The Afghan policy shift by Saleem Safi

After 9/11 Pakistan-US ties have experienced many ups and downs. However, a marked policy shift was seen with the election of President Obama. The new administration attached Afghanistan’s affairs with “Af-Pak,” and delivered a new list of objectives concerning this region. For Pakistan this new package brought many do’s and don’ts. The monitoring stage of this new policy ended in 2010 and it was decided by the US that Pakistan needed to be dealt more firmly. The Kerry-Lugar Bill was an expression of the same pressure involving the carrot-and-stick approach. After the May 2 operation in Abbottabad, US advisers in Washington, who wanted a firm dealing with Pakistan, gained more attention. Accusations regarding the Haqqani Network, the statements of Mike Mullen and other tactics of the same kind of pressure were used.

However, this pressure proved counterproductive. The Pakistani establishment refused to give in. In addition to the detention of Raymond Davis, the activities of the CIA were restricted, and the US request for an operation in North Waziristan by the Pakistani military was also refused. This infuriated the US even more and together with the stoppage of aid, the amount under the collation support fund was also frozen, an amount that Pakistan has already spent on its activities to combat terrorism. Pakistan neglected its monitoring of the Taliban in Afghanistan and, to convey displeasure to the US, Pakistani officials visited Iran, China and Russia. The matter did not end here; the US increased its support to anti-Pakistan militants and Baloch nationalists in Afghanistan.

The Salala check-post incident pushed Pakistani-US relations further downwards. Pakistan used its only remaining card, that of blocking the Nato supply routes. At first the US tried to use Afghanistan, however this time Karzai refused to be utilised against Pakistan. At this the US used the India card to blackmail Pakistan. After the punishment of Ghulam Nabi Fai, Hafiz Saeed was declared a wanted person with a huge head money for his capture. Each visit of Pakistani or Indian delegates to each other’s country was followed by a US official in India issuing a provocative statement. However, this time India played with caution and Pakistan too dealt with India with care. In Afghanistan the US tried its best to use anti-Pakistan elements. However, this time Pakistan, with the active use of its relations with the leaders of northern Afghanistan, minimised the risk. Besides all this tug-of-war between the US and Pakistan, the US was confident that Pakistan would give in before the Chicago Conference.

However, on the internal front the issue changed into an interesting but dirty game between the establishment and the government. It was assumed by the Pakistani establishment that even they could adopt a hard line against the government due to its financial and diplomatic limitations. Zardari had two concerns: the upcoming elections and the risk of public defamation by the establishment and the Difa-e Pakistan Council. So this time they did exactly the opposite and went two steps ahead in their anti-US statements. They scheduled visits for Russia and China and made active dialogues on the Pakistan-Iran pipeline.

The media was given the wrong perception that Zardari requested participation in the Chicago conference. This is also wrong that Pakistan demanded $5,000 dollars per container. The only fault of the Pakistani government is its failure to properly use the international media in presenting its stance. In fact, the proposal for tri-lateral negotiations at the Chicago conference was presented by President Obama at the Seoul conference to Prime Minister Gilani. Later, the US denied the invitation and conditioned it with the opening of the supply routes of Nato. Pakistan refused any conditional participation and thus Pakistan was invited by the Nato secretary general unconditionally.

At that stage the US expected the opening of the supply route before the Chicago conference. However, when Pakistan showed no intention, the US refused to participate in the trilateral meeting at Chicago. Besides, in his meeting with Hillary Clinton at Chicago, Zardari not only reaffirmed Pakistan’s stance on an official apology on Salala but also stressed other demands. This resulted in an uproar in Washington against Pakistan. Now the US is determined to achieve all its objectives in Pakistan, including reopening of the Nato supply route, but not with concessions.

The Pakistani response indeed has disturbed US and stunned the international community. However, the most disappointing aspect is its spontaneous nature. All this is not the result of some calculated effort and set objectives. Rather, it is a by-product of the institutional tug-of-war and the effort to gain political mileage. Before the Chicago conference, statements issued by the Cabinet Defence Committee and certain officials resulted in the impression that once again Pakistan has surrendered. While at Chicago our president demanded an apology from the US, our prime minister declared that an apology could not bring back our soldiers. In this tense situation, about two dozen CIA agents were caught. However, they were handed back to the US silently. Though there was an option that those agents could be presented to the media.

