The Memoirs of Syeda Abida Hussain By BASHARAT HUSSAIN QIZILBASH ,

Her account of a meeting with the American officials is an eye-opener. It is imprudent to generalize the behavior of the Americans towards the Pakistanis but it does show how humiliating some encounters can be with the haughty officials.

Syeda Abida Hussain is as bold a writer in her recently published autobiography “Power Failure” as she was as a politician because only she can dare to write that Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi was a “veritable joker”; Altaf Hussain a “veritable fascist” (p 353) and that Rehman Malik pronounces his doctorate in criminology as “criminology”. Then there are some frank admissions as well: her father Syed Abid Hussain remained her hero throughout her life whereas her father considered Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah as the “heroine of Pakistan”, who in turn was so bitter about the way things were sliding in the country that once Abida herself heard Ms. Jinnah lamenting, “Had my brother (Quaid-e-Azam) foreseen all this, would he have struggled so hard for the creation of Pakistan? Would he have wanted a country without a constitution, without justice, where skilled sycophants become powerful, while people with integrity and dignity start falling behind? If this was what Pakistan was to become, then making Pakistan was a foolish mistake (p 8).”

Abida has lived a stylish life and tells us that she developed her sense of style during education in Florence. A Florentine maestro after drawing her sketch felt that she was “better looking than Gina Lollobrigida” while Begum Nusrat Bhutto felt that the author reminded her of Elizabeth Taylor and therefore sought her advice as to how she should do her eye make-up. Abida must have been a pretty lady because Tahir Ayub, the youngest son of Ayub Khan was keen to marry her and though President Ayub sent a formal marriage proposal through the Nawab of Kalabagh, the then Governor of West Pakistan; her father declined. Even the “Melody Queen” Madam Noor Jehan brought the marriage proposal of her son, Akbar Rizvi which amused Abida’s father who “asked her to sing for him before he gave his response, to which she had answered that if the proposal was accepted she would sing for him whenever he wanted, if not she would not waste her breath.” She eventually got married to her cousin Fakhar Imam, who, at the time of marriage, she thought was “boring” and a “hopeless dancer,” however, after a marriage of forty-five years she is full of praise for her partner’s patience, perseverance, and tolerance.

Equally interesting are some other titbits. General Ghulam Jilani Khan, who also served as the Governor and Martial Law Administrator of Punjab had apart from soldiering also studied dance and music at Rabindranath Tagore’s Shantiniketan Academy, of course, in pre-partition days. Abida’s maternal grandfather Syed Maratab Ali Shah was awarded knighthood for being the “favored caterer of the British Indian army.” President Ghulam Ishaq Khan was so frugal in the use of public money that when his wife requested the re-upholstering of the sofas whose silk had frayed, he said that silk was too expensive and he could only sanction funds for the cotton fabric made in Pakistan. Similarly, before leaving as Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, when the author asked Ishaq Khan that should she take a briefing on the nuclear issue from Dr A Q Khan, the President said that “there was no need, as A Q would mostly talk about himself” and instead directed her to meet Dr Ashfaq Ahmed of PINSTECH. As an ambassador in Washington, she was surprised to see in a party the Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan and the Israeli ambassador “with their arms around each other, laughing their heads off.” The author ruefully notes that though the Saudis are considered good friends by the Pakistanis, Prince Bandar refused to meet her despite repeated requests.

These titbits aside, the book is a first-hand account of the political history of the country in which the author also played an important role at critical junctures as the Member of the Parliament as well as Minister and by being an independent politician as well as a member of both the PPP and the PML. She remained a great fan of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto throughout her life so much so that while Bhutto was alive and in power, she had a dream in December 1976 in which she saw “Bhutto with a noose around his neck, hanging from the mango tree in the front garden of our house in Lahore.”Nevertheless, she left the PPP when the modernist yet “gender-biased” Bhutto refused to grant her the ticket to contest the National Assembly seat in the 1977 general elections just because she was a woman aspirant in a misogynist society.

Prior to Benazir Bhutto’s (BB) return to Pakistan in 1986, President Zia toyed with the idea of grooming Abida and Fakhar as the “power couple” to politically neutralise BB but dropped the idea after his chief spook told him that as the couple were shias, the Saudis would be immensely annoyed and instead picked up Nawaz Sharif for the leadership. The author remained estranged from BB for many years but agreed to be friends in 2003 provided BB explained her allegedly non-transparent financial dealings during her premiership especially in view of the fact that even her late father’s worst enemies could not raise a finger of financial corruption against him. BB’s explanation to her deserves to be quoted in full. Benazir “explained that her mother, being a simple person, before her father’s brutal elimination, gave away whatever cash they had to whoever said they could help so that by the time they were allowed to leave the country, they had to ask Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi for assistance. Although he was generous, it was not pleasant to incur this kind of obligation; so on becoming Prime Minister, her priority was never to be in a situation where she would have to ask anyone for money again (p 612).”

The most revealing section in the book is the account of her dealings as the ambassador of Pakistan with the American politicians and the officialdom at large. It affirms the popular perception that the US plays a decisive role in the affairs of Pakistan, at least at crunch time. We are told that it was the Chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Claiborne Pell, who prevailed upon his government to pressure General Zia to allow Benazir to return to her homeland. And so she landed in April 1986. Two years later, it was again the then US Assistant Secretary, who brokered a deal between President Ishaq Khan and Benazir that enabled the latter to become the prime minister.

