A Vision of United India

Chapter 5

Pakistan - an artificial unit

We shall now look at the history of Pakistan. The so-called nation of Pakistan, which was created in 1947, claimed to be a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent. The Muslims were supposed to be a different nation with the religion of Islam as the psychological binding factor. All proponents of Pakistan have claimed that Pakistan is bound by Islam and was in fact, created to bring the Muslims of the subcontinent together into a strong and viable Islamic group; in other words, the claim is that Islam was the cementing factor of Pakistan. It can be shown that this is not true and is actually, a falsehood and fraud, which the world has been swallowing without any understanding of the roots of the creation of Pakistan.

It is our contention that Pakistan is a manufactured political unit and not a real unit; it has no life from within and owes its continuance to two factors;

• A force imposed on its constituent elements from inside.

• The political convenience felt by the world outside.

The Pakistani Army

The force imposed on its constituent elements is the Pakistan Army. This is testified by the fact that Pakistan has been under military rule for most of its history. The military has mounted four coups, in 1958, 1969 and 1977 and 1999.

Summary of military interventions

In 1958, General Ayub Khan stages a military coup.

In 1962, General Ayub Khan lifts martial law

In 1969, General Yahya Khan reimposes martial law

In 1977, General Zia ousts Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

On Oct. 12 1999, there was another coup in Pakistan. This time it was General Musharraf who staged the coup. Here is an extract from the BBC: "The army is at centre stage once again. The announcement by Pakistan's army chief, General Pervez Musharraf, that the military had seized power came after several months of rumours of a possible military coup. Although Pakistan was founded as a democracy after the partition of the Indian sub-continent, the army has remained one of the country's most powerful institutions.

 Turbulent history

After Pakistan formally became a republic in 1956 under President Mirza, it faced an array of serious threats to its stability. Its conflict with India over Kashmir remained unresolved, relations with Afghanistan were poor, and the country suffered continuing economic difficulties, frequent cabinet crises, and widespread political corruption. In October 1958, President Mirza abrogated the constitution and granted power to the army under General Muhammad

Page 130

Ayub Khan, who subsequently assumed presidential powers. The office of the Prime minister was abolished and rule by decree introduced. Ayub Khan's autocratic rule lasted until 1969, when he was forced to resign following serious unrest. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, commander-in-chief of the army, who reimposed martial law, in turn replaced him. He stepped down following the civil war, which resulted in independence for Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), and military rule came to an end -temporarily. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became the new president, introducing a new constitution, which came into effect in 1973. But after elections in 1977, the opposition challenged Bhutto's victory, and widespread riots ensued. Failure to reach reconciliation prompted the army chief of staff, General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, to depose Bhutto in a military coup and declare martial law. This remained in force until 1985. Despite the subsequent return to civilian government, the politics of Pakistan have remained closely linked to the military. Now the army's actions appear to herald an end to what has been the longest period in Pakistan's turbulent history in which the military has remained on the sidelines".

The support of the Western World

The political convenience of the world outside emanates from the United States and the Western Bloc as part of their larger geo-political aim. The Cold War was only one of the manifestations of this geo-political aim. Pakistan was a useful ally for the United States during the Cold War. Today, Pakistan is supposed to be a useful ally against terrorism. This is totally contrary to facts, for Pakistan is indeed the epicentre of terrorism. As long as the United States and the Western Bloc need or think that they need Pakistan for their own self-interest, they will continue supporting Pakistan despite its non-democratic government and its support to terrorism.

The falsehood in the creation of Pakistan

It is intended to show in this part of the book that the very creation of Pakistan is a falsehood and a fraud inflicted on the international community. We shall illustrate this in the words of well-known authors both of Pakistani origin and other commentators.