The situation is tense and sensitive. Indeed, at any time our government could surrender and show its willing to work on previous terms and conditions.

The Afghan conundrum by Shafqat Mahmood

They came to Kabul from seventy countries last week. Some of them are doing the fighting and the dying in the dusty valleys of Afghanistan. Others are playing their part by throwing money on the problem. And then there were those, like Pakistan, who cannot wish their geography away.

In this meaningless media extravaganza, they were told myths that they were desperate to believe. Among them that Afghan forces will take over the security of the country by 2014. Like a medieval storyteller in the village square, President Karzai spun a web of sweet talk that brought a smile to every face. What it was in truth is pure fiction.

The grim reality of the Afghan state is that without American and Nato support it would collapse in a day. Its ragtag army is poorly trained, ill disciplined and divided by history of conflict between its different ethnicities. Its police is no better and has shakily been put together by attracting recruits with heavy doses of American money. At the first sign of trouble, it melts away.

The governing structure is based on patronage and corruption that flows from the centre to the provinces, with Mr Karzai holding the ultimate pot of foreign-inspired gold. The announcement at the conference that more donor money will be funnelled through the Afghan government would have been music to his ears.

There is hardly any functioning bureaucracy beyond Kabul, and even there the meaning of the word functioning would have to be stretched. The provinces are run, if run is the word, by a governor with a small band of loyal retainers.

This is not a structure that corresponds to any modern definition of a viable state. Vigorous efforts are being made by the Americans and others to make it better, but the results are not very encouraging. How this will change in four years, and to the extent that Afghan forces will take over security duties in the country by 2014, is difficult to comprehend.

And Mr Karzai knows that. He is only telling this fiction to his Western backers because they want to hear it, or at least said publicly. In private, they know, or the realists among them know, that this is unlikely to happen. They just don’t want their people to hear it.

The problem for the Americans and their Western allies is that support in their countries for the war in Afghanistan has virtually collapsed. With dead bodies coming home every week, most people cannot understand what their armed forces are doing in Afghanistan. Or, why so much money in these difficult economic times is being spent there.

It is for this reason that President Obama announced the start of a withdrawal in July 2011 and new British prime minister David Cameron has forcefully declared that British forces will be out of the country by 2015. The Europeans and others have already begun to phase out.

The conundrum that Obama faces in particular, and to an extent others too, is how to leave with a modicum of dignity intact. What they are looking for is any fig leaf that will allow them to declare mission accomplished, or to at least avoid a retreat in dishonour and defeat.

The exit strategy devised to accomplish this has two pillars based on the presumption that no military victory in this conflict is possible. One, to negotiate a solution with the Taliban that ends the fighting, and brings them, or at least their acceptable faces, into the Afghan power structure. And, two, to build the Afghan state to an extent that it can stand on its own feet after the Westerners withdraw.

Both are doomed to failure. But this will not bother the Americans or their allies as long as there is a decent interval between their retirement from the fighting and whatever happens next in Afghanistan. Shades of Vietnam again, and probably with similar results?

The first pillar, that of finding a negotiated solution with the Taliban, is problematic because of contrasting timelines. The Americans want this to happen within a year or so, and to force the Taliban to agree have a ramped-up foreign military presence. They are getting ready to launch a major assault on Kandahar to drive the message home.

This is unlikely to work because, as the previous campaigns have shown, such as in Helmand, the Taliban melt away and return to fight at a time of their choosing. They can wait, while the Americans and the British have deadlines. This was captured best by a Taliban leader who is supposed to have remarked that they have the watch and we have the time.

The more desperate Nato becomes to withdraw, the stronger the Taliban get. They may have a medieval worldview, but they are not idiots. They also understand the internal dynamics of the Western countries. They are ready to wait out their adversaries.

This is where Pakistan’s role has become crucial. The Americans want it both to pressure the Afghan Taliban militarily and use its influence to bring them to the negotiating table. This apparently contradictory demand is particularly targeted at the Haqqani network, which is alleged to have close links with the ISI.

It seems that Pakistan is willing to help out, provided its concerns are met. Pakistan wants a friendly Afghanistan, as Gen Kayani has repeatedly emphasised. It wants a neighbour that is not a problem for its security and, if possible, provides opportunities for mutual economic benefit.

