An Amoral Third Rate Journalist Propagating Lies & Disinformation

 Usman Sheikh

Musharraf Supporter, London UK

05 April 2014

A third rate Pakistani journalist, known for his loving feelings towards the Taliban, so much so that the Pakistani Taliban nominated him as their Represntative for ngotiation a few months ago, Ansar Abbasi, has successfully unleashed another emotionally charged article laced with disinformation which can be read here

As is often the case, Abbasi’s piece is an anti-Musharraf hysteria, where facts, commonsense, hell even Islamic teachings, are all conveniently tossed in the bin to have a go at Musharraf.

Having nothing better to do this Saturday afternoon, I thought it would be fun to offer a paragraph by paragraph refutation.

This time around, Abbasi is making a charged plea to Gen Raheel Sharif to “butt off,” maintain a distance, and remain silent regarding the obvious irregularities in the process and unfair/unjust conduct towards Musharraf in the so called “treason” trial. In a nutshell, Abbasi will tell Gen. Raheel Sharif that he is known to be “professional,” much like his predecessor, Kiyani, and that the two of them have finally “redeemed” respect to the institution of the Army. That those who support Musharraf, who insist that the trial is unfair and who have contacted Gen. Raheel Sharif conveying their grave concerns are “devious” and “damaging the system.”

Ansar Abbasi’s comments are in bold and will be enclosed within “{{}}” followed by my counter reply.

{{According to sources different military commanders including General Raheel Sharif are being told in whispers that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is unfairly proceeding with the high treason case against a retired army chief.}}

The different military commanders, including Gen. Raheel Sharif, are being told in whispers the truth in this regard.

{{They fail to realise that such gossiping would not only result in misunderstanding between the civilian and military leadership, it would also seriously damage the system and the country that has already been badly hurt by repeated military interventions.}}

Aha, so there is misunderstanding between the two? Or does Abbasi feel that the “gossiping” is such that there is a very, very real possibility/chance and a high probability of a misunderstanding developing soon? I ask because later on in his trash pile, Abbasi will be going out of his way to insist that the Military and the Nawaz regime are on the same page, seeing eye to eye, with no differences whatsoever on this matter. Here it seems they’re not quite eye to eye on this subject.

Moving on, if they’re telling the truth about the unfair nature of the trial and they are genuinely convinced that extreme injustice is taking place where the law of the land and the Constitution are being brazenly violated, then they’ve adopted the morally right stance. By remaining silent, you’re violating your much cherished Islamic teachings (what happened to all that, “speak/tell the truth, no matter what?” – hot air?) and are being amoral. If the Army confronts the regime and tells them to remain within the bounds of the law and the regime decides to ignore the law and do all it can to maintain injustice, then they – the regime – are responsible for the confrontation and for damaging the system. If it is true that the regime violates the Constitution and the law of the land, and is engaged in giving instructions to the judges, then the regime is the party guilty of creating fitna, causing confrontation between institutions, and for damaging the system.

Lastly, the country has been hurt badly by repeated corrupt, incompetent, petty, dictatorial and inept behaviour of crooked politicians such as Nawaz Sharif, and not through “repeated intervention” by the Military. The last intervention by the Military, if anything, drastically benefitted Pakistan.

{{There are also some pro-Musharraf frustrated elements within the military establishment who too are playing their devious role to protect the dictator from trial at the cost of rule of law and in friction with the orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. However, General Raheel Sharif is considered a true professional instead of being a “loyalist” of the retired chief.}}

Circular reasoning & ‘it does not follow’ (non sequitur):

1. He presumes/supposes that those who believe they are setting the record straight and telling the truth about the unfair nature of the trial are being “devious” and attempting to “protect” Musharraf from a trial “at the cost of rule of law.” How? There is no reasoning here. Why is it “devious” to believe the trial to be unfair? Likewise, throughout, he applies the factually erroneous label of “dictator” as a rhetorical device to generate anti-Musharraf feelings.

2. If it is true that the trial is inherently unfair, it violates the law of the land and the Constitution, and you state this truth with proof, evidence and a worked out argument, then how does it follow that you are being “devious” and “protecting” Musharraf from a trial “at the cost of rule of law?” — it DOES NOT FOLLOW.

Simpler explanation: there are those who believe that the trial is inherently unfair and an attempt at extracting petty revenge. They want this unfair proceeding to stop and they want a fair and balanced trial, by judges with no axe to grind, in accordance with the rule of law and the Constitution. Period.

If Gen Sharif is a professional, then he must professionally look at the evidence and then take the professional step: tell the regime to stop acting like lofars from the 90s.

{{After Musharraf’s ouster, initially it was former Army chief General (R) Kayani who did remarkably well to redeem the respect of the institution by depoliticising the army. And now it is General Raheel Sharif who is generally seen as a true professional soldier.}}

First, the use of the term “ouster” is interesting. It generally means to be dismissed, to be removed (forcefully), and to be expelled (from a position). It commonly refers to the removal of someone from a position. Usually, it carries negative connotations. Why is this term being applied for Musharraf when we know that he honourably retired from the Army after serving/completing his term in office? This itself, besides the above referred points, indicates the extreme biased nature of the Taliban apologist Ansar Abbasi. Sure, there are no unbiased human beings. But here we’re witnessing extreme bias.

