At least 49 killed in Lahore

The blasts, which took place within a radius of 30 metre, also caused a massive fire in a crowded shopping mall. The blasts knocked out electricity supply.

Monday’s strike was the second terrorist attack in Iqbal Town. On August 13, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the same market, killing nine people, including two children.

Lahore Commissioner Khusro Pervaiz told reporters that the death toll could rise as fire-fighters struggled to put out the blaze to rescue the trapped people till late in the night.

Rescue teams retrieved several charred bodies from the building. A number of the injured people taken to different city hospitals were said to be in a critical condition.

According to police, the first blast took place outside a bank and the other near a police station. People ran for their lives as the two blasts took place within a few seconds at about 8.45pm.

SSP (operations) Chaudhry Shafique Ahmed told Dawn that the first blast had been carried out by a suicide bomber.

The Iqbal Town SP said police had recovered some body parts, including the head and legs of the suspected bomber. He said police had also seized a damaged motorcycle allegedly used for planting a time device.

However, Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah and senior officials insisted that the blasts could have been triggered remotely.

The commissioner blamed India for the blasts. But the law minister said that militants from Waziristan were involved.

A number of shops in the market were destroyed and windowpanes of nearby buildings and houses shattered. Dozens of cars and motorcycles were damaged.

Most people falling prey to the bloody attacks were either shopping or dining out at the time of the incident.

The blasts were heard in a radius of a few kilometres. Panic gripped the area and all major markets in the city were closed. Traders announced closure of the mar ket on Tuesday in protest against the incident.

People accused police of not taking effective precautionary measures despite threats that terrorists could target markets in the city.

“I was passing through the market when the first blast took place outside the MCB Bank, where people were enjoying their food,” said Mohammad Qaiser, of Sabzazar.

“Soon after the blast I found at least 10 people lying on the ground with blood and limbs strewn all around,” he added.

Imran Hussian, a shopkeeper, said, “I was outside the shop when a huge blast shook the entire market. A few seconds later, another explosion was heard on the outskirts of the market.” He said he and other people ran for their lives. “When we returned after some time, we saw the injured screaming and crying for pain. A big fire erupted in the market,” he said.

Meanwhile, police set up pickets across the city and rounded up several suspects for investigation. QUETTA, Dec 7: Ten people, including a child, were injured when a bomb exploded near the Government Officers’ Residential (GOR) colony on Monday.

An explosive device placed in a car parked outside the colony went off in the afternoon. Eight of the injured were identified as Ghani, Shaukat, Irfan, Sadiqullah, Waheed, Ismail, Najib and Ibrahim. Two others were discharged from the civil hospital after first aid. Their names could not be ascertained.

The blast damaged two vehicles.

US signaling

Mercifully, American public diplomacy can also get things right on occasion. On Sunday, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said: ‘Well, we don’t know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we’d go after him.’

More importantly, from a Pakistani perspective, Mr Gates also acknowledged that intelligence-sharing was not necessarily the problem between the US and Pakistan: ‘No. I think it’s because, if as we suspect, [Bin Laden] is in North Waziristan, it is an area that the Pakistani government has not had a presence in, in quite some time.’ Compare Mr Gates’s statements with what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on her trip to Pakistan in late October: ‘I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where [Al Qaeda’s leaders] are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.’ Are the US secretaries of defence and state really operating with fundamentally different scripts for American policy towards Pakistan or is it part of a complex game of signalling, a good cop/bad cop routine, in which the US is trying to goad Pakistan into ‘doing more’?

We believe it is the latter, but seeing some method in the madness does not make it any less ill-advised. The Americans perhaps understand and acknowledge privately among themselves that the Pakistani state is moving in the right direction in terms of the regional fight against militancy but perhaps they are also suspicious that what the Pakistani side presents as ‘deliberate and measured’ actions against the militants is really ‘foot dragging’ by a security establishment that is hedging its bets and keeping its options open for the post-American phase in Afghanistan. So sometimes we hear the American side cautiously praising Pakistan’s actions, while at other times we hear their dark mutterings about Pakistan not being interested in defeating Al Qaeda. The Americans know that the Al Qaeda bogeyman is impossible to argue against — the world community is so completely unified against Al Qaeda that any mention of its existence anywhere immediately shuts down rational debate about realistic ‘do-ables’ and puts pressure on a state to ‘do more,’ whatever the reality and the realistic possibilities.