The recent warming of relations between the two countries is an indicator that Pakistan’s concerns have been to an extent acknowledged by the Americans and the Afghans. Of particular significance is the training of Afghan military officers scheduled to begin in Pakistan soon.

This was one area where the Indians were keen to get in and that was troubling for Pakistan. Military training builds bonds between the armed forces and Pakistan was keen for it to take place here. The fact that it will start to happen is interesting, and an important indicator of warming relations between the two countries.

This will lead to the next step; for Pakistan to deliver the Taliban. It will not be easy. The Taliban may go through the motion of talks but will want to wait out the Americans. If they are wise, though, they should give a fig leaf to the West so that it can withdraw with some honour intact. Trying to rub an enemy’s nose in the dirt can have unforeseen consequences.

The second pillar of the Western strategy, that of building up the Afghan state, I have already stated has little chance of success. Thus, both parts of the American exit plan are problematic, to say the least. How its different elements play out over the next year would be interesting to see.

Afghanistan has seen a thirty-year war already, and no end is in sight. Whether the West remains there or not, peace among its diverse people will remain a fond dream. This will keep its neighbours on the edge and Pakistan has potentially much to lose and much to gain.

A New beginning

Pakistan and Afghanistan have signed a broad-based record note – a prelude to a formal Transit Trade Agreement between the two countries – allowing export of Afghan goods to India through Wagah border and other destinations through Pakistani seaports via designated routes with a reciprocal concession by Afghanistan to facilitate export of Pakistani merchandise to the Central Asian States.

The new arrangement is based on reciprocity and mutuality of interests and represents a marked departure from the previous unilateral agreement permitting Afghanistan to use Pakistan territory for its imports and exports in the light of the international obligations to facilitate trade of the land-locked nations by the neighbouring states having outlets to the outside world.

Contrary to the impression in certain circles, this bilateral accord does not include any understanding or commitment to allow export of Indian goods to Afghanistan through Wagah. Trade agreement between India and Pakistan is a bilateral issue which is beyond the scope of this covenant between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The understanding reached between the two countries, unfurls a myriad of economic benefits for the two neighbours, as well as for Pakistan and the Central Asian States, which hitherto have been a hostage to the atmosphere of mistrust and schism in their relations, in the backdrop of the ongoing war on tenor. Pakistan will immensely benefit from the avenues opened up by this agreement for having access to the lucrative and large markets of the Central Asian States for its exports.

The new initiative, apart from promoting economic interests of the contracting parties, also has the potential of facilitating political stability in the region as a collateral benefit accruing from the expected linkages and creation of strong economic bonds between the countries involved.

Presently, the estimated trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan is over $ one billion, while the black market trade is several times greater than the legitimate bilateral trade due to the loopholes in the previous Afghan Transit Trade Agreement. The new protocol, to a great extent, plugs those cleavages and takes care of the illegal trade by providing an appropriate mechanism to check the unscrupulous elements.

In order to prevent the possibilities of unauthorised trade, it has been agreed to install tracking devices on the transport vehicles and devising a mechanism for customs-to-customs information. Further, to ensure that the goods meant for Afghanistan do actually reach the destination, it has been provided that the authorised brokers and clearing agents will enter financial guarantees equal to the amount of import levies of Pakistan and these deposits will be released after the goods exit the country.

In case the goods do not exit within the specified time, the guarantees will be cashed by the customs.

According to the agreement, Afghan trucks will be permitted to carry Afghan transit export cargo through designated routes and on return at Wagah shall be allowed to carry goods from Pakistan to Afghanistan under the same procedures and conditions as prescribed for Pakistan transport units.

It has also been agreed that Afghan transit goods would be exported in containers of international specifications and for a period of three years and the facility will be extended in conformity with the internationally acceptable and verifiable standards.

The record note also stipulates the establishment of an Arbitration Tribunal to settle disputes arising out of the implementation of the accord. In case of disagreement on the appointment of the third Arbiter two names of non-nationals and non-residents would be proposed by each side and the third arbiter would be selected by drawing lots from the four proposed names.

The record note also envisages early signing of a formal protocol after the completion of the legal processes by both the countries to replace this interim arrangement.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are not only neighbours, but also brotherly Islamic countries. Pakistan has always strived to have cordial relations with Afghanistan and perceived it as a strategically stabilising factor in the regional security scenario in view of the threats emanating from its instability and long drawn insurgency situation.

