Introduction
On October 7, 2009, the Pakistani military took an extraordinary step by expressing publicly its "serious concern" over the civilian government's approval of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, a U.S. aid program for Pakistan approved by Congress. The military fears that its role will be curtailed if the bill comes into effect. The debate, emerging out of the military's concern, also reflects the complex nature of thePakistani national interest.
Broadly speaking, the military's intervention on a matter of government policy has revealed concerns regarding: a) the Pakistan Army's near-absolute control of power; b) strain in military-government ties and the future of democracy in Pakistan; c) opposition parties' view of a "strategic sell-out" to the U.S.; d) Pakistani envoy to U.S. Husain Haqqani's alleged role, or lack of it, in shaping the Kerry-Lugar Bill; e) Pakistan-U.S. relations and Pakistan's role in defeating jihadists in Afghanistan-Pakistan border region; and e) the nature of the Pakistani national interest.
1. The Pakistan Army's Control of Power
Between July 2008 and October 2009, the Pakistan Army has acted twice in a way that has sought to publicly undercut the authority of the democratically elected government headed by President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
First, in July 2008, the Gilani government issued a notification placing the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) under the interior ministry's control. The move to bring the country's military-led spy agencies under civilian government's control was rebuffed within six hours, even as the Pakistani prime minister was in the midst of a visit to Washington DC. According to a Pakistani daily of July 28, 2008, "the military leadership stood up and managed to reverse the government's decision soon after the notification was issued." [1]
Second, the long-persisting view in Pakistan that the army exercises near-absolute control on civilian state institutions was demonstrated again on October 7, 2009, when the military leadership took the unusual step of issuing a press statement, expressing "serious concern" over the clauses regarding Pakistan's national security in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. [2]
The Kerry-Lugar Bill, No. S.1707 - Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, seeks to triple American aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for next five years. Under its Section 201 (4), the bill also aims to curtail the Pakistan Army's role in politics by promoting "control of military institutions by a democratically elected civilian government." [3] In the eyes of its critics, the bill's provisions regarding the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies are controversial, including references to military-backed militant organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The bill is also seen as a prelude to the expansion of Pakistani military operation outside the tribal region to Baluchistan and Punjab provinces. Under various sub-sections of the Section 203 of the bill, aid to Pakistan is conditional upon the U.S. Secretary of State certifying that:
a) Pakistan is taking steps "to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials";"
b) Pakistan "has demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups";
c) the extent to which Pakistan has made efforts on "ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighboring countries"; and
d) Pakistan's progress in "preventing Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, closing terrorist camps in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas along Afghan border], dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta [capital of Baluchistan province] and Muridke [near Lahore in Punjab province]." [4]
The military's statement over the proposed U.S. legislation was seen as a rebuff to the civilian government of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani, both of Pakistan People's Party (PPP). The statement issued by the military's Inter-Services Public Relations department noted that Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen. Ashfaq Kayani expressed his concerns in an address to the October 7, 2009 Conference of Corps Commanders. It added: "The COAS, in his opening remarks, [expanded] upon various issues related to national security and impending challenges faced by the country. The COAS reiterated that Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyze and respond to the threat in accordance with her own national interests. The Kerry-Lugar Bill also came under discussion during the conference. The forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security. A formal input is being provided to the government." [5]
2. The Future of the Democratic Government
The present government of Prime Minister Gilani came to power after the Pakistan People's Party emerged victorious in the February 2008 polls. The elections were seen to have put Pakistan on a long, fragile path of transition to democracy after eight years of military rule. However, the Pakistani military's extraordinary criticism of the Kerry-Lugar Bill has now raised questions over the survival of elected leaders in power. The army's move to provide "formal input" to the government is seen in public eyes as an extra-constitutional step, potentially leading to a coup.