But what the Americans do not seem to understand is that their frequently skeptical posture towards Pakistan undercuts their claim that they are genuinely interested in a long-term relationship with Pakistan that goes beyond the need to defeat Al Qaeda.

If the Americans don’t even believe Pakistan wants to help defeat Al Qaeda — a group that serves no strategic purpose, however perverse, for Pakistan — is the present ‘friendship’ between the two countries nothing more than a mere illusion? Only more, realistic talk like that of Mr Gates’s from the American side can prove otherwise.

An important factor

The decision to send in more American troops to Afghanistan was a long time coming. In his recent speech US President Barack Obama walked a fine line between the two positions advocated by his advisers: some wanted to pursue what has come to be called the counter-insurgency approach while others advocated a counter-terrorism strategy.

The first is aimed at using considerable amount of force to overcome the insurgency while undertaking intensive development of the liberated terrain. The second is aimed at concentrating firepower on the strongholds from where the terrorists are launching their attacks. Areas in Pakistan are not to be spared since US intelligence had concluded that the insurgents had made these not only their sanctuaries but also their training grounds.

The military did not get all it wanted but it got more than President Obama’s most ardent supporters would have wanted him to provide. The long process of deliberation that resulted in the decision to send 30,000 additional soldiers — a process the president’s detractors called ‘dithering’ — resulted in giving the commanders additional troops so that they could concentrate their effort in the south and southeast, in the provinces that border Pakistan.

President Obama told his audience that it was neither his intention to go over the distraction of the war in Iraq from America’s mission in Afghanistan nor to repeat the ‘wrenching debate over the Iraq war’. Instead he wished to detail why America needed to recommit itself to winning the struggle against extremism. He wanted to speak to the nation ‘about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion’.

He acknowledged that mistakes had been made under the watch of his predecessor although he did not refer to them as mistakes or directly referred to the policies pursued by President George W. Bush. ‘But while we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.’ Pakistan, in other words, had become an important factor in the Afghan equation.

President Obama told the American nation — and the world — that while he planned to send an additional 30,000 troops ‘this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war.’ Nato forces were likely to increase to 40,000. The additional American troops would be moved quickly but it would take six to eight months to complete the deployment. By late July or early August 2010, the full American force would be present on the ground. This would be the peak of the fighting season in the country. Most of the American troops would be concentrated in the provinces bordering Pakistan.

What purpose was to be served by this buildup in the size of the American contingent? ‘Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.’ The new mission will last at its peak for a period of 18 months after which ‘our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan’.

President Obama recognised that nothing would succeed in Afghanistan unless Pakistan was helped to stabilise its economy and equipped to handle insurgency. ‘... [W]e will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the region. In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.’

This time around, President Obama promised an enduring relationship with Pakistan that would go beyond contacts with the military and the intelligence services. He had already signed into law the Kerry-Lugar bill that promised Pakistan $1.5bn of economic assistance a year spread over a period of at least five — possibly 10 — years.

‘In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people will be unleashed.’

The response in Pakistan to the country’s inclusion in the refined Afghan strategy was mixed. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani worried about the movement of the Afghan insurgents into Balochistan as the pressure on Afghanistan’s province of Helmand increased. He wanted some assurance that the American troops will block these escape routes. There is no doubt that as the new strategy unfolds, Pakistan will be in the middle of things to come.

More vigilance after Imanae?

As a part of the medical profession, I am aware of the pressures one faces in the workplace. The emergency room is buzzing with patients round the clock, demanding treatment and asking to be prioritised. Often, patients expect doctors to be God-like, capable of diagnosing and treating the disease in the same breath. Doctors are also expected to provide medications that act more like magic potions than pharmaceutical drugs. In case a medical practitioner fails to do so, he or she is snubbed and pronounced a good-for-nothing. Of course, despite the high expectations, doctors make mistakes too, which in the medical profession can prove to be fatal.

