Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Is Azad Kashmir azad?

Sadly it would take a national disaster for some people – such as your Blogger - to become aware of some of the realities that exist in Azad Kashmir.

For instance, I never had any idea that, at the time of the earthquake , not only mobile phone companies were not allowed to operate in Azad Kashmir but there was no PTCL telephone network there either. Instead there was a limited telephone communication system operated by something called Special Communications Organization, which was apparently a functional unit of the Pakistan army.

And then, while most of us suspected the government of Azad Kashmir to be a smokescreen, I had never truly comprehended the sheer scale of the façade.

It was shortly after the earthquake that I learnt that the so-called president, prime minister and cabinet ministers of that benighted place were more or less permanently ensconced in Rawalpindi, only making infrequent trips to the place of their imaginary governance.

Obviously the disconnect between the supposed ‘rulers’ and the ‘ruled’ was much greater than any preconceived notion I might have had.

I fear that the actual state of affairs in Azad Kashmir would probably make even a hardened cynic cringe with embarrassment.

Recently the Human Rights Watch organization published a 71-page report on ‘Azad’ Kashmir – and yes, I did squirm after reading bits like:

"...the federal government in Islamabad, the army and the intelligence agencies control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmir...The military shows no tolerance for dissent and practically runs the region as a fiefdom.”

HRW doc: “With Friends Like These…” - Human Rights Violations in Azad Kashmir

For those interested, here is a summary of the report:

“Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms.”

…“There is a façade of an elected local government, but the federal government in Islamabad, the army and the intelligence agencies control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmir,” said Adams. “The military shows no tolerance for dissent and practically runs the region as a fiefdom.”

Torture is routinely used in Pakistan, and this practice is also routine in Azad Kashmir. Human Rights Watch has documented incidents of torture by the intelligence services and others acting at the army’s behest but knows of no cases in which members of military and paramilitary security and intelligence agencies have been prosecuted or even disciplined for acts of torture or mistreatment.

Despite the Pakistani government’s criticism of human rights violations in neighbouring Jammu and Kashmir state in India, refugees from Jammu and Kashmir are discriminated against and mistreated by the authorities. Kashmiri refugees and former militants from India, most of whom are secular nationalists and culturally and linguistically distinct from the peoples of Azad Kashmir, are particularly harassed through constant surveillance, curbs on political expression, arbitrary arrest and beatings.

“The Pakistani government often pretends that the only problems faced by Kashmiris are in India,” said Adams. “It should start looking into ways of ending human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir.”

Human Rights Watch urged international donors, which have poured billions of dollars of urgently needed relief and reconstruction aid into Azad Kashmir since the earthquake, to insist on structural changes in governance and the promotion of both human rights and the rule of law. Recent corruption allegations against senior government officials highlight serious weaknesses in the rule of law and governmental accountability.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Ally or Adversary?

The influential Atlantic Monthly carried out an interesting poll by asking a group of US foreign-policy authorities about Pakistan and its leader, Pervez Musharraf.

The results were published in its December 2006 issue: PAKISTAN: ALLY OR ADVERSARY?

When asked about their perceptions of General Pervez Musharraf’s role as a US ally:
68 percent said that as a partner Musharraf is “not always helpful, but is at least as good as the likely alternatives”.
23 percent said that Musharraf appeared to be unwilling to crack down on militants and was “in need of stepped-up pressure” from the US..
9 percent said that the Pakistani military leader was an “active and indispensable ally in the fight against terrorist groups”.

When asked as to what type of future government was likely to replace Musharraf’s regime:

63 percent said that it would be another military dictatorship.
22 percent said that it would be replaced by democratic rule.
15 percent said it would be substituted by an “Islamic theocracy”

Friday, November 24, 2006

Traitors Within Our Midst?

Yesterday’s Dawn reports that:
[Quetta] police have registered a treason case against Nawabzada Jamil Bugti, son of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, for speaking against the army and the government in his press conference last month.
If ‘speaking against the army and the government’ is indeed a crime then Quetta police better had start registering millions of ‘treason’ cases against the majority of people - excepting, of course, the moneyed pro-Musharraf elite- in at least three, if not four, provinces that have constituted Pakistan since 1971. (Just by the by, didn’t our erstwhile Bengal province secede from us because they were judged by Islamabad to be ‘traitors’ as well?)

