Wake-up call for US and Saudi Arabia

MONDAY night’s bomb attacks in Riyadh shattered more than one myth. The gunfire and explosions that tore into the al-Hamra compound, also tore apart the notion that America is winning the ‘war on terror’, that Saudi nationals are not heavily involved in Al Qaeda and its brand of ultra-militant Islam, and that the House of Saud is secure. Monday night was a wake-up call for many.

Many commentators and analysts have warned that the manner in which the war on terror is being waged — using overwhelming military force to bring about regime change in countries accused of sponsoring terrorism — will prove counter-productive. The Riyadh bombings and those that followed — in Znamenskoye and Ilishan in Chechnya, Jibla in Yemen, Karachi, Casablanca and Jerusalem (plus an alleged plot in Kenya) — vindicated those fears. Islamic terrorism, be it Al Qaeda or indigenous groups, is clearly alive and kicking.

Washington’s mistake has been to wage the war against terror as a conventional battle, with troops, bombs and gunfire. This would be fine if ‘terror’ were a conventional army or even a guerrilla force. It could conceivably be tackled militarily. The problem is that ‘terror’ is not an army or a guerrilla force, but an ideology. It is hatred of those oppressing Muslims (Israel, India, Russia); hatred of despotic regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia); and hatred of those supporting oppression and despotism (the United States). In the ideology of terror, targeting these governments and countries is not only legitimate; it is laudable.

Bombing Afghanistan or Iraq was never going to defeat this ideology. The notion that it would was misplaced. How could daisy cutters and cluster bombs erase the belief that what is happening in Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir is wrong? How could they refute the accusation that Washington is siding with evil against good? Using military force to tackle these widely held perceptions in the Muslim world was like using a tank to put out a raging fire — totally the wrong strategy.

And just as shells lobbed into a fire will make it burn more fiercely, what suppressive military action could (and did) do is heighten the sense of injustice and rage in the Muslim world. The innumerable images of innocent civilians killed, maimed or otherwise left destitute, ensured that — even though military victory belonged to America and its allies — the real victory for hearts and minds went to the ‘terrorists’. As Prince Hassan of Jordan eloquently pointed out on the BBC’s Hardtalk, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their ilk now have more suicide bombers lining up for missions than they know what to do with. America’s war against terror is spectacularly backfiring.

The second myth shattered in Riyadh is that Saudi nationals are not involved with Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. This was a myth perpetuated solely by the Saudi authorities. Despite the fact that Osama bin Laden was a born Saudi, that 15 of the 19 hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudis, and that Saudi businessmen and others have been generous donors to Al Qaeda, the Saudi authorities continued to insist that they did not face a problem with indigenous Islamic militancy.

In 1990, they blamed the car-bomb murder of a British national on a bootlegging dispute with other Britons — a blatant fabrication. After 9/11 they disputed FBI findings that most of those involved were Saudis. Even when they later conceded this, they refused to acknowledge the reality and magnitude of Saudi support for Al Qaeda. The bombings in Riyadh have finally forced them to come closer to the truth: Crown Prince Abdullah’s admission that ‘mistakes were made’ marks a huge shift from denial to acknowledgement on the part of the Saudi royal family.

Prince Abdullah did not go further and concede that his family’s rule is far less secure than it likes to believe. But that was the third illusion dispelled by Monday night’s bombings. Saudi society is buckling under the strain of internal and external tensions.

The secret of the House of Saud’s rule has always been its coalition with the Wahabis. The House of Saud gave the Wahabis a free rein to implement their rigid Islamic code in the kingdom; in return, the Wahabis gave religious sanction to the House of Saud. Ordinary Saudis — the only other potential source of opposition — were appeased both by the royal family’s religious credentials and by oil wealth. For years these two ‘sweeteners’ were sufficient to ensure that no questions or objections were raised to the lack of democracy and human rights in the country, or to the rulers’ profligate lifestyles.