In its statement, the military went on to add, "it is the parliament that represents the will of the people of Pakistan, which would deliberate on the issue, enabling the government to develop a national response." [6] Notwithstanding the military's comforting words on the authority of parliament, there is a new concern that the gulf between the Pakistan Army and the civilian government is widening. In an editorial, the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat made a prescient observation: "Though the top military leaders have said that the parliament is supreme in this regard, this is a matter of long debate as to who is supreme. However, the kind of reaction that has come from the military causes concern that a big disagreement [conflict] can develop between the government and the army." [7]
The concern is that the Pakistani state may unravel if the government and the military are not on the same wavelength. In an editorial, the liberal newspaper Dawn noted that the debate on Kerry-Lugar Bill is turning out to be "democracy versus national security," observing also that "intertwining them runs the risk of undermining the transition to democracy." [8] The newspaper criticized the civilian government for not consulting with all the stakeholders on the U.S. aid bill, but added: "The fact that... [the military] has chosen to make its reservations public as opposed to going through private governmental channels is regrettable." [9]
The editorial, expressing "support for the democratically elected government against extra-constitutional intervention," further observed: "Right or wrong, wise or unwise, the bill must not become the basis for fresh cleavages between the army and the political opposition on one side and the government on the other. The national security-democracy debate is not an either/or issue - national security can and must be protected through the democratic process." [10] The significant point here is also the fact that the military and the country's main opposition Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), a center-right party, are on the same side.
Other reasons for concern in Pakistan are the timing of the military's intervention on the Kerry-Lugar Bill, whose text has long been available on Internet for anybody to read, and media reports of a secret meeting recently between Gen. Kayani and Shahbaz Sharif, the Chief Minister of Punjab province and leader of PML-N, the main opposition at federal level.
Nawaz Sharif, the senior opposition leader and chief of PML-N party, has not commented on the Kerry-Lugar Bill. However, reports of his brother Shahbaz Sharif's meeting with Gen. Kayani have led to speculation about likely extra-constitutional intervention. On October 6, 2009, Shahbaz Sharif answered journalists' queries about his secret meeting with the army chief and a likely military coup in Pakistan, stating: "We... cannot make a justification for dictatorship, but we will not allow anybody to play with Pakistan's dignity and reputation." [11] The word "dignity" is understood as the military in this context. Shahbaz Sharif added: "I will not confirm or deny press reports about my meeting with the army chief." [12]
Significantly, during his midnight meeting with Gen. Kayani, Shahbaz Sharif had been accompanied by Chaudhry Nisar Ahmad, leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, the lower house of the Pakistani parliament. [13] Chaudhary Nisar Ahmad leads the opposition viewpoint in Pakistani parliament.
3. Opposition Criticism: Strategic Sell-Out of Pakistani Sovereignty
The response of opposition religious and political parties to the proposed U.S. legislation has been similar to that of the military. Stepping up the opposition criticism after his meeting with the army chief, Chaudhary Nisar Ahmad told the National Assembly, "Under the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the command of the Pakistan Army will, instead of remaining under the president and the prime minister, be under the American chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff." [14]
Syed Munawwar Hasan, the Emir of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, has announced that his party will hold a countrywide referendum, asking the people to vote in favor or against the acceptance of Kerry-Lugar Bill by Pakistan. [15] The religious leader described the proposed U.S. legislation as insult to Pakistan, adding: "The U.S. has started tightening the noose around Pakistan. Its freedom, sovereignty and national dignity are being traded for aid. The conditions of Kerry-Lugar Bill are insulting." [16]
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, deputy emir of Jamaat-e-Islami in North West Frontier Province (NWFP), warned: "The Kerry-Lugar Bill is a conspiracy for Saqoot-e-Pakistan (Fall of Pakistan)." [17] The term Saqoot-e-Pakistan resonates with the popular expression Saqoot-e-Dhaka, i.e. the Fall of Dhaka that led to secession of Eastern Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971. Another religious leader, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, whose Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) party shares power in the federal governing coalition, has warned that "any aid that opens the path for foreign intervention [in Pakistan] cannot be accepted. The parliament should defend the army's reservations over the Kerry-Lugar Bill." [18]
Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain, the leader of Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q), the PML-N's breakaway group that supported Gen. Pervez Musharraf's eight-year military rule, also criticized the proposed U.S. legislation, describing it as a victory for India. [19] The statement came in the backdrop of the fact that anti-India jihadist organizations Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad found mention in the Kerry-Lugar Bill.