First, Lt Colonel Lubra in an article shows how the British plotted in the creation of Pakistan for furthering their own interest in total disregard of historical and geo-political imperatives. He writes:

"With her economy in doldrums Great Britain was bound to find it difficult to hold on to her empire. This was further aggravated by a top secret signal sent by the Viceroy, Lord Wavell that Britain could no longer depend on the Indian Armed Forces to perpetuate her hold on India. He had come

Page 131

to the conclusion after the Indian National Army trials, which was followed by the Naval Mutiny.

Having decided that she could not hold onto India, Great Britain then decided that she had to retrieve her losses to the maximum degree as possible. The obvious was that first she must find out ways and means as to how she could get out of paying the surplus balance of payments which she owed to India. The amount was to the tune of # 55 million, which she was honour-bound to transfer to India.

The method to renege was as simple as it was devious. She decided to create Pakistan an entity, which would be in perpetual clash with India as she planned to ensure a perpetuation of clash of interests. This would ensure that the two countries would be forced to spend the # 55 million on weapons, which would be supplied by her. However, what was more important was that the two countries would become her permanent clients for the acquisition of ever-fresh need for weapons. By end 1946 Britain had already decided that Jammu and Kashmir would be the source and cause of clash".

We have seen in the first part of the book that Jinnah looked upon the Muslim community as a distinct and separate community. That was the justification he gave to create Pakistan. This feeling was echoed by the proposal made by Mohammed Iqbal. At the Allahabad Congress of 1930, he said: "I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated NorthWest Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India." A young man educated in Cambridge, Rahmat Ali, took up this idea. His conception was that since 712 AD, the four States mentioned above were the natural home of the Muslims since they were in a majority in those areas. To him the Hindu-Muslim conflict was not a clash of religions or economic factors. It was an international conflict between two national entities. He said: "Our religion, culture, history, tradition, literature, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are fundamentally different from those of the Hindus. These differences are not confined to broad basic principles; they extend to the minutest details of our lives. Therefore for us to seal our national doom in the interest of one Indian nationhood would be a treachery against our posterity, a betrayal of our history and a crime against humanity for which there would be no salvation."

This idea was repeated again and again by successive rulers of Pakistan. It was Zia-ul-Haq who gave it a definite direction when he assumed the Presidency of Pakistan. He

Page 132

considered it as the fundamental glue to Pakistan's existence as a nation. This is what he said:

"Other than Israel, Pakistan is the only state created on religious grounds. We are created on the basis of Islam. Look at Israel: its religion and its ideology are the main sources of its strength. We in Pakistan have lost sight of the importance of these things. And without them you're like a straw being thrown about in the ocean. You're a Sindhi, a Baluch, a Punjabi, a Pathan. Pakistan's binding force has always been Islam. Without it, Pakistan would fall."

The contradictions

However, many writers and thinkers in Pakistan themselves questioned this belief. In an article entitled "Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity and Ideology by Hazma Alavi" from her book State and Ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan, the author writes:

"There is a pervasive belief, held more widely outside Pakistan than in the country itself, that Pakistan like Israel and Iran, is one of three confessional states in the world; that, like Israel, Pakistan's very origin was to fulfil a religious ideal, to create an Islamic state and Islamic society for Muslims of India.

This is but only one of many facets of a cascade of major contradictions that underlie any suggestion that the creation of Pakistan was the result of a struggle by Muslims of India to create an 'Islamic State'. We have to face up to the glaring fact that the Pakistan movement was vigorously opposed by virtually the entire Muslim religious establishment in India. In another part of the article she writes:

"Here we have yet another paradox. The men of power in Pakistan, the bureaucrats, military leaders and politicians generally, all in truth have an essentially secular intellectual make up and few are devout practitioners of their religion. In their hands Islam has been made into just a political slogan, a mask that they feel they must wear when facing the public. They mistakenly feel that they need this for the legitimisation of power in the eyes of the masses. Because having nothing to offer to the common people by way of improving their material conditions of life and labouring under the illusion that the mass of the people are an unthinking fanatical lot who will be carried away by their insincere slogans, they wrongly believe that they can mobilise their support by resort to religious slogans. The results of successive elections have proved them wrong. But the falsification of Pakistan's history continues, driven by the unthinking political calculations of the state authorities who organise the production and dissemination of distorted propagandist accounts of our history through the commissioning of 'approved' textbooks, controlled by a bureaucratic 'Textbook Board'. Schools and colleges in