During Abida’s ambassadorship, there was immense US pressure on Pakistan to roll back its nuclear programme. Anybody who was somebody in the US State Department or Pentagon had only one message: “Roll back your nuclear programme.” To the Pakistani efforts to stand up to the American pressure, the then US Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz observed that “the Pakistan government had attempted eyeball to eyeball conversations with the US government in the past, but had always ended up blinking first.”Strangely, the Americans continued arm-twisting despite the fact that their CIA chief Bob Gates had informed Pakistan that “the Indians had mounted nuclear tipped missiles on the Kashmir Line of Control (p 420).”

During her ambassadorship, the visit of the then COAS General Asif Nawaz to the US sheds some light as to how rude the American officials can be at times in their interactions and insincere in their democracy promotion agenda in Pakistan. On his visit to the State Department, General Asif felt “most offended” at being frisked by the security staff at the entrance hall and later on while the General and Abida proceeded through the hall, they were shouted upon to be “out of the way” and unceremoniously pushed into one of the elevators to clear the way for the Israeli and Palestinian delegations moving down the hall which made the annoyed General to complain that the Americans were “shockingly rude” (pp 445-446). During the visit to the Pentagon, General Asif Nawaz was told by the then Defence Secretary Dick Cheney that if Pakistan stepped “back from the red lines on our nuclear program, then a military takeover of the government in Pakistan would be tolerated by the Americans (p 448).” Though the General replied on the fact that “the army was in no mood to take over” yet he did brood over the idea of replacing the Nawaz Sharif government by making the MNAs to switch their loyalties but with the specific intention to buy some time with the Americans (pp 448-449).”

Abida’s account of another meeting with the American officials is an eye-opener. It is imprudent to generalise the behaviour of the Americans towards the Pakistanis but it does show how humiliating some encounters can be with the haughty officials. Just before Abida’s departure as ambassador, this meeting took place at the President House in Islamabad where President Ishaq Khan, Siddiq Kanju, Foreign Secretary Shehryar Khan, President’s Secretary Fazlur Rahman and Abida received the visiting US Under Secretary Bartholomew along with the US Deputy Chief of Mission Elizabeth Jones from the US Embassy and a staff officer. This is what happened at the meeting: “Bartholomew, addressing the President, urged him on behalf of the US President George H Bush to roll back our nuclear programme, if he wanted a resumption of the US assistance to Pakistan. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan picked up a file and showed the letters he had been exchanging with President Bush. Bartholomew looked at the letters, then picked out one and asked President Ghulam Ishaq to read it, in an edgy voice. The President nodded at him, picked out another letter, telling the visitor that this was what he had written in response. Having read it, Bartholomew threw the entire file onto the table in front, muttering that if we Pakistanis did not wish to understand what the US Government was urging us to do, it was bad for us. He then stood up and without acknowledging his exit, he said to his accompanying compatriots, ‘Let’s get out of here,’ shutting the door hard behind them (pp 415-416).” This was a manifestation of naked arrogance of American power. In addition, she has penned down a sample of the American corporate greed as well. Again, no generalisations but one can imagine to what extent the US big business can stoop for the sake of big money. When the General Dynamics (GD) found out that Pakistan was terminating the contentious F-16defence deal, their head honcho called Abida over to a meeting in which he said that his sources had informed him that she could influence her Prime Minister to change his mind and continue with the deal and in return the GD could buy her a nice house in Washington DC which she could rent out to meet the educational expenses of her two daughters studying at Harvard but she refused to sell her conscience (pp 483-484).”

Another challenging task as the ambassador was to convince the US Congressmen about Pakistan’s position on various issues. Not many were even interested in Pakistan such as Senator Jesse Helms, who stated that “Asia could certainly go to hell, and so could South Asia but within South Asia, he wished greater hell to India than to Pakistan” as the latter stood on the right side of the US. Some were adamant in their opposition such as Senator Orrin Hatch, who urged her to prevail upon the Pakistan government to follow the Indian example by recognising Israel. Some such as Senator Al Gore were least bothered as to who was Pakistan’s ambassador in his country because when she visited him, the Senator took her accompanying Deputy Chief of Mission Mr Sarwar as the ambassador despite the fact that her profile was sent to him in advance. One wonders why we still keep receiving so many American officials!

BUMSUCKERWALLAH PARSI FAMILY OF KARACHI OUR PRIDE PARSI

Parsi family on a motorcar (Karachi, 1925): A Parsi family of Karachi poses for a photograph on their motorcar.

Patrick O’ Meara wrote the following anecdote in his Indian Tales:

“You will probably be aware that, there is a caste of people called Parsees, who have made India their home. They are descended from the Persians (Iranians) and are very astute business folk. Many of the bigger businesses established in India are owned and run by Parsees. When they came to India they created a fashion for naming themselves according to the work they did, much like “Jones Butcher”, “Jones Baker”, and “Jones Milk”, in Wales. Eventually, the name would stick, and there would really be no way of knowing what the original family name was, except perhaps, to the family itself. However, this vogue caught on quite well and was, of course, very helpful in getting business from foreigners, particularly the Brits, who couldn’t have pronounced the Parsee names anyway, leave alone remembered them. Hence it was, that such “surnames” as Engineer, Contractor, Rotiwallah, Kekwallah and a host of others, became fashionable and remain so to this day.

