus of the Pakistani defense establishment. The agencies decide who will win and who will lose. And important government decisions especially those related to foreign policy and internal security cannot be made without the army’s tacit consent or approval.
Does the army indeed exercise this level of control over Pakistani politics? It is difficult to affirm or refute this with any reasonable level of confidence. But the more interesting question, and one that perhaps can be answered, is: Why would the army want to interfere?
To understand this one has to understand two sets of people: Those who run the army – the generals. And those who run the civilian administration – the politicians. Politicians first: This is a motley set. They include feudal landlords, hereditary “pirs“- the descendants of long deceased holy men, urban mafiosi, and a spattering of mullahs. This whole set is not usually associated, in the public eye, with integrity, honesty, decency, competence or for that matter patriotism.
The army on the other hand recruits its soldiers from across the social spectrum
The selection process – especially for the officer corps – is competitive and demanding. Only the best survive. In some sense the army is a complete meritocracy – it is “up or out.” If you meet the cut you are promoted to the next rank. If you do not you retire. Hence those who run the army – the top generals – get to where they are on the basis of their merit and competence. Remember also that the army inculcates patriotism in all its soldiers – enlisted men and officers. The message that their raison détre is to defend Pakistan to the last breath is hammered into their minds again and again. In the end, whatever else you say about these men, you cannot say that they are not patriotic.
So on the civilian side, running the country, you have a set of politicians of dubious competence and integrity who get to where they are because of inherited privilege or deception, or coercion, or other even less savory methods. Ask the general public what they think of their politicians patriotism and the response, stripped of expletives, would be that they will happily sell a close family member for a foreign passport.
On the other side are a group of generals who have come up through the ranks based on their competence and professionalism. And etched in their conscience, by virtue of their training, is the paramount importance of protecting Pakistan from any perceived threats.
Now back to the question of why the army would want to interfere in politics: The generals, professional and competent patriots, do not trust the politicians, people of questionable competence, integrity and sincerity, to be faithful to the country. They believe, perhaps not without reason, that if these politicians are left to their own devices they would pose a real and present threat to the integrity and security of Pakistan. And since direct interference for the army is not an option they resort to other means – the agencies – to keep the politicians from doing too much damage.
This is clearly a dysfunctional way to run a democratic country
The politicians should be running the country with the generals focusing exclusively on the army. Running a six hundred thousand man army is difficult enough without the added involvement of keeping a set of dubious politicians in check. The generals would be happy to focus on their own domain and leave the running of the country to elected representatives of the people. But they will not do this until they have confidence that the people’s representatives have the integrity, competence, experience and sincerity to do so.
So we as a country need to try harder to bring into politics people who do have the qualities needed for national leadership. And once we succeed in doing this the army, reassured that the country is in safe hands, will no longer need to be involved in minding the minders.
By Nadeem Qureshi, Chairman at Mustaqbil Pakistan
SHARNOFF’S GLOBAL VIEWS
SHARNOFF’S GLOBAL VIEWS
Nadeem Qureshi is Chairman at Mustaqbil Pakistan. Nadeem is a graduate of MIT and Harvard Business School, and is fluent in Arabic. Mustaqbil Pakistan is a Pakistani political party which believes that the country’s many problems stem from a single cause: Our politicians in general do not have the sincerity, competence, education and experience to run the country. Mustaqbil Pakistan’s raison d’etre is to provide a platform for the country’s best people to enter and compete in the political arena. Read other articles by Nadeem.

Pakistan
Pakistani government to launch security operation against banned groups
As Pakistani military gunships shelled suspected militant hideouts in North Wazirstan on Monday, reports emerged that the federal government is planning to launch a targeted security operation against banned organizations as part of a larger strategy to combat extremism and militancy (Dawn,ET). Pakistani intelligence officials said they believed members of these banned outlets would either flee to Afghanistan or hide in “Pakistan’s settled areas” before the operation began.
While it is unclear what the targeted banned organizations will do, thousands of residents began fleeing North Waziristan on Sunday (ET). According to a local resident named Rafiullah, “up to 13,000 people have left several villages in North Waziristan,” and Pakistani officials confirmed that at least 8,000 people have arrived in Bannu, a neighboring town (RFE/RL). Arshad Khan, the head of Pakistan’s Disaster Management Authority for the Federall Administered Tribal areas, noted that most people were going to Bannu, but added that since “no military operation has been announced… there are no instructions to make arrangements for internally displaced people.”
Six children killed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province
Six children — five boys and one girl – all under the age of 10 died in northwestern Pakistan on Sunday when they reportedly played with an explosive device that went off (AP, ET, RFE/RL). Police in the town of Hangu in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province said the children apparently found the device in a field, mistaking it for a ball. The victims were cousins.
