Quaid’s birth anniversary to be celebrated in befitting manner

The 134th birth anniversary of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would be marked today in the metropolis in a befitting manner.

Lost vision

Let us imagine that Mohammad Ali Jinnah were to step into the country he founded today, on his 134th birth anniversary, and walk down the streets of Karachi, the city he made his home. What he found would almost certainly shock him: slogans suggesting ethnic discord scratched out on graffiti-covered walls, drug users gathering at chosen spots to inject heroin into veins, a shattered civic infrastructure and an atmosphere permeated with intense political and sectarian tensions. Of course, he would encounter similar horrors in other places: from the Taliban in the north, to flood victims in the south, existing on the shores of a sea made up of mass despondency as a consequence of unemployment, inflation and social inequality. We can only imagine his feelings and his thoughts.

Quite obviously this was not the vision Jinnah had for the country he had carved onto the map in 1947, after three decades of assiduous effort. As Pakistan marked its first year in existence, Jinnah, on August 14, 1948, had said in a message to the people of Pakistan that the foundations of a state had been laid down for them and it was now up to them to build on these as quickly and as well as they could. The Quaid-i-Azam died less than a month later. But we wonder if much thought has been given to why the construction on the foundations he put down has been so shoddy. Could we really not have done better?

Jinnah had clearly articulated during his lifetime a desire for a state that was democratic, secular in orientation and just to all its people. His own death, barely a year after Pakistan came into being, was of course one factor in the failure to establish such a Republic. The unifying force that Jinnah offered was too quickly lost. Failings by leaders and faults in policy contributed to the problems that quickly crept up. But is this adequate explanation for why we have strayed so far from the path chalked out by Jinnah? Has enough been done over the years to demarcate it again so it can be followed? These are questions we need to ponder in some depth as we observe Mr Jinnah’s birth anniversary. The answers could help us determine our future.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 25^th, 2010.

Noor Jahan being remembered

today on her 10th anniversary

It's been 10 years since the fateful day the famous 'Queen of Melody' or Malika-e-Tarannum, Noor Jahan, passed away and today, she is being remembered by many.

Born on September 12, 1926 in Qasoor, she was one of the most luminous artists of her time in South Asia. Noor Jahan began her career with background support music but won the hearts of thousands with her melodious voice.

Her foray into the world of music was started by Ustad Ghulam Ali Khan. She also participated in several films and perhaps one of her best-known films is Jugnu with Dilip Kumar.

Noor Jahan also worked as a film director. Chann Way, Dupata, Pattey Khan, Anarkali, Intizar and Koil are her famous movies, reports The News.

Born Allah Wasai and renamed Noor Jahan, she was from a Punjabi family and was forced by her parents to follow in their musical footsteps and become a singer. But she was more interested in acting in films and graced the earliest Pakistani films with her performances.

She has to her credit 10,000 songs in various languages of India and Pakistan including Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi and Sindhi languages. She is also considered to be the first female Pakistani film director.

In 1957, Jahan was awarded the President's Award for her acting and singing capabilities.

Two of her sisters, Eidan Bai and Haider Bandi, were successful actors at the rural Taka Theatre in Lahore.

Fate intervened in her successful life when in 1986, on a tour of North America, Jahan suffered from chest pains and was diagnosed with angina pectoris after which she underwent a surgery to install a pacemaker.

She was hospitalised in 2000 and suffered a heart attack.

On Saturday afternoon, December 23, 2000, Noor Jahan died from heart failure. Her funeral took place at Jamia Masjid Sultan, Karachi and she was buried at the Gizri Graveyard near the Saudi Consulate in Karachi.

China thwarts Indian attempts to isolate Pakistan

After 26/11 episode in Mumbai, New Delhi announced to isolate Islamabad from the entire civilized world and launched strings of diplomatic strikes on Pakistan by activating its propaganda machines even in the West.

The entire Indian hierarchy including the military leadership spent sleepless nights, working out strategy to attach terrorism with Pakistan as a state-sponsored policy in order to damage the repute of the only nuclear-armed Islamic power in the world.

Since then, the poverty-stricken India has been wasting all its resources and signing defence deals worth billions of dollars with the leading economies like USA, France, Russia, Japan, and UK just to get few anti-Pakistan media statements to please fanatic Hindus, backing saffron terror in the South Asia.