“There was a Parsee soft drinks wholesaler/supplier who had apparently wanted another more elaborate and descriptive name with which to do business. He asked the warrant officer, who was in charge of supplies and purchasing to the regimental mess and who would be instrumental in giving further orders to the supplier, to suggest something. The story goes that the W/O, totally fed-up with the constant knocking on his door and sucking up for orders by the wholesaler, said, “Well, if you want ME to remember your name, you should name yourself and your business ‘Bumsuckerwallah’.”

“The Parsee, unaware of the implication, replied, ‘Then sahib, it shall be so’, and duly had the name painted in enormous letters over his warehouse. That was a stroke of luck for the trader because everyone in Karachi must have, at least, heard of the name of the trader and smiled… In 1940, Bumsuckerwallah’s was easily the largest and most successful wholesale soft drinks business in Karachi.”

Published on Parsi Khabar

10 Iconic Images of Amrita Shergill

Amrita Sher-Gil continues to fascinate and engage people’s curiosity decades after her untimely death in 1941. An artist of repute, she’s remembered for her rebelliousness, bohemian lifestyle and numerous sexual escapades, with men and women, not least of all because she happened to belong to society as traditional as India’s in the early ‘40s. Dismissed by some and revered by others as a pioneering artist and icon, she has left behind a multi-faceted and colorful legacy that’s constantly re-imagined but few offer a perspective vastly different from the other. It’s only when we peered at her life through her own father’s eyes (or for the purpose of this story, lens) that it felt like there was an opportunity to learn something new about Sher-Gil

Hindus of upper Sindh: a bruised community carries on Cyril Almeida

In the little town of Reharki in Ghotki district, a sprawling multi-acre complex sits among fields just off the main road. Known as the Reharki Darbar, it houses the Sant Satram Das temple and is just a few kilometers from the Bharchundi Sharif shrine, which has become the focal point of allegations that Hindu women are being forced to convert to Islam. At one end of the Reharki Darbar, an enormous hostel is being constructed for visiting pilgrims, while a recently completed causeway donated by the federal government provides easy access to temple sites at either end of the massive grounds. In mid-April, according to caretakers at the darbar, tens of thousands of visitors will gather at the complex for a festival marking the death anniversary of Bhagat Kanwar Ram, a popular Sufi poet, and singer who was killed in communal riots in 1939, allegedly by the then-custodians of the Bharchundi Sharif shrine. “It’s a great event and people come from all over, even outside Pakistan, from Dubai and India,” said Aneel Batra, a local community leader. The large Bharchundi Sharif shrine in Daharki, the source of much consternation among the Hindu community in recent days, and the even-larger Sant Satram Das temple complex in adjacent Reharki symbolize the contradictions of the lives of Hindus in upper Sindh. In the districts of Jacobabad, Shikarpur, Ghotki, Sukkur, Khairpur and Larkana, a mixture of lower-caste peasants and well-to-do businessmen, traders and professionals do suffer sporadic violence and must contend with a strain of intolerance evident since the Zia era. However, the Hindu communities’ ancient ties to the land, their integration into Sindhi society and their wealth allows them to work and live in northern Sindh relatively free from the systematic repression that Christians in south Punjab or Ahmadis across Pakistan suffer. Discrimination against and outright repression of Hindus are far more pronounced in south-east Sindh, where the vast majority of Hindus in the province, many of them lower-caste peasants, live in Tharparkar, Mirpurkhas, Umerkot, and Sanghar.

THe Pakistan America Relationship or The Military America Relationship By Aamir Mughal

1. Even in its nascent phase, Pakistan willingly undermined itself by playing second fiddle to the United States. Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, refused Soviet overtures, choosing instead to pay a visit to the White House. That decision permanently palled Pakistan-Soviet relations.

2. In 1954 Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO, the US-led defense alliance against the Soviet Union although Pakistan per se had no dispute with the USSR.

3. In 1955 Pakistan became a member of the British-led and US-backed Baghdad Pact. The purpose of the Pact was to contain possible Soviet influence in the Middle East. Strangely, Pakistan did not belong within the geographical arrangement of the Pact. It joined just to please the Americans.

4. In 1959 Pakistan allowed the US to establish secret intelligence facilities near Peshawar so that the Americans could spy on the Soviet Union. Pakistan constantly denied Soviet allegations that the US was spying on it using Pakistan’s territory. In 1960 the infamous U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet army. The plane had as usual taken off from Peshawar. Khrush- chev threatened to attack Pakistan if the Peshawar-based espionage facilities of the US were not dismantled. Pakistan partially complied.

5. In March 1959 Pakistan-US signed a bilateral security agreement which called upon the US to take such appropriate action, including the use of armed forces. This was a total act of subordination on Pakistan's part because the commitment was restricted to instances of communist aggression. It made no reference to the US coming to Pakistan's help in the event of a conflict with its most likely adversary, i.e. India.

6. In January 1961 the new Kennedy administration increased assistance to India to $1 billion annually, while giving only $150 million to Pakistan. Pakistan had done nothing to deserve this ill-treatment.