It is time perhaps to briefly examine the law of treason in Pakistan.
Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution states:

1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.
(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

Having read the bit about ‘abrogating the constitution…by use of force’, not surprisingly two names instantly pop up in my mind: Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf, the two army generals who abrogated the 1973 constitution by use of overwhelming military force.

Then there are those who attempt to or conspire to abrogate the constitution by force; the only example that I can think of is Major General Zahirul Islam Abbasi, who in 1995 planned to assassinate the prime minister, the chief of army staff, senior cabinet ministers and all the corps commanders and proclaim the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in Pakistan.

And one must not forget those who conspired to subvert the Constitution by…show of force. Recently, the former minister Ch. Nisar Ali Khan - who had close connections with the GHQ during the 1990s - revealed on TV that every army chief (with the exception of Karamat and Kakar) vigorously involved himself in subverting the constitutional authority of elected civilian governments.

Were any of these military gentlemen ever charged with the crime of treason? Of course not, perish the thought - and pity our judiciary.

Instead, those who have been charged of the crime of treason have, so far, all been civilians – these include Nawaz Sharif and Javed Hashmi.

How our 'Amir ul Momineen' subverted the constitution, while using his constitutionally acquired powers to sack his COAS Musharraf, is beyond me. Even the judge, who convicted the deposed PM of hijacking the commercial airline carrying Musharraf, seemed to have baulked at convicting him for treason.

And all Javed Hashmi seemed to have done was to flash around an anti-Musharraf letter purportedly written on Army GHQ letterhead in the National Assembly cafeteria. Now how could this possibly deemed to be ‘an attempt to subvert the constitution by…unconstitutional means'? Not according to my sense of logic, but the judge, who tried Hashmi in a court set up in Rawalpindi jail, convicted him on the charge and sentenced him to 23 years of imprisonment.


Now coming back to Jamil Bugti.

The man’s father, an 80 year-old citizen of Pakistan, was killed ostensibly on Musharraf’s instructions without any recourse to legal process. Given the circumstances, I doubt if Jamil Bugti would have any kind things to say about the army or the government. And yet the police have charged him with treason for ‘speaking against the army and the government in his press conference last month’.

I guess wonders will never cease.


Apropos to the Jamil Bugti story, it seem that members of the Balochistan police will be soon be busy chappies.

Some ten months ago, on 3 February this year, DCO Dera Bugti Abdul Samad Lasi’s house in Hub suffered a bomb blast. The day after the event

Nation reported ‘that the blast damaged a wall and his kitchen but caused no injuries’.

After a lapse of all this time today’s
newspapers report that Lasi has suddenly woken up to the fact that the Khan of Kalat Suleman Daud Ahmedzai, Balochistan Assembly Deputy Speaker Aslam Bhotani and Balochistan National Party Lasbella President Wazir Khan Rind were culprits in the explosion.

Of course it has probably nothing to do with the fact that the Khan, Aslam Bhotani and Wazir Rind are vehemently anti-Musharraf these days.

Interestingly, Lasi has stated that he ‘may name more suspects in the case’. So, there can many more Baloch notables soon on the list. All I can say is: Watch out you anti-Musharraf lot in Balochistan!

Interestingly, it was reported last month that the former DCO of Dera Bugti - who, a reader informs me, got his initial post by sifarish, bypassing Provincial Govt requirements for job advertisement and competitive examination by Balochistan Public Service Commission and also failed to pass departmental examinations for promotion beyond his BS-17 grade - was
inducted in the Foreign Service of Pakistan for consequent posting abroad. No doubt having proved his diplomatic skills in Dera Bugti a great future lies ahead of him abroad.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Dilawar Khan Set Free

The BBC journalist, a bruised and shaken Dilawar Khan Wazir, was released last evening by his abductors. During his captivity he was kept blindfolded, beaten regularly and ‘repeatedly questioned about his work in the tribal areas and his sources of information’.