A couple of days ago, India sealed N-deals with Russian, thanks to Civil Nuclear Deal with USA that opened a gate way for India to shop nuclear capabilities from across the world. Recently, India and France concluded $ 9.3 billion framework agreement for installation of two EPR reactors by Areva in Jaitapur, Maharashtra. Generous agreements for setting up nuclear facilities in India have been signed by USA, UK, Russia, Canada etc. These major global players are flocking around to have their share of Indian economic pie.

Recession stricken economies are constrained to enter such huge deals to heal their own sufferings. Economic factor is important and is of immediate concern but it is not the only reason that has brought India into American and western focus.

Indian aspiration to become a regional and global power made it a perfect choice to be groomed as possible counter weight to China. The whole process of change in Asia has been expedited by global recession. India being a vibrant economy is receiving too much in to little a time. That is rapidly transforming regional balance of power and is presenting grave threat to the peace of the area. It appears that the resolution of regional disputes on Indian terms was part of strategic understanding reached between USA and India. The Americans have out rightly declined to play as mediators to resolve Kashmir dispute. UK Primer David Cameron and now French President Nicolas Sarkozy resorted to bash Pakistan and ignored the sufferings of Kashmiri’s during their visits to India as if such behaviours were part of the nuclear deals they made with India. Apathy to the Kashmir cause and the notion that Pakistan is supporting terrorism carries malicious designs that have the ability to push the region into a nuclear conflict.

Over all these years Pakistan has demonstrated remarkable resolve and determination to protect its sovereignty. In presence of Pakistan’s motivated and professional Armed Forces and potent nuclear deterrence it won’t be an easy prey in itself. The ripples created by this unprecedented lean age towards India have already started disturbing the balance of power in the region.

Consequentially, there is a visible improvement in existing warm relations between Pakistan and China. President Asif Ali Zardari has visited China almost every quarter. His efforts will prove instrumental in developing strong economic ties between the two countries. Chinese while honouring their previous commitment have opted to provide two nuclear power plants to Pakistan to be installed at Chashma despite US and NSG pressure. The move is seen as Chinese effort to retain balance of power in the region and to maintain Pakistan as a potent regional state.

The changes which are coming about in the region will only add to the tension if India tries to settle disputes on its own terms. Its acquisition of nuclear capability and building up of military muscles certainly won’t guaranty its free run in the area. Chinese Primer Wen Jiabao concluded a detailed to visit Pakistan few days ago. After his successful visit the expected “Strategic Dialogue” between the two countries has begun.

He also addressed joint session of the parliament and Chinese companies concluded agreements for investment of about $35 billion in different infrastructural and developmental projects in Pakistan. This reinvigoration of relations between the two countries will act as a major check on unopposed dominance of smaller states of the region by India.

US probably will need to revisit its notion of dominating Asian resources through India. In this rapidly transforming world the concept of having absolute supremacy is already outmoded. With the knowledge and technology explosion dominance of nations through military might or coercion is no more a viable option. The only way forward is mutual cooperation based on win-win propositions as China’s unprecedented support to Pakistan has blocked all Indian ambitions to isolate Pakistan on nuclear front.

What If India Were Not Partitioned?

This is the quintessential ‘What If’ question. It is counterfactual because now we can never know what would have happened if India had not been partitioned. But we can speculate about the possibilities and try and construct plausible scenarios for purposes of understanding and discussion.

In this post we argue against the scenario presented by Aakar Patel in his op-ed in The News on September 22, 2008. Aakar Patel’s one-line conclusion is that an unpartitioned India would have been a disaster for both Hindus and Muslims.

Let us first list the points we aim to contend:

1. Unpartitioned India would be the word’s largest country (1.4 billion people), the world’s largest Muslim country (500 million) and… the world’s poorest country (over 600 million hungry).
2. In undivided India, religion would have dominated political debate, as it did in the 30s and 40s, and consensus on reform would be hard to build internally. All energy would be sucked into keeping the country together. Undivided India would have separate electorates, the irreducible demand of the Muslim League and the one that Nehru stood against. A democracy with separate electorates is no democracy at all.
3. Hindus would never have been able to rule Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan or the Frontier.
4. Without Partition there would have been no Nizam-e-Mustafa.
5. The fault line of national politics in undivided India would have remained Hindu versus Muslim. Jinnah alone understood that from the start. Nehru and Patel understood it much later, agreeing to Partition. Gandhi never understood it; if he did, he never accepted it.
6. Three parts of undivided India had a Muslim majority. The west became Pakistan, the east became Bangladesh. Sooner or later, the north will become something else: the Muslims of Kashmir do not want to be India. But Indians do not understand that.