It stood by the people of Afghanistan in the Jihad (holy war) against the invading forces of the former Soviet Union and provided succour to millions of Afghan refugees for about a decade and still continues to play host to millions, who have not returned to their native country after the Afghan war, despite the enormous financial drain on its resources and the ecological repercussions.

Anyway, this agreement is an indication of improved relations between the two countries. The present government deserves the credit for patience and perseverance with which it has been pursuing this path.

Lessons from Afghan imbroglio by Inayatullah

The international summit held in Kabul ended on a note of uncertainty. The pledge that the Afghan troops could takeover responsibility for military operations by 2014 has lost its edge. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “The transition to Afghan-led security would be based on conditions not calendars. Our mission will end when – but only when – the Afghans are able to maintain security on their own.”

President Barack Obama, after a lot of consultations and analysis, committed himself and his administration to start the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by July 2011 – Washington having come close to the conclusion that war in Afghanistan just cannot be won.

A move was set afloat to reintegrate insurgents and hold talks with the Taliban. Even an amount of $180 million was earmarked initially for this purpose. Afghan President Hamid Karzai had already initiated a process of negotiations. However, he now has the formal American backing for it. A major reason for the slow pace of troop withdrawal is the line taken by the new Chief of the allied forces in Afghanistan.

It seems that General David Patreaus is anxious to achieve some success with the increase in the number of US troops. The “surge” so far has not yielded desired results, Patreaus hopes to capture some of the enemy territory with a view to establishing his hold on Afghanistan.

The recent killings of American and British soldiers have, however, added to the apprehension that training of the Afghan army is failing to accomplish the plan which was to develop an effective instrument to restore and maintain peaceful conditions in the war torn country. In the latest incidents, it was the Afghan soldiers who had killed the American and British personnel.

The unsatisfactory performance of the Afghan troops and the ISAF forces has prompted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks during her recent visit to Kabul: “Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible.”

Looking at the devastation perpetrated by the American and other coalition forces for the last many years, one indeed wonders what the US has achieved in Afghanistan.

Have scores of billions of dollars spent on military operations and in bolstering the weak and corrupt Karzai government, yielded political security and any worthwhile socio-economic development? Are the Afghans now in a better position to stand on their own and manage their affairs effectively? Has their dependence on foreign aid and drugs been reduced? Have the security conditions in the country improved? The Americans themselves aver that Al-Qaeda stands fragmented and weakened as hardly a hundred or so of its followers are present in Afghanistan.

If this is the case, why is it that more than one hundred thousand American soldiers, including armed forces from other countries, continue to occupy Afghanistan? Why it is not realised that the vast majority of the population consisting of Pakhtuns is dead against the foreign occupation of their country, and no amount of military aggression and doling out dollars will deter them from fighting for their freedom.

History bears testimony to their fierce sense of independence. The British and the Russians have tried to forcibly subdue them but have failed miserably. Wisdom demands that the Americans accept their failure and quit as early as possible.

What the Americans and the British have done in Iraq is unpardonable. They used deceit and lies to build up a case to attack the country. Even after so many years, peace and security there remains a distant dream. Every other day, suicide attacks take place. A ramshackle democracy has been imposed on the people. Elections held a month ago have yet to result in the formation of a new government. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been sunk in this horrendous adventure.

The recent testimony given by the former head of M15, Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, to the Chilcot Enquiry Commission is an eye-opener. She has rebutted the former UK Prime Minister’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that chemical or biological weapons could be activated in 45 minutes. She said: “We regarded the direct threat from Iraq as low.

We didn’t believe Saddam had the capacity to do anything in the UK.” Now a word about the statement issued on January 29, 2003: “There have been some Al-Qaeda operatives in parts of Iraq, controlled by Baghdad.”

Manningham-Buller in her evidence has categorically stated: “There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection….Arguably, we gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi Jihad, so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not there before.” She added: “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised…a generation of young people…who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam….We were pretty well swamped, more than what we could cope with.”

This evidence coming from the prestigious chief of a major intelligence agency of the United Kingdom leaves little doubt that it is not democracy or other much acclaimed laudable objectives that prompted the imperial powers to attack weaker and smaller countries but their vested interests and ulterior motives which drove them to extend control of foreign territories and capture strategic resources.