The problem now is that the oil wealth is reaching its limits. Saudi Arabia’s population has tripled in the last three decades, while average income has fallen from $18,000 to $7,000. A large part of the oil revenue goes towards paying off the country’s $100 billion-plus debts — incurred on account of grandiose infrastructure projects, arms acquisitions (the $40 billion al-Yamama deal with Britain) and keeping several thousand princes in a life of fabulous luxury. Thanks to the chronic mismanagement by the ruling class, there is real economic hardship in the country — and real anger at the regime.

Growth in poverty has been matched by a spurt in the appeal of radical Islam. This phenomenon is not unique to Saudi Arabia: there are myriad other examples of Muslim societies turning to religion in times of hardship. The difference in Saudi Arabia is that society there was already attuned to extremism. The Wahabis used the free rein given to them by the royal family to ensure that a rigid and intolerant form of Islam was taught in Saudi schools and universities and preached in mosques. Thanks to them, Al Qaeda’s task was made much easier.

An already fertile soil, given extra nutrients through economic hardship, has been further enriched by the royal family’s long-standing alliance with the West, especially the United States. Ordinary Saudis loathe Washington: its pro-Israel Middle East policy, the stationing of US troops on Saudi soil, the sanctions imposed on Iraq, the Afghan war, ‘Saudi-bashing’ in the US after 9/11, the Iraq war — these are the reasons for common Saudis’ hatred of the US. In such an environment, it is not difficult for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to find sympathy, support and suicide bombers.

The irony in all this is that the House of Saud (as well as America) is paying the price for its alliance with the Wahabis. There is a direct link between the Saudi government’s relationship with Wahabis as a ‘coalition partner’, and the mushrooming of militant Islam in Saudi Arabia. This militant Islam targets the Saudi government as much as it targets Washington. Fatwas call for action against Washington and Israel side by side with Saudi Arabia’s pro-West rulers. For the House of Saud, the chickens have come home to roost.

To further complicate matters, religious zealotry is out of control. Years of having a free run have consolidated the zealots’ grip on Saudi society and diminished their dependence on the royal family. In this sense, the Saudi government does not have the option exercised by, among others, the Egyptian and Syrian governments: dealing with the Islamists through torture, imprisonment and other brutality. Such a move by the Saudi ruling family would be suicidal: ordinary Saudis would side with the clerics against the princes.

This internal conflict is putting the other bedrock of Saudi stability — its alliance with the US — under strain too. Washington is annoyed at Saudi involvement (albeit non-government) in anti-US terror attacks, and at what it sees as the government’s failure to curb the radicals in its society. (Some neo-cons have even suggested Riyadh get the Afghanistan and Iraq treatment.) Bush cannot dump the Saudis because the American economy needs their oil, but he is making American displeasure clear.

The only way the Saudis can appease Washington is by clamping down on Islamic militancy in the country. This means curbing terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, but it also entails freeing Saudi society of the iron grip of religious orthodoxy. In the current atmosphere of economic hardship and strong anti-West sentiment, though, that is much easier said than done.

Which leaves the House of Saud with a problem: should it mollify Washington or should it appease its own people? The former makes it vulnerable to popular Islamist militancy (not to mention more attacks like those of Monday); the latter puts it in George Bush’s ‘nations against us’ category — definitely not a comfortable place to be in these days. Both courses are fraught with risk but — thanks to the Riyadh bombings — it has to now choose between them. The days when the House of Saud could keep both domestic and international allies satisfied are over.

As for the Americans, their dilemma might not be as immediate as that facing the Saudi government, but its potential consequences are infinitely more serious.

The House of Saud risks losing its privileged position. Should the Bush administration fail to heed the wake-up call from Riyadh, should it persist in trying to crush the ideology of terror by force, it risks inciting acts of carnage far worse than that of 9/11.