Secondly, he presumes (circular logic) that under Musharraf the institution of the Army had no/little respect – hence the supposed “redeeming” of its respect post Musharraf. But this presumption is not an incontrovertible “fact.” It is merely Abbasi’s opinion and there are those who disagree with his opinion. I believe the Army gained additional respect when it removed the despotic and undemocratic Nawaz Sharif from power in 1999 and it gained further respect when it successfully led Pakistan from 1999 till 2008. Hence there is no question of the respect being “redeemed” since it wasn’t “lost” to begin with – my personal stance.

Thirdly, he makes an assertion and no more. My own assertions: As a “professional” – Kiyani was probably the worst General in Pakistan Army’s history. Moreover, he did play politics – extreme politics – and this has been related in a number of programmes already.

{{When Musharraf was dashed to AFIC some three months back, Army chief General Raheel Sharif is said to have told Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that not the serving officers but some retired officers had contacted him and expressed their concern over the trial.}}

That’s very good indeed. We should all commend these retired officers for standing up for the truth. Now, did this retired officers also dash Musharraf to AFIC?

{{However, General Raheel Sharif is reported to have told these retired army officers that it was a legal matter and should be left for the courts to decide.}}

Indeed, that’s how it should be. But if we’re right that the law is being violated by the regime, that the Constitution is being violated by the regime and the regime is passing instructions to the judges (see this: ), then all are justified in raising these problems to the attention of the public and important personalities so they may create awareness and do all they can to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

{{Musharraf, his advisers and his sympathisers in the establishment are trying their level best to get the institution of military dragged into the high treason case to save his skin. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has said it more than once that there is complete unanimity between the civilian and the military leadership.}}

If there is complete unanimity and given Gen. Raheel Sharif’s view above, why is Abbasi looking so tense and concerned? It is as if he is not sure and the ‘the lady doth protest too much’ is beginning to have an impact upon him.

{{The civilian government firmly believes that there is no institutional support available for Musharraf but there are certain elements within the establishment who behave like personal servants of the accused dictator.}}

More emotional rhetoric. Judging from his tone and wording, it seems that Abbasi is the one who is behaving like a paid personal servant of the known despotic Nawaz Sharif, spiritual son of the worst dictator in Pakistan’s history. Did Nawaz Sharif pay Abbasi to write this nonsense to win over Raheel Sharif? Could be : ) And of course, Abbasi’s behaviour has been such that known dictatorial savage terrorists, the TTP, were more than happy to have nominated Abbasi as their representative a few months ago.  Abbasi’s deplorable conduct, as if he’s a paid personal servant of the TTP, has been such that the TTP have, I am sure, kept upon the “representative” slot for Abbasi to date.

If “certain elements” supportive towards Musharraf exist, why label them as “personal servants” of the accused? It is as if in Abbasi’s fantasy world, no one can genuinely and in full honesty adopt a position supportive towards Musharraf.

{{Musharraf’s trial is the consequence of July 31, 2009 decision of the Supreme Court which had declared his November 3, 2007 action as unconstitutional. In the same judgment, the full court had unanimously held Musharraf alone responsible for the abrogation of the Constitution.}}

The constitution was not “abrogated” in 2007 (details below). For now, the judgment mentioned by Abbasi was passed out without hearing the other side of the story and it was passed out under the watchful eye of Musharraf’s enemy, the disgraced Iftikhar Chaudhry, and other judges – who were all an aggrieved party. In no civilised country would a court behave in this ridiculous manner, passing out a quick judgment, without even bothering to hear the other side of the story and those who adopt a different viewpoint. In short, it was a Kangaroo judgment by Kangaroo judges with an axe to grind. And let’s not forget the judges who legitimised the 2007 Emergency – so other experts disagreed with the Kangaroo minions of Iftikhar.

As for the, what I deem to be a lie, that Musharraf “worked alone,” this allegation will also be addressed below.

{{Later in 2012-13, the Supreme Court sought from the previous PPP government and then the caretaker government to initiate proceeding against Musharraf under Article 6 of the constitution. Warnings after warnings were issued by the apex court but it was the present government which after coming to power decided to initiate high treason proceeding against Musharraf.}}

Right here the SC violated the Pakistani Constitution and the law of the land because Pakistani law does not permit the SC to ask, request, let alone demand, the Government to launch/initiate treason trial upon any individual. The SC has absolutely no right and business to compel and push the Government to bring forth treason charges against an individual or a party. It is purely the prerogative of the Government to do so. The SC cannot even issue a punishment. In short:

The High Treason Act States (bold added), “3. Procedure: No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this act except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised by the Federal Government in this behalf.”

—– Thus: according to Pakistani Law, only the Federal Government can initiate a case of high treason against individual(s) by submitting a written complaint to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court itself cannot even ask or request, let alone insist, the Federal Government to take such a step.

