The Musharraf regime has completed seven years of its dictatorial rule in Pakistan after overthrowing a democratically elected Government on October 12, 1999, and is losing credibility from day to day. Ironically, the people of Pakistan distributed sweets – considering Musharraf a messiah – when he took power and announced his seven-point agenda, which promised power and prosperity to the people. He has, however, failed to deliver on any of the promises he made to the nation. Now, the perception of masses is that he leads a clique of power-hungry generals and US stooges, who will do anything to please their masters. The killing of 82 people in Bajaur (a designated tribal area near the border with Afghanistan) on October 30, 2006, during an air strike at a madrassah (seminary) goes a long way to reinforce these perceptions.
Pakistan had almost forgotten the politics of agitation and protests, and the people have rarely taken to the streets in the recent past. But the Bajaur incident has sparked a wave of protests across the country. Even groups with known ‘anti-Taliban’ credentials are challenging the regime’s claim that the air strike was carried out by the Pakistan military against foreign terrorists – ‘al-Qaeda suspects’. No one – neither the jihadis/Islamists nor the mainstream population or even the so-called secular liberals – is willing to trust any part of this claim. Every voice is repeating a single mantra – there were no foreigners in the madrassah; most of the dead were children aged between 6 and 15; the madrassah was destroyed by US missiles, and the Pakistan Army was forced to claim the responsibility.
The regime, of course, remains committed to its story that each person killed in the Bajaur strike was a terrorist; that the air strike was the only ‘solution’; and that it was not carried out by the US but by Pakistani Forces alone. The regime’s sycophants – members of the Musharraf-cobbled Pakistan Muslim League – Qaid-e-Azam (PML-Q) are burning the midnight oil to issue statements after statements declaring the air strike a remarkable feat that cleansed the ‘land of the pure’ of 82 terrorists. Unfortunately for them, their claims are meeting with far too many questions for which they have no answers.
The only section that appears satisfied with the air strike is the diplomatic community, who seem convinced by the regime’s version, i.e., the air strike was carried out by Pakistani Forces to target foreign militants. They remain undisturbed by basic questions: why was no effort made to arrest the suspected militants? Why was the madrassah attacked when the regime had finalized a peace deal with tribal leaders in the area? Why has journalists’ entry been banned in Bajaur?
Rahimullah Yusufzai, a highly credible journalist who covers Afghan affairs, was able to secure a draft copy of the peace agreement that the authorities and the local leaders were to sign on October 30, according to which the tribal people had assured the authorities that they would not harbor foreign terrorists, and would hand over to the authorities any foreigner found in the region; they would, moreover, not undertake any unlawful activities against Pakistan or against neighboring countries. The draft agreement was virtually a ‘surrender’ by local leaders. Where, then, was the need to bomb the madrassah on October 30? A majority of people believe that the US did not want the peace agreement to take effect, and was not happy with the previous agreement that the regime had signed with the local Taliban in North Waziristan on September 5, 2006. The bombing was, consequently, intended to sabotage its prospects.
The jihadi / Islamist response to the bombing has been interesting. The extremists insist that the Pakistan military is lying, and that it ‘cannot kill its own citizens’ (conveniently forgetting the Army’s repeated record, including the massacres and mass rapes of Bangladesh), and that the operation was carried out by the US, an not Pakistani Forces. A retired Army General, who preferred not to be named, supported this position: “The Pakistani military does not carry out operations in this manner. It does not resort to an aerial bombing of this nature and that too at such a scale. The military has been forced to accept the responsibility to save the US from the rampage of the Islamists.” Former Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Hameed Gul supplements this viewpoint by telling a jihadi publication, Daily Ummat, on October 31: “Bajaur is a plain and open piece of land. Pakistan Army’s scouts are already in that area. Pakistan Army did not need to attack the place with aerial bombing. The strategy of attack shows that it is the US’ handiwork… The US has a track record of sabotaging peace agreements. It killed Nek Mohammad and sabotaged the Shakai agreement that the then Corps Commander Safdar Hussain had signed with Nek Mohammad. Then the US attacked Damadola. A Pakistani journalist, Hayatullah, collected evidence and proved that the US had attacked Damadola. Hayatullah was picked up by secret agencies and killed for bringing out the truth.”
The past history of military operations against the Taliban/al-Qaeda suggests that almost every major crackdown coincides with the arrival of a high-profile personality in Pakistan. The Bajaur incident took place when the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, was in Pakistan.
The liberal media has also rejected the official version on the Bajaur incident. The Dawn, a strong supporter of Musharraf’s ‘war’ against al Qaeda and the Taliban in the past, editorialized on November 1: “It is impossible to believe the Government’s claim that those killed in the attack on the madrassah near Damadola in Bajaur Agency on Monday morning were all militants… At the same time, the decision to ban journalists’ entry into the Bajaur agency… suggests that the Government may have much to hide.’
Bajaur is located in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) where the clerics of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal [MMA] have substantial influence. Significantly, MMA leaders, including Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami, have been denied entry into Bajaur after the incident.
Various international organizations and human rights agencies have also questioned the Bajaur action. Ali Dayan Hasan, South Asia researcher for the Human Rights Watch, stated, “Given the repeated assertions that those who have been killed in Bajaur were militants and not civilians, the Government of Pakistan must justify the legality of the attack. If it was a law enforcement operation, the scale of the death points to use of excessive force in the extreme, with no or little effort to minimize loss of life. If it was a full-scale military operation, it raises real concerns about the proportionality of the attack and whether the attack was indiscriminate. The Pakistani Government should allow independent investigators into the area to determine who carried out the attack, how it was planned and executed, and who was killed. The onus is on the Pakistani Government to provide a credible account of the legitimacy of the attack resulting in the deaths of so many.”
The implications of the Bajaur operation, as of past military debacles, will continue to haunt the entire country in time to come. Two local Taliban leaders, linked with the al-Qaeda, have already vowed to take up arms to defend the tribal people of Bajaur against the regime’s atrocities. Maulana Faqir Mohammad and Haji Omar told the BBC Urdu Service on October 31 that they would avenge the Bajaur killings. Chanting slogans threatening death to General Musharraf, Haji Omar declared that he would provide the tribal people of Bajaur with arms and mujahideen, because they had been attacked and had the right to self-defense. The Bajaur killings can only strengthen jihad and further destabilize Pakistan.
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist and analyst.
Printer-Friendly Version