The promise of better times

VISIONS of plenty and promises of prosperity, at least sectoral, have been held forth before the Pakistani public almost the whole last week. The three-day meeting of the Pakistan Development Forum in which top policy-makers of Pakistan and senior officials of the donors annually review the economic problems of Pakistan and their possible solutions, provided the occasion for such felicitous utterances.

At a time when large new industrial investments are scarce, though that is the desperate need of the times, it was stated at the meeting that private investors would invest two billion dollars on the renovation and expansion of the textile industry within three years under the Textile Vision 2005. Such investment is essential, particularly in the textile sector,for its expansion before the textile quota system expires by the end of 2004 and there is a global free-for-all in the textile trade from 2005. Pakistan will face tough challenges then, and it has to prepare itself right from now with the latest equipment in the textile technology.

Meanwhile, industrial output as a whole in the country during the first ten months of this year ending April 30, has increased by 10.2 per cent after a very long time. And the deletion and indigenisation policy has saved the country a record 700 million dollars in foreign exchange and import substitution of 1,2250 million dollars has been effected. Further support for indigenisation is being given through the small and medium scale industries. That this should happen at a time when the demand for cars is increasing greatly is indeed, very welcome. Increased indigenisation not only saves foreign exchange but also provides employment to a large number of Pakistanis through the development of ancillary industries.

It is proper that such new developments in industry should be supported by a new export package which is to be announced next week by the Prime Minister Zafarallah Jamali. At a time when exports are becoming more important and the country has shown that through the right incentives it can export more and more, the government should come to the help of the exporters in every possible way.

These developments are taking place in Pakistan at a time when Japan has gone deeper into the grip of deflation, with prices coming down to a record 3.5 per cent in a year, and the US is hovering on the border of deflation after several years of recession. If prices do come down internationally, particularly in countries like the US and Japan, Pakistan has to be ready to sell its goods at cheaper prices. The US dollar, for example, has gone down against the Euro by 9 per cent since the beginning to this year and Pakistan’s export strategy to such countries has to take such factors into account and sell its goods cheaper.

Meanwhile the Karachi Stock Exchange continues to be upbeat and it remains the best performing stock exchange in the world now. Its index has crossed 3,000 for the first time, and touched 3,010, making it an attractive exchange for buyers and sellers.

One of the reasons for the record rise in the index is the high dividend declared by a large number of companies listed on the Exchange. That also means far larger tax revenues for the government from the 10 per cent tax on dividends plus Zakat. So there is more money to be spent on poverty reduction as well.

The import duty revenues have also gone up. While the exports have increased by 21 per cent, imports have increased by 34 per cent, which means higher import revenues to that extent.

Higher industrial production to the extent of 10.2 per cent also means higher revenues for the government as industry pays a large variety of taxes, in fact it is the single largest source for paying taxes. Hence the official revenues should be far more than the targeted Rs 466 billion for the current year. And that means a larger tax-base to build on for next year’s revenue target.

Gwadar is the gateway to prosperity not only for Pakistan but also for the Central Asian countries and the SAARC states, says Shaukat Aziz. He is of course, counting without Chabahar in Iran which is providing direct access to Central Asia without the interruption of the troubled Afghanistan. Chabahar does not have the tribal disputes and explosions of Balochistan whose people now fear that outsiders may soon take over the area and benefit by that more.

Meanwhile the investors are pleased to note the interest rates in the country have come down. The last set of treasury bills went with an interest rate of 2.6 per cent.

But the people are distressed to note that while the official rate of inflation for the first ten months of this year is 3.6 per cent, the average rate of interest on savings is only 3 per cent. And that makes the savers losers. They however welcome the fourth reduction in the price of petrol and other oils after several months of steep climbing of oil prices.

Some of the assurances of better days to come would have sounded better or more credible if the country was not suffering from frequent power break-downs, and Karachi did not have the worst of it. Along with that is the shortage of water and its misuse or mismanagements.