So thank you Taliban apologist Ansar Abbasi for proving above that the SC violated the law, had an axe to grind, and wanted to extract revenge when it repeatedly demanded and strongly compelled the PPP and caretaker Governments to initiate the treason trial against Musharraf.

{{Musharraf, who had twice abrogated the Constitution to secure his own office, has been trying hard to implicate the institution of Army even now by pleading that besides the civilian leadership he had consulted the then military commanders before taking the November 3, 2007 action.}}


  1. Abbasi presumes as “fact” the allegation that Musharraf “twice abrogated” the Constitution. This is precisely the point in dispute and, particularly, when it comes to the 2007 temporary Emergency –  which the SC is concerned about –  there was no “abrogation” of the Constitution. Simply, the Constitution was held in *abeyance.* Holding the Constitution in abeyance was NOT an act of “treason” in 2007. Further, the Dogar SC validated the temporary Emergency.
  2. In 1999, Musharraf was in a plane on his way to Pakistan from Sri Lanka. Upon landing, Musharraf was informed by the Army commanders that they – the Army – had no choice but to remove the Nawaz Sharif regime. Thus, Musharraf merely inherited that situation. It was the Army as an institution which reacted. Thereafter, the SC of the time validated the move of the Army and, moreover, granted Musharraf the right to hold two offices and to make amends to the Constitution as and when required. The despot and crook Iftikhar Chaudhry made all these decisions.

Question: if the SC determines the 1999 counter coup by the Army to be legitimate, then how is the comparatively very, very minor matter of imposition of temporary Emergency Rule for 18 days akin to “treason?”

3. Musharraf was not operating in a vacuum, on his own, in 2007. The text of the proclamation of temporary Emergency Rule itself makes mention of the, “prime minister, governors of all four provinces and with the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army.”

Notice also that there was no change in the government in 2007: Prime Minister, Governors, Chief Ministers, all continued to function, all assemblies — Senate, National Assembly, Provincial Assemblies — continued to function. Moreover, they endorsed the Emergency and its imposition was the collective decision of them all, including the Army and the Air and Naval Chiefs.

Hence Musharraf is absolutely right in pointing out the basic commonsense fact that he was not “alone.”

4. Moreover, Article 6 cannot be applied upon an individual because it considers treason to be a *joint enterprise* – where multiple people are working together. It mentions aiders and abettors in the same breath in clause #2. Hence its application upon one individual is itself a violation of the law.

Lastly, picking, choosing, and being selective – where you isolate an individual, ignore others, where you ignore many alleged violations of the law and focus only upon one alleged violation of the law – is a blatant violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which calls for equality.

 {{The institution of Army, whose respect has been successfully redeemed by General Kayani and General Sharif, is now again being pushed to controversies by Musharraf and his sympathisers yet again for one man – the accused Musharraf.}}

My counter assertion: the respect was never “lost” to begin with. The respect and honour of the institution of the Army was maintained by Musharraf, it was later ruined by Kiyani and we are yet to see if Gen. Sharif will restore it by standing up for the right and by opposing the charlatan deceivers whose boots Ansar Abbasi is all too used to licking – yet again the one man, the despot Nawaz Sharif – and yet again the one group: the savage terrorist TTP.


احتساب کاجھوٹا دعویٰ

آخرکارسچ سامنے آہی گیا،جیسا کہ میں نےاپنے آرٹیکل “خروں کی پارلمینٹ” میں بیان کیا تھا۔ گزشتہ ٹی وی پروگرام میں ٹرانسپیرنسی انٹرنیشنل پاکستان کےگیلانی نے اس بات کی تصدیق کردی ہے کہ ٹرانسپیرنسی انٹرنیشنل پاکستان نےمسلم لیگ ن کو کوئی سرٹیفکٹ جاری نہیں کیا، نہ صرف یہ بلکہ اس نے ریپڈ بس سروس کےمنصوبے پر دوکنڑیکٹ کےمعاملے پرغلط بیانی پراپنےتحفظا ت کااظہارکیا تھا افتخار گیلانی صاحب نے اس بات کی بھی وضاحت کی کہ پاکستان مسلم لیگ ن اس بات کا پروپیگنڈا نہ کریں کہ اس کوٹرانسپیرنسی انٹرنیشنل پاکستان کی طرف سے کوئی سرٹیفکیٹ جاری ہواہے۔ ٹرانسپیرنسی انٹرنیشنل پا کستان نہ تو کوئی ایسا سرٹیفکیٹ جاری کرتی ہے نہ اس نے ایساکوئی سرٹیفکیٹ جاری کیاہے۔

میں نے ٹرانسپیرنسی انٹرنیشنل پاکستان سے گزارش کی ہے کہ وہ اپنے لیٹرکو جو کہ پاکستان مسلم لیگ ن کو ریپڈ بس سروس کےمنصوبے پرلکھا گیا ہے پبلک ڈومین میں جاری کرے تاکہ پاکستان مسلم لیگ ن کے بے بنیاد پروپیگنڈے کا قلع قمہ ہوسکے۔ نہ صرف وہ لیٹرجودو پروجیکٹس پراعتراض پرمبنی ہے بلکہ یہ وضاحت بھی کرے کہ ٹرانسپیرنسی انٹرنیشنل پاکستان نےمسلم لیگ ن کے کسی بھی منصوبے کا نہ صرف کوئی آڈٹ کیا ہے نہ وہ اس طرح کے کسی آڈٹ کی صلاحیت یا حق رکھتے ہیں۔ افسوس اس بات کا ہے کہ مسلم لیگ ن کی قیادت پاکستانی عوام کو جان بوجھ کرمس لیڈ کرتی ہے۔