If at all there was a reason for an attack on Afghanistan after Nine Eleven, was the disproportionate use of force for such an extended period justified? The death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, the uprooting of millions of them along with enormous destruction of property has not quenched the thirst for a wanton and unjustified occupation of foreign lands.

Pakistan is being pressed to extend the military operation to North Waziristan and other parts of the country.

A drastic review of the current policy must be undertaken and a debate initiated in Parliament. We cannot afford to continue to pursue a foreign agenda, killing our own people as poorly paid mercenaries.

Afghan transit trade by Nauman Asghar

Pakistan and Afghanistan are renegotiating their transit trade agreement which was signed in 1965. The revision is not only with regard to Afghan goods’ transit to the Arabian Sea but also for the definition of the terms for Pakistan to secure routes to the Central Asian republics through Afghanistan.

During the meeting between President Hamid Karzai and President Zardari in Washington in May 2009, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding to begin talks for renewing the agreement. Pakistan is the largest trading partner of Afghanistan and the two countries’ trade has grown from $170 million in 2000-01 to $1.49 billion in 2008-09.

India, which has transit trade agreements with Iran, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, seeks the shorter Wagah-Khyber transit route to Afghanistan for access to Central Asian markets.

The majority of imported products booked for Afghanistan are ultimately smuggled back into Pakistan, and this hurts government revenues and causes incalculable damage to the local industries. The government of Pakistan places 17 items on the prohibitive list in 1996. The prohibition proved to be a blessing for the domestic industry. It is estimated that over 90 per cent of Afghanistan’s imports through Pakistan’s ports travel back to Pakistan.

While Pakistan has agreed to provide facilities to Afghan importers, the Afghan government has refused to facilitate our exports to the Central Asian states. Tariff and non-tariff barriers are imposed on Pakistani exporters. Non-cooperation on the part of Afghanistan deprives our traders of the ability to export fruits, cement, pharmaceutical products, readymade garments and leather jackets to the Central Asian republics. Similarly, hurdles are created for importers who want to import steel aluminium, minerals, industrial raw materials, LPG, and fresh and dry fruits from Central Asia. The Central Asian republics carry out the bulk of their foreign trade through Iranian seaports despite the disadvantage of distance.

The new transit trade agreement, to be finalised after the completion of a review process, will allow Afghan trucks to carry export goods to the Wagah border for delivery to India. In order to check unauthorised trade the cargo will be allowed to be transported in accordance with internationally acceptable and verifiable standards of sealable trucks for a period of three years.

As a quid pro quo, Pakistan will be allowed to use Afghan territory for its exports to vital markets of Central Asia. The agreement stipulates that no Indian export to Afghanistan will be allowed through Wagah but India will be able to carry its goods to Afghanistan using Pakistan’s airspace. This is despite the fact that India has not extended Pakistan transit rights to landlocked Nepal.

While Kabul has hailed the agreement, the development has received mixed reaction from Pakistani businessmen because of the negative implications of smuggling for Pakistan’s economy. The problem of smuggling goes beyond Afghan transit trade and can be attributed largely to the corrupt custom authorities.

Pakistan also receives benefits from the traffic in transit to Afghanistan over its territory. The government of Pakistan provides various facilities for transit of goods to Afghanistan. These include storage, packing, repacking, loading, unloading at the Karachi port and the dry port at Peshawar. The provision of such facilities and services generates income and employment in Pakistan.

In order to overcome the practice of smuggling, the capacity of the border forces and custom authorities should be enhanced. Skeptics say that the agreement has been signed on the prodding of the US. But they overlook the fact that transit rights are already available to Afghanistan under the 1965 treaty.

Resistance personified by Farooq Sulehria

Afghan leader Malalai Joya is resistance personified. She is the most vocal critic of both US occupation of Afghanistan and the ruling warlords. At the same time, she speaks dismissively of the Taliban: “Their violence is no resistance”. However, Malalai Joya hardly grabs headlines in the Pakistani media that often glorifies the mindless violence of the Taliban. But she is a household name in Afghanistan and a known figure internationally. She was called “Afghanistan’s most famous women” by the BBC a few years ago. Last April, she was ranked among the 100 most influential people of the world by Time Magazine.