Meanwhile there is speculation about the budget to come next month. It is expected to be good for investors as it would have its allocation doubled, says Dr Ataur Rahman. There may not be much for the common man. At best there may be more for poverty reduction to the extent of Rs 20 billion more or Rs 181 billion and tax holidays are to go.

More foreign aid will be available as the donors are appreciative of what the military government has done and have noted the fact the same official team is continuing in office, most of whose members had come from abroad. Their World Bank and Citibank connections are excellent credentials for them and they have worked well with President Pervez Musharraf and other generals.

Meanwhile external assistance to Pakistan is to increase. The Asian Development Bank representative in Pakistan says Pakistan will this year receive 1.1 billion dollars which is more than the more populous India or China will receive. He is deeply appreciative of the earnestness of the government in implementing the economic reforms. The international Finance Corporation, the free enterprise arm of the World Bank, is to invest 100 million dollars in 2003 in Pakistan. Whether that means the 9.25 million dollars now committed for the Pakistan International Container Terminal Ltd of Haleem Siddiqui is not obvious.

The Islamic Development Bank has committed 100 million dollars for the road from Gwadar connecting it to Central Asia. It has also agreed to co-finance major hydel power schemes in Pakistan.

And the World Bank, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Foundation and Rotary International have come up with an interest-free loan of 20 million dollars to eliminate polio in Pakistan by the year 2005. The campaign to stamp out polio has largely been successful in Pakistan and it is hoped the additional aid will help eliminate it for good.

The promises of the government and donors are varied and alluring. The question is whether the people will see the results in a positive manner. If the government does not perform its part of the deal the donors may not come up with their part of the funds, and completion of the projects may be delayed excessively.

So the ADB says what matter is not only the decision making at the Centre and issuing directives, but also equipping the provincial and district governments with the necessary funds and authority. The ADB is moving in that direction decisively. Instead if the Centre, provinces and the district governments are working at cross-purposes, they should work together, if they want to produce positive results.

The political tussle in the country is not helpful for such integrated or co-ordinated moves. If the National Assembly and Senate are paralysed, and the president of the country and the Parliament are at loggerheads their disputes will filter down to the provinces and the districts and impair the efficacy of the government and its various organs.

On one side we have a country with 40 per cent of the people living below the poverty line and on the other side the generals and the political leaders have not been able to resolve their differences seven months after the elections following three years of military rule.

Despite all that, the donors led by the World Bank believe that poverty reduction should receive far more attention in the country and far more funds. Vice-president of the Bank Meiko Nishminzu says poverty in Pakistan is simply not a development issues but “an issue of national security.” A country which lost its more populous half 24 years after its birth as the fifth largest state in the world cannot take such warnings lightly.

She strongly urged good governance and having more power by giving away power. But there are few takers for her advice.

Look at the mini-bombing of 22 foreign controlled petrol pumps in the city last week. That was attributed to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is supposed to have struck in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Where will they strike next, and how, as the scale of their strikes is very large?

In such a context we have to create an environment which reduces tensions, solves problems and settles disputes. And ensures good governance. The needs of the poor will have to be met, particularly for water and power instead of letting the rich buy whatever they want or lease the same facility.

Promising a better day tomorrow or in the distant future will not do. Instead the problems have to be solved as quickly as possible and irritants to be removed. Good governance should not remain a slogan or a simple goal but should become a reality, and it has to be improved with the passage of time. Rule of law is the centrepiece of good governance and that has to become universal and not remain something purchasable only by the rich or commanded by the ruling class. So as we promise better tomorrow for the people let us try to make today a little less oppressive. Otherwise the people will take the law into their own hands, become assertive and prevail chaotically.

Old Europe, new Europe

BUSH administration officials have been touring the continent this mmonth, blasting and threatening nations like France, Germany and Turkey that opposed the Iraq war, or dishing out great wads of cash to countries at Europe’s unfashionable eastern end that supported the Anglo-American invasion.