ادھرمیں آرٹیکل لکھ رہا ہوں ادھرٹی وی پرمسلم لیگ ن کے لیڈرنواز شریف صاحب پاکستانی عوام کو بتارہے ہیں کے کس طرح ان کی حکومت نے ناصرف لاہور سے اسلام آباد بلکہ اسلام آباد سے پشاور تک کا موٹروے تعمیر کیا۔ میرے کان اس دعوے کو سن سن کرتھک چکے ہیں مگر شرم کی بات یہ ہے کہ پاکستان کی میڈیا یہ حقیقت جانتے ہوئے بھی اپنے ناظرین اورریڈرز کو نہیں بتاتےکہ لاہور سے اسلام آباد تک موٹروے ایم 2 نہ صرف مسلم لیگ ن کے دور میں نہیں بنا بلکہ مسلم لیگ ن اور پی پی پی کی دو دفعہ حکومتوں کے دوران اس منصوبے کو کئی مرتبہ کینسل کیا گیا اورنئے کنٹریکٹ سائن کئے گئےجن سے پاکستان کے خزانے کو بےبہا نقصان پہنچا۔

جہاں تک اسلام آباد سے پشاور تک کا موٹروے کی تعمیرکا تعلق ہے تواس کی تعمیر توزیادہ ترمشرف کے دور میں مکمل ہوئی۔ آپ کی اطلا ع کے لیےعرض ہے کہ ایم ون 2003 میں شروع ہوا اور 2007 میں مکمل ہوا۔ اس دوران ن لیگ کی حکومت نہیں تھی مگر ان سب حقائق سے میاں صاحب کو کیا مطلب، ان کو تو عوام کی سادگی اورلاعلمی سے فائدہ اٹھانےکا جنون ہے۔ ایم 2 جس کا کریڈٹ مسلم لیگ ن لیتی ہے، وہ نومبر 1992 میں شروع ہوا اورنومبر 1997 میں مکمل ہوا جبکہ نوازشریف کی دو سابقہ حکومتوں کے دورانیہ نومبر 1990 سے جولائی 1993 اور فروری 1997 سے 12 اکتوبر 1999 تک کا تھا۔ان حقائق کی بنیاد پریہ کہا جاسکتا ہے کہ ا یم2 کی تعمیر میں مسلم لیگ ن کا حصہ بہت تھوڑا تھا۔ ایم 2 کے شروع ہونے کے صرف 9 مہینے کے بعد مسلم لیگ کی حکومت ختم ہوگئی۔ پھراس کے دوسرے دور میں اس پروجیکٹ کے صرف 11 مہینے باقی تھے۔ اس پروجیکٹ کے 5 سال میں سے20 مہینے کےعرصے کے لیے مسلم لیگ کی حکومت تھی۔

اس دفعہ میاں صاحب صرف ان دومنصوبوں کےغلط کریڈٹ پراکتفا کرنے پرکسی طرح سے بھی تیارنہیں، وہ اب لاہور سے کراچی کے موٹروے کا کریڈٹ بھی لینا چاہتے ہیں، میاں صاحب آپ کی اطلاع کے لیےعرض ہے کہ لاہور سے کراچی تک موٹروے کا منصوبہ آپ کے مخالف جنرل مشرف صاحب کا منصوبہ ہے جس پرسب سے زیادہ کام پی پی پی کی حالیہ حکومت کے دوران ہوا ہے۔ اس منصوبے کے تحت لاہور سے فیصل آباد تک ایم 3 مکمل ہوچکا ہے اورفیصل آباد سے ملتان تک ایم 4 پر کام جاری ہےاوریہ تکمیل کے قریب ہے۔ دوسری طرف سے کراچی سے حیدرآباد کے لیے ایم 9 کا کام پی پی پی کے دورمیں شروع ہوا ۔ گوادر سے نوڈیرو تک ایم 8 بھی مشر ف کے دور میں مکمل ہوچکا ہے۔ جب کہ ایم 7 جو کہ کراچی سے دادو تک ہے اس پرکام جاری ہے۔

میاں صاحب ہمیں صرف اتنا بتادیں کہ آپ نےاتنے سارے موٹرویز ان 20 مہینوں میں کس طرح کمپلیٹ کیے؟ آخر دروغ گوئی کی بھی کوئی حد ہوتی ہے، کیا آپ نے ہم سب کواتنا ہی بے وقوف سمجھ رکھا ہے؟ پاکستانیوں کے لیے سوچنے کا مقام ہےکہ ان سب دعوؤں کے جواب میں پاکستان کا میڈیا کیوں خاموش رہتا ہے، وہ کیوں عوام کو حقیقت سے آگاہ نہیں کرتا؟