Page 133

Pakistan are required to disseminate such falsified accounts of the past to their students. As a consequence of this, after nearly half a century since the Partition, we have generations of Pakistanis who have no idea whatever of the reality of our history. All they know is the fiction that is relayed to them through the state controlled educational system and the media".

She concludes:

"This universal opposition of virtually every significant religious group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious establishment to the Pakistan movement and the Muslim League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone who thinks that the true reason for the creation of Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must unravel.

Thus the concept of Pakistan as an Islamic State does not seem to be holding and is of dubious value.

Similarly in another article written on Ayesha Jalal: Taking On Pakistan's Hero, Then Taking the Heat:

"What has angered so many Muslims here and in her homeland is Ms Jalal's assertion that the revered founding father of Pakistan, the slender, eloquent Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had feet of clay. She argues that the 1947 partition of India -- the event that opened the door for the creation of Pakistan -- was an accident, a colossal miscalculation. What's more, she says that Jinnah never wanted a separate Muslim state; he was only using the threat of independence as a political bargaining chip to strengthen the voice of the Muslim minority in the soon-to-be sovereign India.

For proof, she maintains, look no further than Jinnah's reaction to the partition. "The state-sponsored nationalist attitude seems to suggest that what Jinnah had dismissed as a mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan is what they were actually fighting for," the 42-year-old scholar explained in a recent interview, adding that Jinnah twice rejected what turned out to be the final model for Pakistan.

This is heresy to most Pakistanis, for whom the partition is a point of pride, a landmark historical event comparable to the declaration of the state of Israel for Zionists. And to many Pakistanis, the individual most responsible for the partition is nothing less than a Muslim paladin. "It's as though you're telling Americans that George Washington wasn't a starry-eyed nationalist but a coldblooded, opportunistic militarist," remarked David Ludden, an associate professor of South Asian history at the University of Pennsylvania.

The present situation

The situation has not changed even today; on the contrary it has become worse. There is a persistent attempt by the government to indoctrinate the people of Pakistan through education. Observing that the ideological force of Islam is

Page 134

not helping to bind the people of Pakistan, recourse has been taken to distort the whole education process. Here is an extract from a book written by A H Nayyar and Ahmad Salim titled the Subtle Subversion. This is regarding the school curriculum and the textbooks used in Pakistan. This is what they write:

"Our analysis found that some of the most significant problems in the current curriculum and textbooks are:

• Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

• Insensitivity to the actually existing religious diversity of the nation

• Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat

• Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other nations.

• A glorification of war and the use of force

• Omission of concepts, events, and material that could encourage critical self-awareness among students

• Outdated and incoherent pedagogical practices that hinder the development of interest and insight among students

To give a few examples:

The books on Social Studies systematically misrepresent events that have happened over the past several decades of Pakistan's history, including those which are within living memory of many people. This history is narrated with distortions and omissions. The causes, effects, and responsibility for key events are presented so as to leave a false understanding of our national experience. A large part of the history of this region is also simply omitted, making it difficult to properly interpret events, and narrowing the perspective that should be open to students. Worse, the material is presented in a way that encourages the student to marginalise and be hostile towards other social groups and people in the region.

The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan

The curricula and textbooks are insensitive to the religious diversity of the Pakistani society. While the teaching of Islamiat is compulsory for Muslim students, on average over a quarter of the material in books to teach Urdu as a language is on one religion. The books on English have lessons with religious content. Islamiat is also taught in Social Studies classes.