Without seeming to sound heartless, I do consider Dilawar Khan Wazir to be an extremely fortunate man. To my mind if his kidnapping had not resulted in the public uproar, created by concerned members of his journalist community, he would have still be in the brutal hands of his captors.

Here are some of things that took place within hours of his abduction:

  • Local journalists announced a complete boycott of parliamentary proceedings and threatened public protest.

  • International media organizations – such as CPJ and RWF – began badgering the harrassed Islamabad government.

  • BBC Urdu Service insisted on carrying the story of their missing colleague as the lead story for two days (until his release).

  • BBC World Service Director Nigel Chapman publicly called on the Pakistani government to ascertain Dilawar Khan’s whereabouts.

All the tongue tied Interior Minister, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, could do was announce:

"I am not in a position to confirm whether or not he is in government custody."

In the end, pressurized by journalists the minister reportedly resorted to angrily banging down the phone on them.

Undeniably it was the blaze of local and international publicity (but hardly a word, by the way, in all the heavily controlled TV News channels) that forced Dilawar Khan Wazir’s abductors to release him.

The last comment on the release ought to belong to Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan:
The minister was reluctant to give details about the ‘kidnappers’ who had picked up the journalist from Pirwadhai, a busy public place in Islamabad on Monday.“Do not ask more specific questions,” the minister said while replying to a question about the identity of the kidnappers.


This morning’s Dawn editorial had this to say:

…the circumstances in which [Dilawar Khan Wazir] vanished and the manner in which an attempt was made to mislead his brother deepens the suspicion that this was more than a simple case of kidnapping for ransom or personal vendetta. A series of mishaps that befell the missing journalist’s family in the last few months also confirms the fear that Mr Wazir had been put on the hit list for his professional work which evidently has aroused the ire of some agencies or groups. This is a direct attack on press freedom in Pakistan.

Wishing to suppress information that journalists like Mr Wazir have been unearthing and disseminating through their media outlets, dictatorial governments with many skeletons to hide in their cupboard have taken to harassing and persecuting media persons — four have been mysteriously murdered since 2005 in Pakistan. Obviously, these journalists were not guilty of any infringement of the law for in that case they could have been put on trial. In the absence of that option, the powers that be or their underlings have made it more convenient to resort to the arbitrary tactic of picking up journalists — as well as others who are personae non gratae for any reason — in complete disregard of legal processes.

The least one can say is that the phenomenon of ‘enforced disappearance’, of which Mr Wazir apparently became a victim, is one of the most brutal practices common to countries ruled by oppressive regimes. It speaks of a government’s arrogance and contempt for the rule of law which prompts it to act as it sees fit in a no-holds-barred fashion. In this case, there are powers who do not want any facts relating to the ‘war on terror’ being waged in Waziristan to be made public. Mr Wazir was doing just that and very professionally. Hence an attempt to suppress information. Gone are the days of press controls that tarnished the image of a country. The ‘disappearance’ of a journalist aims to serve a dual purpose: silence him and send a warning to others.


As one of those Musharraf derided ‘extremist liberals’ your Blogger believes Press Freedom to be sacrosanct. In a country where you have a historically enfeebled parliament and judiciary, the rights of the press become paramount. It is through the press, in these trying circumstances, that the public can at least hope for some modicum of accountability.

Husain Haqqani raises some pertinent points in today’s Nation:

Pakistan’s generals, beginning with the late General Ziaul Haq, learnt a lesson from the resentment built against the civilian leaders as a result of their high profile actions against the media. Both Ziaul Haq and Musharraf have shown the ability to accept personal criticism and have avoided taking action against well-known critics, especially ones whose writings are unlikely to foment a revolution in the first place.

The generals’ model of media control is to target poor but well informed reporters not known to the English speaking urban gentry. If the worst truth about regime policies does not come out from where the action actually takes place –Waziristan, Larkana, remote parts of Balochistan—then the state machinery can continue to harp on its broad mindedness. Internationally well known media personalities can criticise the regime, while at the same time securing for it high marks for allowing the criticism. But the criticism must be of the drawing room variety, covering issues that do not cause the masses to question the military’s authority.

