The trouble started when the (almost daily) protests in the problematic Peshawar turned violent on Feb. 13. Strangely, ‘students’ also attacked Indian and British embassies (none of their papers republished those cartoons) in the diplomatic enclave of Lahore damaging the Indian ambassador’s official car. Even mainstream Pakistani politicians too took advantage of the chance to show their religiosity. It now appears that the protests were well-planned with organized bands directing protestors against specific targets.
Such a level of violence which included gun shots unseen even in bastions of Islamism such as Iran and Syria couldn't have happened without the support of the military-ruled government. The rulers of Pakistan wanted to send a message by attacking prominent American symbols like Citibank, KFC and McDonalds (as happened before). Ironically, Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz happens to be a former Citibank executive. It should be noted that several other protests in Pakistan in the recent months such as the nation-wide demonstrations in Dec. ’05 against the construction of Kalabagh dam were incident free. The Jan. 29 ‘mixed-sex’ marathon in Lahore too passed off peacefully amidst opposition from Pakistan’s Islamist parties. The difference is crystal clear - the security forces are able to control violent mobs, only if it wants to.
The recent protests have to be seen in the context of President Bush’s planned visit to the country in March. The Pakistani military establishment usually obtains handsome gifts and financial aid (supposedly worth $40 billion since 9/11) during such visits citing its cooperation in fighting terrorists. A Pakistani doctor Ahmad Javed Khawaja suspected of being linked with Al-Qaeda was shot dead on Feb. 13th in Lahore with some blaming American ‘agents’ for the act. This is apparently to show the level to which U.S. agents are able to penetrate deep inside Pakistan’s security apparatus to eliminate their targets.
Article Author: Aaman Lamba
Aaman Lamba is a Blogcritics editor, as well as the Publisher of Desicritics.org, a Blogcritics network site covering media, politics, culture, sports and more with a global South Asian focus
Article comments
1 - Victor Lana
A really strong and compelling post, Aaman. I gather that things are getting bad and are going to get a good deal worse as the days for Bush's visit to Pakistan get closer. Perhaps it would be best for all if he'd just stay home.
2 - Nancy
It might be best for all if they either kept him, or we came to our senses & committed him to a loonie bin for the criminally insane where he belongs.
3 - Dave Nalle
Well Nancy, why don't you slide over on the couch to make room for him.
Dave
4 - Nancy
I'm surprised at your response, Dave; you don't usually indulge in snotty personal comments, even when you think someone is wrong.
5 - Dave Nalle
Read your comment #2. What other kind of response would you expect to that? The point being that if we apply the same standards to you that you apply to Bush, you're both equally crazy, so move it on over.
Dave
6 - Richard Brodie
I'm surprised at your response, Dave; you don't usually indulge in snotty personal comments, even when you think someone is wrong.
And calling the President of United States of America "criminally insane" is not a "snotty personal comment"?
Well, in all fairness you weren't making it directly to him personally. But I wonder, if you should have the occasion to be introduced to George and Laura, would you really take the opportunity to say something like: "You know, Mr. Bush, I really think you should be admitted to an institution for the criminally insane."?
7 - Mark Saleski
I'm surprised at your response, Dave; you don't usually indulge in snotty personal comments, even when you think someone is wrong.
really? coulda fooled me.
8 - Victor Lana
We all better watch what we're saying, or Dick Cheney will take us along on his next "hunting" trip.
9 - ss
Anyone the Pakistanis could pass off as al-Queda's 'No. 3 man' must be sweating bullets right about now.