What's new

Gunmen kill retired general in Rawalpindi shooting

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Lets see what happens

From The Sunday Times

December 14, 2008

UK may help find Pakistani general’s killers

Carey Schofield

The brother-in-law of VS Naipaul, the British novelist and Nobel laureate, was murdered last month after threatening to expose Pakistani army generals who had made deals with Taliban militants.

Major-General Faisal Alavi, a former head of Pakistan’s special forces, whose sister Nadira is Lady Naipaul, named two generals in a letter to the head of the army. He warned that he would “furnish all relevant proof”.

Aware that he was risking his life, he gave a copy to me and asked me to publish it if he was killed. Soon afterwards he told me that he had received no reply.

“It hasn’t worked,” he said. “They’ll shoot me.”

Four days later, he was driving through Islamabad when his car was halted by another vehicle. At least two gunmen opened fire from either side, shooting him eight times. His driver was also killed.

This weekend, as demands grew for a full investigation into Alavi’s murder on November 18, Lady Naipaul described her brother as “a soldier to his toes”. She said: “He was an honourable man and the world was a better place when he was in it.”

It was in Talkingfish, his favourite Islamabad restaurant, that the general handed me his letter two months ago. “Read this,” he said.

Alavi had been his usual flamboyant self until that moment, smoking half a dozen cigarettes as he rattled off jokes and gossip and fielded calls on two mobile phones.

Three years earlier this feted general, who was highly regarded by the SAS, had been mysteriously sacked as head of its Pakistani equivalent, the Special Services Group, for “conduct unbecoming”. The letter, addressed to General Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of army staff, was a final attempt to have his honour restored.

Alavi believed he had been forced out because he was openly critical of deals that senior generals had done with the Taliban. He disparaged them for their failure to fight the war on terror wholeheartedly and for allowing Taliban forces based in Pakistan to operate with impunity against British and other Nato troops across the border in Afghanistan.

Alavi, who had dual British and Pakistani nationality, named the generals he accused. He told Kayani that the men had cooked up a “mischievous and deceitful plot” to have him sacked because they knew he would expose them.

“The entire purpose of this plot by these general officers was to hide their own involvement in a matter they knew I was privy to,” he wrote. He wanted an inquiry, at which “I will furnish all relevant proof/ information, which is readily available with me”.

I folded up the letter and handed it back to him. “Don’t send it,” I said. He replied that he had known I would talk him out of it so he had sent it already. “But”, he added, “I want you to keep this and publish it if anything happens to me.”

I told him he was a fool to have sent the letter: it would force his enemies into a corner. He said he had to act and could not leave it any longer: “I want justice. And I want my honour restored. And you know what? I [don’t] give a damn what they do to me now. They did their worst three years ago.”

We agreed soon afterwards that it would be prudent for him to avoid mountain roads and driving late at night. He knew the letter might prove to be his death warrant.

Four days after I last saw him, I was in South Waziristan, a region bordering Afghanistan, to see a unit from the Punjab Regiment. It was early evening when I returned to divisional headquarters and switched on the television. It took me a moment to absorb the horror of the breaking news running across the screen: “Retired Major General Faisal Alavi and driver shot dead on way to work.”

The reports blamed militants, although the gunmen used 9mm pistols, a standard army issue, and the killings were far more clinical than a normal militant attack.

The scene at the army graveyard in Rawalpindi a few days after that was grim. Soldiers had come from all over the country to bury the general with military honours. Their grief was palpable. Wreaths were laid on behalf of Kayani and most of the country’s military leadership.

Friends and family members were taken aback to be told by serving and retired officers alike that “this was not the militants; this was the army”. A great many people believed the general had been murdered to shut him up.

I first met Alavi in April 2005 at the Pakistan special forces’ mountain home at Cherat, in the North West Frontier Province, while working on a book about the Pakistani army.

He told me he had been born British in Kenya, and that his older brother had fought against the Mau Mau. His affection for Britain was touching and his patriotism striking.

In August 2005 he was visiting Hereford, the home of the SAS, keen to revive the SSG’s relationship with British special forces and deeply unhappy about the way some elements of Pakistan’s army were behaving.

He told me how one general had done an astonishing deal with Baitullah Mehsud, the 35-year-old Taliban leader, now seen by many analysts as an even greater terrorist threat than Osama Bin Laden.