Let us now respond in order and present a different perspective:

1. Undivided India need not have been the world’s poorest country. The resources, attention and energy that have gone into the continued hostility since Partition could have been channeled into development. (See the cost of conflict estimated by the Strategic Foresight Group, Mumbai). The huge market and the complementarities of arbitrarily divided ecosystems could have yielded great benefits. Huge investments went into making up for the division of the Indus water system, for example.
2. A democracy need not be a mechanical and rigid system. Malaysia, with three, not two, hostile communities found a way to adjust its system of governance to suit its constraints. South Africa, with its bitter history of apartheid, found a way in its constitution to work around the hostilities. There was no reason India could not have found a similarly workable formula.
3. There is no reason to think in terms of one community ruling the other. Indeed, that is a framework that is incompatible with democratic governance. The fact is that almost right up to Partition, the Punjab’s Unionist Party had found a mechanism to govern with a coalition of the major communities.
4. Even after Partition there is no Nizam-e-Mustafa. The fact that a large number of Hindus in India today want the Kingdom of Ram does not mean that their demand needs to lead to a redefinition of India. These kinds of demands need to be resolved in the political arena.
5. Jinnah did not feel from the start that the fault-line in undivided India would have remained Hindus versus Muslims. In fact, Jinnah was the advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity because he believed it was possible. The management of any fault line is up to the leadership as shown by the examples of Malaysia and South Africa mentioned earlier. Ireland is another example.
6. Three parts of undivided India had a Muslim majority but the demand for Pakistan did not originate in these areas. In fact the Muslim majority areas of the west were the last to sign on and even then very reluctantly. The Muslims of Kashmir seemed quite satisfied with the situation under the Farooq Abdullah government. Their attitude is more a function of India’s mismanagement (and post-partition Pakistan’s incitements) than of some innate hatred of Hindus. There is no cure for mismanagement. Even the Muslim west and east could not coexist in the face of political folly.

It is quite possible to argue that there were many possible resolutions of the situation that prevailed in India in the 1930s and 1940s. It was a failure of leadership that the worst possible alternative was chosen. India lacked a statesman of the caliber of Mandela who could see beyond the immediate political gains and losses.

The cost of the Partition is hard to imagine – almost a million deaths, ten million homeless, and continued conflicts. Add to this the subsequent costs in Bangladesh and the ongoing ones in Kashmir. If the inability of Hindus and Muslims to live together is given as the sole reason for the Partition, it should be considered that in all the one thousand years that Muslims lived in India, there was never once this scale of conflict or bloodshed.

It was possible to live together. In fact Hindus and Muslims continue to live together in India even though their relations were poisoned and made immensely difficult by the fact of the Partition.

One could just as well argue that the Partition was a disaster for both Hindus and Muslims as also for the Sikhs whose homeland was cut into two. A united India would never have allowed the Saudis or the Americans to set up madrassas and train jihadis within its territories. Dim-witted dictators would never have been able to occupy the positions of power they were in post-Partition Pakistan and Bangladesh.

We can say that Manto in Toba Tek Singh had the right perspective on the partition of India.

PARTITION OF INDIA

Though partition of India broke into history suddenly and ruthlessly, it had been in the making for a long time. Its roots were visible in the Hindu-Muslims riots which started as early as 1881 and the British encouraged the religious conflicts.The formation of the All India Muslim League at Dacca (now Dhaka) in December, 1906, provided a focal point for Muslim political aspirations. In 1937, when the Congress and the Muslim League started working provincial ministries, the rivalry between the two organizations came into the open.

While the Indian National Congress was calling for Britain to Quit India, the Muslim League, in 1943, passed a resolution for them to Divide and Quit. So, when freedom was granted after a protracted freedom struggle under the leadership of Gandhiji, the leader of the Muslim League, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, insisted on claiming a separate state for the Muslim minority.

