:
Why was Rabbani killed?
24 September 2011
Error! Filename not specified.
Flag of Afghanistan, 1980 to 1987. Image via Wikipedia
When the US swept into Kabul in 2001, Burhanuddin Rabbani was still recognised by the UN as the official president of Afghanistan. The assassination of Rabbani is the beginning of Blackwill’s (former US Ambassador to Bharat) plan to bifurcate and divide Afghanistan between the Pakhtuns and the Non-Pakhtuns. Failing to win an iota of support among the Pakhtuns, the Bharatis put all their eggs in the basket of Abdullah Abdulla, Amin Fahim, Amrullah Saleh. The Bharaty spokesman in AMerican Ambassador Blackwill is on a paid circuit selling the idea of “Pakistani Afghanistan” and a “Bharati Afghanistan”.
Rabbani was the head of the High Peace Council, set up by the Karzai government a year ago to try to open negotiations with militants of the Taliban movement.It’s surprising that the Taliban targeted Burhanuddin Rabbani. Mullah Omar’s statement in August, hinting that the Taliban were interested in talking to Rabbani seems to contradict the current assassination.
The LA Times reports “The leadership of the Taliban, which has claimed responsibility for many other political assassinations, disavowed knowledge of Rabbani’s killing, saying it was investigating. Police have not yet concluded which insurgent faction might be responsible”.
Rabbani was no angel, he made a lot of enemies in Afghanistan. He loathe the Talibsand as the head of the Afghan High Peace Council he didn’t quite make friends and influence people. He consorted with all sorts of unsavory characters. He supported the war-lords like Dostum and Ismail Khan in 1995. Recently he made efforts to wean away elements of the Taliban and had tried to divide them.
President Karzai’s statement described his frustration “The mission that he had undertaken was vital for the Afghan people and for the security of our country and for peace in our country. I don’t think that we can fill his place easily.”
Rabbani seemed to have been duped by simple assassins wearing explosives in his turban. Ahmed Shah Massoud, his fellow Tajik, had been a victim of similar duplicity. President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials described the murder plot as an elaborate ruse, months in the making. Some however blame Karzai who had urged Rabbani to meet his assassins for reconciliation. Predictably, some Afghans are blaming Pakistan, which is hardly surprising considering. Mourners at the Rabbani funeral were however equally critical of Mr. Karzai and of America. So slogans against the US, and Karzai were ubiquitous.
Rabbani’s murder is proof, that the efforts of the Talibs to reach out to the Tajiks have met another blow. Those who don’t want a united Afghanistan may have somethign to do with this murder. Already the Pro-Bharati Saleh, (the former intelligence chief fired at the insistence of Pakistan), issued a thinly veiled appeal for a widened campaign of anti government protests. Abdullah Abdullah ( Karzai’s onetime foreign minister and bitter rival during the last elections ) wanted to make a fiery speech to rile up the mourners. The organizers actually had to turn his microphone off, to prevent him from exploiting the funeral for his political ends.
Hence, it seems that the powers to be want to send Afghanistan into the hell-hole of civil war again. The results will probably be decided on the battlefield. The US is in a contrary mood. Speaking like a General, Ryan Crocker, the former Ambassador to Pakistan and the current Ambassador to Kabul wants the US ‘to inflict more pain on the Taliban’ to make them amenable to a settlement when talks are held. Considering that the pain threshold of the Taliban seems infinite, mere talks, what to say of peace, must be many moons away. Moreover, the recent American ultimatum to Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network or else, and Pakistan’s seeming reluctance to oblige, has the potential to transform the Afghan war into a much larger conflict far eclipsing the current Taliban-led insurrection against Kabul and making prospects of peace even more remote.
Pakistan’s policy towards the Afghan peace initiative is tailored to please both our allies and their adversaries. However the basics of the policy from Benazir, to Nawaz Shrif, to Benazir to Nawaz Sharif, to Musharraf to Zardari has been consistent–Keep Bharat out.
Pakistan had ‘no favorites’ among the different Mujahideen groups in the early 80s but then put all its support behind Hikmatyar’s to the disappointment of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Massoud was devastated and waged his own lonely war. He felt betrayed. Pakistan then supported the Taliban in 1994. The reason for supporting the Talibs was to rid Rabbani’s pro-Indian regime in Kabul.
In the beginning Pakistan was wary of Hamid Karzai ’till he changed colors after Delhi supported Abdullah Abdullah. There is no use shedding crocodile tears lamenting Rabbani’s death when actually it’s more a case of ‘good riddance to bad rubbish”. Rabbani’s death will further fuel anti-Pushtun sentiments and increase the turmoil in the cauldron of Afghan’s ethnic brew.
Rabbani, actually was an impediment to peace. He had tasted power and didn’t want to share it with the Pakhtuns. The Taliban are the flip side of the same coin, because they believe it is their God given right to rule Afghanistan.
The Afghan state was literally manufactured by the British in 1893. It was a “buffer state”. It did not exist before 1893. In more than a century no ruler has been able to cobble a country together. There is no Afghan who is loyal to the flag or the country. In fact the flag has changed multiple times, each ruler changed it to his liking. A weak Afghan entity with zero capacity to ensure ethnic harmony, religious tolerance, effective governance, political rapprochement, economic malaise and establishing rule of law will not stand the onslaught of subversion from within. All these leaders are loyal to their tribes and their ethnicity. When the Americans leave the so called “country” will fall apart, split along ethnic divisions–broken up into small emirates–which was the situation before the British and the Russian patched up a country with bits and pieces of Iran, Tajikistan, Pakistan (British Empire), and Uzbekistan.
It is in the interest of all regional powers to try to keep the emirates from waging perpetual war against each other and against the neighbors. The inevitable merger of the artificial emirates with Pakistan is inevitable. In the 60s, King Zahir Shah had actually agreed for a confederation, but LIaqat Ali Khan who had put together the proposal was assassinated–some think for brining Afghanistan and Pakistan together. This “New” Khorasan is what scares Delhi and Washington. This new confederated state linked with the the Dushambe-4 and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be a major power in the region–and the world. This was the real reason for Mullen’s outbursts.
--
Tariq Khattak, Islamabad, Pakistan.
GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
Email: Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Thanks for participating.
Kindly suggest improvements.
Please let us know:
I. If you want to receive individual emails
II. Receive one mail with all activity in it
III. Do not want to receive any mail at all
REQUESTS:
1) Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2) Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3) Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4) Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5) Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6) Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7) The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8) Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9) Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.
x==x==x==x==x==x
Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