But Time asked Dutch-Somalian author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is known for her Islamophobic views, to make the announcement. Now settled in the US, Hirsi Ali distorted Joya’s image in her malicious announcement by saying: “I hope in time [Joya] comes to see the US and NATO forces in her country as her allies. She must use her notoriety, her demonstrated wit and her resilience to get the troops on her side instead of out of her country”.

A furious Joya reacted strongly. In her counter-statement, she said: “Time has painted a false picture of me and does not mention anything at all about my struggle against the occupation of Afghanistan by the US and NATO, which is disgusting. In fact, everyone knows that I stand side-by-side with the glorious antiwar movements around the world and have proved time and again that I will never compromise with the US and NATO who have occupied my country, empowered the most bloody enemies of my people and are killing my innocent compatriots in Afghanistan”.

Joya earned a mark back in 2003 at the Loya Jirga (Greater Assembly) convened to ratify Afghanistan’s new constitution. Unlike the US-sponsored, clean-shaven fundamentalists, Joya was not nominated by Karzai. She was elected by the people of the Farah province to represent them at the Loya Jirga. The Jirga was chaired by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi who, at the very outset, told the women delegates: “Even God has not given you equal rights because under His decision two women are equal to one man”.

Joya had bravely organised underground girls’ schools in Herat when the Taliban’s terror drove millions into exile. Mojaddedi’s patriarchal admonition could not intimidate Joya. She stunned the Loya Jirga and the press members present to cover the occasion by delivering a three-minute, hard-hitting speech, exposing the crimes of the warlords running the Loya Jirga. A befuddled grey-bearded Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, on hearing Joya, screamed in anger and called her ‘infidel’ and ‘communist’. Others also shouted at her. But before she was silenced by an angry mob of warlords, with her single, but timely, act she had electrified Afghanistan.

When she criticised the warlords at the Loya Jirga, even ‘Viceroy’ Zalmay Khalilzad — the then US envoy to Afghanistan — was upset. “Joya”, Khalilzad chided, “had overstepped the framework of politeness”.

She wrote a letter to Khalilzad, saying: “If these criminals raped your mother or daughter or even your grandmother, or killed seven of your sons, let alone destroyed all the moral and material treasure of your country, what words would you use against such criminals and puppets that will be inside the framework of politeness and respect?”

In the meantime, three fateful minutes at the Loya Jirga changed the course of Joya’s life. In her native province of Farah, locals wanted her to represent them in elections. It does not merely take guns and dollars to contest an election in Afghanistan. Joya had none. Still, she contested and was elected to parliament in 2005. Danish filmmaker Eva Mulvad immortalised Joya’s courageous election campaign and subsequent victory in her documentary “Enemies of Happiness”. Aged 25, Malalai Joya was the youngest Afghan MP. More importantly, she proved herself to be the bravest MP. On the floor of parliament, she emerged as the strongest critic of US occupation and the Taliban- and mujahidin-dominated Karzai regime.

Hence, at almost every parliamentary session she attended, she had her hair pulled, was attacked physically and called names by her ‘Islamist’ colleagues. She was even threatened with rape on the floor of the house. In one case, the warlords bussed in thousands of men to Kabul to march and demand “Death to Joya”. Niaz Mohammad Amiri, a member of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf’s Wahabist party, would never miss an opportunity during parliamentary sessions to call her a prostitute. Flyers were distributed calling her prostitute, communist and anti-Islamic.

“Among the worst was a leaflet that showed a photograph of me without my headscarf, falsely saying that the picture was taken at the Loya Jirga. Underneath was the awful slogan: she took off her scarf at the Loya Jirga, she’ll take off her pants in parliament”, Joya noted in her book Raising My Voice that has recently come out. Once she was abroad on Valentine’s Day. It was propagated that she was abroad to celebrate Valentine’s Day. In her two years in parliament, she never once had the chance to complete her speech without her microphone switched off. But even her half-delivered speeches were hard to tolerate.

Hence, she was suspended from parliament. Her suspension has been widely criticised. From Noam Chomsky to Naomi Klein, a host of noted people have signed the petition for her reinstatement. She now leads an underground life. To hide her identity, she wears the burqa which she otherwise hates. In view of her previous experience, she has decided not to contest elections scheduled for September this year.