This demand was preceded by an election in 1937, in which Jinnah's Muslim League could not obtain enough majority to come to power and so he needed another strategy by which to get a loud enough voice in India for the Muslims. It is notable that he had previously supported Hindu-Muslim unity, but after the election his thinking changed and he started to be in favour of a separate Muslim state. In 1947, the Indian subcontinent became the independent nations of India and Pakistan. Pakistan was made up of West Pakistan (along the Indus River plain) and East Pakistan (which is now Bangladesh). Gandhiji was deeply distressed by the partition and said “ My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God. ”

The Partition of India is one of the biggest catastrophies in the history of South Asia. It led to a massive loss of lives and forced many to evacuate their lands. East and West Punjab, North West Frontier Province, North India and Sind were engulfed in an orgy of violence for months. Mammoth migrations of Muslims from India and Hindus from Pakistan took place, shattering both communities down to their core. Nearly, 5,00,000 people died in the holocaust and 55,00,000 people were forced to migrate from their abodes.

What did the partition lead to ? The ‘communal politics' which was meant to be buried by the partition only assumed more menacing proportions in all the three countries (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). The breakup of erstwhile Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh buried the ‘Two Nation Theory'. Relations with Bangladesh, which was born with help and support from India, are not particularly friendly. Lohia's idea of ‘India-Pakistan' federation stands rejected by the people of both the countries.

Hot coals burn under India's red carpet

Despite his charm offensive that looks like a remix of the India-China friendship chant hummed more than five decades back, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's second Indian trip ended last week with many nice words, bumper trade deals, but hardly anything else otherwise.

At the end of his three-day Indian sojourn, Wen reiterated what he told Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his trip to Beijing in 2008; that India and China relations have "transcended beyond their bilateral dimension and have acquired global and strategic significance".

"Our ties have gone beyond bilateral scope and assumed global responsibility. When China and India have a heart-to-heart conversation, the whole world will listen, and we have reason to be proud of that," Wen said in a public meeting India after concluding his meeting with Manmohan. "Our endeavors have caught the attention of the world. The world is undergoing major development and changes, we should seize the opportunity and lose no time in deepening our ties."

Beyond those refreshing words and an ambitious trade target, however, Wen's second India trip made little breakthrough in resolving the prickly issues dogging their relationship in the recent years.

There was no clear support on India's ambition to become a permanent member of the UNSC [United Nations Security Council]; no expressed sympathy of the 26/11 terror attacks [on Mumbai]; no mention Pakistan's involvement in exporting terrorism; and no firm assurance on disputing the outstanding border issues.

According to experts, these issues are significant as far as India-China relationship is concerned.

Even as the two countries once claimed that that they been natural friends for decades - ever since the then Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Chinese counterpart Mao Zedong coined the phrase "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" (brothers) - there has been a long legacy of tensions.

In 1962 for instance, the two countries has fought a brief war over their shared 3,500 kilometer border. Decades on, that conflict has raised its ugly head several times.

In past year though there have been some added thorns. Last year for instance, China's practice of issuing visas to people from Indian-administered Kashmir on separate pieces of paper met with intense disapproval from India since China offered the standard visas to other Indians. Since China still hasn't given any explanation for that move, in India it was perceived as China's tacit acceptance of Kashmir as a separate state.

Later India retaliated by refusing to allow a Chinese diplomat to visit its troubled northeastern state of Manipur for a lecture, while bilateral ties received its severest blow in August, when in a "tit-for-tat diplomacy" China refused a visa to a Kashmir-based general.

Beijing's cooperation with India's troubled neighbor Pakistan on missile development, cross-border infrastructure and a deep-water port have been issues that prick New Delhi.

China too is strongly critical about India providing exile to the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, and claims that India's north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh as its own.

Besides say sources from the Indian industry lobby Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), even as bilateral trade has been booming, India hasn't really benefited as much as it should have.

Experts say even as India has a negative trade balance of over $19 billion with China, the new trade target speaks volumes for the maturity with which the two countries have managed to separate their business from politics.

Deals valued at over $16 billion - and numbering more than 48 - were signed in the areas of power, telecom and financial sectors, dwarfing the $10 billion bilateral trade deals - $10 billion-India signed US President Barack Obama just a few weeks earlier.

China also agreed to help India reduce its trade deficit by removing trade barriers, and supporting Indian participation in its national and regional trade fairs, enhance exchange and cooperation of pharmaceutical supervision and expedite completion of negotiations on agriculture products.