دوسری طرف خبرآئی ہے کہ شیخ وقاص کا یہ جھوٹ بھی عیاں ہوگیا ہے کہ اس نے اے لیول کیا تھا۔ جیسا کے میں نے پہلےلکھا تھا دوغلاپن کھل کے سامنے آرہا ہے۔ مسلم لیگ ن کی قیادت اس طرح کے لوگوں کواپنی پارٹی میں شامل کرکے اپنے مستقبل کو خود ہی تاریک بنا رہی ہے۔ مسلم لیگ ن خواجہ سعد رفیق کی صورت میں دنیا کے سب سے خوش قسمت انسان سے پہلے ہی سرخروتھی،اس کے پاس ایک فنانس منسٹرکی صورت میں ایک ایسا بندہ موجود ہے جس نے پچھلے کئی سالوں میں صرف پی نٹس کے برابر ٹیکس دیا مگراس کے باوجود اربوں روپوں کی جائیداداکٹھی کرلی۔ اب مسلم لیگ کے پاس ایک ایسا تعلیم کا منسٹر بھی ہے جس نے بغیرانٹریا اس کے برابرامتحان پاس کئے ڈگری حاصل کرلی ہے، نہ صرف یہ کہ وہ جھوٹا ثابت ہوچکا ہے بلکہ ڈھیٹ بھی کیوں کے بجائےشرمندہ ہونے کے وہ اپنی بات کو سچ ثابت کرنے پرتلے ہوئے ہیں۔

نوازشریف نے ایک بیان عدلیہ کے لیے بھی دیا ہےجس میں انہوں نےعدلیہ کے فیصلوں پہ عمل نہ ہونے کا رونا رویا ہے۔ ہماری میاں صاحب سے صرف اتنی گزارش ہے کہ آپ کوتو پاکستان کی عدلیہ کا شکرگزار ہونا چاہیے، الیکشن توایک طرف آپ کوتواوربہت سی مشکلیں پیش آتیں آخرآپ کا اور آپکے بھائی شہباز شریف کا تو کام ہی اسٹے آرڈرزپرچل رہا ہے۔ دوسری طرف آپ ایئرمارشل اصغرخان کے کیس کو کیوں بھول رہے ہیں؟ اور وہ جومنی لانڈرنگ کا کیس ہے، وہ کیا آپ کو یاد نہیں ؟ میاں صاحب حقیقت تو یہ ہے کہ عدلیہ کی نوازشوں کےسب سے بڑے بینی فشری آپ خود ہیں۔ کاش آپ یوکے مہمان بن کےآنےکے بجائے یہاں رہ کرایسی حرکتیں کرتے توآپ کو لگ پتا جانا تھا۔ پھرمعاملہ خارجہ سیکرٹری کے بجائے قانون کے ہاتھ میں ہوتا۔

بات جب میاں صاحب کی چلی ہے تو ان کی برٹش خارجہ سیکرٹری سے ملاقات کا ذکر کرنا ناانصافی ہوگی، پتا چلا ہے کہ میاں صاحب کو لندن کی یاتراکیلئےطلب کیا گیا تھاجس کو انہوں نے سرآنکھوں پرپورا کیا،اطلاعات کےمطابق برطانیہ کی جانب سے انہیں مشرف کی پاکستان آمد کےبارے میں اطلاع دی اورانہیں یاد دہانی کرائی کہ جس طرح مشرف نےاچھے بچوں کی طرح میاں صاحب اوربے نظیرکو پاکستان آنے دیااب میاں صاحب بھی اچھے بچوں کی طرح مشرف کے راستے میں روڑے نہ اٹکائیں۔

اس موقع پرپریس کانفرنس کے دوران میاں صاحب کےاس بیان کا ذکرنہ کرنا بھی ذیادتی ہوگی کہ پاکستان کوان جیسے تجربہ کارسیاستدانوں کی ضرورت ہے جوکہ تبدیلی کا نعرہ لگانے کے بجائےڈلیورکرسکیں۔ میاں صاحب پی پی پی بھی تواسی طرح کی ڈیل اوربیرونی مداخلتوں کےنتیجے میں اقتدار میں آئی تھی جس کا نتیجہ ہم سب کے سامنے ہے۔ اب اگر پاکستانی قوم یہ غلطی پھرکرےگی تومیری بات کو یاد رکھے، اس بار فوج کوآنے سے کوئی نہیں روک سکتا

Nawaz Sharif Not A Kargil Victim

by Nasim Zehra
(Thursday, July 29, 2004)

“The reasons that former Prime Minister’s gives for setting up a Kargil Commission have mostly to do with issues around policy formulation and implementation. Only he personalizes the matter.”