The model of media control under this government has been to make examples of reporters on ground that would then make others toe the line. Media freedom since 1999, though considerable, has still been within well-defined parameters. The parameters for the English language media have been wider than for the vernacular press. Multiple TV channels have been opened without giving credit to the elected leaders under whom the concept of private television channel ownership was first mooted. Many more topics have been opened to discussion on radio and TV, and criticising the President has been allowed quite widely.

At the same time, key issues have still been kept out of bounds or subject to self-censorship by owners of media outlets. The government wants to arrogate to itself the right of identifying issues over which it might be criticised. Touchy subjects include discussion of the role of Pakistan’s invisible government, the intelligence services, and the corruption or self-aggrandisement of this regime’s key figures.

Human rights and sovereignty violations in the war against terrorism must be kept under wraps. The dirty war against fellow Pakistanis in Balochistan cannot be reported except in vague and general terms. Opinions critical of the military regime are allowed but facts that back up these opinions must not be revealed. That way, those in authority can keep reassuring their international backers and domestic supporters that all is well and the ranting of critics in the media is only the expression of frustration by opinionated semi-politicians bearing a grudge against them or their appointees.

Historically, the sensitivity of a regime in Pakistan to dissent and truth telling is often directly proportional to its feelings of vulnerability. Overt repression is less in days of self-confidence and more in periods of insecurity. The current rise in murder and abduction of journalists speaks volumes about the anxiety of Pakistan’s current rulers over their ability to continue to indefinitely control the unfortunate people of Pakistan.

Monday, November 20, 2006

BBC Reporter Mysteriously ‘Disappears’

Yesterday one of BBC Urdu Service’s correspondents, Dilawar Ali Khan Wazir, went ‘missing’ in extremely suspicious circumstances.
As today’s
Nation newspaper reported:

The 38-year old Dilawar Ali Wazir works for BBC-Urdu Service and came to Islamabad to see his brother, Zulfiqar Ali Wazir…[and] was last seen leaving the university hostel in a cab for Dera Ismail Khan.

The mysterious disappearance of Dilawar surfaced when some plain-clothed persons, apparently operatives of some secret agency, reached the University hostel and asked for his brother Zulfiqar, said Ejaz Mehr, a colleague of the missing journalist at BBC. The suspected visitors initially met friends of Zulfiqar and told them that Dilawar has been injured in an accident near Peerwadhai and taken to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Mehr added.

However, the younger Wazir and his friends decided not to accompany the visitors and verify the facts themselves.

After refusing to accompany the visitors, Zulfiqar tried to contact his brother on his mobile phone but the call was attended by someone else, identifying himself as Dr Jamshed at PIMS. This person also stated that Dilawar Khan Wazir was in PIMS after being injured in the accident.

However, when the friends of Zulfiqar Ali Wazir and Ejaz Mehr reached PIMS neither Dilawar Khan Wazir was found inside nor any one with the name of Dr Jamshed could be spotted.

A hospital worker told Ejaz Mehr that there was no doctor in the hospital with such name.

I sincerely hope for Dilawar Ali Khan Wazir’s family, friends, and colleagues (and for all believers in human rights and press freedom) that he is found safe, sound and healthy in the shortest of possible time. Considering his 15-year-old brother was kidnapped and shot dead in August, this must be a particularly harrowing time for his family.

According to
IFEX Dilawar had recently returned from covering the controversial air strike on Chingai madrrassa in the Bajaur tribal. Adding:
"Even if one cannot rule out the possibility that the journalist, traumatised by the recent murder of his younger brother, did have an accident, the circumstances of his disappearance lead us to fear he was abducted. We fear he could be the latest victim of kidnappings of reporters like that of Hayatullah Khan a year ago," the organisation added.
Things aren’t particularly good for journalists in Pakistan right now. Even today’s
International Herald Tribune notes that: 'Numerous Pakistan journalists have vanished and been killed after apparently covering topics sensitive to the government and pro-Taliban militants.'