This is why, even as Wen's India trip has left many expectations (from the Indian side at least) unfulfilled, according to Gang, it has been significant for achieving something much bigger. "The most important outcome of the premier's visit has been that it has taken the India-China relationship to another level and has set a new base for enhanced mutual trust and further cooperation," he said.

As the death toll for international troops in Afghanistan this year hit a record of 701, and amid growing US frustration with Islamabad's efforts to remove militants from strongholds in Pakistan, officials are proposing to escalate military activities in the nuclear-armed nation, The New York Times reported yesterday.

Pakistan yesterday successfully test-fired a ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads 1300km, the military said.

US forces have been limited to covert operations and drone strikes in Pakistan, where the US alliance provokes anger. Islamabad has described American boots on the ground as a "red line".

The story was denied by a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, who last night said there was "absolutely no truth" to the claim that ground operations into Pakistan were planned. "ISAF and US forces, along with their Afghan partners, have developed a strong working relationship with the Pakistan military to address shared security issues," said Rear Admiral Gregory Smith.

Even limited operations have provoked angry public reactions from Pakistani officials, although US cables recently released by WikiLeaks suggest the political and military leadership quietly approved the activities.

The US refuses to confirm drone attacks, but its military and the CIA are the only forces that deploy the aircraft in the region.

With Washington keen to start withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan next July, military and political leaders point to a renewed sense of urgency.

Dissatisfied with the inadequate efforts from Pakistan to root out militants from inside its territory, the US is pushing for an expanded campaign of ground raids across the border inside the country. "The proposal, described by American officials in Washington and Afghanistan, would escalate

military activities inside Pakistan, where the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash," The New York Times said in a report on Monday.

It was quick to add though that the plan has not been approved and is still under consideration.

Top US military officers, The Times said, are now convinced that there needs to be a shift in its policy about forays across the border, knowing very well that the half a dozen such attempts so far have infuriated Pakistani officials.

US President Barack Obama, announcing the result of the annual review of his Af-Pak policy, had clearly said that Pakistan needs to do more in the war against terrorism especially against the safe havens inside the country.

NATO denies having plans for raids inside Pakistan

A communications officer denies a report that the U.S. will send American special forces into Pakistan's tribal areas.

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan —

The NATO force inAfghanistan denied Tuesday that the U.S. military intends to carry out ground raids inside Pakistan in pursuit of insurgent leaders hiding there.

The sharply worded statement underscored the extreme sensitivities surrounding the subject of militant sanctuaries in Pakistan, which were identified last week in a White Houseassessment of the Afghan conflict as a key impediment to subduing the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

In recent years, the U.S. military has carried out a small number of incursions into Pakistan, most of them by air. These raids generally trigger public denunciations by Pakistan, although its government is widely believed to have tacitly approved the drone strikes.

India rout Pakistan 8-0, in SAFF Women's C'ships final

Bala Devi fired in a hat-trick as India crushed a hapless Pakistan 8-0 to storm into the final of the inaugural SAFF Women's Championships at Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh on Monday.

India had scored 31 goals in the group stage without conceding a single goal.

India will take on the winner of Tuesday's other semifinal match between Bangladesh and Nepal in the final on December 23.

Cellular operators: Who has the most subscribers?

Mobile industry is a big deal as it earns more than two-thirds of the telecommunication sector’s revenues and managed to increase its last year earnings by 11 per cent. There are six mobile phones for every ten people in Pakistan, something difficult to imagine in a developing country like Pakistan but the mobile industry managed to pull it off.

There is no monopoly anymore and the competitiveness of the industry seems to be increasing as most of the other mobile operators seem to have held on to their shares and gained some customers along the way, not taking some hitches into account. However, success cannot be judged by the amount of customers alone as different customers pay different amounts of money. Hence, the amount of revenue earned as a percentage of the whole becomes more important.

• Mobilink made more money this year. It also gained the largest number of customers this year, yet its revenue gains were paltry in comparison. Moreover, their cellular operator revenue share decreased.
• Telenor gained the second largest number of customers but in context, its revenue increase seemed lacklustre. However, its revenue share increased and they managed to make more money this year.
• Ufone lost customers but very interestingly they did something right because they actually managed to increase their earnings by a very large amount. Also their cellular operator revenue share increased.
• Warid lost a decent amount of customers while its cellular operator revenue share also decreased.
• Zong gained a decent amount of customers, increased its cellular operator revenue share in the telecom sector and managed to increase its earnings by the largest amount.