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, currently politically marginalized, periodically flags the Kargil issue. His three main contentions are ; one that the Kargil operation was planned and executed by the army under the COAS General Parvez Musharraf’s leadership without his knowledge; two that the operation was a major fiasco and three those responsible for Kargil deserve to be penalized. He calls therefore for the setting up of a Kargil Commission to look into these issues. Nawaz Sharif’s recent call has been prompted by the biographies written by the former US president Bill Clinton and the former CENTCOM chief General Zinni. On Ju! ly 17,displaying Clinton’s biography, as evidence of Nawaz Sharif’s innocence and an indictment of General Musharraf over Kargil, PML leader Raja Zafar ul Haq called for appointing a judicial commission under to review the Kargil operation. The PPP leadership also supported the PML call. MMA meanwhile defended the Kargil operation.

The manner in which the Kargil operation ended on July 4, 1999, highlighted severe flaws with Pakistan’s decision-making, policy-formulation and policy implementation processes. Pakistan essentially signed a retreat document in Washington. Although Kargil yet again established that the unresolved Kashmir dispute would mean the continuing strategic instability in South Asia, two sets of questions flowed from it. One, the nature of the government’s decision-making, policy formulation and policy implementation processes. Two, the military, diplomatic and political strengths and weaknesses of the operation and of its outcome.

The reasons that former Prime Minister’s gives for setting up a Kargil Commission have mostly to do with issues around policy formulation and implementation. Only he personalizes the matter. In his current political state he is an angry man. His target is his major political opponent, his COAS of Kargil days general Musharraf. While the tradition of setting up inquiry commissions to clinically examine matters of national importance is almost non-existent, there are

certain facts that need to be recalled. The author’s discussions about Kargil as Kargil was unfolding, with the Prime Minister, Chief Minister Punjab, the army chief and the Shamshad-Fatimi Foreign Office team also helped to collect specific on-the-spot facts on Kargil.

Nawaz Sharif’s first allegation that the Operation was conducted without his knowledge is refuted by the briefing he got from the military before and after the Kargil operation became public. Before the operation between January and March the Prime Minister was briefed about the operation in three meetings. In January the army briefed Nawaz Sharif about the Indian troop movement along the LOC in Skardu on January 29, 1999, on February 5 at Kel, on March 12 at the GHQ and finally on May 17 at the ISI headquarters. There can be questions about how much the Prime Minister was told and how much he comprehended about the operation, yet the ultimate responsibility for asking probing questions, for giving to go-ahead and for bringing his diplomatic team to deal with the diplomatic dimension of the operation did rest on Nawaz Sharif. Infact during the end June DCC meeting during a military briefing wh! en the tense Prime Minister turned to the army chief and said “you should have told me earlier” Musharraf pulled out his notebook and repeated the dates and contents of around seven briefings he had given him since beginning of January.

After the operation became public between end May and June 2 the Prime Minister was given five briefings on the military’s assessment of the operation. Mid-June onwards after the scale of the operation unfolded, the massive Indian military-diplomatic retaliation began unfolding, Washington got engaged and the in-house criticism of the operation began and the civil military divide became obvious. Nawaz Sharif, who had earlier fired COAS Jehangir Karamat had become politically confident in his dealings with the army chief; maybe not in his ability to thoroughly question and comprehend the nature of the Kargil operation. As the country’s chief executive Nawaz Sharif he could not take the plea ‘I did not understand.’

Nawaz Sharif’s second allegation was that the operation was a fiasco. The fact is that initially the Prime Minister had also believed, like the army, that diplomatic advantage could be derived from the Kargil operation. He had also therefore approved the Misra-Naik back channel diplomacy in which he and his foreign office team were personally involved. He had hoped, that a quid pro quo to Pakistani or “freedom fighters” withdrawal from across the LOC would be a commitment from India regarding the settlement of the Kashmir dispute within a 12 to 18 month time period. In his conversations with Vajpayee during Kargil and in the message he sent through Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz, Nawaz Sharif had had emphasized the need to resolve Kashmir.

Nawaz Sharif also defended the operation in all his exchanges in his letters to president Clinton and had urged him to view the operation within the broader Kashmir context. In his meeting with Zinni, he had said ” US should take a broader view of the problem. Kargil is only one aspect of the larger problem of J&K which must be addressed in its totality in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people.”

Throughout Kargil the Washington angle acquired special significance especially against the backdrop of Pakistan’s weak and fractured decision-making apparatus. The Clinton-Nawaz exchanges and the Zinni trip created further divisions and distrust between Nawaz Sharif’s fragmented decision-making. His own person was greatly effected by his June 24 meeting with Zinni. After the visit, during a Islamabad-Lahore flight with the Prime Minister in his special plane, Nawaz Sharif explained to the author how “India would initiate electronic warfare, jam all our military installations and how all that could lead to a nuclear war.” He feared that the Kargil operation could spiral into a bigger and dangerous war. The scale of Indian military retaliation and the international response to Ka! rgil had surprised the Pakistanis.

Nawaz’s foreign office team, his kitchen cabinet and the DCC increasingly worked at a tangent. Its final manifestation was the Prime Minister’s sudden dash to Washington early hours of July 4. On July 2 the army chief have a detailed military briefing to the DCC. Musharraf’s conclusion was that India would never take the take the war beyond Kargil and Pakistan could hold its positions. army casualties were He maintained it was finally up to the political leadership to take political and diplomatic advantage of this military situation. Earlier during the Zinni trip, despite Zinni’s repeated advise Musharraf had made no commitment to withdraw from Kargil! ; a fact that Zinni acknowledged during the October 2003 discussion with the author.