According to a report in the leading daily The News, the opposition parties have seen the U.S. legislation as the "strategic sell-out of Pakistan's sovereignty." [20] Faisal Saleh Hayat, the parliamentary leader of PML-Q, urged the parliament to reject the Kerry-Lugar Bill "to give a strong message to the U.S.," adding that through this bill, the "sell-out of the national institutions" and "insult of the armed forces" would not be accepted. [21]
Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the leader of Pakistan People's Party (Sherpao), also urged the parliament not to accept the U.S. aid bill. He added: "It would not be beneficial for the U.S. either, as it will fuel hatred against Washington. Parliament should send a strong message to the U.S. and the government should disassociate itself from this bill; and we should go with the public opinion."
Strangely, a proposed U.S. legislation has come up for debate in a foreign legislature, i.e. on the floor of the Pakistani parliament where it cannot be defeated, as the ruling Pakistan People's Party enjoys majority support.
4. The Pakistani Envoy to the U.S. and His Book
The influential Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani, and his recent book, Pakistan between Mosque and Military, have also come under searing scrutiny in Pakistan, for his role, or the lack of it, in the writing of the Kerry-Lugar Bill.
Opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ahmad noted that it is not the U.S. but "our own people" who have ensured the inclusion of conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill regarding Pakistani Army's interference in civilian affairs with consequences for the country's national politics. [22]
Faisal Saleh Hayat of PML-Q party referred to excerpts from Haqqani's 2006 book, accusing the ambassador of advising the U.S. to use its aid as a weapon against Pakistan, noting: "So when the country's ambassador is suggesting such things, what can we expect from others?" [23] Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the former federal interior minister, also questioned the role of the Pakistani envoy, wondering "what Pakistan's ambassador and lobbyists were doing when the bill was being presented in the U.S. Congress." [24]
The daily The News published a report, blaming Husain Haqqani and his book for the conditionalities in the Kerry-Lugar Bill with regard to the requirement of curtailing Pakistan Army's role in civilian affairs. It quoted Haqqani as writing that "the United States must use its aid as a lever to influence Pakistan's domestic policies... Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military's support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government." [25]
The report quoted from the book: "Because Washington has attached a few conditions to U.S. aid, the spending patterns of Pakistan's government have not changed significantly. The country's military spending continues to increase.... Unlike governments in other Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey, Pakistan's government - particularly its military - has encouraged political and radical Islam, which otherwise has a relatively narrow base of support." [26]
According to The News, the book says: "The United States can help contain the Islamists' influence by demanding reform of those aspects of Pakistan's governance that involve the military and security services.... Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military's support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government." [27]
The civilian government is under pressure to change the Pakistani ambassador in Washington. According to a report in The Nation daily, President Zardari has defended ambassador Haqqani, but Maleeha Lodhi, who has served as Pakistani ambassador to London and Washington, has been sounded out to be "on standby as Haqqani's replacement." [28]
5. Pakistan-U.S. Relations
On October 6, 2009, i.e. a day before the Corps Commanders' Conference, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani met with U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Commander of International Forces in Afghanistan, in the GHQ (Gen. Headquarters) in Rawalpindi, the twin city of Islamabad.
Gen. Kayani told the U.S. general: "Like the Pakistani people, the military and intelligence services are furious at the observations made on Pakistan's security establishment in the Kerry-Lugar Bill.... Gen. McChrystal returned from the GHQ with an unambiguous message that the terms set in the Kerry-Lugar Bill on the national security interests of Pakistan are insulting and are unacceptable in their present formulation." [29]
In an editorial titled "Just for the Sake of $1.5 Billion," the Karachi-based Urdu-language daily Roznama Ummat warned that the U.S.'s real targets are Pakistan's nuclear assets, noting that the proposed legislation's objective "is to snare Pakistan in chains of such conditions that can pave the path for intervention in its military, judicial and other government spheres. The targets of the U.S.'s last and real hit are its atomic assets." [30]
Outlining Pakistani national interests, the daily added: "The armed forces of Pakistan would not have expressed any view with regard to the Kerry-Lugar Bill if there were no concerns about its impacts on the military institutions and atomic assets. Included in their duties is the task of defending the nation from internal and external threats, in addition to securing the country's ideological and geographical borders." [31]
The public criticism in Pakistan over the Kerry-Lugar Bill is part of a series of growing diatribes against the U.S. Over the past few months, public anger against the U.S. has been mounting with regard to a number of issues. Maulana Fazlur Rahman, whose Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party is part of the federal governing coalition, has criticized the expansion of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, accusing the U.S. of creating a "mini-Pentagon" in the Pakistani capital. [32]