Note: It must be kept in mind that in addition to customers shifting mobile operators a company losing customers could also be due to a cleanup of records, which is due to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority implementing a standard Active Subscribers definition. Due to this, operators have to remove people who do not meet Active Subscriber requirements from their customer list.

More Civilian Casualties of War in Pakistan than Afghanistan

At what point do we stop calling it the “Afghanistan War?”

The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Armed Conflict (CIVIC), released a new study of civilian casualties in Pakistan. They find, among other things: ”In 2009, an estimated 2,300 civilians were killed in terror attacks alone with many more injured. Counting losses from Pakistani military operations and U.S. drone strikes, civilian casualties in Pakistan likely exceed in number those in neighboring Afghanistan.”

The majority of casualties are the victims of terror attacks and extrajudicial killings by the Taliban — but that is what you expect from a group like the Taliban. Still, a not insignificant number of civilian non-combatant casualties are from Pakistani military action and U.S. drone strikes. On the latter, the report provides strong evidence that the number of the civilian casualties from drone strikes are significantly higher than the United States admits.

The report draws on some existing surveys of US drone strikes and finds that approximately 120 drone strikes killed between 804 and 1367 people in 2009. The United States claims only 20 of those killed were civilians. CIVIC investigated only 9 out of 120 attacks and found at least 30 alleged civilian deaths. In June, one attack alone took the lives of 45 to 60 people, up to 18 of whom were believed to be civilians.

What is most remarkable about this report is that CIVIC speaks directly to individual victims of drone attacks.

As an organization, CIVIC lobbies for compensation for innocent victims in conflict. Their founder, Marla Ruzika was killed in Iraq in 2005 on a mission to document civilian casualties. As a result of her organization’s work, the United States now has a process to pay compensation to civilians harmed by American military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report shows that there is a haphazard mechanism by which local provincial officials compensate innocent Pakistani’s for damages incurred from wrongful attacks by the Pakistan military. Pakistani victims of American drone strikes, though, do not qualify for this kind of compensation. Neither are Pakistani victims given access to the same compensation mechanisms in place in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If, as the report says, the brunt of civilian casualties are now being incurred on the Pakistani side of the border, it would make moral sense (and likely benefit the counter-insurgency effort) to extend the same kind of compensation to innocent victims of U.S. military strikes in Pakistan. An innocent victim is an innocent victim, no matter what the geography.

US face saving:

ISI blows cover of CIA man in

Islamabad

The Central Intelligence Agency's top clandestine officer in Islamabad was pulled from the country on Thursday amid an escalating war of recriminations between American andPakistani spies, with some American officials convinced that the officer's cover was deliberately blown by Pakistan's military intelligence agency.

The CIA officer hastily left Pakistan on the same day that an Obama administration review of theAfghanistan war concluded that the war could not be won without greater cooperation from Islamabad in rooting out militants in Pakistan's western mountains.

The outing of the CIA station chief is tied to the spy agency's campaign of drone strikes, which are very unpopular in Pakistan, although the government has given its tacit approval for them.

American officials said that the CIA station chief had received a number of death threats after he was named publicly in a legal complaint sent to Pakistani police this week by the family of victims of an earlier drone strike.

The officials said there is strong suspicion that operatives of Pakistan's powerful spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, had a hand in revealing the CIA officer's identity — possibly in retaliation for a civil lawsuit filed in Brooklyn last month implicating the ISI chief in theMumbai terror attacks of November 2008.

The intensifying mistrust between the CIA and ISI, two uneasy but co-dependent allies, could hardly come at a worse time. The Obama administration relies on Pakistan's support for the armed drone program, which this year has launched a record number of strikes in North Waziristan against terror suspects.

The relationship between the spy services has often frayed in recent years. American officials believe that ISI officers helped plan the deadly July 2008 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, as well as provided support to Lashkar-e-Taiba militants who carried out the Mumbai attacks later that year.
The legal complaint in Pakistan that named the CIA station chief, who was working undercover and whose name is classified, was filed on Monday over an attack late last year that killed at least four Pakistanis. The complaint sought police help in keeping the station chief in the country until a lawsuit could be filed.

The agent's name had already been revealed in a news conference last month by Mirza Shahzad Akbar, the lawyer who filed the complaint this week, and the name had been reported in local media.