In Balochistan, “unidentified miscreants” blew up a natural gas pipeline in the Dera Bugti district late on Sunday evening (Dawn). No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, which follows similar incidents on Jan. 11 and Jan. 20.
Musharraf wins medical exemption
A special anti-terrorism court in Islamabad granted former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf a medical exemption from appearing before the judges on Monday, after reviewing the ex-military leader’s medical records (Dawn). Musharraf had been heading to the court on Thursday, Jan. 2, when he was rushed to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi with chest pains; he has remained in the hospital ever since. While Musharraf has been granted medical exemptions before, they were often short-term passes; it is unclear if this exemption is a similar temporary measure, or a longer waiver. The trial — one of many pending against the former president — has been adjourned until Feb. 10.
Afghanistan
Karzai: No BSA without peace talks
Afghan President Hamid Karzai once again refused to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with Washington — which will determine the size and scope of any U.S. troop presence that remains in the country once the NATO combat mission ends in December — telling reporters on Saturday that Washington needs to first launch a genuine peace process with the Taliban (BBC). He also said that he will not sign the security pact “under pressure,” adding that: “If America wants to stay as an ally with us, it should work with us as an ally not as an opponent” (RFE/RL). As for the prospect of the United States’ pulling out all of its troops currently in Afghanistan — the so-called “zero option” — Karzai said that if peace cannot be achieved, “it’s better for them to leave and our country will find its own way” (AJAM).
The ongoing tensions between the United States and Afghanistan increased further on Monday when Afghan authorities announced that they have ordered the first wave of detainee releases from the Parwan Detention Center at Bagram Airfield (AP, BBC, TOLO News). While the U.S. military has said the detainees — 88 of which may ultimately be released — are “dangerous insurgents who have blood on their hands,” Abdul Shukur Dadras, a member of a government committee reviewing the prisoners’ cases, said at least 37 were to be released in the next two weeks due to a lack of evidence, with reviews of the other 51 cases ongoing (RFE/RL). The United States condemned the move as a “major step backward” for developing the rule of law in Afghanistan (Pajhwok,VOA).
While much of the dispute over the BSA has focused on the impact to Afghanistan, the New York Times noted on Sunday that U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly concerned that they could lose the air bases they use to launch drone strikes in Pakistan (NYT). If President Obama withdraws all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, CIA bases around the country would also have to be closed since they could no longer be protected. The concern is so great that the administration has organized a team of intelligence, military, and policy specialists to devise alternative possibilities, though at the moment, the bases are too far away for drones to reach Pakistan and would be “too distant to monitor and respond as quickly as American forces can today if there were a crisis in the region.”
The Times‘ Matthew Rosenberg also reported that there have been false claims in Afghan accusations over a U.S. air strike that occurred on Jan. 15. According to Rosenberg, a report about the strike “was the kind of dossier that the Taliban often publish, purporting to show the carnage inflicted during a raid by American forces: photographs of shattered houses and bloodied, broken bodies, and video images of anguish at a village funeral, all with gut-churning impact and no proof of authenticity” (NYT). While no one has disputed that civilians died in the strike, the Afghan and NATO counts greatly differ. Having reviewed the dossier – which Afghan officials say was created to justify Karzai’s stalling on the BSA — Rosenberg noted that at least two of the images in the report showed casualty photos that were at least three years old. While the Afghan government called a press conference on Sunday to refute Rosenberg’s first report on the dossier, the villagers it brought to verify the authenticity of the photos identified one that was taken in 2009 (NYT). Rosenberg noted in his second report that: “Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, told Agence France-Presse on Sunday that the government was ‘taking this issue very seriously, to find out who put this photograph in the dossier.’”
Attacks continue to rock Afghanistan
A suicide bomber targeting a minivan used by the Afghan army killed at least four people — two soldiers and two civilian bystanders — and wounded 22 others in Kabul on Sunday when he detonated his explosives while trying to board the vehicle (BBC, NYT, Pajhwok,RFE/RL, TOLO News, WSJ). The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which was followed explosions in Helmand and Nangarhar province that left at least six people killed and more than a dozen wounded (AP, The Hindu).
Attacks against athletes in Afghanistan also continued on Sunday when unidentified gunmen shot and killed two brothers in Takhar province as they headed home from a bodybuilding club in the Chah-i-Aab district (Khaama Press, Pajhwok). No one has claimed responsibility for the killings, and an investigation is underway.
Former paratrooper’s photographs show everyday Afghan lives
Paul Hutchings, a former army paratrooper from Wales and a current private security contractor working in Afghanistan, has taken extraordinary photos of Afghanistan, providing insight into everyday life in the war-torn country (Wales Online). According to Hutchings, who has worked all over Afghanistan, he wanted to offer a view of Afghanistan that isn’t being captured or “portrayed by the mass media.” As such, his pictures include shots of people traveling around town — on the backs of motorcycles and in the trunks of cars — as well photos of people scrounging for food in trashcans, and selling shoes at the local bazaar.