Police have raided the offices of private security firm Inter-Risk, reportedly contracted by the U.S Embassy. The firm, run by retired military commando Capt. (retired) Syed Ali Jaffar Zaidi, was disbanded by the Pakistani interior ministry. [33] Pakistani parliament has constituted a committee to probe the presence and role of Blackwater, a private U.S. security firm also identified with another name, XE Worldwide, in Pakistan. [34] The legislature of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) has debated the role of Blackwater in the province. [35] DynCorp International was ordered to stop its activities after the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) expressed "reservations that the activities of the U.S. security company are a source of concern for the country's security network." [36]
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's Islamic nuclear bomb, has accused the U.S. of eyeing the Pakistani bomb, noting: "The real aim of anti-Pakistan forces, including the U.S., is to deprive it of its nuclear weapons. They do not want a Muslim country to have a nuclear arsenal, as it is a direct threat to Israel's superiority in the Middle East." [37] Lt.-Gen. (ret) Hamid Gul, the former chief of ISI, has said the U.S. is working for a new chief of Pakistan Army to be appointed "as per its own liking." [38] Jamaat-e-Islami chief Syed Munawwar Hasan has described the U.S. aid as a "gallows for Pakistan" and as "threat to the security" of the country. [39]
Rejecting concerns that elements in Pakistani military and its military-led intelligence Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are involved in supporting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the ISI's director-general, asserted on October 1, 2009: "The ISI is a professional agency and does not have links with any militant outfit, including the Taliban." [40] Pasha's statement was preceded by media reports that quoted former intelligence official Khalid Khwaja as saying that the ISI had arranged several meetings between Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the country's center-right politician Nawaz Sharif. [41]
Rejecting media reports that the ISI protects the Taliban Shura (executive council led by Mullah Omar) in the region of Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan province, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said: "The American leadership should decide explicitly whether they consider the ISI as a friend or foe." [42]
6. The Pakistani National Interest
There are two sections of the Pakistani opinion over the Kerry-Lugar Bill: First, religious parties, opposition political leaders and the military who view the proposed U.S. legislation as a strategic sell-out that will negatively impact Pakistan's national interests; and, second, the ruling Pakistan People's Party and the tiny liberal elite who think that the Kerry-Lugar Bill will assist Pakistan on a path of economic and educational development while simultaneously strengthening the civilian government's ability to exercise control on military. The second group points out Section 201 (4) of the Kerry-Lugar, which seeks to "strengthen the institutions of democratic governance and promote control of military institutions by a democratically elected civilian government." [43]
Writing in Dawn, Pakistani television journalist Gul Bukhari noted the "factual nature of Pakistan's transgressions in the past based upon which the bill places restrictions upon the country" and scoffed at the critics of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, saying: "None deny Pakistan's past role in nuclear proliferation; none deny Pakistan's past misuse of American aid towards aiding and consolidating Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives; none now deny the involvement of Pakistanis in the Mumbai attack; and none deny the presence of the Taliban in south Punjab. Moreover, none disagree that today Pakistan is on a precipice, gazing down into a void due to these very reasons." [44]
In an article in the mass-circulation Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang, columnist Agha Masood Husain pointed out that the bill's three provisions are "in exact accordance with Pakistani national interest": Pakistan's compliance in preventing nuclear proliferation; preventing use of Pakistani soil for terror attacks against any country; and the army not being party to end of democratic rule in Pakistan. [45]
Sardar Assef Ahmad Ali, chairman of Pakistan's Planning Commission, added that the U.S. apprehensions outlined in the Kerry-Lugar Bill are not misplaced in view of the nuclear proliferation track record of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the first Islamic atom bomb. Ali added: "U.S. apprehensions [about Pakistani nuclear proliferation] are well placed. One should not forget what Dr. A. Q. Khan, [who is] considered a national hero, did by exporting nuclear material to other countries [by the] planeload." [46] Farahnaz Ispahani, a top aide to President Zardari, has insisted that the standards presented by the bill are reasonable and that the language had actually been softened through the various versions. [47] Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani too has described the proposed U.S. legislation as a "victory for democracy" in Pakistan. [48]
After the military expressed its "serious concern" over the proposed U.S. aid bill for Pakistan, President Zardari's spokesman Farhatullah Babar asked the army not to interfere on a subject of the government's prerogative and instead remain within its limits. [49] "The army should voice its reservations through a proper channel," the presidential spokesman said, noting: "The Supreme Commander of all the three armed forces is the Head of the State, Asif Zardari. There are forums in which such issues can be raised [by the army]." [50] In an editorial, the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat expressed concern that if the Kerry-Lugar Bill is approved by the Pakistani parliament, where the government has necessary majority, a new tussle for control of power will begin between the military and the civilian executive. [51]