Your Blogger suggests that for those that who ramble and bluster about the healthy state of press freedom under Musharraf, it is time to shut up.


Reporters Without Borders report

Saturday, November 18, 2006

A Humiliation at Gwadar

In reply to the well attended anti-regime Baloch Jirga at Kalat on 21st September, Islamabad haughtily proclaimed a counter pro-regime Baloch Jirga scheduled for 8th November.

At the time a federal minister openly boasted: ‘that the number of invitees would run into hundreds. It could be 400 or even more as "Mirs, Sardars and other notables from all districts" would attend the 'jirga'.-The News, 2 Nov. 2006

Shortly after this rather pompous announcement officialdom strangely began to dither about the location, as well as, the participants.
It would be either Islamabad or Quetta, an official told this correspondent. However, he said, its holding in the federal capital would not send out a good message. He said the president was being counselled to chair the Jirga in Quetta…Invitations are unlikely to be issued to chieftains confronting or criticising the government. All guests would be supporters of the government. However, the official effort is to wean away maximum number of tribal heads,who had attended two Jirgas, hosted by the Khan of Qalat, Mir Dawood, in the wake of killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti in a military operation in Kohlu mountains on August 31.-The News
While the venue of the counter-Jirga remained unresolved, apparently it had been decided that every effort would be made to commandeer a ‘maximum number of tribal heads, who had attended two Jirgas, hosted by the Khan of Qalat’.

Shortly afterwards it was declared that the counter-Jirga would be held in Islamabad and
Sardars, nawabs and tribal elders would be arriving in Islamabad on November 6 via a special plane from Quetta’.

Amazingly for Islamabad the truth of the situation only dawned after Shaukat Aziz’s brief visit Quetta. As one commentator noted:
The prime minister's two-day visit only revealed that no notable Baloch sardar was willing to attend the pro-government jirga, although Musharraf claims to have the support of 72 out of 75 Baloch Sardars….
Now confronted with reality, the date and the location of the counter-Jirga were suddenly changed.
Balochistan Chief Minister Jam Mohammad Yousuf has said that the venue and date of a tribal Jirga of Baloch sardars and tribal elders convened by the government has been changed and now it will be held in the coastal town of Gwadar on November 16. Dawn, 4 Nov. 2006
With the postponed date and relocation of venue, all that was left of the original model was the hosting of the Grand Jirga by Musharraf. Even that was now fraught with indecision.

On 12th November a humiliated regime facing a complete boycott of the Jirga backtracked completely and the Jirga was finally scrapped.

Balochistan Chief Minister Jam Mohammad Yousaf disclosed on Sunday that President General Pervez Musharraf would only meet with “notables” from five Balochistan districts during his scheduled visit to Gwadar on November 16, rather than addressing a jirga of Baloch sardars…The chief minister told reporters at Quetta Airport that Gen Musharraf would speak to notables from Gwadar, Turbat, Panjgur, Awaran and Lasbela. (Daily Times, 13 Nov. 2006).
Last night PTV showed Musharraf addressing a small gathering of local ‘notables’ among whom your Blogger spotted one or two PML(Q) politicians imported from Sindh. That made him wonder as to how many others might also have been ‘bused in’ to add to the scanty number.

To add to the embarrassment, all of Balochistan came to a grinding halt in protest to Musharraf’s presence within the province.

Balochistan observed a black day and went on a complete shutter-down strike on Thursday as President General Pervez Musharraf paid his first visit to the volatile southwestern province since the killing of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti…“The call for the strike was meant to protest General Musharraf’s visit. His hands are red with Baloch blood. We can’t welcome him amid relentless military operations against our innocent people,” said one National Party leader. (Daily Times, 17 Nov. 2006)

Nearly three months after Nawab Akbar Bugti’s slaying it becomes more than obvious that the regime badly miscalculated its consequences.