7. In 1964 President Johnson conveyed his distress over Pakistan's good relations with China, but after a few years it was Pakistan which served as a go-between when the US and China began to normalise their relations.

8. In September 1965 Pakistan and India went to war. The US responded by suspending military and economic aid to Pakistan.

9. In May 1974, following India's "peaceful nuclear explosion," Z.A. Bhutto, then Pakistan's prime minister, pledged to press ahead with Pakistan's nuclear program. The US pressured him not to, but he stood up to the Americans. In 1976 he was threatened by Henry Kissinger with "horrible" consequences for pursuing a nuclear program. (Kissinger's exact words: "We will make a horrible example out of you." See Endnote 1.) Soon after, he was deposed and executed by the Pakistani Army.

10. From 1979 to 1988 Pakistan fought the American cold war against the Soviet Union. Knowing full well that the Afghan crisis of the late 1980s could have destructive consequences for Pakistan, its rulers (the generals) became willing instruments of the Americans. This resulted in Pakistan's becoming a centre of mercenaries, illegal arms and heroin.

INDEPTH DETAIL OF PAK-US CONNIVANCE.

General Ayub and US Vice President later President of the US Lyndon B Johnson having fun

Pakistan First Chief Martial Law Administrator / Dictator General Ayub Khan with Democrat US President J F Kennedy and US Vice President Lyndon B Johnson

GENERAL AYUB.

Immediately after independence in 1947, Pakistan’s apprehension about the designs of a hostile large neighbour, India prompted it to try to develop friendly defence relations with large powers (US and later China). Very early in the game, politicians lost the control of defence related matters due to their lack of experience and constant squabbles. This allowed the British trained bureaucrats and military officers to take control of the affairs especially those related to defence. Defence and foreign policy are closely linked to each other, therefore, invariably a particular decision about defence has both foreign policy and domestic impact thus complicating the picture. A glimpse of thought process of the decision makers will help to understand why a particular decision was taken whenever they got the chance of acting on their thoughts. Governor General Ghulam Muhammad during his conversation with Vice President Nixon, pleading for military aid stated that, “... were the US not grant aid now, especially in view of all publicity, it would like taking a poor girl for a walk and then walking out on her, leaving her only with bad name”.

Foreign Minister Zafrullah Khan was more candid when in 1954, during a meeting with Governor Stassen asking for more aid stated, “It was Pakistan’s belief that the “beggar’s bowl” should never be concealed”.

Ayub Khan frustrated with slow pace of negotiations with US during his visit to Washington went to Henry Byroad’s office and told him, ‘I didn’t come here to look at barracks. Our army can be your army if you want us. But let’s make a decision’.

In 1950-53, a flurry of Pakistani officials landed in US asking for assistance. Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan, C-in-C Ayub Khan, Foreign Minister Zafrullah Khan, Foreign Secretary Ikramullah, Finance Minister Ghulam Muhammad, Defence Secretary Sikander Mirza and special envoy Mir Laiq Ali made US visits with main theme of getting aid. Each one of them believing that he is the most capable one who could do the job of getting American assistance better than anybody else.

Once US decided about Pakistan’s role in the defence of the region and containment of Communism, it was the armed forces of Pakistan and not the political leadership, which was seen as potential partners. Ayub Khan obsessed with modernization of the armed forces in shortest possible time saw the relationship with US the only way to achieve his organizational and personal objectives. In meeting with US officials during his April 1958 visit, Ayub stressed that armed forces are the strongest element. He was of the view that if elections were held in the prevailing circumstances, the left wing politicians will come to power which will not only destabilize Pakistan but will affect US strategic interests.Pakistan was seen by the US in military terms which were quite natural as US national interest was related to security. In 1953, Pakistan was described as a country with many qualities, which were, “... a volunteer army of 3,000,000... it is not neutral but anti-communist... As a possible ally for the US, Pakistan displays a tempting picture of power — potential and actual”.Pakistan army was seen as ‘a disciplined, well-trained army whose morale and bravery are unquestionable’.Some events in Washington regarding Pakistan became comical. In 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles while arguing for wheat aid to Pakistan told sub-committee on Agriculture and Forestry during hearings that, ‘the people of Pakistan had a splendid military tradition and that in Karachi he had been met by a guard of honor which was the ‘finest’ he had ever seen’.Apparently, he did not tell the agriculture department what on earth the wheat aid has to do with the military. After the signing of the first mutual defense treaty on May 1954, large-scale interaction between the US and Pakistani military started. Pakistan became one of the seven members (other members included Thailand, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, Laos, and Cambodia) of elite ‘Defence Support Countries” in South East Asia. A US Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) was established in Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi. A Military Assistance Programme (MAP) was started. Pakistan's army was divided into MAP and Non-MAP units depending on their role. MAP units were oriented towards safeguarding US interests and non-MAP units along the Indian border.

The objectives of the US and Pakistan were different in this military alliance. For the US the arrangement was to safeguard US interests in southwest Asia and the Middle East and not against India. Pakistani military establishment saw the relationship as a short cut to the modernization of its armed forces but failed to comprehend the long-term strategic interest of Pakistan. One frequently hears the complaints of Pakistani officers from top to bottom about ‘betrayal’ and ‘abandoning’ by America. The fact that the US was following her national interest while mediocre Pakistani military leadership was more in wishful thinking rather than planning for safeguarding their national interest. There was nothing secret about US policy. In several public statements and documents, US objectives have been clearly stated, if Pakistani generals could not see them, this was their own folly. The general principles of these security agreements were that the United States will enter a security agreement when:

- There is a genuine threat to US interests.

