Enemies of Malala

Jalees Hazir

Any attempt to take a closer look at the campaign around Malala is enough to qualify you as a Malala-hater and an apologist for terrorists. This simplistic ‘either-you-are-with-Malala-or-against-her’ formulation makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion on the subject. What if I’m with Malala but against her exploitation by the international establishment?

It would take a crooked soul to hate the bright and courageous schoolgirl from Swat who refused to bow down to the tyranny of militants blowing up schools and murdering innocent people in her area, and kept the flame of education alive among the girls in her neighbourhood. And it would take an even more crooked soul to apologise for those who attacked her and for the militants who kill innocent citizens and blow up schools in the name of Islam.

Even the religious leaders who are otherwise soft on militants cannot bring themselves to say anything against Malala or justify the attack on her. So why should we allow the utterances of a lunatic fringe, that vilifies the person of Malala and threatens to attack her again, to define the contours of this important discussion? It only serves to deflect attention from the real issues at hand and the hypocrisy of those promoting her as a brand for their foul motives. Can we talk about the story of Malala’s ascent as a celebrity without any reference to the context in which it takes place? I don’t think so.

Isn’t it a bit more than just strange that the entire international establishment has been so moved by the misfortune of a schoolgirl from Pakistan that they have virtually adopted her? The same international establishment, complete with Gordon Browns and Obamas, the EU and the World Bank, the mainstream western media and glamorous celebrities, does not bat an eyelid as it lords over the murder and displacement of thousands upon thousands of school-going girls and boys around the world.

In her meeting with Obama, Malala asked him to stop the drones that have killed a large number of innocent children, women, old people and non-combatants, killings that he personally authorises every Tuesday. Perhaps she should have also asked him to stop arming, aiding, training and abetting the militant groups (very much like the militants who shot her) that are killing and displacing children like her in Syria. But then she is just 16. One hopes that with time she would come to understand that those honouring her with awards and accolades for standing up to tyranny are the biggest tyrants on the face of this earth today.

Obviously she doesn’t know that those applauding her courage preside over a barbaric imperialist machine that has spawned the very forces that blew up her school and tried to kill her, that even today these leaders mouthing platitudes about peace are busy creating these violent monsters and unleashing them on hapless populations in countries that resist their imperial ambitions. She obviously doesn’t know that those fawning over her in interviews and splashing her on their magazine covers are complicit in these unforgivable crimes against humanity, covering up the muck of their governments and inventing enemies that don’t exist. With her hypocritical newfound mentors cultivating her with a missionary zeal, the danger is that she might never know their dark side that they keep hidden behind their high offices and deceptive rhetoric, their expensive suits and plastic smiles. The danger is that her inspiring example would be co-opted in the narrative of the empire, her truth used to fuel falsehood.

It has been reported that Edelman, a top PR firm that counts Microsoft and Starbucks as its clients, is managing Malala and some of the top names in the field are working on the campaign that is clearly designed to fit into the narrative of the empire; a narrative that justifies the barbaric atrocities committed by the imperialist machine in the name of humanitarian intervention. Malala is being projected not as a victim of the agents of violence sponsored by the imperialist machine and its Middle Eastern proxies that she is, but as a victim of a ‘barbaric Pakistani society’ where schoolgirls who wish to continue their education are shot; a perfect justification for the white knights in shining armours to intervene militarily and save millions of Pakistani girls who, if we were to believe the campaign, are shot down for wishing to go to school.

For the US and its rich imperialist allies, manipulating perceptions of citizens in their countries is not something new. Emotions are whipped up, insecurities unleashed, entire civilisations demonised, events staged and stories cooked up to attack poor countries. It would be silly to think that the hype being created around the story of Malala by the same machine that brought you blockbusters like Saddam Hussain’s weapons of mass destruction and the use of Sarin gas by the Assad regime, Iran’s nuclear program and Gaddafi’s biological arsenal, is guided by any real feeling for the bravery and determination of a Pakistani schoolgirl. Is it just a coincidence that everyone from Madonna to Angelina Jolie, Beckham and Brown, Obama and the Queen of England, the EU and the UN, the World Bank and the IMF, the powerful players of the imperial tragedy now showing all over the globe have discovered Malala as if on cue?

