Pakistan’s Prime Minister has pointed his finger at the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan for violence in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Speaking on June 28, Gilani stated that “foreign elements hailing from Central Asian republics are disturbing peace in the tribal areas.” Gilani was apparently referring to the mainly Uzbek Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)…
RFE/RL’s Alisher Sidikov does not explore why it is Prime Minister Gilani acknowledged the presence of IMU fighters. He notes that the Pakistani military has no plans to drive out the foreign fighters anytime soon. An editorial in yesterday’s Daily Times suggests that the presence of Uzbeks, along with Chechens and Uighurs, means that Pakistan’s neighbors will support strikes against militants in the tribal areas. I am far from an expert — let alone well-read — on Pakistani politics, but it seems that Gilani expects strikes into the tribal areas, and that he is preemptively making the claim that problems in the tribal areas are not ones Pakistan’s government can — or reasonably be expected to — solve.
By the way, read the Times editorial if only to learn how to identify an Uzbek militant in the tribal areas.
Sidikov does report the interesting claim that the IMU has explicitly shifted its strategy. In order to replenish its strength, he says, the IMU is nowadays far less concerned with attacking Uzbekistan or the United states, but instead is focused on attacking the Pakistani government and its tribal supporters.
Pakistan’s “Daily Times” has described IMU leader Tohir Yuldash as staunch follower of Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Aiman al-Zawahiri. Yuldash reportedly believes that jihad should first target not the United States but “hypocritical Muslims” who somehow support Washington.
However, since it seems as if almost everything reported about the IMU turns out to be false, Tohir Yo’ldosh could, for all we know, be running a Chechen unicorn farm on the dark side of the moon.
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2974 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan is the Founding Editor and Publisher of Registan.net, which he launched in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with private and government clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural and political factors shape risks and opportunities and how organizations can adjust their strategic and operational plans to account for these variables. Nathan is currently seeking research, analysis, and consulting opportunities. He can be contacted via Twitter or email.
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 3 comments }
Cleanistan!
“Pakistan” translates into “land of the clean.” Pakistanis gave their country this name when they got separated from India. Apparently they were making the point that they are clean – unlike Indians (who are not Muslim). Believe it or not, there is such an understanding among the righteous Muslims that they are cleaner than thou. If the founder of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah (who hated, get this, Ghandi) did not have anything to do with naming Pakistan, then it must have been British dry irony humor as they left the region!
So now Pakistan has Uzbeks to blame for the trouble up north. Of course, Pakistanis would never make dirty deals. They are cleanistan!
Why not give up the north to Afghanistan and let the US Marines have a “field day!”
I agree with Shohmurod that blaming the Uzbeks seems more like picking this year’s scapeboat than an actual approach to solving a problem. From Wikipedia: The name Pakistan means Land of (the) Pure in Urdu and Persian. It was coined in 1934 as Pakstan by Choudhary Rahmat Ali. The name represented the “thirty million Muslims of PAKSTAN, who live in the five Northern Units of British India — Punjab, Afghania (also known as North-West Frontier Province), Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. Land of the pure, Land of the Acronym. Take your pick.
@Nathan: great post! Keep up the good work!
Well, regarding the IMU in Pakistan, that means the chickens have come home to roost and bite them in the ass. What I mean is “the IMU received initial funding and assistance from Pakistan’s ISI” (from the Wikipedia article on the IMU).
@Shohmurod: It’s not about religion. It’s a pure lust for power. Tons of evidence:
–Pakistani generals had no problem slaughtering a couple of million of fellow Muslims in West Pakistan in 1971, when those folks got a wrong idea of wanting to separate and become Bangladesh.
–They gave a portion of Kashmir, a Muslim majority area, to China, something that the infidel Indians would never do.
–All Muslim countries in the neighborhood get along with India but not with Pakistan. Afghans are pissed at Pakistan and Iran sees Pakistan as a Saudi stooge, a fair assessment if you ask me. Pretty much everyone in Central Asians think of Pakistan as a dangerous place while seeing India neutrally at worst. Heck, Tajikistan even hosts an Indian air force base.
–Everywhere else in the neighborhood religion is not a big deal. Look at India. They have as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan and they benefit from the Indian democracy. Abdul Kalam became India’s 11th president and before that he had become India’s top rocket scientist. Check out Bangladesh. It’s world’s 4th largest Muslim state and 3rd largest Hindu state and people there are getting along just fine. Lo and behold Central Asia where many folks don’t give a damn which god their drinking buddies might worship.
Pakistan’s ruling class and its ISI have been the cancer of Asia, spreading religious extremism everywhere. Sadly, I don’t see that changing ever, even if a civilian, democratically-elected government actually comes into power.
How come a respected journalist like Ahmed Rashid coudn’t give a more balanced view of the situation for that RFE/RL article? Someone on this site – Nathan? Michael? – has said that Ahmed Rashid dislikes Uzbeks. What is it and why is it? I watched him on a book tour video (Barnett Rubin’s blog has the link). He talks about his latest book. It’s all about Pakistan, Taliban and Afghanistan. Yet he manages to haul Uzbekistan into the picture. What’s up with that? Sure, religious extremism is a growing problem in Uzbekistan, partly thanks to the ISI. But what does Uzbekistan has to do with the problems in South Asia?
I think, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan should host Indian air force bases, too. In an exchange, India should promise to stop making those Bollywood movies. They are a form of visual lobotomy, if you ask me. Isn’t there an international court in the Hague that deals with that form of cruelty? I need a drink.