– Bailey Cahall
India
Andhra chief minister may reject Telangana Bill, angers leaders
Kiran Kumar Reddy, the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, has expressed his unhappiness with the central government’s bill to create a new state of Telangana, as it failed to justify reasons to divide Andhra Pradesh for its creation (Indian Express). In a draft of the bill sent to the speaker of the state’s legislative assembly, Reddy says the bill was sent to the assembly “in utter disregard (of) linguistic homogeneity and administrative viability.” Senior Congress leader P. Lakshmiah spoke out against the move, saying Reddy was “interfering with constitutional procedure” and was “undemocratic and irresponsible.” The decision to introduce the bill in the assembly now rests with Speaker N. Manohar who, at Reddy’s behest, could send the bill back to the central government urging it to plug loopholes, which would further delay the creation of the state.
Army closes Pathribal case against Kashmiri officers
The Indian Army has dismissed charges against five soldiers who were accused of rounding up five Kashmiri men, dressing them in fatigues, and then shooting and burning them in 2000, an incident that is widely known as the Pathribal case (NYT). The soldiers said the men were Pakistani militants, but locals and a previous Indian government investigation both suggested the men were innocent civilians who were snatched from their homes. Kashmiri politicians and rights groups expressed outrage at the verdict, calling the decision a huge setback for reconciliation efforts between the Indian government and those seeking Kashmiri independence (Times of India).
AAP leader expelled less than a month after Delhi elections,
Vinod Kumar Binny, a member of Delhi’s Legislative Assembly from the newly formed Aam Admi Party (AAP) has been expelled by the party’s leadership for lashing out against top leaders (Times of India, Indian Express, The Hindu). Binny, who had left the Congress party to join the AAP, held a press conference on Jan. 16 and accused leaders of deviating from the party’s core principles. His remarks were seen as a violation of the party’s code of discipline and he was expelled from the AAP on Sunday. Binny proceeded to go on a hunger strike on Monday, but called it off a few hours later, allegedly on advice from party leader Arvind Kejriwal’s erstwhile associate Anna Hazare. Binny has promised to renew his agitation if a bill to create an anti-corruption ombudsman (the Jan Lokpal bill) is not passed by the assembly in 10 days. Kejriwal responded by saying that Binny’s actions were the result of being rebuffed for ministership and a seat in the national polls.
India, Japan boost ties in state visit
India and Japan signed a series of energy partnerships, infrastructure development pacts, and defense agreements, as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe concluded a state visit to New Delhi this weekend (VOA, WSJ). Defense agreements covered maritime security, India-U.S.-Japan naval exercises, and a civil-nuclear deal, as well as meetings between Indian and Japanese national security advisors on China’s military rise and strategic conflicts in East Asia and the Middle East (Hindustan Times). Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also said that India was discussing the possibility of buying an amphibious aircraft called the US-2 and co-producing it in Japan.
Japanese companies were also invited to help develop a new port in Chennai and construct infrastructure in India’s politically sensitive northeastern region, where Chinese infrastructure projects are discouraged (Economic Times, Times of India). Japan agreed to help advance energy efficiency in telecommunication towers across the country and provide loans to increase power generation in India and assist with the construction of the New Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor project and high-speed rail systems in India (NYT).
The two prime ministers also issued a statement saying that their meeting underscored the importance of freedom of over-flight in accordance with principles of international law, a veiled criticism of China’s air defense zone (Mint). On Monday, China said it hoped that India’s defense ties with Japan would be “conducive” to regional peace and stability (The Hindu).
Afghanistan expecting a lot from India
In an interview with Mint on the sidelines of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Regional Business Leaders enclave, Mohammad Shinwari, Afghanistan’s deputy commerce minister, indicated that he expected “a lot from India in terms of political and financial support” (Mint). Shinwari described the hurdles faced by traders in Afghanistan and said he hoped the country could begin importing from India through the India-Pakistan Wagah border. While he acknowledged that Afghanistan would be an aid-based economy in the coming future, he said the government was looking to ramp up investments from India in its resources sector. Shinwari also spoke of deepening military ties between the two nations.
India lifts ban on Airbus A380s
India’s civil aviation ministry lifted a ban on Monday on landings by Airbus A380 planes at the country’s four main airports, clearing the way for the super jumbo jets to service passengers in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad (NDTV, Economic Times, PIB). India had put the ban in place due to concerns that foreign carriers might cut into the business and profits of state-run Air India. International carriers such as Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Lufthansa, and British Airways are expected to benefit from the decision (Mint).
– Shruti Jagirdar and Ana Swanson
By BAILEY CAHALL, SHRUTI JAGIRDAR, ANA SWASON
FOREIGN POLICY
FOREIGN POLICY