Friends rooting for the Nobel peace prize for Malala were disappointed that she didn’t win it. They didn’t stop to question the credibility of a prize that has been exposed as a tool in the hands of the same imperial machine, aimed at feeding the false narrative of the empire and influencing individuals and events in a manner that suits the rich and the powerful. The fact that Malala didn’t win it actually goes in her favour. It indicates that those entrusted with the task to manage her haven’t been able to cultivate her to the extent that she starts mouthing whatever they tell her. May God give her the strength to stay safe from their evil machinations!

The writer is a freelance columnist.

This article was first published in 'The Nation' newspaper on 14 October 2013.

List of Pakistani children killed by US drone strikes

Would the world have known Malala Yousafzai's name had she been killed by a US drone strike? Chances are, probably not.

A total of 3,613 people have been reportedly killed in 376 US drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. Every drone strike is authorized by the US President and carried out by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

A study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes is “significantly and consistently underestimated" and that as many as 98% of those killed by drone strikes are civilians.

Below is an incomplete, and growing, list of known Pakistani children killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan. The list is organized age-wise in ascending order.

Name | Age | Gender

Ayesha | 3 | female
Sohail | 7 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Noor Muhammad | 8 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Talha | 8 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
Khalilullah | 9 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Muhammad Salim | 11 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Hayatullah Khan Mohammad | 16 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Muhammad Tahir | 16 | male
Muhammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Muhammad Yunus | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Rahatullah | 17 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Naeem Khan | ? | male
Naeemullah | ? | male
Nasir Khan | ? | male

The Pakistani Judiciary's Anti-Terrorism Failings

"It’s not terrorism until the explosives blow up."

So said an anti-terrorism judge in Quetta while releasing a terrorist on bail who had been arrested by the Frontier Corps with over 70 kilogrammes of explosives in Pakistan's Balochistan province.

An honest, competent and independent judiciary is in Pakistan's interests. However, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. When it comes to rising crime, lawlessness and terrorism in Pakistan, the Pakistani legal system, especially the Pakistani judiciary, unfortunately, is part of the problem. Every fruit tree is judged by the fruit it yields. Needless to say, the fruit yielded by the Pakistani judicial system is for all to see.

At a time, when countries and legal systems across the world are further empowering and increasing the capaciy of their intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the Pakistani judiciary is engaged in undermining and limiting the power of Pakistan's intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, who are fighting crime, lawlessness and terrorism with one hand behind their backs (held by the Pakistani judiciary, and particularly the Pakistan Supreme Court). Today, things have come to such a pass that prior to undertaking any intelligence or law-enforcement operation, Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement agencies have to worry about being summoned before the superior judiciary, being insulted and grilled, even arrested and prosecuted, and having their actions overturned. This not only lowers their morale but, more importantly, reduces their effectiveness.

Recently, the Supreme Court ordered the Frontier Corps to be withdrawn from a previously lawless area in Balochistan, which the FC had pacified, on the grounds that the civil administration should deal with the improved law and order situation there. Result: the FC withdrew but instead of the civil administration, criminal gangs, banned outfits and terrorist groups stepped into the vacuum resulting in a rapid escalation of crime, lawlessness and terrorism. This example shows an utter lack of appreciation of the ground realities by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis security matters. Civil government in Balochistan is either non-existent, corrupt or inept. The Supreme Court should have known this, but didn't. In law, ignorance of facts is as unacceptable and dangerous as ignorance of the law.

The irony is that while the Supreme Court is busy ordering the withdrawal of security forces from the restive areas of Balochistan, the inhabitants are increasingly demanding Army rule, which is generally perceived to bring with it greater peace, stability and economic prosperity.

At one time there were nearly 100 Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) terrorists in Quetta's jails. The LeJ is notorious for targetting the minority Shia Hazara community in and around Quetta. Yet not a single one was convicted. One by one, they were released by the courts due to lack of evidence.

Two factors contribute towards the Pakistani judiciary's failure to control crime, lawlessness and terrorism: (i) flaws in the Pakistani judiciary's attitude; and (ii) flaws in the Pakistani legal system.