Thus, the entire education is heavily loaded with religious teachings, reflecting in this respect a very narrow view held by a minority among Muslims that all the education be essentially that of Islamiat. There is an undercurrent of exclusivist and divisive tendencies at work in the subject matter recommended for studies in the curriculum

Page 135

documents as well as in textbooks. Pakistani nationalism is repeatedly defined in a manner that is bound to exclude non-Muslim Pakistanis from either being Pakistani nationals or from even being good human beings. Much of this material would run counter to any efforts at national integration."

As an inevitable consequence of this attitude, there is a sense of dismay and revolt spreading in the whole of Pakistan. In fact there are strong indications that the constituent elements of Pakistan - Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan and NWFP — are demanding separation and independence from the Central Government of Pakistan. It seems clear that as they begin to feel more strongly the centrifugal pull, they will stand up to the Army rule; the inevitable result will the beginning of the disintegration of Pakistan. The glue of Islam seems to be getting unstuck.

The external factor

On the other hand, there is the external support given by the Western world to Pakistan. This support is not based on ideals or values but on self-interest, and indeed a very shortsighted self-interest. But the hard reality seems to be slowly dawning on these nations and consequently this support seems to be coming to its natural end.

The United States and the Western World have been consistently supporting Pakistan for the last 50 years to further their own geo-political interest; although these nations claim to support democracy, they turn a blind eye to the military rule in Pakistan. But now they are slowly beginning to realize the folly of supporting Pakistan. The events of 9/11 have acted as a catalyst in this direction. In fact one now reads and hears the Western press describing Pakistan as "a failed State".

A perusal of the Cato research paper on American policy towards India, by Subodh Atal, is another clear indication in this direction. Here is an extract from the Cato paper:

The Cato paper

"Without delay, the United States must pressure the Musharraf regime to dismantle the entire terrorist infrastructure in the Northwest Frontier Province and Pakistan controlled Kashmir, which serve as reservoirs for anti-U.S. jihadis. It should warn Musharraf that, if Pakistan is unwilling or incapable of cleansing itself of its terrorist infrastructure, the U.S. military will take matters into its own hands and extend the anti-terrorism war into Pakistani territory. To further mitigate the risk, the United States must convince Pakistan to accept security systems such as alarms and anti-terrorism measures for its nuclear arsenal. While this might be unpalatable to Pakistan, the grave threat posed by its arsenal outweighs those considerations. U.S.

Page 136

contingency plans should be in place to secure and extract nuclear weapons from Pakistan, if there is an Islamic extremist coup in that nation. The United States should not, however, offer missile defense support for Pakistani nuclear installations. Such aid would drastically alter the strategic balance on the subcontinent and give Pakistan the impetus to continue its regional destabilizing activities that fuel its Islamic extremists.

Conclusion

The US must convince Pakistan to accept security systems such as alarms and anti-terrorism measures for its nuclear arsenal.

Since the September 11 attacks, comprehensive U.S.-led efforts have been under way to destroy the terrorist movement led by Al-Qaeda and defuse the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks. As part of those efforts, U.S. and British forces deposed the Taliban and forced its Al-Qaeda guests to flee from Afghanistan. Worldwide moves to freeze terrorist funds were undertaken, and President Bush identified three nations as the "axis of evil" that needed to be contained. One of those, Iraq, is under intense pressure to give up its chemical and biological weapons, but it does not have any nuclear weapons. Both Iran and North Korea are pursuing nuclear weapons, and the latter may already have a small number. Yet Pakistan is potentially a greater source of danger than any of the "axis of evil" nations. Despite Pakistan's being officially an ally in the anti-terrorism war, sections of its military and intelligence wings have facilitated the escape and regrouping of Al-Qaeda. The Pakistani member groups of the International Islamic Front that collaborate with Al-Qaeda continue to be well funded and active. Leaders of Islamic extremist parties that still support the Taliban, as well as pro-Islamic military leaders who were instrumental in creating the Taliban, wait in the wings to dethrone Musharraf and take over the nation's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal.