The threadbare rent-a-nations of East Europe, notably Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, were quick to jump on Bush’s invade Iraq bandwagon, offering Washington their services in exchange for hundreds of millions in aid, loans, cheap arms, and political support. They were also showing deep gratitude for America’s lifting of Russia’s yoke over East Europe.

Poland contributed 200 soldiers to the invasion force, for which they got a cool $90 million and their very own occupation zone in Iraq’s north, thus aiding Washington’s pretence that conquered Iraq was somehow akin to four-power occupied Germany at the end of World War II. All that lacked was a remake of the wonderful film, ‘The Third Man,’ with Harry Lime running watered-down drugs from Baghdad instead of divided Berlin.

Bulgaria, formerly Moscow’s most faithful European satellite, whose intelligence goons used to handle ‘wet affairs’ (assassinations) for KGB, quickly offered its mobile loyalties to Washington. So, too, bankrupt Romania and wretched little Albania.

No one in the Bush administration seemed in the least abashed that its new best friends in Europe were nations that are run by old communist politicians and secret policemen, direct heirs of history’s most murderous political movement. These apparatchiks in Hugo Boss suits who used to worship Lenin are now, as the old Trinidad calypso song goes, ‘working for the Yankee dollar.’

Speaking of rewards, remember the White House’s vow ‘Iraq’s oil belongs to the people of Iraq?’ Well, it now turns out that buried in the fine print of an ‘emergency,’ untendered US government contract authorizing Vice-President Dick Cheney’s old firm, oil giant Halliburton, to fight potential Iraqi well fires, was “operation of facilities and distribution of products” — pumping and selling Iraq’s oil, a deal estimated to be worth at least $7 billion over the next two years. The spirit of Enron lives. No wonder ‘liberating’ Iraq’s oilfields was the priority of US invasion forces. To America’s shame, it deployed troops aplenty to secure oil wells, but not even a squad of GIs to prevent the looting of some of mankind’s most precious historical artefacts from Baghdad’s museums.

Meanwhile, intriguing events are afoot in ‘Old Europe.’ In response to the Bush administration’s crude threats of retaliation against anti-war nations, Germany’s Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, called for Europe’s ‘emancipation’ in its relationship with the United States, a choice of term pointedly aimed at recalling the 19th century freeing of America’s slaves.

France, which is now regarded as the Babylon of evil by the Bush White House and its southernfried evangelical supporters, heartily seconded Schroeder’s statement. This was clearly a call to arms to Europeans to accelerate the process of gaining independence from a half century of American geopolitical domination.

The most important step in cutting Washington’s apron strings is the much-discussed creation of a unified European military force. A strong majority of Western Europeans do not wish their nation’s armed forces to serve in Nato as auxiliaries to American troops in upcoming neo-colonial wars, or to garrison Third World nations, like Afghanistan or Iraq, conquered by the US, as Washington has been urging.

Europeans want no part of the Bush administration’s crusade against Muslim nations, which they regard as non-threatening and good export markets. France, Germany and Belgium, while friendly to Israel, share the view that extremist friends of Greater Israel have taken control of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and are wielding it for the benefit of Israel, and to the detriment of the United States and Europe.

Bush’s national security adviser Condoleeza Rice accused France of trying to take Nato ‘hostage’ by refusing, before Gulf War II, to send troops to Turkey. This takes some nerve, considering the US has long treated Nato as a junior partner, much as the Soviets regarded the old Warsaw Pact. Europe’s interests in the Mideast, Africa and West Asia are often different from America’s and will diverge ever more as time goes by and Europe almost inevitably emerges as a political, economic — and perhaps one day military — rival to the US.

Thank George W. Bush for accelerating this trend by enraging 90 per cent of Europeans (excluding Brits) by his conquest of Iraq, insulting their governments, the faux ‘war on terrorism,’ trying to split Europe and impede its unification, his unilateralism, and treating Europe with disdain and blistering arrogance.