The fact is, doctors work with a very thin margin for error. In Pakistan, medical practitioners have earned a bad reputation due to an increasing number of reported cases of negligence. Most of our hospitals lack proper equipment, and far too many lack properly trained physicians, which makes it all worse.

Recently, a nine-year old child lost his life during an orthopedic surgery. According to the parents, the child was in good health and walked to the operation theatre only to be pronounced dead a little later. I watched the news horrified and convinced that something had gone wrong with the administration of anaesthesia. This was later confirmed by statements from the hospital staff. Unfortunately, the report never made it any further than a news flash on a private television channel. The reason: the child’s parents were probably not influential enough and the matter was hushed without a word. Moreover, since this was far from the first incident of criminal negligence in Pakistan, it probably wasn’t news-worthy enough to keep on the tickers.

Then, on the second day of Eid-ul-Azha, three-year-old Imanae Malik was taken to the Doctor’s Hospital,Lahore, for treatment for minor burns. According to reports, Imanae was repeatedly injected with anaesthesia, and the accumulated dosage caused her death within minutes of administration.

Since then Imanae’s father has launched a campaign and accused the hospital staff of criminal negligence. The family has also taken legal action and is willing to proceed further into the matter. This is indeed a bold and much-needed step that could help to bring about a change and ensure that, in the future, matters such as these are handled with utmost care.

Accountability is the first step towards clarifying what really happened. Without accountability, it will be impossible to analyse the situation. Updates from the campaign site suggest that the committee has confessed to criminal negligence on part of the duty doctor. An in-depth analysis shows that the hospital authorities were completely negligent since the doctor accused was a part-timer appointed for night emergencies. The hospital authorities remain unaware of the person responsible for appointing the doctor involved in this case.

A look at the details suggest that this is a classic example of criminal negligence, an affront that should not be tolerated and instead eliminated through sustained vigilance in all public and private hospitals, and, in particular, emergency rooms.

Imanae is not the only one to suffer at the hand of negligence, and if we don’t take action now, such incidents will continue. Strict laws need to be implemented in order to make health professionals more cautious and to minimise the margin for error. At the same time, we must acknowledge that negligence isn’t intentional either. It is important to distinguish between taking a stance criminal negligence and persecuting health professionals.

I would like to take this opportunity to request that the people educate themselves, remain aware of their rights, and most importantly, stop expecting doctors to act like gods, because they are only human. Patients are also in a position to reduce the cases of criminal negligence. They should know that it is their right to demand an explanation about treatments and understand any complications that may arise from medications or procedures that are administered to their loved ones.

As a nation, let’s not trust blindly and let’s make an effort to report any incidents of negligence to ensure that no parent has to lose another child to negligence. Although we cannot bring Imanae back, our support will help educate people about their rights and make hospital authorities and health professionals more cautious about misconduct.

Bomb blast in Multan leaves 12 dead

A bomb explosion at a security check post in Multan Tuesday killed at least 12 people and injured 18 others.

The explosion took place at the security post in the Qasim Bela area of Multan cantonment and damaged several buildings.

‘We have recovered 12 dead bodies and more than 18 injured. Most of the dead are civilians,’ said emergency services official doctor Kaleemullah, who was at the site of the blast.

‘There were also some security men among the dead. This building belongs to the army. It's badly damaged.’

Multan's police chief Saood Aziz told AFP the explosives appeared to have been planted in a small pick-up truck, but it was not immediately clear if it was a suicide attack, while the exact target was also unknown.

Multan is in Punjab province, which is still reeling from twin bomb blasts in its capital Lahore on Monday that killed at least 49 people and wounded 150 more at a busy market in the centre of the city.

This is also the first time Multan has been hit during a surge of violence that began in October and has already killed more than 400 people.