Not enough is known about what secrets of their trade were discussed by Pakistani nuclear scientists with Bin Laden. Furthermore, Pakistan has been selling its nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Myanmar, and Saudi Arabia. There are questions about whether Musharraf has full control over his military and intelligence apparatus as well as his nuclear arsenal. U.S. policy toward Pakistan has failed to consider the cumulative dangers that nation presents. America continues to pump billions of dollars of aid into Pakistan, without accounting for its fate. Few questions about possible ISI links to the September 11 attacks, the organization's role in sheltering Al-Qaeda, or Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities have been asked, let alone answered. U.S. policy appears to be frozen, concerned only with the preservation of Pakistani dictator Musharraf and

Page 137

overlooking the larger goal of fortifying U.S. national security. Despite having considerable leverage over Pakistan, U.S. officials have given that country a free ride to continue posing as an anti-terrorism ally. If Musharraf is unwilling or unable to weed out al-Qaeda from his nation's territory, Pakistan is the next logical theater of the antiterrorism war. That should also help bring to an end the need for politically provocative U.S. bases in Pakistan. The United States must develop contingency plans for securing and extracting the Pakistani nuclear arsenal in case of an Islamist coup. And if Musharraf does not have full control over his expanding nuclear assets, then the world may be dealing with a nuclear rogue nation. President Bush would then have a far greater problem than a Saddam Hussein who might someday possess nuclear weapons."

The Human Rights Commission too has got into the act and is putting pressure on Pakistan. Here is a letter from the Commission to President Musharraf.

Letter to General Pervez Musharraf on 4th Anniversary of Oct. Coup

October 10, 2003

His Excellency General Pervez Musharraf President Islamic Republic of Pakistan Aiwan-e-Sadr Constitution Avenue Islamabad, Pakistan

Dear General Musharraf:

October 12, 2003 will mark the fourth anniversary of the military coup that brought you to power. Since the 1999 coup, Human Rights Watch has monitored the suppression of civil liberties and the progressive undermining of civilian institutions in Pakistan.

Human Rights Watch is concerned that in the years since the coup, the Pakistani government has systematically violated the fundamental rights of members of the political opposition and former government officials. It has harassed, threatened, and arbitrarily arrested them. Many have been detained without charge, mistreated and tortured, and otherwise denied their basic due process rights. The government has removed independent judges from the higher courts, banned anti-government public rallies and demonstrations, and rendered political parties all but powerless. In addition, the last four years have also witnessed the rise of extremist political activity and an increase in sectarian killings.

Meanwhile, your involvement with the United States in its war on terror has been characterized by a disregard for the due process rights of suspects. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, apparently with the support of U.S. authorities in Pakistan, have taken place with depressing regularity.

The rule of law is a critical element in the promotion and protection of human rights. Your failure to institute genuine and periodic elections as required by international law has

Page 138

become an important symbol of the lack of rule of law in Pakistan. We urge you to provide a timetable and demonstrate a commitment to genuine, pluralistic elections at the earliest possible date. October 12 would provide an excellent opportunity to make such a commitment. Solutions to many of the human rights problems discussed below depend, at least in part, on the creation of a duly constituted civilian government.

Torture and Mistreatment of Political Opponents and Journalists

Torture is routinely used in Pakistan, both to obtain confessions in criminal cases and against political opponents. Most acts of torture committed by civilian law enforcement agencies are usually issue-specific and aimed at producing a confession during the course of a criminal investigation. By contrast, acts of torture by military agencies primarily serve the purpose of "punishing" an errant politician, political activist or journalist. Torture by the military usually takes place after the victim has been abducted;

the purpose is to frighten the victim into changing his political stance or loyalties or at the very least to stop him from being critical of the military authorities. The victim is often let go on the understanding that if he fails to behave, another further abduction and mistreatment will follow. In this manner, the victim can be kept in a state of fear often for several years.