The DCC ended inconclusively to reconvene on the afternoon of July 5. The decision on Kargil was to be taken then. Instead at 10pm the Foreign Minister, the foreign secretary and the foreign office team received instructions from Lahore to prepare for the Washington departure. The kitchen cabinet had decided to seek honorable exit from Kargil via the Washington route. Musharraf was instructed to arrive at the airport from Bourbon where he was on a week-end break. Shahbaz Sharif’s suggestion that his brother take Musharraf with him was shot down by Chaudary Nisar. “If he goes with you the Americans will take him more seriously than you,” he had told the Prime Minister.

The political and diplomatic dimensions of the operation were missing until the operation acquired scale and publicity. The Foreign Office, the front-line for articulating and projecting policy issues at the global level was completely kept in the dark until May 17. Pakistani diplomats were at a lose end. The cabinet too met once through the crisis. The dangerous gaps in Pakistan’s personalized decision-making apparatus, because of incompetence and civil-military distrust, were once again exposed during Kargil.

Nawaz Sharif’s third contention that those responsible for Kargil deserve to be penalized. This is an afterthought. It was after Kargil that the army chief was given the additional charge of the Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Committee. Rumors of Musharraf being ‘kicked upstairs’ or being removed ended. Subsequently Nawaz Sharif , with Shahbaz Sharif’s intervention, removed Corps Commander Quetta Lt General Tariq Parvez. The army chief asked for his removal “for talking loosely” and for violating army discipline while holding meetings with the civilian leadership. The Prime Minister’s brother earlier in a post-July 4 discussion with the author in the Prime Minister House said that the “there were issues about the scale of the Kargil operation, that was discussed between the Prime Minister and the Army Chief and now its all settled.”

For Pakistan the most critical lesson from Kargil was the need for institutionalized decision-making. The need for secrecy notwithstanding it is incumbent upon governments to always ensure institutional coordination in policy matters with domestic, interstate and international implications. Without institutional coordination led by the country’s chief executive linear, fragmented and counter productive approaches to vital national issues can be adopted. As was demonstrated during the Kargil operation. The former! Prime Minister misses these crucial points. Through the ghosts of Kargil he fights his political battle with General Parvez Musharraf.

The howling of a General

 Zahid Hussain

The recently-published memoirs of Lt. General (Retd) Shahid Aziz is more of an apology than an honest documentation of his life and time in the Army. At best, he comes across as a self-righteous retired general.  The voluminous and somewhat elegiac memoirs, titled  ‘Yeh Khamoshi Kaha Tak, Ek Spy Ki Dastan-e-Ishaq-o-Janoon,’ gives some insight into a twisted mindset of a man who was until recently a part of the highest echelon of the country’s national security establishment. 
His narrative brings out a deeply conflicted and hypocritical worldview, though not uncommon among many of our retired senior military officers. It is all about self-aggrandizement of his religiosity and   uprightness that sounds a bit hollow, given the general’s past. His sympathy for the militants fighting the Army and who are found beheading Pakistani soldiers raises questions about his allegiance. 
The general opposes the military campaign against insurgents in the tribal areas. Yet there is no criticism of militants who orchestrate the violence and suicide bombings that have killed thousands of innocent Pakistanis. He attributes terrorist violence entirely to the US and Western conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan.
The apologists of the Taliban often present such conspiracy theories, but this coming from a man who held important national security responsibilities is quite chilling.  The paranoia and the weird discourse that he puts across should give little confidence to Pakistanis about their national security apparatus. 
He presents his own vision of an Islamic system devoid of democracy where pious and religious men will run the country. He brags a lot about his love for Islam and his piety. But he was not known to be as pious as he pretends to be in the Army. 
I recall seeing him in early 1999, soon after he joined the ISI, at a top businessman’s party in Islamabad whose salon was frequented by top military officials. He was obviously intoxicated—and believe me not by a soft drink. He was a regular guest at such parties.
The General sees most of Pakistan’s problems caused by its alliance with the US. But it was intriguing that many Western diplomats who I met in 2004 were anxious to see him promoted to the position of Vice Chief of the Army Staff. 
Coming from a military-family background, General Shahid Aziz held some pivotal positions during his career in the army spanning over 37 years. His rise to the top came after the 1999 military coup in which he played a critical role as Director General Military Operations (DGMO). He shows no remorse for the part he played in ousting an elected government. He considers democracy “a corrupt and un-Islamic system.” 
The general’s contempt for the civilian rule was so strong that he considered resigning from the Army in mid-1990s because he felt humiliated that he saluted to the country’s elected Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. That says a lot about the mindset of a born-again Islamist general.  Such attitude towards the civilian leaders is not uncommon among other senior military officers. That also explains his role in the plot to overthrow an elected government a few years later. 
Shahid Aziz was appointed to the powerful position of the Chief of General Staff (CGS) soon after 9/11. It was the time when Pakistan was forced to abandon its longstanding support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and align with the US in the war on terror. Several senior army commanders who opposed the turnaround in Pakistan’s policy were purged out by General Musharraf and the Army high- command was overhauled. 
Shahid Aziz benefitted from the reshuffle and was elevated as the CGS. This made him a critical cog in Pakistan military’s support to the US war in Afghanistan. It is obvious that he had the full confidence of General Musharraf who, by the way, is related to him. The pious general now wails over what he describes as Pakistan’s “betrayal of Taliban and support for infidels in spilling the blood of Muslims.”  He spends “restless nights and prays for forgiveness of Allah for his sins.” 
Obviously, he could not have stayed as the CGS for long if he had been critical of Pakistan’s cooperation with US.  The question is: why did he accept to become the CGS in the first place if he did not agree with the policy? Why was he not purged out as many did because they showed dissent to the policy? 
It sounds ludicrous that as the CGS he did not know about the bases that Pakistan had given to the US forces for logistical support. It seems bizarre when he narrates, quite dramatically, how he felt when a junior army officer told him about the US troops landing near Gwadar. If he was so piqued by it why did not he resign, one may ask. 
Not only did the ‘upright’ general stay on, but he also got the prized posting of the Corps Commander, Lahore. He remained part of the military hierarchy when the Pakistani troops were sent to the tribal areas. The operation was launched after Al Qaeda and other militant groups made the tribal areas as their base for attacks in Afghanistan. But the general now believes that the operation against the insurgents was part of the US conspiracy to pit “Muslims against Muslims.” He fails to show any remorse for the terrorist attacks on innocent citizens and his former colleagues in uniform.
The General reserves the most scathing attack for his former patron, General Musharraf. He accuses him of taking away Pakistan from the path of Islam and encouraging an “immoral Western culture.” He sees Musharraf’s enlightened moderation as part of a US conspiracy to subjugate Muslims culturally.  The paranoid general believes the media freedom in Pakistan serves US interests. Of course, it does not prevent him from frequently appearing on TV channels to air his twisted worldview. 
The writer is a senior journalist and author of two books on security and terrorism.