Musharraf reportedly once confided to an associate that he had no intention of making Akbar Bugti ‘another Nauroz Khan’ (Nauroz Khan was idolized by the Baloch for his resistance against Ayub Khan’s regime). Ironically for Musharraf the dead Bugti is now a much bigger hero among the Baloch than Nauroz Khan ever was. The sardar of the Mengal tribe, Attaullah Khan, recently told Newsline magazine that while he lived Akbar Bugti had been the Nawab of the Bugti tribe, and now by the manner of his death he has become the Nawab of the whole Baloch race.

Reports from Balochistan suggest that the vast majority of Baloch (both Balochi and Brauhi speaking) hold Musharraf personally responsible for Bugti’s killing. And any Baloch who carries on dealing with the general is in jeopardy of being vilified as a quisling by his compatriots.

Friday, November 17, 2006

TV Station Banned by Islamabad.

On Thursday 9th November Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) banned the broadcast of Sindh TV channel by ordering all cable TV operators to stop transmitting it for public viewing.

According to a newspaper report a PEMRA official has confessed that the TV channel had been banned at the request of the federal Ministry of Interior.

Head of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Cable Television (CTV) Policy Making, Brigadier Zahid Shakeel Ahmeds aid that Sindh TV's permission to telecast programmes was taken back on a request received from the federal ministry. "It is an issue pertaining to security clearance. We received a call from the interior ministry asking us to shut their transmission because they had violated the clearance". (Daily Times)

Some opposition politicians have gone on record to state ‘that the transmission had been suspended on the orders of ISPR Director General Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan’ (Daily Times).

It is believed that the Sindh TV channel had upset the Military Regime by broadcasting “critical reports about the suicide bombing of the Army training outfit in the North Western Frontier Province, and the recent army crackdown on militants in Baluchistan province: (

IFEX reports, this is not the first time that a television station has been suspended by PEMRA or by local authorities. The Punjab police stopped cable operators from broadcasting ARY TV in September after it screened footage of police brutality


Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Bajaur Air Strike - Who Did What?

What can possibly be worse than a country’s armed forces pre-emptively killing 83 of its own citizens in complete disregard of the established legal system?

The answer: When a foreign country does it for you instead.


As the dust begins to settle two weeks after the missile strike of the Ziaul Uloom and Talimul Quran Madrassa in the Chingai village of Bajaur agency glaring contradictions and inconsistencies remain with us.

The simple unchallenged facts that have emerged about the actual air strike so far are:

That the US carried out the surveillance of the madrassa before the air strike. According to the
New York Times :
U.S. security officials have said that they shared intelligence of the target with Pakistan before the strike, which suggests that the surveillance footage came from a U.S. drone.

Pakistani intelligence officials have…released copies of infrared camera footage showing the compound and its inhabitants in the days before the bombing. In the film, men dressed in loose tribal clothes are seen exercising in the yard of the compound in the early morning hours.

The newspaper also informs us:
[As] the men would start their exercises at 4:30 a.m…The strike occurred shortly after 5 a.m., hitting the men as they were exercising in the open yard, causing maximum casualties.

Now when it comes to the identity of the slain there has been numerous contradictions:

Musharraf stated:
'Anyone saying innocent people were killed in the air strike was lying…“They were all militants. They were doing military training there. We were working on them for last six, seven days and we know who they were and what they were doing.'

ISPR spokesman
Major General Shaukat Sultan told a press conference:
  • The religious school…was being used as a militant training camp.

  • Up to 80 deaths have been confirmed.

  • The compound has been destroyed

  • Maulana Liaqatullah, the pro-Taliban commander who ran the madrasa, was among those killed.

  • There were no women or children present.
The Peshawar High Court Bar Association and the Peshawar Bar Association then set up a commission given the task of visiting Chingai and filing an independent report about the incident. The fact-finding team consisted of senior Peshawari lawyers: Barrister Bacha and Advocates Ghulam Nabi, Qaiser Rasheed, Khurshid Khan, Amir Zeb Khan and Karim Mehsud.

On 6 November the team of six lawyers, accompanied by journalists and an escort of Bajaur tribesmen, while heading towrds Chinai found their way blocked by armed levy jawans. According to
Dawn they were ‘manhandled’ and some journalists were actually beaten up.