A recent example is the case of Rasheed Azam, a journalist and political activist from Khuzdar in Balochistan province. Azam, a reporter for the local newspapers Intikhab and Asap and a member of the organizing committee of the Balochistan National Party, has been in police custody since August 15, 2002. Azam communicated to Human Rights Watch through intermediaries that he has been taken three times to the Khuzdar military cantonment where he alleges he was abused and tortured, including by being beaten while he was hung upside down and through sleep deprivation.

Azam is being held on baseless claims that he committed sedition. According to the First Information Report of the local police, Azam was arrested in Quetta on the basis of a report "received from a sensitive department" that he had distributed a poster with a photograph of Pakistan army personnel beating a crowd of Baloch youth. The report goes on to state that such "sedition" against the army "is an offense of grave nature." However, the report fails to mention the date, time or place the alleged "crime" was committed, nor does it name the "sensitive department" in question or any eyewitnesses that saw the "offense" being perpetrated. Rasheed Azam remains in jail to date as his bail application was rejected by the district judge on the grounds that the case against the accused was credible. His

Page 139

colleagues have filed a bail application in the Balochistan High Court that awaits hearing.

Another case of detention and torture is of Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the suspended Punjab provincial assembly. Sanaullah was arrested under the sedition law for criticizing the military government in November 1999. According to Sanaullah, he was whipped, beaten, held incommunicado, and interrogated for a week in police custody before eventually being released on bail. In October 2002, Sanaullah was re-elected to the Punjab Assembly and elected deputy leader of the opposition. On March 8, 2003, heavily armed men, some of whom wore police uniforms, abducted him.

According to Sanaullah: I was handcuffed and, with my face covered with a cloth, I was driven to the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] office where I was tortured for three or four hours. They were using some sharp-edged weapon with which they would cut open my skin and then rub some sort of chemical in the wound. I felt as if I was on fire every time they did that. I have 22 such injuries on my body. Later, I was pushed into a car and thrown on a service lane along the motorway some 20 kilometers from Faisalabad.

Sanaullah explained to Human Rights Watch that he remains under pressure from the government and continues to receive sporadic threats.

The use of such forms of arbitrary detention and torture must end. Perpetrators of the torture of Azam, Sanaullah and others must be removed from the country's security forces and prosecuted.

Return to Civilian Rule & the Legal Framework Order

Your administration has unilaterally imposed a series of far-reaching amendments to the Pakistan constitution that dramatically strengthen the power of the presidency, formalize the role of the army in governance, and diminish the authority of elected representatives. The amendments under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) significantly curb freedom of association and the freedom of individuals to stand for elected office. Opposition legislators who have spoken to Human Rights Watch have reportedly been beaten, harassed, and subjected to blackmail for voicing opposition to these arbitrary changes to the Pakistani constitution.

Indeed, in the months preceding Pakistan's October 2002 parliamentary elections, your administration took measures that all but ensured a military-controlled government. In addition to the constitutional amendments under the LFO, these included an April 2002 referendum that extended your presidential term for five years and restrictions on political party activities. Independent observers reported extensive fraud and coercion during voting for the referendum and widespread poll-rigging and harassment of candidates

Page 140

preceding the parliamentary elections. It is worth pointing out that these measures have served to suppress the kind of moderate voices necessary for Pakistan to develop into a pluralistic, rights-respecting society.

Subsequent to the elections, your administration has chosen to sideline the mainstream political opposition and negotiate on the LFO only with the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious political parties that have historically enjoyed close links with the Pakistan military. However, even these negotiations broke down recently over your administration's refusal to offer a firm date by which you would resign from your military position in exchange for their support for your running for president of Pakistan in a civilian capacity.

Taken together, the amendments under the LFO have ensured that ostensibly civilian governments at the federal and provincial level are effectively subordinate to and even exist at the discretion of the president and the military. In spite of this, the opposition in the federal parliament has made it clear that it does not recognize the validity of the constitution as arbitrarily amended by your administration. We urge you to recognize the troubling implications of the LFO and the resulting constitutional crisis for credible civilian governance in Pakistan and to rescind the LFO.