- The mutual security pact will significantly contribute to preserving these interests.

- The final judgment of US troop commitment will be made by elected representatives.

- Allies will contribute their fair share in terms of personnel, weapons, resources and government support.

As early as 1962, Colonel Jordan wrote about US position as far as Pakistan was concerned, “... because of their deployment, the Pakistani forces in Eastern Pakistan and Kashmir (Non-MAP supported) are the ones most likely to become entangled with the Indian Army should an incident arise. US responsibility for such non-MAP Pakistani forces is no greater than for Indian Army units, which have indirectly benefited by the massive US economic aid given to India”. While Colonel Jordan wrote with precision and clarity, Major General Fazal Muqeem Khan was baffled. Muqeem wrote, “It would be interesting to know why the United States did not take over the responsibility of supporting the entire standing army at the time of the agreement. Those parts of the army, which are now in Kashmir and East Pakistan, and some other units, do not have military assistance. Similarly, no training establishments or static installations are supported”.These few words speak a volume about the intellectual level of senior leadership.

In July 1959, Pakistan agreed for the establishment of a US base near Peshawar to be operated by US officials. General Khalid M. Arif while commenting on the U-2 incident (U-2 was a US spy plane operating from Badaber base near Peshawar. It was shot down by Soviet SA-2 missile and its pilot Gary Powers was captured. The incident severely compromised Pakistan's security and brought the Soviet ire on Pakistan. Soviets paid back Pakistan within a decade during East Pakistan crisis) states that, ‘Pakistan felt deceived because the US had kept her in the dark about such clandestine spy operations launched from Pakistan’s territory’.Statements like these from such highly placed officers don’t speak well for Pakistan. As early as 1959, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as acting foreign minister wished to visit the facility, the American base commander replied that ‘the minister would be welcome to visit the cafeteria where he would be served coffee and sandwiches’.An American air force base located in the border area of Pakistan near Soviet territory where spy planes were parked, run by Americans where even the highest Pakistani officials could not enter did not suppose to bake cookies or train pilots for aerial acrobatics. Ayub Khan was fully aware of the operations. He was in London at the time of U-2 incident. When the CIA station chief gave Ayub the news, he shrugged his shoulders and said that he had expected this would happen at some point. In the 50s there was an increasing number of Pakistani officers who got training in the United States. The military doctrine shifted from British to American. Fazal Muqeem points to the change of thought process of officer corps. “Such healthy and friendly contacts were bound to have a decisive influence on the ideas of the officer corps. They soon made their impact on the thinking of Pakistani commanders and staff. In the re-organization of the army, American ideas influenced the planners in a number of ways”.The influence was not limited to the knowledge of new weaponry and defense strategy and tactics. According to Colonel Jordan, the purpose of training of officers in the US was not only to train them in particular fields but also to groom them for non-military activities (leadership, management, and economics). In addition, MAAG officers were in agreement that the off-shore trained officer is more receptive to continued military advice and suggestions than his colleagues”.It is interesting to note that officers from different countries (Asia, Africa, Latin, and South America) trained in the US quite confident of their newly acquired skills took power in their own countries.

In the early phase after independence, US military assistance undoubtedly increased Pakistan’s defense capability vis-a-vis India in the short term. On the other hand, it strengthened the hands of non-representative segments of government (military and bureaucracy) compared to the representative segment (politicians). Armed forces by opening a direct channel to a superpower effectively bypassed the budgetary nuisances, the single most important factor for effective civilian control of armed forces. The non-representative group thus energized by the material and moral support of the US very easily strangulated the nascent democratic process. On the domestic front, the concentration of all armed forces in West Pakistan caused apprehension in East Pakistan. The reason was two-fold. One, Eastern wing being encircled by India on three sides was more vulnerable to Indian attack but had nominal troops. Second, the economic benefits of military aid (job opportunities, civilian contracts and beneficial effects on the local economy) were concentrated in the Western wing. The defense policymakers failed to adjust from a colonial mold into that of an independent nation. The simple fact that no group in a multi-ethnic society like Pakistan wants to see itself as dispensable or less important and not worth defending. The absurd defense concept of defense of Eastern wing from Western wing which was inherited from the colonial rule convinced Bengalis that they were dispensable. The democratic tendency and anti-American sentiment was stronger in East Pakistan. When the mutual defense treaty was announced in February 1954, there was a great outcry in the eastern wing. Many demonstrations were held and 162 newly elected members of East Bengal Provincial assembly signed a statement, which denounced the Pakistani government for signing a military pact with the United States.