Anti-American fever across the western part of the continent is running rampant. It may subside, but there’s a good chance the seeds of Euro-American geopolitical rivalry have been planted, or at least watered, by the Bush administration’s clumsy, churlish behaviour towards its oldest allies. To many Europeans, the way the White House and parts of the US media have whipped many Americans into a frenzy of fear, hysteria, and war fever conjures evil memories from their own recent history they prefer to forget.—Copyright Eric S. Margolis, 2003.

Freedom of speech

THE Constitution guarantees everyone the right to freedom of speech and the government a right to keep everything you say in a database.

For example, the federal marshals at the airports have a list of protesters. It is called the “No Fly” list and has been very helpful in finding people who are against the war in Iraq. (I did not make this up.)

Obviously, the list is quite useful in tracking down opponents of President Bush.

George Mayberry, a federal marshal at Reagan Airport said, as he made me take off my shoes, “The No Fly list is the only way we can tell who the protesters are.”

“I’m not a protester,” I said, as he searched my shoes with a wand. “I think President Bush is the greatest president we’ve ever had.”

“Your name is on the list.”

“That’s another Buchwald,” I protested. “He is a known agitator and they always mix up our names.”

Mayberry said, “Stick out your arms. Have you ever used free speech to advocate overthrowing the government?”

“Never,” I said. “Not even when I went to dinner in Georgetown.”

“If you were a card-carrying protester, could you give us the names of other protesters?”

I said, “I don’t know anybody. Ask Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell or Richard Perle. They make me proud to be an American.”

Mayberry asked, “What have you got in your pocket?”

“A photo of Vice President Cheney. I always carry it next to my heart. Can I go now so I won’t miss my plane?”

“We’re not finished with you yet. Stand over there with the other No Fly suspects.”

I went over to the area assigned to the outspoken protesters.

Martin Sheen said, “I think Bush and his war plans are a disgrace.”

Susan Sarandon said, “I have a right to say anything I want to, even if my mother doesn’t agree with me.”

Tim Robbins said, “I have to get back to a peace rally in San Francisco.”

A man who looked like an FBI agent was videotaping all of us.

The Dixie Chicks sang, “Ain’t going to go to war no more.”

I felt terrible to be put in the same class with peacenik movie stars and singers.

“What about you?” Mike Farrell asked. “What are you in for?”

I replied, “I can go either way. I don’t think we should bomb innocent people, but if that is what it takes to conquer another country, I say do it.”

I could see looks of disappointment in the No Fly faces, so I tried to say something positive. “Of course I am for freedom of speech. On the other hand, we must have time to find weapons of mass destruction before we start charging the White House with not doing the right thing.”

My remarks didn’t fly. Sheen said, “Why won’t they let us get on the plane?”

I said, “Because even if you are in show business you could still be a terrorist.”

Sarandon cried, “I am an actress, not a terrorist.”

I said, “These are difficult times. Americans have to put up with a lot. Removing your shoes and missing your plane is a small price to pay to guarantee every citizen his freedom of speech.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Terror in Okara

ON May 11, 2003, Amer Ali, a 60-year old peasant of Chak 4-L of Okara district made his last good-neighbourly visit to the adjoining village, Chak 5-L. As the old man hobbled out of his hosts’ house to see what was going on, he was cut down by a hail of bullets.

Amir Ali was the seventh to have died in recent months in the bitter struggle between the peasants of Okara and the Rangers, now into its third year. Coincidentally, just hours earlier, a group of journalists from the Urdu press and concerned citizens, including myself, had set out from Islamabad on a fact-finding mission.

As I stood by the blood-spattered earth next to a wall pock-marked with bullets, grim-faced villagers indicated to me the field from where they said the Rangers had ceaselessly machine-gunned the village for over an hour.