War on Terror

The conduct of the war on terror in Pakistan has raised serious questions about the commitment of Pakistan to internationally and domestically recognized standards of due process.

Perhaps the most high profile example of the failure of due process occurred in December 2000 when Pakistani security forces, allegedly accompanied by officials of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), raided a house in Lahore and arrested nine individuals. The group included several well-known doctors. While your government denies the presence of FBI personnel at the arrest, eyewitness accounts provided to Human Rights Watch say that Caucasian men with American accents accompanied the Pakistani officials and took charge of the operation once they had gained entry to the premises. Only several weeks after the arrests did the government admit that the doctors had been detained under the Security Act for alleged links with Al-Qaeda. Subsequently, the Pakistan government repeatedly ignored orders by the Lahore High Court to produce the detainees in court. Instead, the detainees are currently on trial by an "anti-terrorism" court in Lahore, a process that lacks basic procedural safeguards for a fair trial. In another incident, Dr. Amir Aziz, a Lahore-based orthopedic surgeon who has reportedly provided treatment to members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, was arrested on October 21 2002. His family reported that he had

Page 141

been arrested by ISI officials accompanied by Americans whom they took to be FBI agents. Without being presented a legal basis for his arrest, Dr. Aziz was released several days later.

The cases mentioned above are illustrative of a pattern of due process violations occurring across Pakistan in the name of the war on terror. Human Rights Watch urged Pakistani authorities to scrupulously follow international due process standards in prosecuting in cases of alleged terror suspects. Legal Discrimination Against and Mistreatment of Women and Religious Minorities

Inaction on the Hudood Laws persists despite the government-run National Commission for Status of Women calling for repeal of the Hudood Ordinance on the grounds that it "makes a mockery of Islamic justice" and is "not based on Islamic injunctions." This, despite the outcry in Pakistan and internationally, over cases such as the tribal "jirga" ordered gang-rape of Mukhtaran Bibi in Punjab and the sentencing to death by stoning of Zafran Bibi on grounds of adultery. Human Rights Watch has monitored these and other cases involving abuses under the Hudood Laws. Informed estimates suggest that over 210,000 cases under the Hudood laws are under process in Pakistan's legal system

Under Pakistan's existing Hudood Ordinance, a woman who has been raped and wants the state to prosecute her case must have four Muslim men testify that they witnessed the assault. In the absence of these male witnesses, the rape victim has no case. Equally alarming, if a woman cannot prove the rape allegation she runs a very high risk of being charged with fornication or adultery, the criminal penalty for which is either a long prison sentence, including public whipping, or, though rare, death by stoning. The testimony of women carries half the weight of a man's testimony under this ordinance.

Further, the Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (compensation) Ordinance makes it possible for crimes of honor (such as the killing of women in the name of honor) to be pardoned by relatives of the victim and assesses monetary compensation for female victims at half the rate of male victims.

These are just part of a set of "Islamic" penal laws introduced by the former military ruler, General Zia ul-Haq in 1979. While your administration has publicly warned against this kind of extremism, these warnings have failed to translate into concrete legal measures to protect the basic rights of women in conformity with international norms.

Discrimination and persecution on grounds of religion continues, and an increasing number of blasphemy cases continue to be registered. The Ahmadi community in particular has been the target of religious extremists and Human Rights Watch has followed several cases where

Page 142

members of this community have been subject to discrimination, not just at the hands of religious extremists but the Pakistani police and military authorities as well.