The first twenty-year period after independence was crucial in terms of international relations. One factor which most Pakistani historians have ignored is that in the period of 1951-53 there were high-level meetings between Pakistani and Indian counterparts at different levels including Prime Ministers about Kashmir issue. India had accepted Kashmir as a central issue between the two countries. The two Prime Ministers had met in August 1953. India had agreed in principle about the plebiscite and it was decided that a Plebiscite Administrator would be appointed by the end of April 1954. Pakistan’s joining of American sponsored pacts gave Nehru the golden chance to renege completely on all assurances. With the benefit of hand sight, one can only guess that probably at least by delaying the announcement of the mutual treaty with the US would have provided the opportunity to test Indian sincerity. Pakistan’s alliance with the US naturally brought the anger of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union’s early neutral stand on Kashmir quickly changed to a pro-India stance. On the international scene, Pakistan was effectively kept out of the non-aligned movement. Several newly independent countries in Asia and Africa were either neutral or actively hostile to Pakistan. In the 50s, there was a favorable opinion of Pakistan in US government executive and legislative branches and media. When the relationship with the US took a downward turn during the Kennedy and Johnson administration, Pakistan was totally lost as to how to respond to changing scenarios. It maintained membership in all security pacts thus still taking the heat from antagonists of the US. At the same time, it stopped taking part in military exercises or in Intelligence Assessment Committee studies thus not getting any tangible military benefit. It continued to attend the meetings but its delegates neither participated in discussions nor took part in the drafting of communique.

Pakistan's Second Martial Law Administrator General Yahya Khan with US Republican President Richard Nixon.

GENERAL YAHYA.

As per Ms. Anjum Niaz

(Sealed off as 'Top Secret' by the State Department and CIA, now after three decades, 46 declassified documents - some 'sanitized' - and an audio clip of Nixon-Kissinger offer a compelling peek at President Nixon and his security advisor Henry Kissinger giving a sly wink to the Pakistan army to kill, rape and terrorize innocent East Pakistanis during the 1971 India-Pakistan crisis)

Inside the Oval Office, August 2, 1971, an exasperated President Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger curse India for wanting to pick up a fight with Pakistan. Actually, the timing is skewed for Nixon who has clandestinely taken a shine to Chou En-Lai facilitated by Pakistan President Gen.Yahya Khan. But the "god-damn Indians" - as Nixon and Kissinger call them - are giving the Americans a run for their money by refusing to sit and watch silently the two siblings - East and West Pakistan - slug it out with each other.

"We have already given 100 million dollars to India for the refugees (pouring in from E. Pakistan)," Kissinger informs Nixon who is convinced the US is "making a terrible mistake" by heaping dollars on New Delhi. "India is economically in good shape, but no one knows how the god-damn Indians are using this money. They are not letting any foreigners enter the refugee areas. Any foreigners and their record is outrageous!" keen Kissinger.

The White House conversation comes the day after the Beatle George Harrison and his soul mate Ravi Shankar, the Indian sitar player hold a "Concert for Bangladesh"(months before its birth) to raise money for the refugees escaping the reign of terror unleashed by Pakistan army after Mujibur Rehman's Awami League has swept the polls in East Pakistan during the 1970-71 general elections but is now being outlawed.

"So who is the Beatle giving the money to - is it the god-damn Indians?" asks a frustrated Nixon. "Yes," says Kissinger flatly, adding that Pakistan has also been given $150,000 food aid but the major problem "is the god-damn distribution." Nixon jumps in, "we have to keep India away". Kissinger couldn't agree more: "we must defuse the refugee and famine problem in East Pakistan in order to deprive India (read Indira Gandhi) of an excuse to start the war with Pakistan."

"We have to avoid screwing Pakistan that outrageously. It could blow up everything," concurs Kissinger. And the solution according to him is: "we should start our god-damn lecturing on political structures, as much as we can and while there will eventually be a separate East Bengal in two years (he says it so very casually) but it must not happen in the next six months."

As per David Corn

Hundreds of thousands were killed. Kissinger blocked US condemnation of Khan. Instead, he noted Khan's "delicacy and tact."

Famous Pakistani Laureate par excellence Late. Mr. Eqbal Ahmed in one of his interview with David Barsamian had said,

"That was something you couldn't do doing the military rule?

That was something I could not do for thirty years.

Because of military rule?

Yes. In the first military rule of Ayub Khan, there was a warrant of arrest on me. In the second military government of Yahya Khan, I was put on a death sentence. In the third military government of Zia ul-Haq, I was a persona non grata for over eleven years. Now I am able to go back. Parliamentary government has been restored. It's at least formal democracy. I would like to see it become a truer democracy, but I would also like to see the United States become a truer democracy. What is more interesting about Pakistan is that greater freedom of speech and association has drastically reduced the power and influence of the Islamic movement. More people are able to speak out challenging the premise of fundamentalism, and fresh air seems to blow away the worst of religious right-wing thinking. I am mentioning this because countries like Egypt and Algeria, which are constantly facing the fundamentalist threat, should learn from it. A great deal of Islamic fundamentalism thrives on the absence of freedom, as it did in the Iran of the Shah. Dissent has no place to go except the mosques. The answer to the fundamentalist divide is more democracy, not more dictatorship. The tragedy is that the United States government, while opposed to fundamentalism now, I say now because I'll come back to it later, supports dictatorships in Algeria, in Egypt and repressive monarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So the United States is actually supporting both fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist dictatorships in the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia to Algeria. This has to stop. If there is a democracy, I think the battle can be fought in an open field and we are going to win. By "we" I mean the secular Muslim forces.

Pakistan's Third Martial Law Administrator General Zia

General Zia with US Republican President Ronald Reagan

GENERAL ZIA UL HAQ.