A tour around Chak 5-L followed. It is a fairly typical village with visible signs of poverty — mud covered huts, open drains, bare-footed children, and scrawny chickens. Branches of trees felled in the shooting lay all around. Many houses, as well as the village mosque, had bricks broken or chipped by the impact of heavy bullets. They are there for the next visitors to village 5-L to see — but only if they can successfully navigate through the siege imposed on the 70 odd villages in the area.

Roadblocks are everywhere, manned by soldiers with automatic weapons as well the lighter-armed police. Four-wheelers with mounted machine guns prowl menacingly on the dirt roads next to the irrigation canals, raising huge clouds of dust as they move between villages. For all practical purposes, the nearly one million people of Okara are under military occupation.

Why are they doing this? I asked one villager from the crowd that was now swarming around me. “They want to put us on contract to make us pay rent to them, take away our rights to the land, and then throw us out”, he replied, “but this land is ours because our forefathers have tilled it and we have nowhere else to go.”

And then, as if the floodgates had broken, villagers came to show us wounds on their bodies, some now turning septic. One, who led me aside, broke down sobbing and told a tale that cannot be related here for reasons of propriety. A visit to the neighbouring village, Chak 4-L, showed the situation there to be virtually identical. Broken limbs, hollow faces, sunken eyes, and marks of beatings were in abundant evidence there too.

Appalled by what we had seen, we felt it absolutely necessary to see the point of view of those in authority and therefore drove to the Okara Rangers headquarters, at whose entrance we were stopped by heavily armed guards. After some hesitation they conveyed by telephone our request to meet Colonel Saleem, the head of the Rangers in Okara.

Permission was eventually granted and we drove into the huge complex, spread over many acres, containing residences and offices. The beautifully manicured lawns and flower-beds, gravelled paths, and ornate structures from colonial times stood in stark contrast with the brick and mud hovels we had just left behind.

We were received by all who matter in the Okara administration. Apart from Colonel Saleem, we met Major Tahir Malik who looks after the military aspects and is greatly feared by the villagers, the senior superintendent of police, and the district commissioner. Each had a closely similar point of view to the other. They spoke good English, the meeting was civil and polite, and we were offered tea and sandwiches. But there was to be no meeting of minds.

In response to my question of who killed Amir Ali, the administration officials said that he had been caught in the crossfire between Sindhis and Machis, two groups at loggerheads over some local dispute. However, my offer to transport Amir Ali’s decaying corpse, which at the moment was lying in his relatives house in Chak 5-L, to Islamabad for a post-mortem was summarily dismissed.

And where did the torture marks on the bodies of so many villagers come from, of which we now have photographic proof? The answer given was that these had been self-inflicted with the intent of defaming the authorities, or else they were wounds inflicted by one group on the other.

Finding the answers to be less than satisfactory, we sought permission to return to Chak 5-L. After some hesitation this was granted. Negotiating through the roadblocks required further delays, as each confirmed by radio whether we were indeed permitted to visit the village.

In my conversations with the soldiers manning the positions, I learned that they too were disturbed about what they were being asked to do to the Okara villagers but had no real choice. On eventually reaching the village, we conveyed to the villagers what the authorities claimed as the cause of Amir Ali’s death. They laughed bitterly and said that there were no Sindhis or Machis in Chak 5-L, much less a fight between them.

The siege of Okara is a blot on Pakistan’s collective conscience and must be lifted immediately and unconditionally. Further, the incidents of torture and beatings that have occurred there over the last three years should be immediately investigated at the highest level and the guilty punished.

We cannot plausibly demand that India end the military occupation of Kashmir while employing similar brutal means and tactics at home. Pakistan cannot bear the shock of nearly a million of its own people being dispossessed of the lands they have tilled for over a century. Peasants have no political agenda — land is about livelihood and physical survival. To evict them would be cruel and unjust, and certainly was not what Pakistan was made for. President Musharraf must move quickly to see that this outrage is no more.

The writer teaches physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.