A member of the legal team was quoted as saying, “The situation turned tense when levy jawans encircled us and asked us to return back. Tribesmen gathered there and told levy officials that the team would visit the madrassah at all costs”.

But in the end as
The Daily Times reported, the levy jawans had to back off when hundreds of angered tribesmen threatened to ‘begin firing in reaction’.

At the site of the destroyed madrassa the fact finding team
reported seeing the clothes and shoes of school children between the ages of eight to ten who were killed in the air strikes.

A week later the team of lawyers released a 4 page report which was based they said on their personal observations and on the accounts of eyewitnesses. According to
The News the report made the following claims:
  • ‘That the attack was carried out from Afghanistan by US planes. Pakistani helicopters appeared on the scene a good 20-25 minutes after the attack.’

  • 'Madrassa Ziaul Uloom was a seminary where religious education was being imparted to the students. Most students were between 09 to 18 years of age. Most of the students were locals, a few of them were from Swat district. '

  • 'The presence of any foreigner was vehemently denied by the local people. There was no evidence of combatant and militant training in and around the seminary.’

  • ‘That the attack was aimed at and timed to derail the peace initiative and to sabotage the peace agreement that was to be reached later on the day.’

  • ‘The seminary was only about seven kilometres from the office of the political agent and the headquarters of the levy force. The site is easily approachable by three ‘katcha’ roads.’

  • 'That no evidence of combat or militant training was found in and around the seminary. No training equipment, scaling walls, ropes, trenches and obstacles were found at the site, the report added.’

  • 'No live ammunition or any kinds of weapons were recovered from any part of the seminary after it was raided, the report concluded’.


The point made about a Waziristan-type peace agreement scheduled to be signed on the very day of the attack is most revealing. As
a leading Peshawar journalist notes:

  • 'In fact, at the time of the attack, [the slain Maulana Liaquat] was negotiating his amnesty with the Pakistani army in return for a pledge to provide neither succour nor sanctuary to foreign fighters, including the Taliban.'

  • 'The evening before the strike, Liaquat was preparing a tribal council for the signing ceremony with the government," says analyst Rahimullah Yousefzai. "So why would the Pakistan army authorise an operation that destroys the Pakistan government's main political strategy in the tribal areas?'

The highly reputable

Economist magazine suggests that the architect of the proposed Bajaur agreement, the NWFP Governor, retired Gen. Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai, was ‘stunned’. There are reports that he has threatened to resign because of his anger at being blindsided by the sudden attack.

Hmm...All this makes one think, doesn’t it?


Many appear to believe that the US carried out the attack to prevent the Bajaur agreement from taking place. The NATO commanders in Afghanistan, faced with a resurgent Taliban, were already hopping mad about the previous Waziristan deal.


According to

one source NATO has three gripes with the North Waziristan agreement
  • 'First, so far from being "anti-Taliban", as Musharraf claimed, it had been negotiated with the express approval of Taliban leaders. As early as May, Mullah Mohammed Omar had instructed his followers in North Waziristan to comply with a ceasefire since fighting the Pakistan army "served (only) the US interest". '

  • 'The agreement was also skewed, a reflection of how strong the Taliban had become in the tribal areas. Thus in return for verbal pledges by tribesmen not to fight in Afghanistan or harbour foreign militants, the Pakistani government actually released prisoners, removed checkpoints and, astonishingly, returned arms to tribes known for their pro-Taliban and pro-Al Qaeda loyalties. '

  • 'The verbal pledges have also not been kept…A recent US Congress report, based on testimony from US NATO commanders, records a 300 percent hike in cross border militant infiltration into Afghanistan.

This is why the consensus is very strong in Pakistan that the US and NATO were behind the attack on the madrassa -- both had a clear interest in not allowing Bajaur to go North Waziristan's way.'

I will let my readers make their own judgment as to who actually pulled the trigger on Chingai that fateful day.


Final comment:

Is it merely a coincidence that the village of Chingai lies at a distance of only two kilometers from Damadola where 18 villagers were killed by a US Drone in January 2006?

Previous related blogs:

Drones, Lies and Violent Deaths

The Spin on the Missile Attack at Damadola