U.S. government under President Ronald Reagan approved Pakistan's military dictator, Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, a five year, multibillion-dollar armaments package with Congress overriding legislative requirements on human rights and nuclear proliferation. Likelihood of augmentation of political repression by the praetorian regime; Destruction of the judiciary system of Pakistan by the regime of Zia; Constitutional order passed by Zia on March 25, 1981.

Zia was born in Jalandhar (in India) in 1924. He completed his initial education in Simla and then at St. Stephen's College, Delhi. He was commissioned in the British Indian Army in a cavalry regiment in 1943 and served during World War II. At Pakistan's independence, Zia joined the newly formed Pakistani Army as a major.[red] He trained in the United States 1962–1964 at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Zia was stationed in Jordan from 1967 to 1970, helping in the training of Jordanian soldiers, as well as leading the training mission into battle during the Black September in Jordan operations. On 1 April 1976, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto appointed Zia-ul-Haq as Chief of Army Staff, ahead of a number of more senior officers.

As per the book “Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile during the so-called Afghan Jihad following things did happen;

“He told Zia about his experience the previous year when the Israelis had shown him the vast stores of Soviet weapons they had captured from the PLO in Lebanon. The weapons were perfect for the Mujahideen, he told Zia. If Wilson could convince the CIA to buy them, would Zia have any problems passing them on to the Afghans? Zia, ever the pragmatist, smiled on the proposal, adding, “Just don’t put any Stars of David on the boxes” {Page 131-132}.

Pseudo Commander of the Faithful General Zia ul Haq appointed a ‘Society Lady’ Joanne Herring as Pakistan’s Honorary Consul in Houston, Texas USA, earlier her husband Bob Herring was offered the post but he declined and gave his wife’s name.

“She was Zia’s most trusted American adviser, as per Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, She absolutely had his ear, it was terrible,” “Zia would leave cabinet meetings just to take Joanne’s calls. “There was no affair with Zia,” Wilson recalls, but it’s impossible to deal with Joanne and not deal with her on sexual basis. No matter who you are, you take those phone calls.” {Page 67-68}.

Lt General Retd. Hamid Gul [Former ISI and MI Chief]

Former Director General (DG) of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General (Retd) Hameed Gul’s anti-American rhetoric in the post-retirement phase makes headlines off and on in national news media/even on ARY GEO AND INDUS VISION too. It is interesting that when he was DGISI, the US ambassador attended the meetings of the Afghan Cell of Benazir government. In fact, the major decision of the Jalalabad offensive in 1989 was made in one of those fateful meetings. To date, there has been no evidence (no statement by any other participants of those meetings or by General Hameed Gul himself) that Mr. Gul made any objection to the presence of US ambassador in these meetings, which had a wide-ranging impact on national security. It is probable that Mr. Gul was at that time a top contender for the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) race, therefore he didn’t want to be on the wrong side of the civil government. When he was sacked, then he found the gospel truth that the US was not sincere. Another example is of former Chief of Afghan Cell of ISI, Brigadier (Retd) Muhammad Yusuf. For five long years, he was a major participant in a joint CIA-ISI venture of unprecedented scale in Afghanistan. During this time period, he worked with several different levels of US officials and visited CIA headquarters in Langley. In his post-retirement memoirs, he tried his best to distance himself from the Americans. His statements like, ‘Relations between the CIA and ourselves were always strained’, ‘I resorted to trying to avoid contact with the local CIA staff’, ‘I never visited the US embassy’ and vehement denial of any direct contact between CIA and Mujahideen shows his uncomfortability of being seen as close with the Americans. "Pakistan’s former foreign minister Agha Shahi in a conversation with Robert Wirsing said that in 1981 during negotiations with the US, he gave a talk to a group of Pakistani generals on the objectives of Pakistan’s policy toward the US.

He stressed the importance of non-alignment and avoidance of over-dependence on superpowers. A few days later one of the generals who attended Shahi’s briefing met him and told him that Americans should be given bases in return for the aid. "General Zia and DGISI Akhtar Abdur Rahman had very cordial relations with CIA director William Casey. To offset that uncomfortable closeness with Americans, Zia and Akhtar were portrayed as holy warriors of Islam and modern-day Saladins. According to one close associate of Akhtar, ‘They (Casey and Akhtar) worked together in harmony, and in an atmosphere of mutual trust’. Brigadier Yusuf made the most interesting remarks about the death of CIA Director, William Casey. He states that “It was a great blow to the Jehad when Casey died”. He did not elaborate whether by this definition one should count Casey as Shaheed (a warrior who dies in battle in the cause of Islam). It will quite be amusing for Americans to know that one of their former CIA director is actually a martyr of Islam."

On page 503 in Charlie Wilson’s War, the author quoted “but it was losing Zia that crushed Charlie. At the state funeral in Islamabad, with a million Pakistanis and Mujahideen crowding up to him, Charlie made his way to Akhtar’s successor, Hamid Gul, and broke into tears. “I have lost my father on this day,” he said.

There is nothing new in Musharraf's help of the USA in the region.

Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia

Homosexuality on the Rise in Islamic Saudi Arabia. [Courtesy: Dr. Awatar Singh Sekhon]

Result of an Oppressive Regime or Are Saudis Coming Out of the Closet? By Kimberly West

Some posh women-only discos in Saudi Arabia are covers for Lesbian get-togethers.
Some cite an oppressive regime that limits interaction between the sexes as the cause.