I. Flaws in the Pakistani Judiciary's Attitude

Firstly, the problem lies in the Pakistani judiciary's inherent hostility and cavelier attitude towards law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In order to prove their judicial credentials, or compensate for lack thereof, the Pakistani judiciary overcompensates by being aggressive towards the law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This is also due perhaps to the Pakistani judiciary's underlying sense of collective guilt for, generally, failing to deliver justice to the people of Pakistan for over 65 years. When justice is delivered, it is often too little too late, reminding one of the old adage: "justice delayed is justice denied."

Hostility towards Pakistan's intelligence agencies, armed forces and law enforcement agencies has been a particular hallmark of the hyperactive and suo moto-wielding Supreme Court of Pakistan under Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. A case in point is the Missing Persons' case. Under Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, due process is the fundamental right of every Pakistani citizen and person for the time being in Pakistan. No government agency has the right to arrest and detain any person without due process. No one has the right to kill another unless in execution of a death sentence imposed by a court of law.

However, the State and law enforcement agencies do have the legal right to kill in self-defence. They do have the legal right to kill when under attack. They do have the legal right to kill when war is being waged on them, on the Pakistani people and the Pakistani State.

Every murder or death in Balochistan cannot be blamed on law enforcement agencies, which the Supreme Court seems to be doing. Balochistan is a tribal society where tribal vendettas are common. People were being murdered in tribal vendettas in Balochistan before Balochistan even became part of Pakistan. Are we to believe, as perhaps the Supreme Court believes, that all tribal vendettas and murders have come to a halt in Balochistan after the creation of Pakistan?

Also, foreign-backed terrorists organizations like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Republican Army (BRA), founded by the KGB in the 1980s and now being funded and supported by Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies (and some claim even the CIA), are carrying out ethnic-cleansing and terrorism through targetted killing of non-Baloch and pro-Pakistani Baloch people in Balochistan. Even those killed and dumped by the BLA or BRA are blamed on the intelligence agencies. In such circumstances, where foreign powers are engaged in a murderous and bloody great game in this region, for the Pakistan Supreme Court and judiciary to blame Pakistan's own intelligence and law enforcement agencies for every death in Balochistan is highly irresponsible, reckless and dangerous. The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is Pakistan's first line of defence, albeit an invisible one. Yet the ISI has become the favourite punching bag of the Supreme Court. There have been occasions when statements coming from the Supreme Court could have been been mistaken for those coming from the Indian Foreign Ministry. No other apex court in the world interferes with and undermines national security in the manner that the Supreme Court is doing. Never in US history has any CIA official been summoned by the United States Supreme Court. Under the Supreme Court, however, summoning of ISI officials is a common occurrence. This is also dangerous because it reveals the identity of ISI officials, which ought to be held secret. In 2011, the US withdrew its CIA Station Chief in Pakistan when his identity was revealed in a case filed in the Pakistani courts.

A glaring example of the Chief Justice exceeding his constitutional authority and limits occurred on 5 November 2012 when, speaking to the National Management Course in Islamabad, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said that the Supreme Court possessed “absolute authority” concerning matters of national interest, adding the concepts of national security and stability had changed as arsenal strength could not assure it anymore. The CJP when on to add, "Gone are the days when stability and security of the country was defined in terms of number of missiles, tanks and armory as a manifestation of hard power available at the disposal of the state.”

In other words, the Supreme Court was assuming for itself the role of the ultimate arbiter of Pakistan's national security. This statement by the Chief Justice was unconstitutional, being contrary to the scheme of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, under which the constitutional role of the Supreme Court is limited to that of interpreter of the Constitution and ultimate adjudicator of disputes, and not the ultimate authority on national security. The Pakistani Constitution does not envisage nor confer upon the Supreme Court the responsibility for Pakistan's defence and national security. Indeed, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not figure anywhere in matters of defence and national security. Only three institutions should collectively determine national security: (i) Parliament; (ii) the Federal Government; and (iii) the Armed Forces.