Information provided by the Ahmadi community and authenticated by HRW indicates that during 2002-3 at least ten Ahmadis were charged under various provisions of the Blasphemy Law. Mushtaq Ahmed Saggon and Waris Khan were charged for "preaching" and a case was registered against "Abdul Nasir and three others" for distributing "objectionable literature." Four Ahmadis were accused of preparing to build a "place of worship." (Ahmadis can be charged under the Blasphemy Law for using the term "mosque" to describe their places of worship.) In 2002 at least three members of the Ahmadi community were convicted under the blasphemy law. One was subsequently acquitted on appeal. However, Nazir Ahmed and Allah Rakhio were awarded life imprisonment by an Anti-Terrorist Court on charges of "desecrating the Quran" and "demolishing a mosque."

In addition, at least six others were sentenced under the Blasphemy Law in 2002. Of these four were awarded the death penalty and two received life imprisonment. They have appealed their sentences. Sectarian Violence

Pakistan has experienced an alarming rise in sectarian violence since the 1999 coup. In particular, Sunni extremists, often with connections to militant organizations such as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), have targeted Muslims of the Shi'a sect. There has been a sharp increase in the number of targeted killings of Shi'a, and particularly Shi'a doctors, since the 1999 coup. These doctors make easy targets as they work in easily accessible public places and follow predictable routines. Indeed, the majority of the victims have been killed in or around their clinics or hospitals. Shi'a Muslim doctors are now fleeing Pakistan in large numbers in fear of their lives. Human Rights Watch has interviewed the families of many of those killed.

Since assuming power, your government has followed what can only be described as a deliberate policy of strengthening sectarian militant organizations. This has involved providing support to the political wings of these organizations under the umbrella of the MMA and otherwise, while little effort has been made to bring those responsible for acts of sectarian violence to justice or to provide protection to the targets or their families.

On October 6, Maulana Azam Tariq, a Sunni extremist leader and member of parliament, was murdered in an apparent act of retaliation by unknown assailants. Maulana Azam Tariq had generated animosity because of his reported declaration that Shi'a were non-Muslims and legitimate targets for murder, and his being allowed to contest the

Page 143

October 2000 elections despite being the head of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, which the government had declared a terrorist sectarian organization. Further, when under arrest on charges of murder, Tariq had the unusual privilege of being provided a stipend of 10,000 rupees per month by the government. Once elected to the National Assembly, Tariq chose to support the pro-Musharraf government in place since November 2002.

Human Rights Watch fears that Azam Tariq's murder may spark a new wave of violence against the Shi'a community. It is the responsibility of the government of Pakistan to protect the Shi'a citizens of Pakistan and safeguard their right to life. This is a duty that the government has thus far failed to perform.

Human Rights Watch urges you and your government to take measures to address the problem of sectarian violence in Pakistan. Those implicated in acts of sectarian violence must be prosecuted, and actions to protect the affected communities must be undertaken. It is critical that your government act, and appear to act, impartially on all religious and sectarian matters. The failure to do so could result in serious violence.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Adams

Executive Director

Asia Division

This extract only proves that the Western powers and the United States of America are being slowly compelled to withdraw their support to Pakistan. The leadership might dither and hesitate but world circumstances and political forces will compel them to see the hard truth and sooner or later they will have no other option but to withdraw their support to Pakistan. The moment this becomes an accomplished fact, the days of Pakistan are numbered.

Page 144

Steps that need to be taken by the Government of India

The first and most important decision that the Government of India must take is that it should not accept the Partition of India as final. A policy decision needs to be taken that the partition of India will be annulled. Once that is done, all possible steps should be taken to bring about unity between the two nations and peoples. Steps in that direction could be as follows:

1. Increase people to people contact in a big way in every field of activity. The example of Germany is a remarkable proof of the success of this method.

2. Increase economic cooperation between the two governments if possible and between the people of the two nations even if the Government of Pakistan does not cooperate. This has been proved again by the example of Germany.

3. Take the strongest steps to curb terrorism in any form; give the Army a free hand in their operations against the terrorists. Ensure that political interference is completely stopped.

4. Take steps to create a climate of understanding and goodwill between all the religions within India itself. This is an important factor and needs to be pursued vigorously.

Page 145