Amid the growing confrontation between the civilian executive and the military establishment, President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and Army Chief Gen. Kayani held an extraordinary reconciliatory meeting in Islamabad on October 10, 2009. The meeting was joined midway by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Lt.-Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the ISI chief. According to a report in The News, it was decided to ask the Obama administration through diplomatic channels to address Pakistani concerns, "particularly those pertaining to the controversial clauses relating to national security." [52] The report, titled "The Presidency Blinks," noted further: "It was also decided to 'try convincing' the majority of the parliamentarians to desist from rejecting the bill outright and, instead, to pass a resolution that would suggest its acceptance provided the controversial clauses were redrafted [by the U.S.] in a satisfactory manner." [53]
However, two days after this meeting, Pakistan's mass-circulation Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang published a report, noting: "The [military] establishment, without bothering about the anger of the Presidential Palace, will defend the [national] interests." [54]
Farman Nawaz, a columnist with Peshawar-based daily The Frontier Post, has made the following observation on the bill's importance to Pakistan: "Some of the clauses of Kerry-Lugar Bill are the requirement for reforming our system, for example a free judiciary, no intervention of the army in politics, and monitoring of foreign funds. In reality, these are the flaws of our system, and politicians have suffered a lot because of these problems." [55] He added: "The powerful hands are setting one against the other to try to modify the clauses relating to the prevention of interference of [the military] establishment in politics... In a way, it is the first violation of Kerry-Lugar Bill." [56]
*Tufail Ahmad is the director of MEMRI's Urdu-Pashtu Media Project.
Endnotes:
[1] Daily Times, Pakistan, July 28, 2008.
[2] www.dawn.com, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[3] The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111cAWqO0, United States, accessed October 11, 2009.
[4] The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111cAWqO0, United States, accessed October 11, 2009.
[5] www.ispr.gov.pk, No. 396/2009-ISPR, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[6] www.ispr.gov.pk, No. 396/2009-ISPR, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[7] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[8] Dawn, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[9] Dawn, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[10] Dawn, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[11] The News, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[12] The News, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[13] The Frontier Post, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[14] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[15] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[16] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[17] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[18] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[19] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[20] The News, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[21] The News, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[22] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[23] The News, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[24] The News, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[25] The News, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[26] The News, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[27] The News, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[28] The Nation, Pakistan, October 11, 2009.
[29] Roznama Jang, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[30] Roznama Ummat, Pakistan, October 10, 2009.
[31] Roznama Ummat, Pakistan, October 10, 2009.
[32] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, September 6, 2009.
[33] The News, Pakistan, September 27, 2009.
[34] Daily Times, Pakistan, September 30, 2009.
[35] Roznama Mashriq, Pakistan, October 6, 2009.
[36] Roznama Islam, Pakistan, October 7, 2009.
[37] Haftroza Al-Qalam, Pakistan, Vol. 5, Issue 9, October2-8, 2009.
[38] Roznama Nawa-i-Waqt, Pakistan, October, 1, 2009.
[39] Roznama Islam, Pakistan, September 28, 2009.
[40] Daily Times, Pakistan, October 2, 2009.
[41] Roznama Ausaf, Pakistan, September 9, 2009.
[42] www.dawn.com, Pakistan, October 4, 2009.
[43] The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111cAWqO0, United States, accessed October 11, 2009.
[44] Dawn, Pakistan, October 10, 2009.
[45] Roznama Jang, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[46] Daily Times, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[47] The Frontier Post, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[48] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[49] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[50] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 9, 2009.
[51] Roznama Jasarat, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[52] The News, Pakistan, October 11, 2009.
[53] The News, Pakistan, October 11, 2009.
[54] Roznama Jang, Pakistan, October 12, 2009.
[55] The Frontier Post, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
[56] The Frontier Post, Pakistan, October 8, 2009.