According to an article The Kingdom in the Closet in the May 2007 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, many in the Saudi population, both male and female, frequently engage in homosexual acts despite the fact that it is punishable by death under Islamic Sharia law. Homosexuality seems risky in a kingdom sometimes called "The Land of The Two Holy Mosques", a reference to Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest places. Much of the Kingdom's law is derived from an ultra-conservative form of Sunni Islam commonly known as Wahhabism, which has zero tolerance for diversity.

According to Western Resistance, one of the reasons that a large segment of the Saudi population engages in homosexual acts is that it's frankly easier to mingle with members of the same sex in the highly restrictive and oppressive regime--

According to Islamic law, homosexuality is punishable by death. This punishment, however, is a poor deterrent. According to the article, most Saudi men become gay because it's easier to pick up a man than to find a woman. The situation is the same for young women. The article claims that Saudi Arabia's inhumane laws and dread morality police, which forbid dating between young men and women, in fact, are a major factor pushing them towards homosexuality in their youth.

In his article, Queer Shiek, Being openly gay in Saudi Arabia used to be a death sentence-but times are changing, John R. Bradley describes the scene at a western-type mall in the city of Jeddah-Gay Saudi men now cruise certain malls and supermarkets, openly making passes at each other, and one street in Jeddah is said to have the most traffic accidents in the city because it is the most popular place for Saudi drivers to pick up gay Filipinos, who strut their stuff on the sidewalk in tight jeans and cut-off t-shirts. (Filipinos are one of the larger groups of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia.) Meanwhile, gay and lesbian discos, gay-friendly coffee shops, and even gay-oriented Internet chat rooms are now flourishing in some Saudi cities; in the chat rooms, gay and lesbian Saudis discuss the best places to meet people for one-night stands. "We talk about places that aren't gay cruising areas because they're now in the minority," says one young gay Saudi, only half-jokingly.

These excerpts from the Atlantic Monthly article reflect some attitudes and realities about homosexuality in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia--Talal, a Syrian youth who moved to Riyadh in 2000, calls the Saudi capital a ``gay heaven.''

``I used to have the feeling that I was the queerest in the country,'' said Yasser, a Saudi youth. ``But then I went to high school and discovered that there are others like me. Then I find out it's a whole society.''

Many gay expatriates say they feel more at home in the kingdom than in their native lands.

``Guys romp around and parade in front of you,'' said Marco, a 41-year old gay man from the Philippines living in Saudi Arabia. ``They will seduce you. It's up to you how many you want, every day.''

A magazine editor in Jeddah told me that many boys in Mecca, where he grew up have sexual relations with men, but they don't see themselves as gay.

``Homosexuality is considered to be a stage of life, particularly at youth.''

``[Saudi Arabia] is the land of sand and sodomites,'' said Tasmin, a female student who told me about the lesbian enclave at her school. ``The older men take advantage of the little boys.''

Dave, a gay American teacher living in Saudi Arabia, put it this way: ``Let's say there's a group of men sitting around a cafe. If a smooth-faced boy walks by, they all stop and make approving comments. They're just noting: ``That's a hot little number.''

It seems that these homosexual men and women are risking their lives. An Islamic cleric quoted at FrontPage Magazine writes about the sin of homosexuality, "This sin, the impact of which makes one's skin crawl, which words cannot describe, is evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul... The heavens, the Earth and the mountains tremble from the impact of this sin. The angels shudder as they anticipate the punishment of Allah to descend upon the people who commit this indescribable sin."

Amnesty International reports "gross human rights violations" in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, many against homosexuals, and reports incidents of capital punishment for homosexuals. A Chicago Free Press article reports this chilling story about the fate of three homosexual men in Saudi Arabia-

Now we learn that on January 1, 2002, Saudi Arabian authorities publicly beheaded three gay men after Islamic religious courts in the southwestern city of Abha declared them guilty of "engaging in the extreme obscenity and ugly acts of homosexuality, marrying among themselves and molesting the young," charges obviously exaggerated to provoke public outrage.

For the wealthy in Saudi Arabia, though, it appears that homosexuality is overlooked by the authorities. John Bradley writes-

The upper crust of Saudi society is becoming more open as well. Carmen bin Laden, the sister-in-law of Osama bin Laden, recently published a book, in French, titled Inside the Kingdom, which is a look at the life of the idle Saudi rich. In the book, The New York Times reported this month, bin Laden tells stories of homosexual affairs among the kingdom's wealthy and idle women. And Saudi anthropologist Mai Yamani has shown that all-female discos catering to rich Saudi women are often covered for lesbian get-togethers. Saudi princes, meanwhile, have frequented the Jeddah disco, where they openly interact with club-goers.

Is homosexuality in Saudi Arabia an "open secret" caused by a repressive Islamic regime that controls every aspect of its citizens' lives, including their sexuality under Sharia law? Is it the result of men-only and women-only interactions required by Muslim guidelines? Or, are the Saudis really coming out of the closet?

Junaid Jamshed The Other Side.

 Junaid Jamshed or better JJ How He Transformed and totally Changed. These 20 Images belong to His First Phase