What then to make of this statement by the Chief Justice? Firstly, the Hon'ble Chief Justice seems to have forgotten a key judicial norm that judges do not speak other than through their judgments. The CJP and all judges should refrain from making speeches and public appearances. To do so is against judicial norms. Under the Supreme Court, an alarming new trend is the issuance of press releases by the Pakistan Supreme Court. Why is there a need for the Supreme Court to issue press releases? The only thing a court should release, indeed be allowed to release, are judgments.

Earlier on the same day, in a speech to army officers at General Headquarters, Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani had stated: “No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest.” Referring to off-the-cuff remarks made by Supreme Court judges from the bench during the trial of cases, Kayani stated: "As we all are striving for the rule of law, the fundamental principle that no one is guilty until proven, should not be forgotten,” he said. "Let us not prejudge anyone, be it a civilian or a military person and extend it, unnecessarily, to undermine respective institutions." Kayani added that "any effort which wittingly or unwittingly draws a wedge between the people and Armed Forces of Pakistan undermines the larger national interest."

Kayani's remarks were clearly a well-deserved rebuke to the Supreme Court by the Army Chief. However, it was not just the Army that felt that the Supreme Court was exceeding its constitutional jurisdiction. In an article titled "Courting Trouble", the renowned and widely respected Pakistani journalist, Syed Talat Hussain, rightly observed:

"The Supreme Court of Pakistan seems to be tying itself in knots. Some recent developments suggest that the learned judges’ exuberance is creating legal, political and administrative complexities to which even their collective wisdom might not provide workable solutions."

He went on to observe that the Supreme Court's handling of the situation in Balochistan appears "to have raised fundamental questions about the implications of the judiciary’s handling of sensitive challenges."

The Missing Persons' case is a prime example of the Supreme Court engaging in reckless popular grandstanding and playing to the public gallery at the expense of national security and, indeed, justice. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's unbridled and excessive exercise of suo moto powers, particularly vis-a-vis interference in executive authority and law enforcement functions is tantamount to an abuse of process and authority as well as judicial misconduct.

II. Flaws in the Pakistani Legal System

Pakistan's legal system, particularly its criminal justice system, is based, by and large, on the British colonial legal system, which itself was based on the English legal system. On paper, Pakistan has one of the world's most sophisticated legal systems. Over the years, Pakistan has attempted to improve an already sophisticated legal system by cutting and pasting laws from developed Western countries.

(i) Corruption and inefficiency

Like parliamentary democracy, which requires a literate population to function successfully, a sophisticated legal system requires a sophisticated administration to deliver. For example, Pakistan's evidentiary laws presume an effective, competent and honest police investigation, evidence-gathering and prosecution system. Tinker with this presumption and the system fails to deliver. Pakistan lacks an effective and honest police force and has a flawed evidence-gathering and forensics system and a weak prosecution. All this results in a general failure to prosecute terrorists successfully.

(ii) Weak laws

Also limiting anti-terrorism investigators is the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Qanoon-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) Order, 1984 that make police testimony inadmissible, and in the absence of other witnesses, any case against terrorists collapses. This law fails to take into account that when law enforcement agencies raid a terrorist hideout, the only witnesses are the law enforcement personnel.

Pakistan's anti-terrorism laws are weak and its anti-terrorist courts operate like mainstream courts, applying the same standards of evidence that ordinary courts apply. This defeats the very purpose of setting up anti-terrorism courts.

The Pakistani legal system's failure in identifying and bringing terrorists to justice boosts the morale of terrorists.

A judge cannot escape responsibility, indeed, culpability if he unleashes a murderer of innocents onto civil society who then goes on to kill innocents again. Unfortunately, this is a daily occurence in Pakistan's flawed judicial system, where criminals and terrorists are being unleashed upon society because the judge didn't seem to think that the prosecution had proved its case.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan would do well to heed the voices of the Shia Hazaras rising from the Quetta Valley and the Pakhtuns rising from the valleys of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. They are demanind a state institution to step in and rescue them from their lawless environments and it's not the Pakistani judiciary they're calling.

Postscript: After the above article was published, Dawn newspaper, in its 19 October 2013 edition, reported that 722 suspects rejoined terrorist groups after acquittal.