Article 6 Applies on Nawaz Shareef too

Now a days Mr Nawaz Sharif and his party is quite vocal against Ex President of Pakistan for doing UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts and demanding a trial under article 6 for Ex President Musharraf for violating the constitution of Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif and his party is now holding the torch of Free Judiciary even though Nawaz and his party attacked the Supreme court of Pakistan.

I really feel pitty for Nawaz and his party as they are the one who should be hanged for taking UNCONSTITUTIONAL decisions.

In 1998 Nawaz Sharif then Prime Minister of Pakistan made Military Courts in Sindh Province in the name of controlling Law and Order situation but the real motives were to crush MQM the Second Largest Political Party of Sindh and Third Largest of Pakistan for not supporting the 15th Amendment that makes Mr Nawaz Sharif Ameer ul Momineen.

On 17th of Feburary 1999 a Bench of NON PCO JUDGES comprises of

Chief Justice Ajmal Mian,

Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui,

Justice Irshad Hasan Khan,

Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan,

Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri,

Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid,

Justice Munawar Ahmed Mirza,

Justice Mamoon Kazi and

Justice Abdur Rehman Khan.

Unanimously declared the setting up of military courts

for the trial of civilians as unconstitutional and without lawful


The Honorable Bench give the following Decision.

“We are of the view that Ordinance No XII of 1998 as amended up-to-

date in so far as it allows the establishment of military courts

for trial of civilian charged with the offences mentioned in

Section 6 and the schedule to the above ordinance are declared

Unconstitutional, without lawful authority and of no legal effect,”

According to this judgment by the 9 member NON PCO Bench, it is crystal clear that the then Prime Minister (Nawaz Sharif) and President Rafiq Tarar did conduct an Unconstitutional Act, which is declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as Unconstitutional and Un Lawful.( It is worth noting that Nawaz Sharif is asking for Musharraf Trial as Supreme Court of Pakistan termed 3 Nov 2007 Actions Un Constitutional and Illegal, the same Supreme Court cited on 17 Feb 1999).

So if Mr Nawaz Sharif asked the Government to try Musharraf under article 6 for doing Unconstitutional and Un Lawful Act then Mr Nawaz Sharif Did the same in 1998 and the Supreme Court comprises of NON PCO Judges gave the same Verdict against Him as well, then He Should be Try under article 6 and should be hang for doing un constitutional Act as well.

Now it is the duty of Civil Society and Lawyers Community and People of Pakistan to ask for the trial of Mr Nawaz Sharif, then Prime Minister who advised the then President Rafiq Tarar to issue an ordinance for setting up Military Courts, which was termed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as Un Constitutional and Unlawful, Under article 6 for doing an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT.

Lets see the so called Civil Society and Lawyers would comes out and ask for Mr Nawaz trial under Article 6 or not.

This post is a big Question Mark on the people who wants trial of Musharraf under Article 6 for doing Unconstitutional Act but not asking trial of Mr Nawaz Sharif for the same.

by Mr. Khalid Farooqi
his blog is