Mehsud, the main suspect in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto late last year, is also believed to have been behind a plot to bomb transport networks in several European countries including Britain, which came to light earlier this year when 14 alleged conspirators were arrested in Barcelona.

Yet, according to Alavi, a senior Pakistani general came to an arrangement with Mehsud “whereby – in return for a large sum of money – Mehsud’s 3,000 armed fighters would not attack the army”.

The two senior generals named in Alavi’s letter to Kayani were in effect complicit in giving the militants free rein in return for refraining from attacks on the Pakistani army, he said. At Hereford, Alavi was brutally frank about the situation, said the commanding officer of the SAS at that time.

“Alavi was a straight-talking soldier and some pretty robust conversations took place in the mess,” he said. “He wanted kit, skills and training from the UK. But he was asked, pretty bluntly, why the Pakistani army should be given all this help if nothing came of it in terms of getting the Al-Qaeda leadership.”

Alavi’s response was typically candid, the SAS commander said: “He knew that Pakistan was not pulling its weight in the war on terror.”

It seemed to Alavi that, with the SAS on his side, he might win the battle, but he was about to lose everything. His enemies were weaving a Byzantine plot, using an affair with a divorced Pakistani woman to discredit him.

Challenged on the issue, Alavi made a remark considered disrespectful to General Pervez Musharraf, then the president. His enemies playeda recording of it to Musharraf and Alavi was instantly sacked.

His efforts to clear his name began with a request that he be awarded the Crescent of Excellence, a medal he would have been given had he not been dismissed. Only after this was denied did he write the letter that appears to many to have sealed his fate.

It was an action that the SAS chief understands: “Every soldier, in the moment before death, craves to be recognised. It seems reasonable to me that he staked everything on his honour. The idea that it is better to be dead than dishonoured does run deep in soldiers.”

Alavi’s loyalty to Musharraf never faltered. Until his dying day he wanted his old boss to understand that. He also trusted Kayani implicitly, believing him to be a straight and honourable officer.

If investigations eventually prove that Alavi was murdered at the behest of those he feared within the military, it may prove a fatal blow to the integrity of the army he loved.

Britain and the United States need to know where Pakistan stands. Will its army and intelligence agencies ever be dependable partners in the war against men such as Mehsud?

James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence select committee, and Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, were among those who expressed support this weekend for British help to be offered in the murder investigation.

Inside the Pakistan Army by Carey Schofield will be published next year by Soap Box Books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The proposal is only for Immigration and Green card (work permit). They dont have to become US citizens if they dont want to. After all our ex Prime ministers Moeen Qureshi and Shaukat Aziz were Green card holders.

Guys I think you have forgotten that the General had himself given up UK nationality for joining the army.

It is a great national loss and keeping in mind of the present govt. & the complications that the Army is in .. I don't think anything concrete will happen.

RangerSSG : With my profound sympathies, please accept my deepest condolences on this great misfortune that has fallen on your family.
 
“” Alavi, who had dual British and Pakistani nationality, named the generals he accused “”
“” He told me he had been born British in Kenya, and that his older brother had fought against the Mau Mau. His affection for Britain was touching and his patriotism striking””
“”It seemed to Alavi that, with the SAS on his side, he might win the battle, but he was about to lose everything””

The questions that come to my mind are:

1. Was the honorable General Alvi a dual British / Pakistani citizen, or had he really forfeited his British citizenship?
2. Did he retain his primary affiliation with British SAS or the Pakistan Army (this is different from Loyalty).
3. “Patriotism” in which context and to whom?

The V S Naipal connection sounds a bit awkward from a traditional orthodox Pakistani perspective, but never mind.

I still feel very strongly that the deceased General’s family should be adequately compensated by US / NATO forces in a meaningful way for his heroic role in the war in FATA supporting the US / Allied forces.
 
Ms. Alavi, why didn't Gen. Alavi raised these issues with President Musharraf and Gen. Kiani while he was in service and close to these gentlemen?

Your father was a candid man and so am I, Gen. Alavi didn't take the right course of action and he should have rasised these issues when he was in service.

I hope that culprits are arrested.
 
SSGPA1 He did raise the issues internally and that was why he was forced out in the first place.
 
Alavi, who had dual British and Pakistani nationality

This is just not possible. The Army demands that you give up any dual nationality before you can join up. I will be reading this book, I'm seriously disturbed about this whole affair.
 
This is just not possible. The Army demands that you give up any dual nationality before you can join up. I will be reading this book, I'm seriously disturbed about this whole affair.

He did give up his British citizenship, but after he was forced out of the army, and knowing why and by whom, he successfully reapplied for British citizenship so at the time of his death, when he was three years out of the army, he had dual nationality.
 
SSGPA1 He did raise the issues internally and that was why he was forced out in the first place.

Okay, then he should have resigned rather than accepting the decission to force him out.

PA has a very effective and robust check and balance system but in Gen. Alavi's dismissal case I don't see any inquiry.

It is also possible that enemies of Pakistan might have the knowledge about the letter and took advantage of the whole situation.

Family of Gen. Alavi should ask for an investigation rather than pointing figners towards PA without evidence.
 
It is possible that the General Alvi wanted to do the country some good, he was emotionally involved with the conflict in the Tribal Areas (even I am and unlike him I don't fight there) so he must’ve been most disturbed to see the Army making deals with criminals and terrorists and traitors; the very same people who had killed his comrades and commandos. He obviously felt betrayed and, as a commando and a popular figure within the army, he must've taken upon himself to set things right. It is not like he was ordered to do something wrong that he did not agree with, just that he was seriously unhappy with higher direction the conflict was taking and in order to rectify that he confronted some senior army figures.

I'm not sure if this is exactly how it happened, in fact I'm not sure about anything in this sad affair but I'm just giving a possible side of the story.
 
... He obviously felt betrayed and, as a commando and a popular figure within the army, he must've taken upon himself to set things right. It is not like he was ordered to do something wrong that he did not agree with, just that he was seriously unhappy with higher direction the conflict was taking and in order to rectify that he confronted some senior army figures.

This is the Army we are talking about and a single person doesn't take action nor he is supposed to take a decission.

Bottom line, if Army wasn't paying attention then leave the Army and live in peace.

Having deals on side with the Taliban could also be a strategy of PA endorsed by the US.
 
Being a former SSG guy he should've known what was would happen to him if he leaked state secrets.
 
This is the Army we are talking about and a single person doesn't take action nor he is supposed to take a decission.

HE as a general is part of the Army we are talking about. The Army is one entity but that doesn't mean it’s a dictatorship or that there is no diversity of opinion. The Army is a complicated organization, and this officer has done nothing wrong by questioning the decisions of some of his peers. From the lowest beggars to the highest generals, men always develop grouping based on point of views or interests. If he disagreed, I don't think he should've been treated this way. But we DONT have the entire picture, so it is hard to say anything.
 
Having deals on side with the Taliban could also be a strategy of PA endorsed by the US.

On the contrary it is was our strategy based on national interest. PA does not & will not allow USA to make our country like Vietnam .. where there is a major conflict between 2 parts of the country.

PA followed the approach of carrot & stick. While we can keep on killing our maniacs but still more and more will keep poping up .. Hence, to avoid more bloodshed in between you do make deals .... this is quite normal.

One can be jazbati .. as much as one wants .. but compromise with the lunatics is an actual ground reality of such type of conflict.
 
HE as a general is part of the Army we are talking about. The Army is one entity but that doesn't mean it’s a dictatorship or that there is no diversity of opinion. The Army is a complicated organization, and this officer has done nothing wrong by questioning the decisions of some of his peers. From the lowest beggars to the highest generals, men always develop grouping based on point of views or interests. If he disagreed, I don't think he should've been treated this way. But we DONT have the entire picture, so it is hard to say anything.

Disagreement is one thing and leaving letters with state secrets is another thing.

Pakistan Army is very democratic and majority rules in democracy.

Opinions of one or two generals are important but decission is made by majority.
 
I think hugging traitors/criminals/terrorists who have gleefully indulged in the killing of your brethren and have done all in their power to desecrate your honor in your OWN country...is unacceptable. If your brother was killed and then beheaded by these thugs, you would never ever settle for anything short of victory either. That is a how perfect Armies are supposed to act, like one big brotherhood. Take the Israelis for instance; do they take the death of their brothers or threats to their national security so lightly? That is why they are where they are at the moment. The deal with Betullah Mehsud was a mistake that almost cost us the war, our honor, our victory and many many loyalist lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom