India Forum Archives
Monday, December 08, 2003
  Pakistan, The Terrorist State
Posted by: Mudy Sep 7 2003, 05:47 PM
The following links are background information on Pakistan: The Monkey Trap: A synopsis of Indo-Pak relations A landmark article that demolishes myths built up about Pakistan The Terrorist swamp that is Pakistan - Inside Jihad - How Pakistan sponsors terrorists in India Should Pakistan Be Broken Up? by Gul Agha which is a link to this great article: On the Frontier of Apocalypse by Christopher Hitchens (Nuclear Enabler - Pakistan today is the most dangerous place on Earth by Jim Hoagland) "Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency" - Op-ed by Rand's Peter Chalk (This link is to a book called Making Enemies, Creating Conflict: Pakistan's Crises of State and Society. It is a collection of essays by Paks about Pak society and remains one of the finest critiques about Pakistan available on the net. ) Seymour Hersh Interview This is a list of Pakistani businesses that may be aiding and funding terror against India and other countries. Curricula and textbooks in Pakistan Most wanted list requested by India/List of terrorist sheltered by Pakistan
_________________________________________________ ... Following a meeting between CBI Director P C Sharma and FBI Chief Robert Muller in New Delhi, a proposal for the hijackers to be extradited and tried in the USA had also been discussed. India has also told the US authorities that investigating agencies were convinced that the hijackers were residing in Pakistan and around two months ago, an update about their suspected whereabouts was given by the MEA to officials of the Pakistan High Commission.
Posted by: Mudy Sep 7 2003, 11:09 PM,00050002.htm ... The students, most of whom hail from Arab and African nations, were reluctant to leave Pakistan but feared they could be arrested in the name of Al-Qaeda, Jamil said. "They used to feel Pakistan was their second home, but not anymore," said Jamil. "Pakistan now looks like an American colony," he added.
Posted by: Viren Sep 8 2003, 07:12 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Sep 7 2003, 08:47 PM)
India has also told the US authorities that investigating agencies were convinced that the hijackers were residing in Pakistan and around two months ago, an update about their suspected whereabouts was given by the MEA to officials of the Pakistan High Commission.
Why? So that Govt TSP can help relocate these vermins and Indian tax payer pays for 'finding' the newer address which again gets faxed to TSP High commission which leads TSP to get the idea. I think it's a grand Chankian plot by MEA to force TSP to spend it's ill gotten gains while they appear busy. wink.gif
Posted by: Mudy Sep 9 2003, 08:08 AM,000900040003.htm
Posted by: Sai Sep 9 2003, 11:56 PM
Posted by: Viren Sep 11 2003, 03:36 PM I'm amazed as to how little coverage is given to the Kanishka trial. Before 9/11, the blowing up of Kanishka over mid-air was THE worst terrorist attack. US with all its power got Libya to pay for Lockerbie - wonder if India will ever get close to making the terror sponsors to pay for Kanishka.
Posted by: rhytha Sep 11 2003, 10:19 PM
QUOTE (Sai @ Sep 10 2003, 12:26 PM)
Sai, plz quote the title of the article or a few lines on what the article is about, IMHO thats a good practice. cool.gif
Posted by: acharya Sep 11 2003, 10:30 PM
Muslims need to establish political clout Forget emotionalism. Draw up a hard-headed electoral strategy. First in a two-part series Syed Shahabuddin To be politically effective, Muslim India must not only go on listing grievances. Rather, it must define its long-term goals and work out its strategy if it aspires to be a player in the political arena. Above all it needs unity and organisation. The political strategy of encircling the high caste Hindu elite, by the oppressed Muslim making common cause with the oppressed Hindu, has failed. Because, while every section of the oppressed Hindu masses has a Laloo or Mulayam or Kanshi Ram or Paswan with a political infrastructure, oppressed Muslim masses have no equivalent. Second, they are increasingly doubtful whether the Forward Shudras, now on the upswing, will treat the Muslim collaborators any better than the High Castes. The Forward Shudras (about 20 per cent) are now exploiting the Backward Shudras (30 per cent). They are anxious to have the Muslims on their side, to add to their strength, at bargain basement price. What are the alternatives before Muslim Indians? The first is an alliance of the oppressed. Muslims, MBCs, SCs and STs are natural allies. Yet it is doubtful whether Muslim Indians are in a position to make common cause with MBCs, SCs and STs. First, MBCs like Muslims have no separate or independent leadership. Second, Muslim Indians feel psychologically hesitant to take the initiative. They feel comfortable with the High Castes and the Forward Shudras and do not know if the MBCs, SCs and STs want them as equal partners. But in any case for establishing a viable relationship with any other group, Muslim Indians need to be represented by a body. MODEL I A Muslim political authority: Many attempts have been made to form a national forum or consultative committee but always at the top. They failed for two reasons. First, any initiative in Delhi couldn’t reach the last panchayat. Why not begin at the panchayat level and then move upward? Second, the closed-door policy of Muslim politicians and ulema kept out the Muslim intelligentsia and emergent professional and entrepreneurial classes. Supposing Muslim Indians evolve an authority (short of a political party) that commands the allegiance of all Muslim Indians in states and constituencies of Muslim concentration, then relevant political parties would vie for an understanding with it. Obviously with consequent Muslim support, secular parties would win the Muslim-majority seats as well as many Muslim concentration seats. One may envisage a series of understandings with parties, state-by-state, or even constituency-by-constituency. MODEL II A Muslim political party: Muslim Indians have been long fed the hypothesis that if they form a Muslim party, the BJP will find it easier to mobilise Hindus. This is possible but not probable because of caste and Mandalisation. No parliamentary constituency is socially homogeneous. Since Hindus form an overwhelming majority, say 80 per cent, of the electorate on an average, there shall be a multiplicity of Hindu candidates. It is possible the candidate of the Muslim party may win, it is also probable that Hindutva candidate may win. It is equally probable a secular party representing the biggest caste group in the constituency, in adjustment or alliance with the Muslim party, may win. It is possible that such a party may seek in one constituency and offer support to the Muslim party in another. So far Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav did not have to make a deal with a Muslim party simply because there was no Muslim party worth the name. So they short-changed Muslims; they took advantage of Muslim votes for their Yadav and non-Yadav Hindu candidates, but failed to deliver Yadav/non-Yadav votes to their own Muslim candidates in Muslim concentration constituencies. Yet a Muslim party, speaking for Muslims only and using Islamic rhetoric may not be an acceptable partner for secular parties. MODEL III A Muslim-based secular party: Fifty years after Independence, Muslim Indians are seriously considering a secular party in which they occupy the driver’s seat but whose doors are open to all, which stands squarely for national unity and integrity, demands fair and proportionate participation in governance and society for all identifiable communities, irrespective of religion, caste, region or language. The formation of the Insaf Party (1989-91) was an experiment in this direction. But it was premature. With such a secular party of their own, Muslim Indians can play the electoral game more effectively. The party can negotiate on terms of equality with all Hindu majority secular parties and formulate a common programme. Such a programme will safeguard legitimate interests of all deprived sections — Backward Backwards, SCs and STs and Muslims — while protecting those of the High Castes and the Forward Backwards. The Muslim-based secular party may form an alliance with another secular party with a base among MBCs, SCs and STs. If the alliance works, these parties may eventually merge to form one party representing 65 per cent of the Indian people. (The author is a former MP)
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 12 2003, 05:13 AM
One can see from the article that the blighter is intent on dividing India along communal and sectarian lines. The intent of the hard headed strategy is to keep India weak and divided.
Posted by: Sudhir Sep 12 2003, 10:49 AM
Kaushal, As elections draws closer, expect more such worms to come out of the woodwork. Can you please list the source or URL to the article. It's a good practice to list it in post if the material isn't original. More importantly, if on some website, I will paste my response to Syed Shahabuddin (SS). Hopefully this bigot can respond in the second part of his series.
Dear Syed Shahabuddin, The whole article has more holes than the proverbial swiss cheese. Let me try slicing it for the rat that you are..... >>To be politically effective, Muslim India must not only go on listing grievances. Muslim India or Indian Muslims? >>or Paswan with a political infrastructure, oppressed Muslim masses have no equivalent. I don't understand, how come in India there are no 'oppressed Parsis', 'oppressed Jews' or 'oppressed Christians' or 'oppressed Hindus' . You are concerned about 'oppressed Muslims' onlee? >>Second, they are increasingly doubtful whether the Forward Shudras, now on the upswing, will treat the Muslim collaborators any better than the High Castes. What the f*** is a 'Froward Shudras'? So are there any 'Froward Muslims', 'Froward Jews', 'Froward Parsis'? >>The Forward Shudras (about 20 per cent) are now exploiting the Backward Shudras (30 per cent). So the battle is economic and not based on caste, ethinicity I trust? >>What are the alternatives before Muslim Indians? The first is an alliance of the oppressed. Muslims, MBCs, SCs and STs are natural allies. Yet it is doubtful whether Muslim Indians are in a position to make common cause with MBCs, SCs and STs. Try accomodating 'oppressed Parsis', 'oppressed Jews' or 'oppressed Christians' or for that matter 'oppressed Hindus''ll work for sure. >>First, MBCs like Muslims have no separate or independent leadership. And your role in ensuring this is pretty well known. >>Why not begin at the panchayat level and then move upward? Great, what next? You are going to tell us that tree is made of wood? >>Second, the closed-door policy of Muslim politicians and ulema kept out the Muslim intelligentsia and emergent professional and entrepreneurial classes. Musilm intelligentsia and professionals have seen through your divisive politics and are working hard to make India a better place for Indians rather than b1tch and moan and whine about others. Heard of Abdul Kalam, Azim Premji or Shenaz Hussian, A R Rehman etc. I could go on you know. >>Supposing Muslim Indians evolve an authority (short of a political party) that commands the allegiance of all Muslim Indians in states and constituencies of Muslim concentration, then relevant political parties would vie for an understanding with it. You know this happened over half a century ago and I'm sorry you missed that train. >>A Muslim political party: Muslim Indians have been long fed the hypothesis that if they form a Muslim party, the BJP will find it easier to mobilise Hindus. This is possible but not probable because of caste and Mandalisation. You know Mr ex-IAS officer, Muslim parties have existed in India for about a 100 years now despite caste and long before Mandalisation and/or BJP. >>So far Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav did not have to make a deal with a Muslim party simply because there was no Muslim party worth the name. So they short-changed Muslims; they took advantage of Muslim votes for their Yadav and non-Yadav Hindu candidates, but failed to deliver Yadav/non-Yadav votes to their own Muslim candidates in Muslim concentration constituencies. So now shift blame from BJP to Laloo and Yadav. Great going!! >>Yet a Muslim party, speaking for Muslims only and using Islamic rhetoric may not be an acceptable partner for secular parties. Readers please read this as SS saying "yep, I want a muslim party with me as a grand head sultan of that party, but I want a 'secular' mask to hide my bigotted agenda". >>A Muslim-based secular party: Isn't that an oxymoron you m0r0n!! >>Fifty years after Independence, Muslim Indians are seriously considering a secular party in which they occupy the driver’s seat but whose doors are open to all, which stands squarely for national unity and integrity, demands fair and proportionate participation in governance and society for all identifiable communities, irrespective of religion, caste, region or language. In a true democratic and secular setup, why should a particular community occupy the "driver's seat"? What's wrong with say Jew or Parsi having a drivers seat? Wouldn't that be a 'secular' thing to do? >>The formation of the Insaf Party (1989-91) was an experiment in this direction. But it was premature. What is this Insaf Party? Me no heard of them >>With such a secular party of their own, Muslim Indians can play the electoral game more effectively. Read crooks, manipulators and shakedown artist like Shahbuddin will have the dice loaded in their favor in this game. >>If the alliance works, these parties may eventually merge to form one party representing 65 per cent of the Indian people. What about representation of the rest 35%? I trust voters of India are educated and will see through this rascals agenda.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 12 2003, 11:59 PM
It appears that the J&K minister is implicated in the Akshardham investigation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Gujarat police team has taken Chand Khan, an accused in the Akshardham attack case, to Gujarat for further interrogation. This appears to be the first step for the possible interrogation of J&K Agriculture Minister Abdul Aziz Zargar whose house was alleged to have been used by the militants for planning the Akshardham attack in Gujarat last year, well informed sources told HT. HTC, Srinagar
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 13 2003, 12:32 PM
Kuka parray was a major player in the counter insurgency campaign and a brave and courageous(if prodigal) son of India. We salute him and condole his bereaved family on his loss. The message is clear if you are loyal to India your life in Kashmir is in danger. This is a message that GOI needs to counteract with every means and weapon at her disposal.,001300430001.htm Press Trust of India Srinagar, September 13 Sept 2002 file photo of Parray Militant-turned-politician Mohammad Yousuf Parray aka Kukka Parray was shot dead by militants at Hajan in Baramulla on Saturday. Militants opened fire at Parray and his entourage just outside his house and then hurled a grenade, killing Parray, his secretary and a sarpanch. The killing of Parray — considered the king of counter-insurgency in Kashmir — is a blow to security forces, which will now have to carry out anti-insurgency operations in the state without his help. By killing Parray in Hajan, his hometown, militants have not only eliminated an enemy, but have sent out a warning to other counter-insurgent elements. Parray had in the 1990s helped Indian security forces bust pro-Pakistan militant outfits by providing information about their hideouts and movements. Official sources say Parray may have been killed to avenge the recent killing of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Ghazi Baba. Parray was to counter-insurgency what Ghazi Baba was to militancy in the Valley. While Ghazi's followers have unleashed a spate of violence to avenge his death, Parray's murder has left his followers leaderless. Kashmir observers say Parray's men now have limited options: either get back to militancy or flee. "The next few days are crucial. We don't know to what level violence could go," a security officer said. Parray is the second counter-insurgent to be killed in the last 17 days. Former legislator Javaid Shah, who was a front-ranking counter-insurgent along with Parray, was killed in an attack at his office on August 27. *************** The anti-militant • Surrendered to the Army in 1994; formed Ikhwan, a band of surrendered militants • Launched offensive against Hizb and Jamait, reported to have killed 700 cadres • Used links with militants to provide information to Army • Elected to assembly in 1996. Contested again last year, lost
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 16 2003, 10:41 PM
I wish world leaders in general and Indian leaders in particular would stop being spokesman for a religion to which they do not even belong and have every chance of being wrong on the topic. Why not we let Muslims explain numerous references to killing of civilians. For example let Muslims explain away the numerous historical instances where women and children are routinely killed, Similar behavior occurs even today. M Shakeel Ahmed in Ankara | September 16, 2003 22:09 IST Describing international terrorism as a 'global monster', Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Tuesday flayed the 'selective approach' and differing standards of some countries in combating the menace. He also dismissed the Western belief that Islam was a source of terrorism. We cannot afford selective approaches which sacrifice the long-term interests. Differing standards cannot be applied for judging terrorism," he said in a wide-ranging interview with Turkish daily News. Vajpayee expressed concern over the situation in Iraq, regrouping of Taliban in Afghanistan and dismissed suggestions that India had abandoned the Palestinians for Israel. "International terrorism is today a global monster which knows no national boundaries or territorial limits of operations," he said. "It exploits the openness and freedom of democratic societies. It uses modern technologies and unorthodox techniques to achieve its destructive objectives." The menace of terrorism could be countered only by global, united and comprehensive effort, he added. About tendency in the West to subscribe to the view that Islam was a source of terrorism, Vajpayee said, "We totally dismiss the proposition that any religion is a source of terrorism. Such arguments seek to discredit one of the great religions of the world." "No religion prescribes violence against innocent people. Our battle is against extremist elements who misuse and misinterpret religion to justify terrorism and incite violence," he said.This is of course debatable. There is ample evidence that there are several passages in the Koran exhorting jihad against innocent civilians, women and children.
Posted by: acharya Sep 17 2003, 08:48 PM
What we have is gujarat incident is being used to tarnish the entire country. Not only that - charities are also being politicizied Clinton urges Indian techies to aid communal harmony IANS[ WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 12:25:53 PM ] WASHINGTON: Former US president Bill Clinton has urged Indian Americans in Silicon Valley to aid social development in India, saying it would help check religious violence. "India's future is threatened mostly by the continuing problem of Kashmir and its problems with Pakistan and now the growth of internal religious violence," he said. "One of the things that we know is that people have less cause to fight --whether there are religious or other differences -- when they have practical things they do together, when they live in an interdependent environment." Clinton was speaking at a fund-raiser for the San Francisco-based American India Foundation. India is all set to play an important role in the future of the world, Clinton said, adding that the Silicon Valley's influential Indian American community should spur a new era of philanthropy in their homeland. Clinton, who was the first US president to visit India in 20 years, said India's rapid advancement in the technological world had outpaced social development in much of the country. He urged the private gathering to leverage their philanthropy toward India through groups such as the American India Foundation. His talk was billed as a speech about preserving the secular fabric of India through the hand-in-hand processes of social development and communal harmony, according to a report in Mercury News. Of late violence has been on the rise in India, culminating in rioting and terrorist attacks, in which both Islamist and Hindu hardliners have been implicated, the paper said. The tensions have triggered a debate in Silicon Valley, where Indian Americans have the clout to help. Clinton's talk represents something of a political turning point for the American India Foundation, which since its inception over two years ago has largely stayed out of the contentious discussion. The organisation had asked Clinton to address the violence in India in his speech at the fundraiser. The foundation also clarified its mission in the hope of sending a stronger message of inclusiveness. "In the past year's worth of communal strife around the world, and particularly in India, we needed to make a statement about communal harmony," said foundation president Lata Krishnan, a former high-tech executive. "In all of our projects, we make sure that all communities are equally empowered." The foundation still sees its mission as apolitical and of benefit to people of all faiths -- a natural evolution of its goals: funding programmes for childhood education, for example, and raising the economic status of women through micro-lending.
Posted by: Sudhir Sep 18 2003, 11:29 AM
QUOTE (acharya @ Sep 18 2003, 09:18 AM)
What we have is gujarat incident is being used to tarnish the entire country.
What we have here is a consistent effort to keep India 'in it's place' by Westerners. Before Gujarat it was Ayodhya. Before that it was Delhi. Boss, this pysch ops war has been in play for past couple centuries now. Has anyone on noticed in the past 4 to 5 months way too much bandwidth is being used to discuss pysch-ops? I say, let the dogs bark, the Indian nations march should not be slowed down by this bark.
Posted by: Mudy Sep 18 2003, 09:33 PM - By Balbir K. Punj at Asian Age ... Every time the country is stalked by a terrorist strike or a communal riot, the out-of-job "secularists" see the tragedy as yet another opportunity to paint their favourite whipping boy, the Sangh Parivar, black. Following the recent Mumbai blasts which left over 40 people dead and more than 100 injured, they have been prompt enough to describe the incident as a retributive strike, with just a statutory warning in fine print that all terrorism is bad. Are they thus raising a red herring to allow a safe passage to the real culprits? ....
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 19 2003, 01:04 PM
This (that terrorists lurk in Dilli) should come as no surprise. The Dilli that we know of today is essentially a city created by the Muslim invader and prior to the adoption by the British as the capital in the 1910's, it was predominantly a Muslim city composed primarily of the remnants of the Moghal empire. In fact there was a titular Moghal emperor till 1857 in Dilli. Many of the Islamic elite have emigrated to Pakistan in 1947 but there are substantial numbers who remained behind who were not wedded to the notion of a revival of an Indian nation on the doorstep of their glorious Moghal state. That the entire Muslim population was cleansed of anti Indian followers in 1947 is a little hard to swallow.
Posted by: muddur Sep 21 2003, 12:02 AM
G-24 condemns cross-border terrorism in India Dubai, Sep 20 (UNI) The G-24 countries today condemned cross-border terrorism on the Indian soil, saying that no religion permits the killing of innocent people. ''In India or anywhere else in the world any act of killing of innocent people should be denounced, Mr Fuad Siniora, Chairman of the Inter-governmental Group of 24 on International Monetary Affairs and Development, told a news conference here.
Posted by: muddur Sep 21 2003, 12:58 AM
'We planned to storm into Bhutan' NEW DELHI: It was probably the best kept secret of counter-insurgency operation in the North-East. In a major revelation to ET, former DGP of Assam Prakash Singh divulged that Assam police had finalised an action plan to storm into Bhutan’s territory in 1991 to flush out NE militants taking shelter there. And all that was without the approval of the Central government, and without officially informing the Bhutanese authority. The revelation has come at a time, as Bhutanese king Jigme Singye Wangchuk undertook a five-day-long official visit to India this week, and assured the Indian government that Bhutan would persuade the NE militants to leave their country as soon as possible. It’s understood that the Indian government has mounted pressure on Bhutan to accept the help of the Indian armed forces to flush out approximately 2750 insurgents (around 1550 cadres of ULFA, 750 of the NDFB, and 450 of the KLO), operating the subversive activities from Koipani, Samdrup Jongkhar and Kalikhola areas of Bhutan. Singh further informed ET that the action plan, which was kept secret even from the home ministry at the Centre, somehow got leaked and the Central government immediately threw a spanner to halt it. Said Singh, “I know, the entire plan was extra-constitutional, and if it had failed, the consequences would have been disastrous. But I think, it was a decision keeping in mind of the national interests. Had we destroyed the militant camps in Bhutan as early as in 1991, the militants could not have continued to take the policy of hit and run from the Bhutanese soil for such a long period.” In fact, the plan was fool-proof. The operation was to be undertaken by then IG (operation) E N Ram Mohan, who later became advisor to Manipur Governor. The intelligence gathering machinery from inside Bhutan was strengthened and the Assam police took some Bhutanese officials into their confidence. An advanced team of Assam police personnel visited some areas in Bhutan to finalise the actual modality of the operation. The locations were pin-pointed, and some local guides were arranged. Then came the strong note from the Centre that the proposed operation inside a sovereign country would lead to adverse results, and it should be abandoned with immediate effect. Significantly, Mr. Singh was specially brought to Assam to head the Assam police during the President’s rule in 1991, but could hold the position just for four months. He was also the DGP of Uttar Pradesh and director general of the Border Security Forces. Said Singh, “I had an interaction with some key people in Bhutan before finalising the entire plan. Assam police was capable of destroying those militant camps. In fact, the state police personnel were galvanised to undertake such a risky operation. We knew from the day one that we had to keep it secret even from the Central government. But somehow N N Vohra, then an influential officer at the Centre came to know about it and the Centre asked us to abandon it altogether.” From 1991 onwards, the number of NE militants taking shelter in Bhutan have gradually increased. New outfits like the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) and Kamatapur Liberation Organisation (KLO) too have set up camps inside the Bhutanese territory since then. It was always problematic for the Assam government to tackle the insurgents, as they could easily hit and run back to their base camps, where the Indian security forces had no access. Royal Bhutanese Army is not only ill-equipped to face the AK-47 carrying NE insurgents, but its 5000 personnel led by 177 officers is a meagre force to counter well-trained militants numbering as high as 2750. Yet, Bhutan has not conceded as yet to allow Indian security forces to operate in its soil and flush out the insurgents.
Posted by: Viren Sep 22 2003, 10:47 AM and else in the land of pure...kachori is a bit sour:
"Perhaps, it is not required in the traditions and customs of Pakistan to ascertain the convenience and willingness of the host before barging in."
Posted by: Viren Sep 22 2003, 12:56 PM,9171,1101030929-488779,00.html
"Here we are, fighting and dying in Bush's war," a Pakistani general recently told a Western diplomat, "and we're not getting anything in return."
Censored by TIME: The General shaib added "Atleast the other guy promises us paradise with 72 houris"
Posted by: acharya Sep 23 2003, 12:21 PM Violent India Marvin Olasky (archive) September 4, 2003 | Print | Send Indian police this week arrested two men and two women, and charged them with the late August Bombay bombings that killed 52 persons and wounded 150 more. Many Indians cheered the news of arrests and the death penalties the suspects may receive if found guilty. But the one-word reason at least one of the four gave for his murderous activity should chill all Indian hearts: Gujarat. The man who confessed, Arshad Shafique Ansari, told police he was avenging the rioting last year in India's western state of Gujarat. Maybe the riots did start when a Muslim mob burned a train carrying Hindus, killing 59, but Hindus certainly finished them, leaving over 1,000 Muslims dead in the streets and fields. India, welcome to the 21st century, where old grievances once again burst open, terrorists claim justification, and both Hindus and Muslims drown in pus. Some of the violence surprises people whose knowledge of India comes from the movie "Gandhi" or the writings of the great pacifist. As V. S. Naipaul ("India: A Wounded Civilization") writes, Gandhi from 1919 through 1930 gave "the world a new idea of India," with nonviolence "made to appear an ancient, many-sided Indian truth, an eternal source of Hindu action." But in reality, India always has been "cruel and horribly violent." Scholars often refer to the period of the Gupta dynasty in northern India (A.D. 4th to 6th century) as India's Classical Age, but a whole lot of fighting went on during that golden time. The armies of Samudra Gupta, who became king in about 335, defeated the armies of four northern kings in the area around Delhi. Gupta's army fought its way down the east coast and forced kings to pay him homage. Gupta's soldiers "violently uprooted" nine kingdoms in the western half of the Ganges plain, according to an ancient memorial pillar. This summer, at the 8th century Valkuntha Perumal temple in the little village of Kancheepuram, southwest of Chennai (formerly Madras), I shined a flashlight on some wall sculptures and found the figure of a man undergoing punishment by being impaled on a sharp stake. The next week, I climbed a rock outcropping rising hundreds of feet above the plain where the pilgrimage town of Madurai sits, and saw where Jain monks, India's true pacifists, long ago lived in caves. They stayed on rock so they would not hurt plant life and so they would not be in the way of Hindus -- but Hindu warriors climbed high to wipe them out anyway. Similar battles occurred in each era, with dueling Hindu factions -- Shaivites and Vaishnavites -- regularly destroying each other's temples. When Muslim invaders set up their Moghul Empire in the 16th century, they were merely ratcheting one level higher the tendencies to hatred and violence that arise from within us all. Later, the British talked tough, but when Gandhi called their bluff they quickly folded, thus leaving India to the mercy of Muslim and Hindu extremists who do not hesitate to murder unarmed civilians Since Muslim websites that breathe fire are already well known, I'll mention a counter-site,, that calls Gandhi "a downright PACIFIST, without guts and SCRUPLES. His constant preaching to his fellow Hindus, to be nonviolent at all times, EVEN IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION, paralyzed the manhood of India." Today, though, Indians are becoming "Soldiers of Hindutva. ... Young, strong and fearless group of Hindus who are willing to die for the cause of Hindutva. The protectors of the faith!"'s further declaration: "Our policy is simple. Don't mess with Hinduism, its followers and our mother land of India or we'll mess with you." Muslims are also ready to rumble, and the conflict is likely to get messier. Marvin Olasky is Editor of WORLD magazine, a member group.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 23 2003, 12:34 PM
Marvin Olasky may ramble as much as he wants but the world will see that it is the US which holds a predominantly Muslim population of terrorists in Guantanamo. As for killing Muslims, it is one thing when there is a riot where the initiator of the riot is rarely identified (and is usually Muslim) and it is quite another when a army or occupying power systematically kills civilians and there is no recourse when mistakes are made as they have been in Iraq. This is a battle to determine who is more 'intolerant' and it is easy to shift the blame on the Hindu, especially when there is nobody to defend him. IOW, the clash of civilizations is being fought predominantly in the media and India is not spared, the main reason for which is that India in general and Hindus in particular are not putting up a effective pr campaign to nullify these attacks.
Posted by: acharya Sep 23 2003, 01:41 PM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Sep 23 2003, 07:34 AM)
This is a battle to determine who is more 'intolerant' and it is easy to shift the blame on the Hindu, especially when there is nobody to defend him. B'cause they have found that there is no one groups controlling the interest of the Hindus in the world. The Indian govt is impotant with being secular.
[/QUOTE] This is a battle to determine who is more 'intolerant' and it is easy to shift the blame on the Hindu, especially when there is nobody to defend him. B'cause they have found that there is no one groups controlling the interest of the Hindus in the world. The Indian govt is impotant with being secular.[QUOTE]
Posted by: Viren Sep 23 2003, 03:08 PM
Sehbai's rag has a story on Pan Am 747 hijacking ('86, Karachi). Supposedly the hijackers prefer jail to freedom because they understand fully well that Gitmo Camp XRay might not be as comfy as the 'jail' in maggot infested terroristan. There's not much on web on this Pam Am case however came across an interesting article
Four of the them remain behind bars, but Safarini's sentence was reduced by a amnesties, and he was released Sept. 27, 2001. U.S. agents apprehended him the next day on his way to Jordan to join relatives
Please note the date Sept. 27, 2001...around the time Mushy started his GUBO dance. Was Safarini the first trial baloon floated by Mushy? PS:An Indian-American, Rajesh Kumar, wsa killed by the hijackers to underline their demands that the flight crew (which had escaped through the cockpit hatch) should return.
Posted by: Mudy Sep 28 2003, 12:04 PM ... The tape appeared to be recent, as the speaker referred to a visit by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India earlier this month and the Sept. 6 resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. ________________ Mushy visit and tape release are just coincedence or part of a larger plot.
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 28 2003, 01:12 PM The suars are assaulting our kids now.. furious.gif
Posted by: Sudhir Sep 28 2003, 02:23 PM No honor among theives these days cheers.gif
Posted by: Viren Sep 28 2003, 03:09 PM
Can We Ever Understand Muslim Terrorists Lee Kuan Yew, senior minister of Singapore; in the latest Forbes magazine Suicide bombers, like the one who blew up the UN head-quarters in Baghdad, confront the world with the most cost-effective of all terrorist weapons, designed to wreak psychological and physical havoc on enemies, attempting to make them capitulate. Saboteurs who want to fight and live, such as Saddam loyalists, are not difficult to defeat. But a suicide bomber fears neither capture, interrogation nor death. He needs no escape plan when he attacks high-profile, densely populated targets like Baghdad's UN HQ. He is the most powerful weapon there is for those seeking to destabilize Iraq and make it ungovernable. What makes an ordinary Muslim become a suicide bomber? The behavior of the terrorists on trial in Indonesia two months ago offered a glimpse into the terrorist mind. On Aug. 7 the world was treated to a bizarre court scene in Bali. Seated before a panel of five red-robed Indonesian judges, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, 41, was found guilty of terrorism and sentenced to death by firing squad for his role in the Bali bombing on Oct. 12, 2002. He had killed 202 persons--mostly foreigners, including 88 Australians--and had injured about 350 others. Amrozi, a member of Jemaah Islamiah (JI)--a terrorist network linked to al Qaeda--broke into a grin and punched the air, shouting, "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"). He then turned to face the survivors and families of those he'd killed, flashing a wide grin and giving a thumbs-up sign with both arms outstretched. "I'll be happy to die a martyr," he said. "After me, there will be a million more Amrozis." Imam Samudra, another JI member and a mastermind of the Bali bombing, told the court that the attack was in retribution for the U.S. war on Afghanistan. "Muslims have been made scapegoats for American terrorism around the world.… I'd like to say thank you to the prosecution team, which has demanded the death sentence. Because in death we live peacefully, and in death we draw near to God." An Australian victim who was at the trial and who had lost both legs in the blast said, "It's all bullshit (what Sumadra said) … it all takes a bit to sink in. I'm glad I came." At the same time, in Jakarta, Abu Bakar Bashir was charged with being the spiritual head of JI and with being responsible for the bombings of several Christian churches in December 2000. He is a charismatic Muslim cleric who, through his religious schools, had recruited both Amrozi and Imam Samudra. Many terror suspects are alumni of his school. Bashir was acquitted of the serious charge of leading JI and ordering a series of attacks, but he was sentenced to four years in jail for lesser offenses. His comment: "I sell many knives, but I am not responsible for how they are used." Sentencing the Bali bombers to death is like killing off worker bees. The queen bees--the charismatic preachers who teach a deviant form of Islam in their religious schools--will produce many more workers. Converting the Tolerant into Suicide Bombers When al Qaeda first infiltrated Mindanao in the southern Philippines in the late 1990s, Arab teachers had to carry out the suicide bombings. Prolonged ideological indoctrination in Wahhabi Islamism has made some Filipino Muslims believe that it is the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad; that armed struggle is the only way to bring back pure Islam and that the greatest act of devotion is to sacrifice one's life for jihad. Now Arab fundamentalists have succeeded in twisting the teachings of Islam in Indonesia. One of the Bali bombs was set off by an Indonesian Muslim. And at Jakarta's JW Marriott Hotel bombing in August, the severed head of the driver of the bomb-laden SUV was that of Asmar Latin Sani, 28, a JI member who had attended the Islamic boarding school run by Bashir. Before carrying out his mission, Sani received blessings from JI leaders to "carry out this great duty for God." Before Islam arrived--brought by Indian traders, not Arab conquerors--in the 1400s, Java had a history of many centuries of Hindu and Buddhist humanist teachings. Hence, the Javanese are the most tolerant and eclectic of Muslims. It is difficult to believe that some among them are now ready to blow themselves up in order to destroy the perceived enemies of Arab Palestinians. Psychologists who study such recruits have found that they are chosen because they are vulnerable to religious indoctrination by charismatic preachers who employ strict discipline. These preachers implant the psychology of self-sacrifice until martyrdom becomes the recruits' highest purpose in life. These followers believe that in return for their sacrifice they will become shahids ("martyrs"); that all their sins will be forgiven; and that they will have a place in shurga ("paradise"), where 72 houris ("virgins") await them. Governments can beef up their intelligence services, ferret out and destroy terrorist networks and harden potential targets. But only Muslims themselves--those with a moderate, more modern approach to life--can fight the fundamentalists for control of the Muslim soul. Muslims must counter the terrorist ideology that is based on a perverted interpretation of Islam. This battle will be joined when the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists seek to displace their present Muslim leaders, as they must if they are to set up their version of the Islamic state. From: Forbes magazine. Link:
Posted by: acharya Sep 30 2003, 04:29 PM
Brigadier Sahib Aslamo Alaykam I know you get paid for each word you write, and that is why you complicate things and always try to incite hatred in order to generate discussion which gives you opportunity to write more words. But please tell me where did I say I know you? My original mail is as below: I wrote: Asalamo Alaykam You have a point when you say that the Brigadier Usman is abusing the hospitality of Kashnet, but remember like everyone else he has to earn his living. Kashmir and Kashmir issue has been abused by so many people in the past that it is difficullt to keep record of it. Even Kashmiri leaders have exploited and have treated it as a 'business', what difference does it make if one more man in uniform is making money in name of Kashmir. Brigadier Sahib keep it up and prove to them that despite being retired, you are more useful than those in full time service. Wassalam Brigadier sahib you have habit of reading too much in to things and fabricate facts. You want to know who I am. I am a Kashmiri by birth, a son of soil who has more claim to Kashmir than a renegade army officer. I happen to live on Pakistani side of Kashmir and have experienced the Azadi we have there, even though puppets like you keep on drumming that Kashmiris on this side are happy and enjoying luxurious life. If it was not for the money sent by expatriate Kashmiris then the situation would have been much worse than Rawanda. Even though in the original mail I didn’t say that I know you but I can say that I know quite a few things about you. When I was in service, I read in some file about deeds, your connections with Alzulficar and the large amount of money you received from Libya…. Do you want me to tell more? I could do, but than I might get into trouble for leaking out ‘state secrets’. Now I am also retired, and unlike you want to live peacefully in retirement. I don’t know why you have this urge to make more and more money, and instead of spending your retirement in relaxing and praying God for his forgiveness, you are on mission to create mischief and trouble, just because it gives you money in return. I pray God to forgive you and guide you on straight path. You wrote: >From: UKHALID786@a... >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: Re: [kashnet] re-brigadier >Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 03:27:54 EDT > >To: Ilm Deen > >I do not know you. But you say you know me. Who are you? Identify yourself >and let every one know of another Muslim who decries the Kashmiri struggle >for >lliberation. I support the struggle. Is that so unusual that no Muslim >would do >so unless he is paid for it? No. It is those those who oppose it, who have >a >sinister motive and are deemed to be traitors by the people of Jammu and >Kashmir. > >Usman Khalid
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 1 2003, 09:48 PM
Mudy,my suggestion is to get the word Pakistan in the title of this thread, e.g.Pakistan, the terrorist state or Terrorism, thy name is Pakistan October 1, 2003 Musharraf's Bind His North America tour may be over, but questions persist about Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president-cum-dictator. Which countries is Pakistan giving nuclear technology to? Do the Pakistani Army and Inter-Services Intelligence (still) support extremist groups? Does the general have enough control to crack down on Islamic extremists? Does he really want to? How long, exactly, does he plan to stay in office? How long will he be allowed to? As a key U.S. ally in the war on terror (and an intermittent beneficiary of U.S. aid and trade carrots), Musharraf is caught between his allegiance to the United States and his need to contain domestic extremists and Al Qaeda sympathizers without inflaming a deeply anti-U.S. population. Musharraf may be a military dictator, but it's not clear he's fully in charge. He's certainly vulnerable; just this week Osama bin Laden's deputy called for Muslims to topple Musharraf, for being a "traitor" to Islam. Americans are too gullible.Mush is running with the hare as well as hunting with the hounds (US) Time puts it bluntly: "Whose Side, exactly, is Pakistan on?" "In early summer U.S. soldiers scrambling after Taliban remnants along the craggy mountains of southeastern Afghanistan made a surprising discovery. Among the gang of suspected Taliban agents they nabbed were three men who, it emerged in interrogations, were Pakistani army officers. Authorities in Pakistan clapped the three in a military brig; an official from military intelligence called them 'mavericks.'" Eliminating extremism in Pakistan will be no easy feat, as the Time reporters point out: "For years, the top brass drummed into midranking officers a sense of Islamic mission. A Prophet-length beard helped an officer's promotion, as did praying five times a day. Now, says [a retired lieutenant] 'the army is taking measures against officers who are too religious minded.' Those deemed overly fanatic are discreetly steered into nonsensitive or dead-end jobs, he says, and a soldier needs permission from his commanding officer before he is permitted to grow a beard. The difficulty of redirecting the army toward moderation is illustrated by Musharraf's struggle to reform Pakistan's powerful internal-security apparatus, ISI, once the Taliban's No. 1 ally. These days, says a Western diplomat in Islamabad, the ISI's top brass carries out Musharraf's bidding, but some of the lower-echelon officers seem to retain ties÷ideological and financial÷with their former Taliban proteges." According to the report, in June U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage showed Musharraf satellite images of terrorist training camps located along Pakistan's side of its border with India: "'Musharraf acted outraged and upset,' a State Department official tells TIME, but it wasn't clear to the Americans whether he was angry that the camps were functioning or that the U.S. had uncovered them. Musharraf has failed to sustain his promise to crack down on extremist groups that in the past fed fighters to the Kashmir cause, carried out sectarian killings and attacked Westerners. In January 2002, at the insistence of the U.S., Musharraf banned five such groups. Yet the government has allowed them to resurface under new names. Abdul Rauf Azhar, formerly of Jaish-e-Muhammad, says, 'We are still doing our work.'" Bernard-Henri Levy, the French philosopher who recently published a book, based on a year's immersion in Pakistan, about the abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, told the Washington Post he doubts that Musharraf has complete control: "What has become obvious is the tremendous power of the ISI, Pakistan's secret service - so dreaded by average citizens that they rarely speak its name but refer to it instead as the 'three letters' - and the deep infiltration of this powerful organization by militant fundamentalists and jihadists. "The most dominant factions in the ISI, in fact, have come to constitute a virtual jihadist group itself. And this is why Pakistan has become the subject of numerous other urgent questions: Did it shelter Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks? Has it provided bin Laden with medical attention since the Afghan war, in the Binori Town Mosque in Karachi, which I happened to visit? Was it involved, and to what extent, in the murder of Pearl?"But Musharaf knows what is going on and who is responsiblefor what. It is inconceivable that whatever happens does so without his express approval. After he owns the guns. Musharraf recently admitted that Pakistan received ballistic missile technology from North Korea, but says that it did not provide nuclear weapons technology to them. In the U.S. last week, he said Pakistan's nuclear material was under strict control, but he didn't sound too convincing. And anyway, Pakistan's nuclear know-how resides with the scientist Abdul Qader Khan, who isn't necessarily inclined to take orders from Musharraf. Says Levy: "This public figure, this great scientist, this man who knows better than anyone (since it is he who developed them) the most sensitive secrets of Pakistan's nuclear program, is both close to the ISI and a member of Lashkar e-Toiba, a group closely allied with al Qaeda. My story concerned Khan's 'vacations' to North Korea and his links with bin Laden's men; one of my hypotheses is that Pearl may have been killed to prevent him from reporting on such trafficking of nuclear know-how." Dr. Ahmed Faruqui, writing in Pakistan's Daily Times, questions Musharraf's overall intentions, wondering why it took September 11 and U.S. pressure to get the General to turn against the Taliban. "If this policy was bad to begin with as he now asserts, Musharraf should have dispensed with it once he became the nation's Chief Executive in October 1999," he says. Faruqui echoes moderates who ask: "How credible is it to say in Ottawa that Pakistanis should 'shun militarism and extremism, which will get us nowhere' when he rules the country only because he is the army chief and when everyone knows that it is the Pakistani military whose proxy wars have contributed to the rampant extremism that now holds the country in its grip?" Levy wonders why the United States, which has promised Islamabad billions in aid - doesn't do more to reform the country: "Is it not possible at least to tie this aid to certain simple political conditions -- for example, that the Pakistanis must give proof of a genuine effort to reform the ISI; or that they impose the most severe sanctions on their high-ranking nuclear scientists and officials who take "vacations" in Iran, North Korea or Taliban-held areas of Afghanistan?" Not to be lost in all of this is Faruqui's main point, that Musharraf has no right to speak on behalf of Pakistan. Musharraf refuses to say when he will step down, and he wants parliament to ratify a bill that would essentially make the military the guardian of the democracy after he steps down. That job is usually given to the country's supreme court.good points especially the first one On the far side of Musharraf's rule, says Levy, is another Pakistan, one "which is liberal, democratic, secular, which fights, back against the wall, against mounting Islamism, and which does not understand why, in this combat, we are not at its side." That, of course, is the best-case scenario. A less rosy view, and one held by not a few U.S. policymakers, is that a democratic, pluralistic Pakistan would swiftly catapult to power an Islamist firebrand, hostile to the U.S. and less than cooperative in its war on terror. Whether having such a government in a nuclear-armed Pakistan represents an improvement over Musharraf, at least from the point of view of international security, is a question that could soon be more than academic. Either way, it's unlikely the United States will have much say in the matter.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 2 2003, 06:02 AM (Please scroll down) NOW, SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 BERNARD LEVY ON PBS BILL MOYERS MOYERS: President Bush came to New York this week to ask the U.N. for money and troops to help out in Iraq. The U.N. turned a cold shoulder. While here, Mr. Bush met with the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, supposedly a close ally. But there are complaints in Washington that Musharraf is not doing enough to round up the terrorists in his own country, with its huge population of radical Muslims. Our next guest knows Pakistan well, from many trips there over the years. Bernard-Henri Levy is a diplomat, journalist, and philosopher, the author of 30 books. His latest is about the ghastly murder of Daniel Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter whose throat was slit by terrorists in Karachi. As Levy investigated the killing, he learned some surprising things. Earlier today, Bernard-Henri Levy talked with NOW's David Brancaccio. BRANCACCIO: Mr. Levy, thank you for joining us on NOW. LEVY: Thank you. BRANCACCIO: You've been following the visit to North America of the Pakistani President Musharraf. Before the UN he had this quotation, "Pakistan will remain in the forefront in the war against terrorism." Any comments when you hear him say that? LEVY: My comment is that it is big news because until now, Pakistan was the core of terrorism. BRANCACCIO: The core of. LEVY: The core, of course. It gives. Pakistan gave shelter to the biggest terrorists in the world. I know Pakistan. I spent. I know it since a long time, since 30 years. And I spent one year in this country on the footsteps of Daniel Pearl. I went in Karachi when I visited the seminary on Binori Town where you have some terrorists who are trained and who are spiritually built in order to hate Western world and Muslim democracy. I went in Peshawar where you have a real big place of terrorism also. We know and I know, I have very strong evidence that Osama bin Laden, for instance, took medical care in Binori Town where I was and in a military hospital in Islamabad. So Pakistan was until this day maybe, until the day before yesterday, Pakistan was the very shelter, the very center, the very core of international terrorism. So maybe this is a big news we have to follow up. BRANCACCIO: This is why I want to talk to you. Thirty years going back and forth to that region of the world. You're a card-carrying French philosopher yet you're proud to say that you're a journalist. You're a Frenchman who says that America in many ways is correct when it talks about its war on terrorism. And you conclude that Pakistan is where the next tragedies will hatch. What do you mean by that? LEVY: I mean that the risk of nuclear proliferation exists in Pakistan. I mean, that Pakistan, that's what I show in my book. It is not just ideas. I made the very accurate, precise, modest investigation of this point. The point, for instance, on which Daniel Pearl also that you have two big scientists in Pakistan who are great scientists linked to al-Qaeda and who have been convicted of being on the point to trade some nuclear knowledge, nuclear know-how to groups linked to al-Qaeda. So this is Pakistan today. BRANCACCIO: In fact, you contrast the full bloom of extremism, the fresh extremism that you found in Pakistan with something very different in Iraq. Something almost from the last century. LEVY: That is the reason why it I was so strongly opposed to the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, no doubt about this. But he was a dictator in his autumn. In his old age. But it was an exhausted dictatorship. In Pakistan it is a blooming one. I saw that and I tell it in the book again. What I discovered during this long investigation is that the real, the sole clash of civilization is inside Islam, inside the Islamic world between the moderate Islam and the radical Islam. I was in some demonstration in the streets where you had 100,000 of people shouting their hate not only of North America, not only of the Western world, not of moderacy in general and shouting also, for instance, that the nuclear bomb of Pakistan should belong not only to Pakistan but to the entire community of believers which means in their mind Osama bin Laden. You have huge demonstrations of people demanding that. It's very difficult for you to have operated at all in Pakistan. It was less difficult than it would have been for an American journalist. By chance, for my fortune I was French. And I was a writer which meant that I was a little more protected than if I had been an American journalist. But what is true is that when I spent, for instance, this night in the very hotel where Daniel Pearl first met his executioner and which I happened to discover it was a sort of basis, a sort of informal headquarters of ISI. BRANCACCIO: The I.S.I., which is the Pakistan Intelligence Service. LEVY: I was nervous. It was not the best night I spent in my life. When I came inside the Binori Town Seminary where I think no journalists went before, no Western journalists went before, where I knew that Osama bin Laden had been a few weeks before had received medical care and so on, it was a strange moment also. It was like if you were in the very room of the belly of the demon. I don't like these words, of course. But. BRANCACCIO: But on the key topic, if, indeed, the clash of civilizations is within Islam itself, within the people of Pakistan, how can an American expect to get involved in that debate? The Bush Administration is dealing with Musharraf. It has no choice. LEVY: I think we have choice. We made the bad choice since 20 years. We chose the radical against the moderate. We chose. we, you, American, us French, both of us, Bush and Chirac in the same basket. We chose the Taliban against Massoud. We chose Saudi Arabia against the democrats of the Arab world. We chose that because we wanted peace. Because we thought that we had to make alliance with the most powerful. Because we thought that our main enemy was the Soviet Union. Because we are lazy. Because the Americans and the French diplomats often are intellectually lazy. They continue to work on old schemes. They have to change their minds today. BRANCACCIO: And what should they do going forward then? We screwed up. LEVY: To arrange force to support much more than we do the moderate Muslims all over the world. There are a lot even in Pakistan. I met so many intellectuals, democrats, women who don't understand why we support so much without any tie, without any condition the regime of Musharraf which is on the one side military, on the other side Jihadist. Which is on the one side the regime of repression, dictatorship as Saddam Hussein in a way. And in another side a fanatic one. You have the local people inside Pakistan who pray us, who urge us, who admonished us to put some conditions on our aid to Musharraf.[/color] BRANCACCIO: But not to pull back, for instance? LEVY: Not to pull back the alliance. Of course not. You have morale and you have politics. Maybe we have to give money to Musharraf. But please when Musharraf comes in New York and when he says in the New York Times in an interview when he's asked, "Have you. do you. are you sure to have control on your atomic assets?" And when he says, "Oh, I don't know. I have no evidence. I have no proof that there can be any risk of proliferation." What is this language? I have no evidence? I have no proof? If this the chief of state responsible with whom we can have this serious alliance. Mr. Musharraf is not in control of his country. He's a king without a throne. He's a sovereign without territory. of course the other possibility he is dissembling and pretending hat there are dangerous forces out there so that US will think, as it does, that he is their best bet.Mush is not a naive individual BRANCACCIO: So you argue conditional aid. LEVY: Right. Yes. BRANCACCIO: Put conditions on it. But if we get this wrong, Musharraf could get toppled, and Pakistan would be run be extremists, possibly. LEVY: Pakistanis already half run by extremists. We must know and the people who hear us must know that one of the man convicted to have channeled the money to Mohammed Atta was no other than the number one of Pakistani Secret Service, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmad (PH). And he was fired. He was dismissed a few days before the attacks. BRANCACCIO: Listen, you have to explain this because I was reading this book and this is one of the points that just stops me in my tracks. You're saying that the head of Pakistani intelligence around the time of 9/11 funneled $100,000 through an intermediary to Mohammed Atta, perhaps the most famous of the 9/11 hijackers? LEVY: Yes, of course. Of course. This is one of the thing which might surprise myself the most when I made this investigation. I was in Dubai. In Dubai, I discovered that one of the financial man of the September 11th was the Chief of the secret services of the country allied to America. BRANCACCIO: Mr. Levy, I want to ask you something else. LEVY: Please. BRANCACCIO: You're a. LEVY: I'm sorry to get a little angry. But you cannot have spent, as I did, all this time, all this year, making this investigation, walking in the footsteps of such a great man, and support to see this comedy. It is comedy. The visit of Musharraf in New York was just a comedy. It was a mockery. And even if I am a moderate, and a calm man, it put me out of my temper. BRANCACCIO: No, having read your book, I understand your passion. But you talk about being a moderate. I want to ask you this. You are a leading French intellectual. I thought you were supposed to, as a Frenchman, despise America. LEVY: Despise America? BRANCACCIO: Yeah. Aren't you supposed to? LEVY: Are you joking? There is a very long, long history of friendship and of love between France and America. This will not be broken because of childish dispute between our presidents. This is crazy. BRANCACCIO: So you would support the Bush administration's war on terror? LEVY: I was against the Bush administration when was decided the war in Iraq. I thought it was a mistake, and a strong political and historical mistake. But today, we are in it. We are in Iraq. And I think about just the average Iraqi people, just the raped women, the orphans, children, the poor men ruined in this country. And we have now to finish the work. We should be there. We should. BRANCACCIO: Should send troops to Iraq. LEVY: We should send some people in Iraq. I don't know if it is properly troops. Because each of us has his own knowledge and know-how. You American know how to win a war. We France know how to make nation-building. Maybe you are good cops. Maybe we are good nurses. Maybe we should put together cops and nurses in Iraq. BRANCACCIO: The book is called WHO KILLED DANIEL PEARL? Bernard Henri-Levy, thank you very much. LEVY: Thank you.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Oct 2 2003, 08:48 AM
wow! Levy is one of the few guys who tell it as is. BTW who was the first to reveal the Ahmed-Atta connection?
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 2 2003, 09:25 AM
I Have archived an entire collection of News articles in Bharatnirbhaya, on the money trail to 9-11 and the Paki connexion to it One needs to be a member, which takes a couple of minutes. The most comprehensive research on the topic has been done by Paul Thompson and has been reported at his web site the Center for Cooperative Rsesearch The story broke almost immediately after 9-11, thanks to Indian intelligence briefing indian reporters on the background and the facts. In fact it was India that provided data to the FBI on the funds transfer, and the connexion to Mehmood Ahmed of the ISI. But the GOTUS and the US media have done a magnificent job burying the story so it never surfaces, presumably to avoid embarassing his buddy Mush (is he capable of being embarassed ?).Paul Thompson had a thread in BR sometime back .Maybe it is archived.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 2 2003, 12:31 PM BBC NEWS, OCTOBER 2, 2003 THE 'UNIVERSITY OF HOLY WAR' By Haroon Rashid BBC correspondent in North-West Frontier Province Its students and principal call it the University of Jihad (Holy War). Last week the religious seminary of Darul Uloom Haqqania in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province turned out another class of young Pakistanis and Afghans ready to wage holy war against the enemies of their religion. Among them was 15-year-old Afghan refugee, Javed Ullah. "I wish to fight the infidels," he said as he left the seminary in Akora Khattak, 50 kilometres (31 miles) east of the provincial capital, Peshawar. Javed is among 600 students who have completed studies in different fields over the past year. Wearing white turbans and dress, all the new graduated.gifs looked satisfied and seemed to brim with hope for a bright future. "I want to go back and fight the Americans," Javed said wearing a garland. "I can't wait anymore." His Pakistani classmates had a similar desire. "I will dedicate my whole life for jihad. It is compulsory for Muslims. I will kill enemies of Islam," said student Minhaj Uddin. Mullah Omar's words The whole convocation was full of slogans in support of Afghanistan's ousted Taleban regime, al-Qaeda's leader Osama Bin Laden and holy war. Some of the banners adorning the seminary were decorated with pictures of Kalashnikov rifles and tanks. In their speeches, teachers and religious scholars urged the students to put defending their faith before everything else. "Being watchmen of your religion, you are naturally the first target of your enemies," said Maulana Sami ul-Haq, the principal of the seminary. In the past, some Taleban officials, themselves graduated.gifs of the institution, have attended these convocations. Even Taleban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar's messages have been read out. The school's support for the Taleban has been no secret. The principal previously sent a batch of 2,000 Afghan students back to their homeland to aid the then ruling Taleban in its fight against the warlords of the Northern Alliance. His words of advice for the Pakistani and Afghan students are now to wage holy war until the "evil force" is defeated. "In the past, only conspiracies were hatched to end Islam, but now the enemy is in the battlefield challenging us," said Mr Sami. "Islam, Muslim scholars and religious students were never under such a threat as today." Such messages emanating from seminaries ring alarm bells in Western countries and among moderates in Pakistan. The government of President Pervez Musharraf wants to turn the tide and promote liberalism but is finding it difficult to change things with the speed the international community wants. North-West Frontier Province has many tribal areas that have historically been autonomous, governed by tribal leaders and their own laws. It is inhabited mostly by the Pashtun, the same ethnic group that dominated the Taleban, and has always been affected directly by events across the long, porous border with Afghanistan. Some observers say the bad effects of over two decades of war - religious extremism, gun-running and drugs - cannot quickly be removed. Certainly, the government's efforts to change the curriculum in the religious schools have failed to make any impact so far. While such efforts go on, fresh batches of volunteers ready to confront what they see as the enemies of their faith continue to graduated.gif.
Posted by: rajesh_g Oct 3 2003, 10:02 AM
Interesting writeup STILL smarting from the blows it has received in the past two years, the Islamist terror movement is debating a new strategy. Conducted in Islamist circles in Pakistan, the Middle East and Europe, and echoed in numerous Web sites and newssheets, the debate centers on a key question: Which should be our priority target - the United States and its Western allies, or the fragile Muslim states where we could come to power in a reasonable time frame? Some argue that the 9/11 attack against the United States was "premature." They insist that the Islamist movement should have first seized power in several Muslim countries and dotted itself with nuclear weapons before taking on America, which is regarded as "the last champion of unbelief in the world." Supporters of that view cite the position the Prophet took in the last year of his life, when he led a large Muslim army against the Byzantine Empire. On reaching the border between Arabia and Byzantium, the Prophet halted his army to have a good look at the forces of Emperor Heraclius (Hirqil in Arabic). The Prophet was impressed: He saw that the Byzantine army would be no pushover. He ordered his own host to march back home without a single engagement. Although criticized by some Arab commanders at the time, the Prophet's decision to retreat was quickly endorsed by God Himself through a message relayed by Archangel Gabriel. The lesson was that Muslims should not become involved in suicidal operations against a far stronger foe. That was the position that Abdallah Azzam, the Palestinian ideologist of al Qaeda, took in the autumn of 1989. The question then was whether the Islamist movement, having helped drive out the Red Army from Afghanistan, should immediately move to attack the United States, whose support had been crucial for the Soviet defeat. Azzam delivered his answer in a sermon in Peshawar, Pakistan. It was simple: The movement must consolidate its position in Afghanistan, seize control of Pakistan, capture the Arabian Peninsula and, having created a solid power base, liberate Kashmir and then-Soviet-held Central Asia before attacking the United States. A few days after that sermon, Azzam was killed in a car bomb attack. At the time, the murder was blamed on Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian who later became al Qaeda's No. 2. The two men had fought an ideological duel for months. Al-Zawahiri had accused Azzam of "localism," and dismissed the strategy of focusing on the region as "cat's p-ss politics." The Egyptian argued that the time had come for a frontal attack against the United States, that driving the Americans back into their neck of the woods would lead to the domino-like collapse of those Muslim states backed by Washington. The al-Zawahiri-Azzam ideological duel was arbitrated by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire through whom funds for the movement were channeled from the oil-rich Arab states. Days after bin Laden had decided that al-Zawahiri was right, Azzam was dead. Having won the argument, al-Zawahiri tested it with two attacks inside America, first in 1993, against the World Trade Center in New York, and then in September 2001. Last week, however, al-Zawahiri, making an ideological U-turn, unveiled a new strategy that sounds like a rehash of that envisaged by Azzam. In a taped message, played in Islamist cells all over the world and broadcast in part by two Arab satellite-TV channels, the Egyptian (believed to be hiding either in Pakistan or in Iran) presents the strategy in three segments. * First, he calls on "brothers in Jihad" to try to seize power in Muslim countries where the present regimes are regarded as weak. He singles out Pakistan as "ripe for liberation." Al-Zawahiri's analysis is based on the assumption that the pro-Jihad elements in the Pakistani army and secret services would help the radicals win power in Islamabad. As the only Muslim country with an acknowledged nuclear arsenal, Pakistan could put the Jihadists in a new league. * The second segment of al-Zawahiri's strategy is focused on what he calls "lands of war," meaning Afghanistan and Iraq. There, he envisages years, if not decades, of war pitting the United States against Jihadists. The aim is to weaken America in preparation for its eventual fall. Reading between the lines, it is clear that al-Zawahiri hopes that a future U.S. administration would get tired of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and withdraw from both. And if and when that happens, the only organized force capable of seizing power in Baghdad and Kabul would be the Jihadists. * The strategy's third segment focuses on what al-Zawahiri regards as unstable Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Yemen and Somalia. All three suffer from tribal, ethnic and sectarian feuds dating back centuries - feuds that Islamists could exploit to weaken the established order before administering the coup de grace. There are two omissions in al-Zawahiri's worldview. The first is his native Egypt - where the Jihadist movement appears to have suffered its first major political defeat, followed by mass defections. Virtually the whole of the Gamaa-Islamiyah (Islamic Society) leadership has publicly renounced violence in the past year or so. The dominant theme in the Egyptian Islamist movement now is "the re-Islamicization of society through preaching and example" rather than armed action. It may well be that the ideological swamps in which terrorists thrived have been drained, at least for the time being. Al-Zawahiri also omits the oil-rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf. This may be because al-Zawahiri does not want to frighten the golden goose. With the bulk of Jihad funds coming from those states, al-Zawahiri may have decided it unwise to target them publicly. There is also the fact that, since 2001, the Jihadists have suffered many defections in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Al-Zawahiri's new strategy does not mean that there will be no terror attacks in America or Western Europe. The global Islamist movement consists of numerous groups with independent sources of finance and strategies. They were never totally controlled by al Qaeda and are less so today if only because al-Zawahiri and his gang are forced to spend the bulk of their energies avoiding capture. Al Zawahiri's conversion to the doctrine of his dead rival may have come too late. His strategy ignores one important fact: What happened on 9/11 changed the parameters of global politics.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 4 2003, 06:52 PM
Pentagon Jihadis By: Daniel Pipes
Posted by: Mudy Oct 7 2003, 11:17 AM By B Raman
Posted by: Viren Oct 7 2003, 02:53 PM by By Miranda Kennedy, 10/5/2003 in The Boston Globe
Posted by: Mudy Oct 7 2003, 03:03 PM Violence erupted in two Pakistani cities yesterday, compounding the woes of Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler, just as he is under intensifying pressure from his neighbours and Washington to crush Islamist militancy. The general's security forces were on alert last night amid fears of an explosion of bloodshed between Sunni and Shia Muslims after the assassination of Azam Tariq, the leader of a banned Sunni group and parliamentarian, on Monday. Mr Tariq's supporters, many of them religious students, rampaged through the usually quiet capital, Islamabad, smashing cars and shop windows, and setting fire to a Shia shrine and one of the city's few cinemas. They also ran amok in Mr Tariq's stronghold, the city of Jhang in Punjab, where his body was flown by helicopter for burial. They burnt down a Shia mosque and destroyed a petrol station. Some 25,000 people gathered in a sports stadium to mourn his death; Shots rang out in the crowd. ... Hundreds of Islamic seminary students went on a rampage Tuesday after the funeral of Maulana Azam Tariq. The students smashed shop windows and cars and set fire to the city's only movie theater. The theater was destroyed and one of its employees died of smoke inhalation. Police used tear gas and batons to disperse the mob. More than a dozen people were detained. ...
Posted by: Mudy Oct 7 2003, 06:55 PM * October 10 declared protest day * MIP to decide nomination to Azam Tariq’s NA seat, Jhangvi mosque khitabat within a week By Amir Rana LAHORE: Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhyanvi was on Tuesday elected the new convener of the Millat-e-Islamia Pakistan (MIP), a day after the party’s previous leader Maulana Azam Tariq was assassinated, an MIP member told Daily Times. Dr Manzoor Shaker, a member of the MIP Majlis-e-Shoora, said after a five-hour meeting at Jamia Mehmoodia in Jhang the party would decide who to nominate to Azam Tariq’s National Assembly seat from Jhang and who to make khateeb of the Haq Nawaz Jhangvi mosque once the MIP’s Jhang leadership is consulted. “Both matters are directly concerned with the city and Maulana Ludhyanvi has said the matter should be decided after local leaders are consulted,” he said. “After consultation, it will again be presented to the Shoora and decided within a week.” Maulana Tariq formed the Millat-e-Islamia earlier this year after his previous party, the Sipah-e-Sahaba, was branded a terrorist outfit and banned in January 2002. “The new convener, Maulana Ludhyanvi, is a calm person and has always tried to resolve disputes with other schools of thought through talks,” Dr Shaker said.
Head of terrorist organisation is a calm person
Posted by: Mudy Oct 7 2003, 11:00 PM
Posted by: Viren Oct 8 2003, 01:39 PM
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 8 2003, 10:30 PM
Thursday October 9 2003 11:01 IST PTI MUMBAI: Pakistan's ISI holds special sermon sessions twice a month to indoctrinate Indian Muslims in Dubai to the Jehadi cause, Zaheed Patni, accused in the July 28 Ghatkopar blast, is reported to have told Mumbai Police during interrogations, police sources said here on Wednesday. The sermons are delivered on Fridays by special clerics appointed by the ISI and are attended by a large number of people, Patni told interrogators recently, according to sources. Joint Police Commissioner (Crime) Satyapal Singh, confirmed that Patni had told them about the special sermons that were aimed to brainwash Indian Muslims. The sources said that Patni got influenced to the Jehadi cause through one of these sermons, and later became a regular for the Friday meetings. It was at the instance of the ISI operatives present at the Friday meetings that he introduced co-accused Hanif to them. Hanif is co-accused in the Ghatkopar blast and is the alleged mastermind behind the August 25 twin blasts. Zaheed has also divulged the names of some more colleagues who had attended the sermons. Some of them belong to Mumbai and adjoining towns, the sources said. On the basis of this information, the Mumbai Police is keeping a close watch on their communication to check if anyone of them had indulged in anti-national activities. Meanwhile, Crime Branch officials said that Patni has also shed light on the operations of the Dawood gang in Dubai and the information provided by him will be used to interrogate Dawood's younger brother, Iqbal Kaskar, who is in the custody of the Mumbai Police.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 10 2003, 09:39 AM MI-6 warns of major terrorist strike from PoK 10 October 2003: The British foreign-intelligence service, MI-6, has warned India to expect a major terrorist strike from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and while the immediate target could be military sites along the border and Line of Control (LoC), attacks on nuclear installations are not ruled out. In the past weeks, Pakistani military officers and commentators have been speaking of India's resilience to terrorist attacks, and the suggestion is that India could be staggered only by a 13-December-like attack on the Houses of Parliament, but this time, MI-6 has warned of targeting atomic installations. More than a month ago, Pakistani Islamists visited London, and either MI-5 or MI-6 monitored discussions of an attack from PoK, and MI-6 now wants India to monitor terrorist activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, while leaving the decision for any preemptive action on the United States and UK. Indian officials did not confirm or deny the MI-6 warning, although MI-6 apprehensions of attacks on a major western Indian city were proved right by the Mumbai blasts last month.
Posted by: Krishna Oct 10 2003, 11:00 AM
What would our response be if there is a strike on any Nuclear, or other sensitive spots (From economic & technology POV?) #1. Would there be Air Strikes, across the border / LOC ? #2. Similar retaliatory strikes? #3. Full fledged war if the terrorist attacks causes unacceptable loss of life / property ?
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 11 2003, 06:09 PM
I do not know what our policy is on advertising piblic interest petitions. If we allow it this one of those. This petition asks the United Nations to treat suicide bombings as war crimes and that those who inspire them be prosecuted by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The Call for UN & World Leaders to Prosecute Organizers of Suicide/Homicide Bombings, performing acts of terror against Civilians, as War Criminals, was initiated by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and written by Dr. Edward S. Beck. 1 [one] million signatures are being sought for this petition. Click on the following and please take 10 seconds to sign. If you can, please cut and send this message to other friends, of whatever faith, who might also agree to sign the petition.
Posted by: acharya Oct 11 2003, 06:39 PM
Op-ed: 1965: Battle for Sialkot Shaukat Qadir(retired brigadier) We were saved by the courage of a ‘lucky’ squadron commander, who was afforded this opportunity because his regiment had been ordered away from its defensive position Although the actual attack on Lahore preceded the attack on Sialkot by twenty-four hours, one needs to understand Sialkot first. Some of our troops always man the border and on September 3 a patrol ventured across the line of control and captured an Indian dispatch rider who was carrying the comprehensive orders of Indian 1 Armored Division for the Indian offensive. Nobody believed it: numerous examples of disinformation were cited, like the ‘dead soldier’ found by German troops during the Second World War who was also carrying the complete orders for war providing the wrong location of the second front about to be opened. While intelligence assessments are hardly to be blamed in such a situation, whatever conclusion they arrive at, GHQ’s decision not to order precautionary deployment defies understanding. It was left to formations to take ‘precautionary measures’. The Sialkot division moved into forward concentration areas, but it neither dug its defensive positions nor laid any mines. In the early hours of the morning of September 6, about the time that the attack on Lahore began around 03:30 am, the bridge over Ravi at Jasser began to be shelled. Sometime later the bridge was attacked by a small raiding party. It is not clear how the confusion occurred but the company commander at the bridge ordered its demolition, while most of his force was still across; they either swam back or were captured. Probably to justify his actions, he grossly exaggerated the attacking forces, leading the division commander to believe that this was the location of the main attack on his sector. In response to this around midday the GOC sent a brigade with an additional armored regiment to stabilise the situation at Jasser. Later it was discovered that Jasser was merely a diversion, and the main attack followed twenty four hours later. However, the forces sent to stabilise the situation at Jasser were called ‘committed reserves’, a term denoting troops committed to defending an area, but available as reserves if their area did not face a threat. They were a few miles short of Jasser when the main attack began opposite Pasrur-Chawinda-Phillaurah, the positions they were supposed to be defending, and the brigade with the armored regiment was ordered back. The division was in a state of total confusion. Considering that this formation had moved into battle locations, even if these had not been prepared, it should have been more prepared than other divisions. The Sialkot division was commanded by Brigadier Ismail, an army service corps officer. In those days it was not unusual for a brigadier to take command of a division on three month’s probation, before being approved for promotion. Ismail was at this stage. Not only was he from a non-fighting arm, but was under probation and thus insecure. His insecurity and lack of confidence was infectious. It appeared that nobody knew what to do. Throughout his command there were spates of contradictory orders, units to be relieved were pulled out without being replaced by others, giving the Indians a free run. This state of chaos was to be a feature of the entire Sialkot operation, until the command was changed, but by then the worst was over. The main Indian attack began early on September 7, with the infantry forming a bridge head, a defended area for forces, specially armored forces to build up, before proceeding further. Indian 1 Armored division built into the bridge head and then commenced advance around 10:30 am. Fortunately for us, the Indians too could not take advantage of the vacuum that existed. It appears (from their own analyses later) that the armored division could not believe that there was no defence. They were certain that they were being lured into a trap. Perhaps this was due to the fact that they were aware that their battle orders had been captured and could not believe that the Pakistan army would not have acted upon this knowledge. Consequently, where they could have been running full pace, they crawled, and extremely slowly, allowing us to atone for our errors. Only those who have seen formations in move having to turn back can actually imagine the confusion of halting and turning back from close to Jasser. In such a move, infantry elements are likely to be leading, with the armor in between, followed by artillery and then other support elements. O return, they need to get into the same order. One can but imagine doing that on a narrow road. However, in view of the emergency, the armored unit led the return, followed by the artillery then infantry and the rest. This was to be a blessing in disguise. Major Muhammed Ahmed, one of the squadron commanders of the armored regiment was in the lead as they approached Pasrur, then Phillaurah in the early hours of September 8 when he spotted tanks ahead of him. Fortunately, he was in a copse and the advancing Indian tanks offered him a broad side. This intrepid officer took the initiative, which most officers are supposed to, but seldom do, and opened fire. These Indian tanks were elements of the leading brigade of the Indian armored division. He hit a large number of tanks of the leading Indian unit and some of the following ones. This was enough to convince the Indians that they had indeed been lured into a trap. In the meantime the rest of the same armored unit moved on from a flank towards Chawinda, where some more of the Indian armored division units had halted upon news of the ambush in Phillaurah. They too opened fire to cause more casualties. Ironically, this was the very area they were supposed to have been defending. Had they been doing so, they would have been facing the enemy and, perhaps, would never have had the opportunity of take on the Indian forces from a flank to inflict the kind of casualties that they actually did. Fortunately for us, the Indians had been overcautious when the opportunity was offered. An intrepid squadron commander halted their attack from a fortunate ‘ambush’, and the rest of the unit also caught some of the armored unit unawares. This was later referred to as the greatest tank battle since the Second World War. The Indian armored division never recovered; we had been saved by the courage of a ‘lucky’ squadron commander, who was afforded this opportunity because his regiment had been ordered away from its defensive position because of the ineptness of his division commander! It was at this stage that GHQ finally realised that the Indian main offensive was directed at Sialkot, not Lahore, and that the captured orders were in fact correct. On the same day, September 8, Tikka Khan was asked to take command of the Sialkot division and our second armored division was also ordered to the Sialkot sector. While this was referred to as an armored division, it was actually no more than a brigade. However, from September 9 onwards, the Sialkot sector witnessed a see saw of attacks by the Indians and counterattacks by the armored division with various infantry elements in support, which tilted the balance in favour of our own forces, primarily because the Indian 1 Armored Division never recovered from its setback. Though the battle at Sialkot was far from over, but the worst was past and we can afford to omit other details to move on to Lahore. The author is a retired brigadier. He is also the ex-founder Vice President of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)
Posted by: Viren Oct 12 2003, 09:20 AM
Guess UN SC is Pak's baap ka jaagir pakee.gif
Posted by: k.ram Oct 13 2003, 09:45 AM
Return Pakistan to Civilian Rule HRW Letter to General Pervez Musharraf October 10, 2003 His Excellency General Pervez Musharraf President Islamic Republic of Pakistan Aiwan-e-Sadr Constitution Avenue Islamabad, Pakistan Dear General Musharraf: October 12, 2003 will mark the fourth anniversary of the military coup that brought you to power. Since the 1999 coup, Human Rights Watch has monitored the suppression of civil liberties and the progressive undermining of civilian institutions in Pakistan. Human Rights Watch is concerned that in the years since the coup, the Pakistani government has systematically violated the fundamental rights of members of the political opposition and former government officials. It has harassed, threatened, and arbitrarily arrested them. Many have been detained without charge, mistreated and tortured, and otherwise denied their basic due process rights. The government has removed independent judges from the higher courts, banned anti-government public rallies and demonstrations, and rendered political parties all but powerless. In addition, the last four years have also witnessed the rise of extremist political activity and an increase in sectarian killings. Meanwhile, your involvement with the United States in its war on terror has been characterized by a disregard for the due process rights of suspects. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, apparently with the support of U.S. authorities in Pakistan, have taken place with depressing regularity. The rule of law is a critical element in the promotion and protection of human rights. Your failure to institute genuine and periodic elections as required by international law has become an important symbol of the lack of rule of law in Pakistan. We urge you to provide a timetable and demonstrate a commitment to genuine, pluralistic elections at the earliest possible date. October 12 would provide an excellent opportunity to make such a commitment. Solutions to many of the human rights problems discussed below depend, at least in part, on the creation of a duly constituted civilian government. Torture and Mistreatment of Political Opponents and Journalists Torture is routinely used in Pakistan, both to obtain confessions in criminal cases and against political opponents. Most acts of torture committed by civilian law enforcement agencies are usually issue-specific and aimed at producing a confession during the course of a criminal investigation. By contrast, acts of torture by military agencies primarily serve the purpose of "punishing" an errant politician, political activist or journalist. Torture by the military usually takes place after the victim has been abducted; the purpose is to frighten the victim into changing his political stance or loyalties or at the very least to stop him from being critical of the military authorities. The victim is often let go on the understanding that if he fails to behave, another further abduction and mistreatment will follow. In this manner, the victim can be kept in a state of fear often for several years. A recent example is the case of Rasheed Azam, a journalist and political activist from Khuzdar in Balochistan province. Azam, a reporter for the local newspapers Intikhab and Asap and a member of the organizing committee of the Balochistan National Party, has been in police custody since August 15, 2002. Azam communicated to Human Rights Watch through intermediaries that he has been taken three times to the Khuzdar military cantonment where he alleges he was abused and tortured, including by being beaten while he was hung upside down and through sleep deprivation. Azam is being held on baseless claims that he committed sedition. According to the First Information Report of the local police, Azam was arrested in Quetta on the basis of a report "received from a sensitive department" that he had distributed a poster with a photograph of Pakistan army personnel beating a crowd of Baloch youth. The report goes on to state that such "sedition" against the army "is an offense of grave nature." However, the report fails to mention the date, time or place the alleged "crime" was committed, nor does it name the "sensitive department" in question or any eyewitnesses that saw the "offense" being perpetrated. Rasheed Azam remains in jail to date as his bail application was rejected by the district judge on the grounds that the case against the accused was credible. His colleagues have filed a bail application in the Balochistan High Court that awaits hearing. Another case of detention and torture is of Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the suspended Punjab provincial assembly. Sanaullah was arrested under the sedition law for criticizing the military government in November 1999. According to Sanaullah, he was whipped, beaten, held incommunicado, and interrogated for a week in police custody before eventually being released on bail. In October 2002, Sanaullah was re-elected to the Punjab Assembly and elected deputy leader of the opposition. On March 8, 2003, heavily armed men, some of whom wore police uniforms, abducted him. According to Sanaullah: I was handcuffed and, with my face covered with a cloth, I was driven to the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] office where I was tortured for three or four hours. They were using some sharp-edged weapon with which they would cut open my skin and then rub some sort of chemical in the wound. I felt as if I was on fire every time they did that. I have 22 such injuries on my body. Later, I was pushed into a car and thrown on a service lane along the motorway some 20 kilometers from Faisalabad. Sanaullah explained to Human Rights Watch that he remains under pressure from the government and continues to receive sporadic threats. The use of such forms of arbitrary detention and torture must end. Perpetrators of the torture of Azam, Sanaullah and others must be removed from the country's security forces and prosecuted. Return to Civilian Rule & the Legal Framework Order Your administration has unilaterally imposed a series of far-reaching amendments to the Pakistan constitution that dramatically strengthen the power of the presidency, formalize the role of the army in governance, and diminish the authority of elected representatives. The amendments under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) significantly curb freedom of association and the freedom of individuals to stand for elected office. Opposition legislators who have spoken to Human Rights Watch have reportedly been beaten, harassed, and subjected to blackmail for voicing opposition to these arbitrary changes to the Pakistani constitution. Indeed, in the months preceding Pakistan's October 2002 parliamentary elections, your administration took measures that all but ensured a military-controlled government. In addition to the constitutional amendments under the LFO, these included an April 2002 referendum that extended your presidential term for five years and restrictions on political party activities. Independent observers reported extensive fraud and coercion during voting for the referendum and widespread poll-rigging and harassment of candidates preceding the parliamentary elections. It is worth pointing out that these measures have served to suppress the kind of moderate voices necessary for Pakistan to develop into a pluralistic, rights-respecting society. Subsequent to the elections, your administration has chosen to sideline the mainstream political opposition and negotiate on the LFO only with the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious political parties that have historically enjoyed close links with the Pakistan military. However, even these negotiations broke down recently over your administration's refusal to offer a firm date by which you would resign from your military position in exchange for their support for your running for president of Pakistan in a civilian capacity. Taken together, the amendments under the LFO have ensured that ostensibly civilian governments at the federal and provincial level are effectively subordinate to and even exist at the discretion of the president and the military. In spite of this, the opposition in the federal parliament has made it clear that it does not recognize the validity of the constitution as arbitrarily amended by your administration. We urge you to recognize the troubling implications of the LFO and the resulting constitutional crisis for credible civilian governance in Pakistan and to rescind the LFO. . . . . . . Legal Discrimination Against and Mistreatment of Women and Religious Minorities Inaction on the Hudood Laws persists despite the government-run National Commission for Status of Women calling for repeal of the Hudood Ordinance on the grounds that it "makes a mockery of Islamic justice" and is "not based on Islamic injunctions." This, despite the outcry in Pakistan and internationally, over cases such as the tribal "jirga" ordered gang-rape of Mukhtaran Bibi in Punjab and the sentencing to death by stoning of Zafran Bibi on grounds of adultery. Human Rights Watch has monitored these and other cases involving abuses under the Hudood Laws. Informed estimates suggest that over 210,000 cases under the Hudood laws are under process in Pakistan's legal system Under Pakistan's existing Hudood Ordinance, a woman who has been raped and wants the state to prosecute her case must have four Muslim men testify that they witnessed the assault. In the absence of these male witnesses, the rape victim has no case. Equally alarming, if a woman cannot prove the rape allegation she runs a very high risk of being charged with fornication or adultery, the criminal penalty for which is either a long prison sentence, including public whipping, or, though rare, death by stoning. The testimony of women carries half the weight of a man's testimony under this ordinance. Further, the Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (compensation) Ordinance makes it possible for crimes of honor (such as the killing of women in the name of honor) to be pardoned by relatives of the victim and assesses monetary compensation for female victims at half the rate of male victims. These are just part of a set of "Islamic" penal laws introduced by the former military ruler, General Zia ul-Haq in 1979. While your administration has publicly warned against this kind of extremism, these warnings have failed to translate into concrete legal measures to protect the basic rights of women in conformity with international norms. Discrimination and persecution on grounds of religion continues, and an increasing number of blasphemy cases continue to be registered. The Ahmadi community in particular has been the target of religious extremists and Human Rights Watch has followed several cases where members of this community have been subject to discrimination, not just at the hands of religious extremists but the Pakistani police and military authorities as well. Information provided by the Ahmadi community and authenticated by HRW indicates that during 2002-3 at least ten Ahmadis were charged under various provisions of the Blasphemy Law. Mushtaq Ahmed Saggon and Waris Khan were charged for "preaching" and a case was registered against "Abdul Nasir and three others" for distributing "objectionable literature." Four Ahmadis were accused of preparing to build a "place of worship." (Ahmadis can be charged under the Blasphemy Law for using the term "mosque" to describe their places of worship.) In 2002 at least three members of the Ahmadi community were convicted under the blasphemy law. One was subsequently acquitted on appeal. However, Nazir Ahmed and Allah Rakhio were awarded life imprisonment by an Anti-Terrorist Court on charges of "desecrating the Quran" and "demolishing a mosque." In addition, at least six others were sentenced under the Blasphemy Law in 2002. Of these four were awarded the death penalty and two received life imprisonment. They have appealed their sentences. Sectarian Violence Pakistan has experienced an alarming rise in sectarian violence since the 1999 coup. In particular, Sunni extremists, often with connections to militant organizations such as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), have targeted Muslims of the Shi'a sect. There has been a sharp increase in the number of targeted killings of Shi'a, and particularly Shi'a doctors, since the 1999 coup. These doctors make easy targets as they work in easily accessible public places and follow predictable routines. Indeed, the majority of the victims have been killed in or around their clinics or hospitals. Shi'a Muslim doctors are now fleeing Pakistan in large numbers in fear of their lives. Human Rights Watch has interviewed the families of many of those killed. Since assuming power, your government has followed what can only be described as a deliberate policy of strengthening sectarian militant organizations. This has involved providing support to the political wings of these organizations under the umbrella of the MMA and otherwise, while little effort has been made to bring those responsible for acts of sectarian violence to justice or to provide protection to the targets or their families. On October 6, Maulana Azam Tariq, a Sunni extremist leader and member of parliament, was murdered in an apparent act of retaliation by unknown assailants. Maulana Azam Tariq had generated animosity because of his reported declaration that Shi'a were non-Muslims and legitimate targets for murder, and his being allowed to contest the October 2000 elections despite being the head of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, which the government had declared a terrorist sectarian organization. Further, when under arrest on charges of murder, Tariq had the unusual privilege of being provided a stipend of 10,000 rupees per month by the government. Once elected to the National Assembly, Tariq chose to support the pro-Musharraf government in place since November 2002. Human Rights Watch fears that Azam Tariq's murder may spark a new wave of violence against the Shi'a community. It is the responsibility of the government of Pakistan to protect the Shi'a citizens of Pakistan and safeguard their right to life. This is a duty that the government has thus far failed to perform. Human Rights Watch urges you and your government to take measures to address the problem of sectarian violence in Pakistan. Those implicated in acts of sectarian violence must be prosecuted, and actions to protect the affected communities must be undertaken. It is critical that your government act, and appear to act, impartially on all religious and sectarian matters. The failure to do so could result in serious violence. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, Brad Adams Executive Director Asia Division
Posted by: Spinster Oct 14 2003, 12:44 PM
QUOTE (Viren @ Oct 12 2003, 09:50 PM)
Guess UN SC is Pak's baap ka jaagir pakee.gif
He was imploring the powers be in India to liberate POK and restore The current J&K to its full glory and a proud state of Indian union. After which TSP will not have problem with India (to become PM of UNSC) cool.gif
Posted by: Spinster Oct 14 2003, 01:06 PM
FROM REDIFF Al Qaeda's 'nitrocellulose' bomb October 14, 2003 19:51 IST Airports all over the world have been asked by the US Homeland Security to be on the lookout for suspicious stuffed items among luggage after US intelligence concluded that Al Qaeda operatives are being trained to conceal 'nitrocellulose' bombs inside them. Also see: Osama's son, Saad, operating from Iran Intelligence officials have confiscated Al Qaeda manuals and picked up several indications that the terror network is attempting to create a chemical called 'nitrocellulose' to fashion explosive devices that could be smuggled aboard jetliners, media reports said. "We judge this type of threat to be real and continuing. We have received reports from several credible, independent sources that Al Qaeda is training to build such bombs," the Homeland Security officials were quoted by The Washington Post as saying. Explosives experts said the detonating power of a nitrocellulose bomb depends on numerous factors, but most particularly on how tightly cotton-like material is packed. "Producing such explosives," said Gregory G Baur, a former director of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, "requires somebody who has some sophistication and who knows what he is doing." { the hand of ISI can be traced to this I am sure} Items such as buttons, zippers or wristwatches could be used in tandem with tightly packed 'nitrocellulose' as power sources or ignition components to set off a detonation, the directive said.
Posted by: AJay Oct 14 2003, 03:28 PM
Received in email from ABC Nightline staff. Both topics are of interest to Forumites as well as to India. ----------------------------------------- NIGHTLINE: FRIENDS OF FOES: Our Complex Relations With China and Pakistan Nightline Daily E-Mail October 14, 2003 TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: Two stories are grabbing our attention tonight. Only one can be the focus of our broadcast tonight, but which one? That will depend on how news events unfold later today. But both stories have one thing in common: the potential threat from two of the most complex nations on earth: Pakistan and China. Both have nuclear capabilities and both have unusual relations with the U.S. Are they threats? Sometimes we have no choice but to show you how the sausages are made around here. This is one of those times. We have two potential stories for tonight. One is a fascinating and insightful report from Nightline correspondent Dave Marash about his most recent trip to Pakistan. More on that below. But we are also keeping an eye on China. Reporters there are anticipating that today China will launch a manned spacecraft, and be the third nation to propel a man into orbit. This would be a huge leap for the Chinese space program and, if it is successful, an enormous boost to national pride there. The Chinese launch could have broad implications. It could propel the Chinese into the international satellite business. And it compares especially starkly to NASA's current woes and the grounded shuttle program. So should the U.S. feel threatened by this potential Chinese success? Does it offer China enhanced military capability in space? Remember - before 9/11 and the war in Iraq, tensions with China seemed paramount. Remember the spy plane incident? So, we wait and watch the news from Gobi desert. The Chinese government has scrapped plans to broadcast the launch live. Given the highly secretive nature of news dissemination in China, we don't know exactly when we will hear news of the launch, or even if it will happen tonight. ABC News correspondent Mark Litke will report news of the launch if there is one. Also, ABC's longtime space and science correspondent Ned Potter will explain the implications of China's revitalized space program, including the implications for the U.S. and NASA. But if China doesn't launch tonight, we will focus on another complicated and potentially threatening nation: Pakistan. Nightline correspondent Dave Marash and a team of Nightline producers recently returned from Pakistan, a nation that is both an American ally in the war on terror, and a potential threat. Also a nuclear power, Pakistan is quite possibly the most dangerous place on earth. Pakistan is the terrorism capitol of the world, with more terror attacks than anywhere else in the world and anti-American political extremism brewing in pockets of the education system. Osama bin Laden, if he is alive, is thought to be in hiding in the lawless mountains of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Nightline's Dave Marash traveled the region and illustrates the economic, cultural and political factors that make Pakistan such a complicated and troubling nation. So will it be Pakistan or China tonight? You'll have to watch to find out. We hope you will. Sara Just and the Nightline Staff Nightline Offices Washington, D.C. tv_feliz.gif tv_feliz.gif
Posted by: Viren Oct 15 2003, 08:26 AM
New Delhi, one of the biggest issuers of Interpol red alerts on wanted criminals, has lost a series of high-profile extradition bids in recent years. Advani said extradition and deportation laws had become too cumbersome, and must be streamlined and countries be forced to act on Interpol alerts. India, which has 252 outstanding red alerts with Interpol, is hunting several crime bosses who have fled abroad, accusing them of working with militants, especially Kashmiri separatist groups, to fund and carry out bombings and other attacks.
Posted by: acharya Oct 15 2003, 07:30 PM
Canadian press critical of Musharraf's visit > WASHINGTON: President General Pervez Musharraf's Canada's visit, the first by a Pakistan leader since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto went there in 1976, though welcomed by the large number of Pakistanis settled in the country, failed to generate similar enthusiasm from the Canadian press and the government in Ottawa. > The Globe and Mail, which is published from Toronto, pointed out, "Even though Gen Musharraf is a head of state, he is not getting full state honours in Ottawa. There are no Pakistani flags along the ceremonial motorcade routes. There is no black-tie state dinner at Rideau Hall, just a smaller affair last night, with Mr Chrétien as host. Canadian officials also cancelled plans for Gen Musharraf to visit Toronto, home to the country's largest Pakistani community, citing security concerns. The cool reception was in marked contrast to the warm welcome he usually receives in the United States." > On September29, three days after the president's departure from Canada, the newspaper ran an editorial captioned 'Our pal, the General' which said that when the United States and allied countries went to root out Al Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan in 2001, Gen Musharraf "agreed, reluctantly and with much hesitation, not to stand in the way. He broke his ties to Afghanistan's Taliban regime and officially joined the war on terrorism. In return for doing the great favour of siding with civilisation against terror, he has been greeted all over the West as a fine fellow and sturdy ally. Last week, General Musharraf was in Ottawa, where he met with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Just before that, Gen Musharraf visited US President George W Bush. Well, fair enough. It is not always easy finding reliable allies against terrorism, and the general has done his bit. The West could hardly ask for his help one day and close its doors to him the next." > The editorial continued, "But while we put down the welcome mat, let us remember who he is. Gen Musharraf took power in a military coup d'etat in 1999, overthrowing a democratically elected government. The Commonwealth condemned him and many governments shunned him. The reasons for that shunning have not changed. Despite the splendid speeches he gives about tolerance and human rights, he has made no real attempt to restore democracy, as he promised to do. In a 2002 referendum, he extended his rule by five years and has given himself the power to dissolve parliament. He continues to make all major domestic and foreign policy decisions. > "'What do you really mean by democracy?' he said last week when asked about his record. Well, a government that is not run by an army general would be a start. The argument that only military rule can ensure stability is a hackneyed one, particularly so in Pakistan, which has been ruled by men in uniform for much of its history, yet remains weak, divided and shaky." > A day after his arrival in the Canadian capital from New York, the Globe and Mail published a highly critical op-ed page article by David Van Pragh, a former South Asia correspondent of the newspaper who now teaches at Carleton University in Ottawa. Captioned 'Ottawa's unwelcome visitor', the article said, "Today, Canada has the distinction of welcoming the leader of what, by any fair reading of mounting evidence, is a state supporting terrorism. That is disturbing to say the least. But Canadians may soon be among the victims of this terrorism . This is a critical time in which the civilised world, if it is to win the war or terrorism, needs to be honest and realistic in identifying and confronting the enemy. Pakistan presents a major peril, not only because it supports terrorism on two fronts. It is also a nuclear-weapons state that has illegally exported nuclear technology to North Korea and neighbouring Iran. Astonishingly, it nevertheless poses, and is accepted, as an ally of the > forces fighting terrorism." > Mr Van Pragh wrote that despite Gen Musharraf's promises to President Bush to "cease backing terrorism" in Kashmir and in India itself, Pakistan's army, through the Inter-Services Intelligence, "has never stopped during the past 15 years". Holding the Pakistan army responsible for the creation of the Taliban, he said after 9/11, Pakistan had little choice but to declare itself an ally of Washington, especially because India had immediately made clear that New Delhi was Washington's strategic ally. But ISI support of the Taliban continued. > He charged that Taliban and Al Qaeda gunmen continued to cross the Pakistan-Afghanistan border both ways. "In all likelihood, Osama Bin Laden lives under ISI protection on one side or the other of the border," he added. Arguing that "just as the Taliban's original victory would not have been possible without direct Pakistani assistance, it's highly unlikely the recent assaults could have been launched without a direct ISI role ... Apart from terrorist campaigns designed to persuade India to give up the Vale of Kashmir and to put Taliban fanatics back in control in Afghanistan, Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, has the potential of contributing to much wider destabilisation." > The caustic article concluded with the observation, "Western reticence to confront Pakistan grows out of fear that Islamic extremists, either clerics or generals who already control its nukes, will deploy or even use them if they oust Gen Musharraf. But the Pakistani leader is clearly playing a double game. Mr Bush's refusal to mediate on the Kashmir issue or provide the F-16s as payment for Pakistan's limited cooperation after 9/11, or even guarantee increased economic aid without an end to terrorism, may well have caused him to step up terrorism instead in Afghanistan and Kashmir." -
Posted by: acharya Oct 15 2003, 07:48 PM
Unforgivable political blunders: no accountability Aslam Effendi Throughout human history unforgivable blunders have been committed; billions worth of tax money has been wasted, billions worth of property destroyed; millions have become orphans and widows; millions have become disabled and millions of precious lives have been lost, yet in most cases the culprits responsible for these unforgivable blunders have escaped accountability. As there is a long list of blunders I shall mention only a few about which I am familiar. I asked Einstein, the author of the atomic bomb, whether he has advised the US Government to drop the atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities. He told me that he had advised US President Roosevelt not to drop the bomb but it was his successor, Truman, who did it. Personally I consider this act as the greatest political blunder of the 20th century because this act, by the world¹s most "civilised" state, has set a precedent for other nuclear states to repeat the act. After all, the piling up of so many atomic bombs by various nuclear powers, and involving huge tax money, is not just for fun: what is the guarantee that the atomic bomb will not be dropped again as a last resort of a certain country losing a conventional type of war? There have been many occasions when terrible nuclear accidents could have taken place but by sheer miracle they were averted. Today the Kashmir problem is the longest unsolved problem on the agenda of the United Nations. I happened to be sitting just beside Barrister Ibrahim Khan, the first President of the AJK Government when the first UN Resolution on Kashmir was passed more than 50 years back. Since then, over 80,000 Kashmiris have lost their lives and there appears no light at the end of the tunnel. The real culprit responsible for this blunder was a politician of Kashmiri origin who once was a staunch member of the Indian National Congress. He gathered a crowed of wild tribesmen to invade Kashmir: these barbarians began looting and killing Muslims and non-Muslims indiscriminately. As a result, the Standstill Agreement between the Maharajah and the Government of Pakistan was violated; an excuse was provided to India to occupy Kashmir, with the blessings of Lord Mountbatten; my father¹s secret mission, on behalf of the Maharajah, to negotiate with all the concerned parties, was bulldozed; the Maharajah was stripped of all his powers; he was exiled to Bombay and made to live a life no better than that of a prisoner: his one time Military Secretary and confidant Major General Khisram Jang; told me that at times the Maharajah would feel so lonely that he would ask his chauffeur to play cards with him. Why was the Maharajah punished? He was punished not only because of his refusal to formally sign Kashmir¹s accession to India but also because of the bitter relations between him and the Indian National Congress when the Maharajah was suspected of being part of the palace intrigue that was going on to overthrow him. Those who wanted to overthrow the Maharajah suspected his leanings towards Pakistan because of his best friends being Muslims; yet another reason for suspecting the Maharaja¹s loyalty towards Hinduism, was because he was an agnostic. After this big blunder, I still felt there was some hope for the solution of the Kashmir problem. I therefore met Choudhri Muhammad Ali, the Secretary General of the Government of Pakistan, at the UN Headquarters at Lake Success. I suggested to him that Pakistan should exchange Hyderabad for Kashmir but, alas, my suggestion carried no weight. A little later, a similar suggestion was made by Sardar Patel, the strongman of the Indian National Congress his suggestion too was rejected. What a blunder! During a visit to India I met the Crown Prince of Kashmir who, because of his background and diplomatic skill, may some day find himself the president of India. He told me how sad he was about the Kashmir problem having been bungled but said he would visit Pakistan unofficially and try to sort out this problem, only if I invited him. I have yet to invite him, for reasons I shall explain presently. When I study all the political blunders, after the exit of monarchy in Afghanistan, one blunder stands out above all the others: this blunder was the Soviet backed Afghan President Najibullah¹s offer, through one of my brothers, requesting for asylum in Pakistan and that in exchange he would hand over the Government to King Zahir Shah, look, stock and barrel. This offer was rejected by the then DG ISI. Now it is difficult to know whether the DG ISI rejected the offer, using his own powers or whether he was under the influence of some higher authority. Had this offer not been rejected, the US would not have had any excuse to invade Afghanistan which resulted in the death of over 100,000 innocent Afghans. Had this offer not been rejected, Afghanistan would not have become a colony of the US. Had this offer not been rejected, Pakistan would not have become a tool in the hands of the US. Had this offer not been rejected, thousands of innocent Muslims, because of the fanatical policies of the Taliban, would not have been victimised in the West. And had this offer not been rejected, the then DG ISI could have been the most deserving candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. The sad part of the story is that it is always the common people in a country who become the victims of political blunders. I had a little earlier said that I would explain why I have yet to invite the Crown Prince of Kashmir. The answer will be provided by the following two questions: First, why are big political blunders made and why do those who make such blunders escape accountability? Secondly, why do political problems, caused by such blunders, remain unsolved? The answers are: there are always some highly influential persons, with vested interests, that are behind all big political blunders. And again, why some political problems, caused by political blunders remain unsolved, is because the solution of such problems would be against the vested interests of some highly influential persons. The writer is great grandson of King Doest Muhammad Khan, founder of the Afghan Mohamadzai Dynasty
Posted by: Viren Oct 15 2003, 08:02 PM
Received via email: THE NEWS SENTINEL (Newspaper of North-East Indiana) Posted on Mon, Oct. 13, 2003 Pakistan's government played a role in Pearl's murder BY DANIEL SNEIDER Knight Ridder Newspapers (KRT) - Amid the horrors since Sept. 11, one particular terrorist act stands out for its senseless brutality - the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. Pearl was in Pakistan in January 2002, investigating the connections of the "shoe bomber" who had tried to blow up a transatlantic flight to a Pakistani Islamic cult. He was lured by a sophisticated plot into a kidnapping in the streets of the city of Karachi. Pearl's captors videotaped his execution, beginning with a forced confession: "I am American. I am Jewish. My family on father's side is Zionist." They filmed themselves barbarically cutting his throat and severing his head from his body - subsequently they cut the corpse into pieces. Four of the Islamic terrorists who carried out this deed were convicted in a Pakistani court last year. But the event remained wreathed in mystery - why Pearl? How did the organizer of the murder operate so easily in Pakistan? Why did the Pakistan government claim that it was Pearl's overzealous reporting that was partly to blame? In the newly published book "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Levy offers a provocative answer to those questions. "This crime was not petty, a murder for nothing, an uncontrolled act of fundamentalist fanatics," he writes. "It's a crime of state, intended and authorized, whether we like it or not, by the state of Pakistan." Levy's year-long investigation into Pearl's murder, which he powerfully recounts in his book, took him first to British-born Pakistani Omar Sheikh, who was convicted as the organizer of the plot. Sheikh, Levy concluded, was an operative of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Pakistan's military intelligence arm. Both Sheikh and the ISI were linked as well to al-Qaida. Pearl's death, Levy believes, came in part because his investigations came too close to this nexus. The final straw, he thinks, may have been Pearl's probe into evidence that Pakistani nuclear scientists were supplying information and technology to Osama bin Laden. Levy, in a telephone interview, admits there is an element of speculation in some of his conclusions. The idea, for one, that Pearl was picked out for his investigation into the nuclear connection is not supported by his colleagues at the Journal, though Levy said Pearl's Pakistani assistant told him the reporter was still delving into this issue at the time of his kidnapping. But there is also plenty of hard evidence to lend credence to the central contentions of this book. The ISI was the backer of the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan. It nurtured Islamic militants who crossed the border into Kashmir to pursue a terror war there against Indian rule. Omar Sheikh, as part of that operation, carried out kidnappings of Westerners in Kashmir. He was freed from Indian jails as the result of the 1999 hijacking of an Indian airliner to Afghanistan. Sheikh was escorted to safety by ISI officers, Levy reports, and enjoyed their protection in Pakistan. The kidnappers of Pearl included a number of Arabs with clear ties to Al-Qaida and the ISI itself had links to Al-Qaida in the past. Sheikh, according to this account and other reports, turned himself in to the ISI first and his presence was not revealed for many days. On the nuclear front, two senior Pakistani nuclear scientists who espoused Islamist views had close ties to bin Laden. After Sept. 11, they were placed under house arrest. And as I reported in the Mercury News last year, American officials knew that the head of a major Pakistani nuclear lab, A.Q. Khan, provided uranium enrichment technology to North Korea in trade for missile technology. These are uncomfortable facts for the Pakistani government and for the United States, which relies on close cooperation with Pakistan in the war on terror. U.S. officials know that radical Islamists have strong support within the military. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage undiplomatically let that slip two weeks ago at a meeting with congressional members, telling them he did not believe "affection for working with us extends up and down the rank and file of the Pakistani security community." But the United States believes it can rely on Pakistani ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is seen as a moderate. Levy doesn't deny this logic but he sees Musharraf as a conflicted figure. "The great fight of our time is between moderate Islam and radical Islam," he told me. "And the front line of this fight goes right through the middle of Musharraf's brain." -ABOUT THE WRITER Daniel Sneider is foreign affairs columnist for the San Jose Mercury News. Readers may write to him at: San Jose Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190-0001, or e-mail him at
Posted by: k.ram Oct 16 2003, 08:04 AM THE NEWS SENTINEL (Newspaper of North-East Indiana) Posted on Mon, Oct. 13, 2003 Pakistan's government played a role in Pearl's murder BY DANIEL SNEIDER Knight Ridder Newspapers (KRT) - Amid the horrors since Sept. 11, one particular terrorist act stands out for its senseless brutality - the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. Pearl was in Pakistan in January 2002, investigating the connections of the "shoe bomber" who had tried to blow up a transatlantic flight to a Pakistani Islamic cult. He was lured by a sophisticated plot into a kidnapping in the streets of the city of Karachi. Pearl's captors videotaped his execution, beginning with a forced confession: "I am American. I am Jewish. My family on father's side is Zionist." They filmed themselves barbarically cutting his throat and severing his head from his body - subsequently they cut the corpse into pieces. Four of the Islamic terrorists who carried out this deed were convicted in a Pakistani court last year. But the event remained wreathed in mystery - why Pearl? How did the organizer of the murder operate so easily in Pakistan? Why did the Pakistan government claim that it was Pearl's overzealous reporting that was partly to blame? In the newly published book "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Levy offers a provocative answer to those questions. "This crime was not petty, a murder for nothing, an uncontrolled act of fundamentalist fanatics," he writes. "It's a crime of state, intended and authorized, whether we like it or not, by the state of Pakistan." Levy's year-long investigation into Pearl's murder, which he powerfully recounts in his book, took him first to British-born Pakistani Omar Sheikh, who was convicted as the organizer of the plot. Sheikh, Levy concluded, was an operative of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Pakistan's military intelligence arm. Both Sheikh and the ISI were linked as well to al-Qaida. Pearl's death, Levy believes, came in part because his investigations came too close to this nexus. The final straw, he thinks, may have been Pearl's probe into evidence that Pakistani nuclear scientists were supplying information and technology to Osama bin Laden. Levy, in a telephone interview, admits there is an element of speculation in some of his conclusions. The idea, for one, that Pearl was picked out for his investigation into the nuclear connection is not supported by his colleagues at the Journal, though Levy said Pearl's Pakistani assistant told him the reporter was still delving into this issue at the time of his kidnapping. But there is also plenty of hard evidence to lend credence to the central contentions of this book. The ISI was the backer of the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan. It nurtured Islamic militants who crossed the border into Kashmir to pursue a terror war there against Indian rule. Omar Sheikh, as part of that operation, carried out kidnappings of Westerners in Kashmir. He was freed from Indian jails as the result of the 1999 hijacking of an Indian airliner to Afghanistan. Sheikh was escorted to safety by ISI officers, Levy reports, and enjoyed their protection in Pakistan. The kidnappers of Pearl included a number of Arabs with clear ties to Al-Qaida and the ISI itself had links to Al-Qaida in the past. Sheikh, according to this account and other reports, turned himself in to the ISI first and his presence was not revealed for many days. On the nuclear front, two senior Pakistani nuclear scientists who espoused Islamist views had close ties to bin Laden. After Sept. 11, they were placed under house arrest. And as I reported in the Mercury News last year, American officials knew that the head of a major Pakistani nuclear lab, A.Q. Khan, provided uranium enrichment technology to North Korea in trade for missile technology. These are uncomfortable facts for the Pakistani government and for the United States, which relies on close cooperation with Pakistan in the war on terror. U.S. officials know that radical Islamists have strong support within the military. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage undiplomatically let that slip two weeks ago at a meeting with congressional members, telling them he did not believe "affection for working with us extends up and down the rank and file of the Pakistani security community." But the United States believes it can rely on Pakistani ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is seen as a moderate. Levy doesn't deny this logic but he sees Musharraf as a conflicted figure. "The great fight of our time is between moderate Islam and radical Islam," he told me. "And the front line of this fight goes right through the middle of Musharraf's brain." -ABOUT THE WRITER Daniel Sneider is foreign affairs columnist for the San Jose Mercury News. Readers may write to him at: San Jose Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190-0001, or e-mail him at dsneider@m....
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 16 2003, 09:30 AM
My response to Mr.Sneider
Dear Mr. Sneider, Your column is right on the money as far as the official Pakistani government involvement in the murder of Daniel Pearl. I do have a quibble with the following quote from Bernard Henri Levy “"The great fight of our time is between moderate Islam and radical Islam," he told me. "And the front line of this fight goes right through the middle of Musharraf's brain." As far as Musharaff is concerned the guy is a confirmed murderer of his own people in places such as Baluchistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. He has had fairly extensive experience in ethnic cleansing which is very popular in official circles in Pakistan. Furthermore he has stated explicitly that the current entente with the US and the apparent show of being a front line state against terror is a subterfuge. In a speech he gave his people immediately after 9-11 he compared the current cooperation with the US as being similar to the treaty that Mohammad (the founder of islam) signed with the Jews of Medina (as you are aware a substantial proportion of the population of the Arabian peninsula were Jews and Christians in the 7th century). This treaty he subsequently reneged on after he no longer had any use for the Jews as an ally and then he systematically slaughtered all the male jews in Medina while enslaving the women and children. Musharaff sincerely believes his actions with the US are similar to those that Mahommad engaged in with the Jews of medina in the 7th century. There is no front line in Musharaff’s mind. The guy is a thug, a backer of state sponsored terrorism, far more devious than Saddam ever was and has killed more of his own people than most dictators in the world today. Sincerely,
Posted by: AJay Oct 16 2003, 11:34 AM
tv_feliz.gif Heads Up - Following on ABC Nightline today Hoping against hope that the smirking India-baiting Ted Koppel does a good hatchet job on Pubekistan. --------------------------------------- Nightline Daily E-Mail October 16, 2003 TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: Pakistan is a key ally of the U.S. in the war on terror. But it is also terrorism's capitol - and a place where terrorists are cultivated. Take a tour of Pakistan tonight - a nuclear power rife with violence, corruption and religious extremism. Some call it the most dangerous place on earth. Several months ago President Bush coined the phrase 'axis of evil' and listed its members: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Each is (or was) a powerful, militarily threatening country. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran is a haven for terrorists. And Iraq, well, that's another subject for another night. The country that didn't make that list, but that also has nuclear weapons, and is a haven for terrorists, is Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is thought to be in hiding in a lawless mountain range there. Anti-American rage underlies the Islamist political climate in much of the country. After a description like that, does it surprise you to know that Pakistan is a key ally of the U.S. in the war on terror? Nightline correspondent David Marash and a team of Nightline producers recently returned from Pakistan. They visited several cities, a tour of the broad range of Pakistani political opinion and economic hardship. We hope you'll let Dave Marash and Nightline be your tour guide tonight of this complicated, often contradictory land. Sara Just and the Nightline Staff Nightline Offices Washington, D.C. tv_feliz.gif
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Oct 16 2003, 07:28 PM
Nailing Pak lie, Washington brands Dawood global terrorist in Karachi All US assets frozen, UN alert follows • Indian, US agencies find his Osama ‘link’ SHISHIR GUPTA NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 16: This is what New Delhi has been waiting for a very very long time. The US Treasury Department tonight announced that Dawood Ibrahim alias Sheikh Dawood Hassan is a ‘‘specially designated global terrorist’’ with a Pak passport and a Karachi address. Washington will now request the United Nations to list the mafia don in pursuance of relevant Security Council resolutions. The designation freezes all assets of Dawood Ibrahim within the US. And the UN listing will require that all member states freeze Dawood’s assets and impose a travel ban. Dawood Ibrahim In one stroke, not only does this nail Pakistan’s lie and put its President General Pervez Musharraf under pressure to deliver Dawood—one of the 20 most wanted by India—it also puts the terrorist label on the D-company and its network in South-Asia, especially the Mumbai underworld. What will make Islamabad run for cover is that Dawood’s address in the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department is shown as Karachi, Pakistan. His phone number is 021-5892038 and his passport issued by the Pakistani government is G 869537. That the US knows Dawood is based in Pakistan is contrary to Musharraf’s stand before the Indian government during the Agra 2001 summit that he had not taken refuge in his country. The designation of Dawood as terrorist by Washington comes after close collaboration between Indian and US investigative agencies which, sources said, has found that: • Dawood was involved in large-scale shipments of narcotics in the United Kingdom and Western Europe. • In the late 1990s, he travelled to Afghanistan under the protection of the radical Taliban government. His syndicate is said to have shared smuggling routes from South Asia, the Middle-East and Africa with bin Laden and his terrorist network. • A ‘‘financial arrangement” was reportedly brokered between Dawood and Osama to facilitate the latter’s using these routes. • Washington has information, as recent as fall of 2002, indicating that Dawood financially supported Islamic militant groups working against India such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). • Incidentally, the US added Lashkar to its list of foreign terrorist outfits in October 2001. The Lashkar, which is the armed wing of Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad, was banned by Pakistan and its assets frozen in January 2002. What this means for India’s war against terror: A very big deal Nails Pak lie: When he was here for the Agra summit in July 2001, Musharraf told Advani that Pakistan had not given shelter to Dawood. And that Dawood had never visited Pakistan. Pressure on Pak to deliver the Don: With the US now officially listing Dawood as having a Pak passport and a Karachi address, Islamabad will be hard pressed to deny. Alternatively, this may be the face-saver Musharraf was looking for to get the Don out. Endorsement of India’s charge against ISI: The Bombay serial blasts of 1993 in which Dawood is prime accused along with his associates—and the recent case against him in Gujarat—get now linked to the war against terror. While Islamabad has consistently denied Dawood’s presence in Pakistan, last month the don’s cover was blown when de facto Sindh Home Minister Aftab Sheikh went on record saying that Dawood had a network from Mumbai to Karachi and ‘‘was working in both the countries’’. The Inspector General of Sindh Police also confirmed that a recent bomb blast at a Karachi business centre—Kawish Crown Plaza—was ‘‘ostensibly owned by one Ahmed Jamal ... but actually belonged to Dawood Ibrahim’’. There was speculation in the Pakistan press that this leak could have been deliberate since Musharraf has been feeling the heat on the issue for quite a while and this could have been the General’s only face-saver. Dawood, the son of a police constable, has reigned as one of the pre-eminent criminals in the Mumbai underworld, for the past two decades. He is currently wanted in India for the March 1993 Bombay serial blasts that killed more than 200 persons and injured over 1,000. Top sources in the government said they were aware of Dawood’s designation as a terrorist and the announcement was to be made along with the blacklisting of the Al-Akhtar trust, set up by Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Masood Azhar. While the trust was designated as a ‘‘terrorist support organisation’’ by the US Treasury Department on Tuesday, Dawood was put on the US blacklist only tonight.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 16 2003, 08:34 PM
Further correspondence with Dan Sneider on official Paki involvement in the death of Daniel Pearl Dear Dan, Appreciate your prompt reply, I understand where you are coming from. But living in America we should not be lulled into thinking that as long as their ire is directed against the Indians, Americans can remain unconcerned about events such as the killing of Daniel Pearl. Americans have convenient amnesia when it comes to Pakistan. This is the country that burned down the American embassy, molested American staffers on a fairly regular basis, and has shipped thousands of tons of cocaine and heroine to America,has proliferated WMD, and now has played a major role in 9-11. Perhaps you are not aware that the person who wire transferred the money to Mohammad Atta (the chief hijacker of 9-11)was Omar Saeed Sheikh, the same person who is involved in the killing of Daniel Pearl. Obviously it was done at the behest of their handlers in the ISI (the Pakistani intelligence agency) specifically Lt.gen. Mehmood Ahmed. Daniel Pearl was killed because he was too close to uncovering the involvement of higher level brass in the Paki military elite in 9-11. Now if you are telling me all this was really directed against India , surely that is stretching it a bit. For a complete account of Pakistani involvement in 9-11 see for instance Anyway I need to emphasize that I have little disagreement with most of what you wrote, merely that the notion that Musharaff is fighting evil forces in his brain and trying his darnedest to help the Americans find Osama Bin Laden , is in my opinion a very gullible idea. Unfortunately many in the administration have this cockamamie notion that Musharaff is the only thing that stands between chaos and order in Pakistan. This is a line that the Paki generals have been feeding the American administrations for the last few decades apparently with stunning success, if you can believe the drivel that the state department spokesman Boucher dribbles out everyday about Pakistan. In any event I will continue to read your columns, now that I see a glimmer of hope among the increasing number of skeptical members in the American media,skeptical about the bonafides of the terrorist state that goes by the name of Pakistan Sincerely, Kaushal -----Original Message----- From: Sneider, Daniel [] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:03 AM To: Kaushal Subject: RE: Your column on Pakistan's government played a role in Pearl's murder Mr Vepa -- I am of two minds myself on this issue -- in part, I agree with your view of Musharraf. With this added element -- his main obsession remains India (and Kashmir) and in that speech the argument was more about how Pakistan had to do this in order to deal with the emerging alliance between the US and India. But I can also see the argument that Levy makes -- as do many US officials -- that Musharraf himself hasn't really made up his mind which way to go. In any case, thanks for reading -- and for writing. Dan Sneider
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 17 2003, 12:13 AM
Just watched Nightline. if I were a pakistani i would not consider this a very appreciative news report. They had Pervez Hoodbhoy the Physicist almost despairing the state of affairs. They talked about the madrassahs and the fact that 20% of all schools in Pakistan are ghost schools - they do not exist, but money is allocated for them and disappears into a black hole.They showed a school with freshly painted walls, a novelty in the paradise of the Pure, and were informed that this was done with American aid. There is no question that America is intensely disliked in the land of the pure. It comes through loud and clear. India only came up as an ally of the hated Americans. For once there was no Ted Koppel making disparaging remarks on India except to say good night.
Posted by: Viren Oct 17 2003, 06:53 AM
Kaushal: If I remember correctly a huge chunk of the $5B handout at Camp David was supposed to go towards 'educational reforms' in TSP. Clearly this is not happening. Nor has US policymakers placed any credible checks and balances to ensure that. IMHO this more of a concern than some missiles that Pakis are blowing away to glory or what really goes in whose mind in the TSP. In 80s TSP was given a blank check to fight communism and now those same stingers are pointed towards US and Indian military. Now they are the 'frontline ally' in war against terrorist - talk about asking fox to guard the chicken coop! It's heartening to such issue being discussed in US media. But the coverage is not enough.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 17 2003, 11:45 PM
Reply by Dan Sneider to my note above
Again, I dont really disagree with much of what you wrote, even regarding Musharraf and the stupidity of American policy toward Pakistan (I wrote a column back last July on the same theme). And that information on the ISI links to al qaida is what I referred to in my column -- the Levy book recounts all of that in detail. Thanks again for a thoughtful reply and I will take a look at that information you linked to. Dan Sneider
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 19 2003, 07:31 AM New Delhi: Many had taken with a pinch of salt the assurance of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the Agra summit in 2001 that underworld don Dawood Ibrahim was not in his country. But he was literally right! Musharraf was right because Dawood had left Pakistan in early July, 2001, before the Pakistani President came to India for the July 14-16, 2001, summit. Dawood, now declared a "global terrorist" by the US government, had left on a fake Pakistani passport for Singapore and then went on to Hong Kong. He returned to Karachi from Dubai in the intervening night of July 18-19 "on getting clearance from his Pakistani masters", intelligence sources said. Dawood, who, according to reports, stays in Moin Palace opposite Abdullah Shah Ghazi Dargah in Karachis posh Clifton locality, travelled as Mohammad Anis on a fake passport number 11-123259. When Musharraf was holding his summit meeting with Vajpayee in Agra, Dawood left Singapore for Hong Kong on July 15, 2001, by a Singapore Airlines flight from where he went to Dubai, the sources said. The sources said Dawood was spotted in Peshawar this August along with his lieutenant Chhota Shakeel, even as the American Treasury Department said he had gone to Afghanistan earlier to extend financial support to the Taliban. Dawood, Shakeel and Ibrahim alias Tiger Memon, all three listed among the 20 men wanted by India from Pakistan, were granted Pakistani citizenship in June this year. Dawood has also undergone a name-change and his new identity was Iqbal Seth alias Amer Sahib, while Chhota Shakeel is known as Haji Mohammad and Tiger Memon as Ahmed Jamil. The underworld don had been issued his first Pakistani passport, number G866537, at Rawalpindi on August 12, 1991, the sources said. Having faced the heat in the recent past, Dawood is now trying to dispose of his properties in Karachi and other parts and has taken up residence in Islamabad, along with Chhota Shakeel, they said. Even the Pakistani authorities were seeking an end to the Dawood saga as they were worried about the potential of raising serious security issues especially after the recent blast in Karachis Kawish Crown Plaza owned by him, they said, adding that Pakistani police thought the Plaza blast was a result of rivalry between two mafia groups. Referring to Dawoods role in the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai, they said while investigations first led to the Memon brothers, the sleuths finally zeroed in on Dawood. As the mafias financial interests prior to the March 1993 blasts were under pressure due to the crash in gold prices, Pakistans ISI took the opportunity to pay the mafia heftily if it transported weapons and explosives to India, they said, adding that the entire operation was estimated to have cost Rs two crore, if not more. Dawood, the sources said, was contacted through two Pakistani smugglers - Taufiq Jalliawala and Yusuf Godrawala, and the entire consignment of explosives landed at the Konkan coast and was shifted to Mumbai in the second week of January 1993. While the Memon brothers, especially Ibrahim alias Tiger Memon, were the key coordinators of the blasts, Dawood had a role in training personnel, procurement of arms and explosives and coordination of the planning of the operation. The explosives landed at Konkan coast on two launches -- Bismillah and Sada-al-Bahar -- owned by Mustafa Ahmed Dosa, brother of a bodyguard of Dawoods close friend Abdul Wahab Galadhari, the sources said, adding that Dawood, backed by the ISI, was the chief financier of the entire operation. The sources said 19 small time criminals from Mumbai were picked up by Dawood, sent to Dubai from where they were shifted to Karachi on fake Pakistani visas. They were then taken to a training camp in North West Frontier Province where they were trained in use of explosives by the now-defunct Harkat-ul-Ansar, they said, adding they were later smuggled into Mumbai for triggering the blasts. PTI
Posted by: Viren Oct 20 2003, 09:59 AM
Source: HOUSTON CHRONICLE, OCTOBER 16, 2003 IS PAKISTAN AN ALLY OR A PARIAH? IT'S TIME TO VERIFY -By GITESH DESAI THE United States is on the offensive in the global war on terrorism. This country is aggressively going after the terrorists and dismantling repressive regimes who support and sponsor terrorism. However, the Bush administration has failed to ask for accountability from a country that is acting as a U.S. ally in this war, but in reality is an epicenter of international terrorism. That country is Pakistan. It can be said with certainty that Ramzi Youseff, Abu Zubeida, Dawood Ibrahim, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, Mullah Omar, Khalid Sheik Mohamad, Mohamad Atta and many other al-Qaida terrorists received their training and support from one particular country. That country is Pakistan. In his 2002 State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush described North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an axis of evil because these countries were seeking weapons of mass destruction. "These regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred," Bush cautioned. Now, everybody knows about a country that has clandestinely transferred its nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Iraq. That country is Pakistan. Nuclear proliferation, together with terrorism, poses the greatest threat to the civilized world. Today, such a deadly combination is found deeply rooted in one specific country. Osama bin Laden and his terrorist networks find their admirers, friends and sympathizers as an overwhelming number of people in that country. According to some opinion polls, that is the only country where more than 80 percent of the population believes that bin Laden is a "freedom fighter" and not a "terrorist." That country is Pakistan. Experts believe that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and clergy are helping and hiding al-Qaida leaders -- that they are providing sanctuaries to terrorists and allowing the Taliban to regroup. The prospect of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons with the help of ISI agents is a grave danger. Pakistan has not completely sealed its borders with Afghanistan and India. In Pakistan, the terrorists are systematically trained to carry out killings of innocent people in India. Pakistan poses a great threat to world peace. It is one of the most dangerous places in the world. After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan broke its relationship with the Taliban and became an important ally in the war against terrorism. The Bush administration has changed Pakistan's status from that of pariah to partner in the global war on terrorism. For its help in Afghanistan, Pakistan has been rewarded with billions of dollars of debt forgiveness, new loan guarantees and military aid. Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was invited to the White House and bestowed with a rare honor of visiting Camp David. It is time to verify whether Pakistan is an effective ally in the war against terrorism. Although Bush has high hopes for Musharraf, many critics believe that Musharraf has not done enough to crack down on extremists in his country with strong connections to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Experts say that many of these extremists, who openly sympathize with the terrorists, are a part of the Pakistani government. Thousands of religious schools, known as madrases, are still operating and spreading hatred against Christians, Jews and Hindus. Pakistan has not fulfilled promises given to the international community since the global war on terrorism began. It has not behaved responsibly with its nuclear weapons technology, it has not sealed its borders with Afghanistan and India and it has allowed the terrorists to cross these borders. It has remained a breeding ground for future terrorists. If Pakistan continues to break its promises, recent economic and military aid packages declared by Bush should be canceled or postponed until Pakistan fulfills its obligations. Victory in this war is not possible unless Pakistan is held accountable for its role. Desai is a Houston-based freelance writer and an activist in the Indian-American community here.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 21 2003, 09:19 PM
For those in the DC area IMPORTANT: Congressional Hearing on Counter-Terrorism Dear Friends: You will recall, at the urging of the US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), the US House of Representatives had passed an amendment on July 16, 2003 which required the Administration to disclose the extent to which Pakistan is fulfilling its promise to clamp down on cross-border terrorism, shutting down terrorist camps in Pakistan-held Kashmir, and halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to rogue states and terrorists. The House passed the request, as part of HR 1950, Millennium Challenge Account, Peace Corps Expansion, and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003 (Section 709), by an overwhelmingly wide margin (382-42). It reflects the broad support that this issue garners across party lines. It will interest you to know that a joint hearing to review U.S. counter terrorism policy in Asia before the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights will be held on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room # 2172, at the US Capitol in Washington DC. (visit for directions to Rayburn House Office Building). USINPAC is bringing B Raman, the noted Counter Terrorism expert of India as an expert witness to tender evidence before the Committees. You are invited to observe the Committees as they assess cross-border terrorism challenges facing India and their implications for the counter terrorism policies of the United States. We envision two panels of witnesses: the first being an Administration panel, and the second being a private experts' panel. The agenda is: Panel 1 Cofer Black, US Coordinator for Counter terrorism. Jim Kelly, Christina Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs (tentative). Panel 2 Dr. Zachary Abuza from Simmons College, Dr. Timothy Hoyt from Naval War College and B. Raman, formerly India’s Counter Terrorism Chief. I am told there are ONLY some 100 seats - first come, first served. Therefore if you wish to attend, try to be in line well in time at the Rayburn House Office Building, Room # 2172, at the US Capitol in Washington DC. REMEMBER, the proceedings start at 1:30 pm on Wednesday, October 29th. Ram Narayanan
Posted by: jrjrao Oct 22 2003, 03:55 AM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Oct 17 2003, 12:43 PM)
There is no question that America is intensely disliked in the land of the pure. It comes through loud and clear. India only came up as an ally of the hated Americans.
And the same intense anti-American sentiment comes through in this Wash. Post story also: Pakistanis Cross Border With Ease to Join Taliban
Posted by: k.ram Oct 22 2003, 10:12 AM
> Hindus in pakistan used a slaves & tortured > --------------------------------- > > > HYDERABAD: 13 farmers picked up, tortured: HRCP > > > Bureau Report > > HYDERABAD, Oct 19: The Qasimabad police picked up 13 > liberated Haris, including Mannu Bheel, and took > them to the police station where they were severely > tortured on Sunday. > > A press release of the Special Task Force, Human > Rights Commission of Pakistan, Sindh, said that a > police mobile of the Qasimabad police station in a > raid at the Adal Noonari Goth, Ghanjo Takar, Unit > No12, Latifabad, picked up 13 Haris. > > Their names were ascertained as Mannu Bheel, Mithu > Bheel, Rano Bheel, Sawai Bheel, Bai (wife of Mithu > Bheel), Panna (wife of Mehru Bheel), Damo Bheel, and > Mehru Bheel. The remaining five were children. > > They were blindfolded before being taken to the > police station where they were severely tortured. > According to the HRCP, these people were being > forced to give a statement that nobody had kidnapped > them or rather the family members of Mannu Bheel. > However, they refused to give any such statements. > > Later, they were taken to the Latifabad Unit No8 > police station where the DPO, Investigation, Pir > Fareed Jan Sarhandi, told them that they had been > taken into custody "due to some misunderstanding". > They were released about 12pm. > > It may be recalled here that nine family members of > Mannu Bheel, including his old parents, wife and > children, were kidnapped from Jhuddo on May 2, 1998, > by a landlord of Sanghar. FIR No35 of 1998 was > registered at the Jhuddo police station regarding > it. > > Only recently, the Sindh governor, Dr Ishratul Ibad, > had directed the regional police officer, Hyderabad, > Ghulam Mohammad Malkani, to recover the kidnapped > family. > > The RPO had appointed the DPO, Investigation, Pir > Fareed Jan Sarhandi, as inquiry officer. The HRCP > press release further said that the SHO, Qasimabad, > had told the Haris that they had been taken into > custody under the orders of Pir Fareed Jan Sarhandi > and they should give a statement that Mannu Bheel's > family had never been kidnapped. > > It will be relevant to point out here that Mannu > Bheel has been on hunger strike ever since Jan 19 in > protest against the kidnapping of his family > members. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 4 Hindu families arrive from Pak > Rashmi Talwar > Amritsar, October 23 > Passenger rush in the Samjhauta Express drastically > came to an all-time low here today in the aftermath > of US strikes on Afghanistan. Four Hindu Pakistani > families arrived here to look for opportunities to > migrate from trouble-torn Jacobabad. > Unwilling to be named for fear of retaliation and > even elimination, the families are from Jacobabad > which has gained importance due to its air base > being used for strikes by the USA. Manish (all names > changed) a kiryana merchant from Chaman in > Baluchistan near the air base, after much coercing > said his wife and a year-old daughter, along with > his mother, were his main “burden”. His shop was set > afire early this month when the USA began the > airstrikes. Since then he had been trying for visas > to India. > Pawan (23) also travelled with his three-year-old > son, as did Hira Lal and Shikhono. They revealed > that they were seeking admissions for their children > in India. > Jacobabad air base has a Hindu population of > approximately 25,000 and several Sikh families. > Rajo, travelling with her husband and aged mother, > wore her ‘mangalsutra’ only after reaching India > fearing identification of being “kafir”. Hindu women > hardly ever step out of their house there. Even > navratras are celebrated quietly. It was revealed > that girls of Hindu/Sikh families were in great fear > of molestation by angry Taliban who were present in > large numbers and incite their Pakistani > counterparts to “teach the kafirs a lesson”. > One passenger revealed that the Pakistan police > scouted Hindu temples and gurdwaras, hence even > women were discouraged to visit religious paces. > Hindus and Sikhs were blackmailed and a “hafta” was > imposed on them if they undertook any construction > activity, however, minor. Teja Singh (67) cut short > his visit to Pakistan to rush back to India. “If > trouble did not break out there I would have sought > extension again and again for my visa”, he said. > Meanwhile, according to intelligence sources only > about 350 passengers arrived here > > Source : > > > > > > > > Struggle for joint electorate Upper Sindh Hindus > Panchayats decide to boycott local polls >From Ali > Hassan JACOBABAD: > > The Hindus community in Sukkur and Larkana divisions > on Friday evening unanimously decided to boycott > local council elections. This decision was taken by > delegates of the Panchayats from over one hundred > towns and cities. The "All Hindu Upper Sindh > Convention" was hosted by the Jacobabad Hindu > Panchayat. The host, Sudham Chand Chawla, local > president, while welcoming the guests briefed them > about the one- point agenda. He said 'Hindus have > been given the status of a fourth-class citizen in > Pakistan.' The resolution declaring their boycott of > the local council elections was read by Rochi Ram a > lawyer from Mirpurkhas. The participants adopted the > resolution with a resounding voice and raised their > hands. In the first phase of the devolution of > power, plan introduced by the government of General > Pervez Musharraf elections to local councils are > going to take place on December 31. Nomination > papers have to be filed on December 5. If the > boycott persist, it would be hard blow to the entire > process. While Muslims have been given the right of > five votes. Hindus would exercise the right of only > one vote. Is this not a discrimination?" pointed out > various speakers, arguing that the constitution > empowers citizens with equal rights'. Participants > wore black arm bands. The convention was opened with > a recitation from the Gita and concluded with > 'Pakistan Zindabad'. "Sohni Dharti, Allah rakhey > qadam qadam abad," was also frequently said > throughout the proceedings of the convention. > Speakers from small villages and big towns of upper > Sindh condemned the separate electorate system > which, according to them, 'caused bitterness among > the minorities and hardships on various issues. > Speakers who included former members of the national > and provincial assemblies, were of the firm opinion > that a joint electorate was the solution to > different problems faced by the minorities'. Hari > Ram Kishorilal, a former MPA said 'I belong to > Mirpurkhas and it is difficult for the people of > Jacobabad > to locate me in case they need the to solve their > problems as the entire country is our constituency. > Mulkhi Sarwanand, former MPA, Petambar Sehwani, > former MPA, Ms Kalpana Devi, Hari Ram Kishorilal, > former MPA, Sudhamal Chand Chawla, President, > Jacobabad Panchayat, Dr Mehr Chand, Milki Mal of > Rohri, Ram Chand of Khandkot, Dr Premchand of > Shahdadkot, Dr Balchand of Badani, Lachman Das, > advcate of Ghotki, Mewa Ram Odh of Dokri, Mukhi > Bakhshomal of Thul, Khaniyalal of Kashomore, Dr > Ramesh Lal of Kamber, Choudhry Jamna Das of > Khandkot, Ramesh Lal of Thul, Sari Chand Lal of > Jacobabad and others spoke at the gathering. > Speakers exhorted the audience "to remain united and > fearless about the repercussions if any". A peaceful > struggle to reintroduce the joint electorate system > should be launched. A handful of participants asked > "what would happen if people contest the elections > in violation of the conventions decision?" Rochi Ram > told them that the convention had taken a unanimous > decision > and if people violate it, they would be the dealt > of their community." When some speakers attempted to > offer an overall picture of the conditions which > Hindus had been experiencing, the organisers asked > them to confine themselves to the agenda of the > convention. Kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping of > girls, subsequently their conversion under what they > said was 'coercion' and discrimination on various > counts, are the factors which have made the Hindus > of upper Sindh lose heart. > > Source: Daily Star, Karachi, dated December 02, 2000 > Pak Hindu leader wins ballot battle, falls to > bulletAuthor: Vivek Deshpande > Publication: The Indian Express > Date: February 1, 2002 > A Prominent leader of the Pakistani Hindu community, > Sudham Chand Chawla, who successfully fought a legal > battle to ensure voting rights for Pakistani > minorities, was shot dead by unidentified assailants > in the Pakistani city of Jacobabad on Monday. > This was revealed by relatives of the slain leader > to mediapersons here. > > Pakistani newspapers such as The News and The Dawn > carried the news of the killing which largely went > unnoticed in India. A pall of gloom descended on the > Chawla residence here when his relatives heard it on > BBC Radio the same night. > According to his brother Jagdish, who resides here > along with three other brothers, Chawla was > scheduled to meet the Jacobabad collector in > connection with the electoral rolls when he was shot > dead. > The Pakistan Supreme Court had restored voting > rights to minorities a fortnight ago following > Chawla's sustained efforts. > “Some Muslim organisations, too, helped him in his > endeavour but the fundamentalists probably didn't > like it and hence killed him,” he said. Chawla, 45, > was president of the Hindu General Panchayat and the > Jacobabad district chief of Pakistan People's Party > (PPP). He was one of the prominent Hindu leaders and > was popular among Muslims too. > Thousands gathered at his residence and Jacobabad > observed an impromptu bandh when the news of his > death spread. Hindus staged a highway blockade which > was eased after the administration promised to nab > the culprits. > “Sindh traders observed a three-day bandh to protest > the killing,” Chawla's son Santosh said. Sudham > Chand, who owned a rice mill, is survived by his > widow, a son and a six-month-old daughter in > Pakistan and three sons, Santosh, Manoj and Inder > who moved to Nagpur a few years ago. > One of his brothers Kanwarlal is in Jacobabad while > four brothers, Jagdish, Ashok, Kishor and Daulat, > had left Pakistan 25 years ago to settle down in > Nagpur. Sudham Chand was the eldest. His mother, > too, is here for the past one year while his father > is dead. > According to family members here, Chawla had moved > the Pakistan SC three years ago seeking restoration > of voting rights to minorities. “He was helped by > people such as former speaker of Pakistan's National > Assembly Elahi Bukhsh Soomro,” Jagdish said. “He > also valiantly fought for restoration of land which > rightfully belonged to the Hindus,” he said. > Sudham Chand was elected a corporator in Jacobabad > first in 1983 and then in 1987. In 1990, he bacame > president of the Jacobabad PPP and in 1994 became > its district chief. In 1996, during Benazir Bhutto's > reign, he was named the chief of Upper Sindh unit of > the PPP, according to family members. > “His killing has created a feeling of insecurity > among Pakistan Hindus and the Government of India > should do something about it,” Jagdish said. > > > Hindus protest at 'Muslim abduction' > > > > About 500 Hindu women in Pakistan's Sindh province > have been protesting at what they believe is the > abduction of a teenage Hindu girl by a Muslim youth. > > > The unprecedented protest has been taking place in > Jacobabad district, about 500 kilometres (350 miles) > from Karachi. > > Hindu leaders told the BBC the protests would > continue until Soni - the 16 year-old girl - was > found. > Soni's father rejected suggestions she had eloped > with a local Muslim shopkeeper. > Police say that on 26 June, a formal complaint was > lodged that Soni, daughter of shopkeeper Ashok > Kumar, had been abducted three days earlier by a > Muslim. > Engaged > Head of the Hindu Panchayat in Jacobabad, Babu > Mahesh Kumar, said their demonstrations would > continue until they knew where the girl was. > Ashok Kumar told the BBC his daughter was already > engaged to a Hindu and denied reports she had run > off with the Muslim man, who is said to have a shop > in the area where the Hindu family lives. > The investigating officer, Mohammed Akram, told the > BBC the Muslim man had gone to Balochistan and > police were unable to detain him. > A local Hindu leader, Kishan Lal, said this was the > fourth case of abduction of a Hindu woman in the > district during the last year. > He said about 20 women had been abducted throughout > Sindh province over the same period. > The Hindu population of Sindh is estimated to be > more than 400,000. > Community leaders allege that the women who are > abducted are forced to convert to Islam and marry > their captors. > > > > > > > Idols missing from Pak temples > Varinder Walia > Tribune News Service > > Amritsar, July 1 > Many idols in ancient Hindu temples in Pakistan are > missing and the government there has denied > permission to install new ones in place of these. > Reports from across the border say that the > condition of most Hindu temples there has > deteriorated since the 1999 ban on the Hindu jathas > visiting Pakistan. > The government of Pakistan is not allowing even > local Hindus to look after their desolate temples on > the pattern of Sikh gurdwaras, which reveals its > hidden agenda to divide the minorities in the > country, says Mr Mathura Dass Arora (72), deputy > leader of the last jatha of Hindus that visited the > Pakistan temples in 1999. “After this pilgrimage, > the Hindus were not allowed to visit Pakistan on the > pretext that they were not safe there. If jathas of > Sikhs can be provided with security, the Hindus can > be protected as well,” he told The Tribune. > Mr Arora and his wife Mrs Sumitra said the Hindu > jathas had to face a lot of humiliation in Pakistan. > The ISI sleuths followed them everywhere during > their pilgrimage. Mr Arora, a history teacher, said, > as part of the national policy of Pakistan the Hindu > temples there were not being renovated on the > pattern of gurdwaras. “Being a student of history,” > I was shocked to hear from an employee of Pakistan’s > Evacuee Trust Board that the Hindus were responsible > for the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev and not the > Mughals, as claimed by Indian historians,” he said. > In a letter to the Prime Minister, the President of > the All-India Hindu Shiv Sena, Mr Surinder Kumar > Billa, has said his outfit won’t let the Lahore-New > Delhi bus service resume, if India and Pakistan fail > to allow pilgrimage to temples in Pakistan. > The holiest Hindu temple in Pakistan, relating to > Mahabharata is Katasraj, which, too, is in a bad > shape. Mr Billa, who has visited the shrines twice > in the past, said it was difficult to locate certain > ancient temples in Lahore and the other parts of > Pakistan, as these had not been opened to the public > since the Partition. > Pakistan’s consent to open certain shrines came > after a number of promises over the years — the > first made in 1955 by Ghazanfar Ali Khan, first > Pakistan ambassador to India. > The first yatra to Katasraj fixed for 1956 was > cancelled 12 days before the scheduled visit. In > 1960 and 1979, the story was repeated. In 1982, Mr > Billa and other prominent Hindus threatened to stop > trains at Attari bringing pilgrims from Pakistan. > “The Nehru and Indira governments never took up the > matter with the Government of Pakistan seriously.” > The first batch of Hindu pilgrims left for Katasraj > in 1982, 35 years after the Partition. The next > batch went in November 1983. Gone were the > pre-Partition days of big religious festivals at > Katasraj as fanatics in Pakistan had made a number > of attempts to damage the Sivalinga in this ancient > temple. > The Sheetla Mandir at Lahore, built before the > invasion of Alexander, has seen many of its precious > idols either looted or handed over to the > archaeological department. The Doodhwali Mata Mandir > between Shah Almi and Lahori Gate in Lahore survived > in its dilapidated sanctum sanctorum. The famous > Parahlad Mandir and Jain Mandir near Anarkali in > Lahore have been locked and an Islamic school is > being run in the compound of the latter. Bhagat > Hakikat Rai’s samadhi, where a fair used to be held > every Basant day is also in a bad shape, though the > festival is still popular in Pakistan. > > > Source : > > > Recently in Kashmore some 20 armed personnel > allegedly attacked villagers with rocket launchers, > rifles and other automatic weapons at a bus-stand, > leaving 15 people dead including a Hindu woman, and > kidnapped nine villagers including threeHindus. “The > armed men threatened the Hindu communities of > Kashmore and Thul talukas to either leave the towns > or face the consequences,” said a local journalist > who was present at the incident. > > > Plight of Hindus in Pakistan > Kanayalal M. Talreja > > < Back to Formatted Version > > Mr. Talreja was born in 1936 at Dist. Sukkur, > (Sindh,Pakistan). After the partition of the > country, he stayed in Sindh for 17 years, and > obtained M.A. degree in English literature from > University of Sind in 1962. > He was a first position holder upto the University > examinations.He was awarded four medals by the > Governor of West Pakistan. He launched his career as > a primary teacher and reached the position of > lecturer in English at Government College Sukkur.He > fought dauntlessly for the rights of Hindus in > Pakistan, and liberated famous Sadhubella Temple > from the grip of Pakistan Government in 1962. > > In Sindh, he championed the cause of the depressed > and down-traded Hindus. He migrated to Bharat in > 1964. The following is the account of his years in > Pakistan after 1947: "During those days, I saw every > where total contempt for Hindu and their gods. > Hindus are treated as untouchables and served water > or tea in separate glasses and are not to visit > Muslim houses. The plight of Hindu girls and women > is much worse. They cannot go out freely or > fearlessly. They could not go to schools or > colleges, as there was a chance of being abducted. > > Study of Arabic or Persian is compulsory in all > schools and colleges. Study of Islamic religion is > compulsory in all schools and colleges. The > text-books carry venom and hatred against Hindu and > Bharat. Hinduism is berated as an inferior religion > and Islam is portrayed as a superior religion in the > text-books. Their history books extol Md. Ghazni, > Ghori, Babar and Aurangzeb as heroes and run down > Rana Sanga, Shivaji and Rana Pratap as cowards. The > next books state that the Hindus are not the > original sons of Bharat and that they came from > outside. > > The textbooks highlight the rights of Kashmiris and > attack Bharat as the aggressor. The students are > brainwashed from the primary classes upwards and are > turned into fanatics. > > Can any one expect the Pakistanis to ever extend the > hand of friendship in the context of this > indoctrination? > > No job higher than a clerk's post is given to a > Hindu. In spite of four medals for securing first > position in Four University examinations, and > profound scholarship in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu I > was refused a lecturer's post initially. No Hindu > can run a business unless he has a Muslim as a > sleeping partner. The Hindu shop-keepers and > businessmen must give goods or groceries to Muslims > on credit. When the businessmen go to the villages > to collect the dues, they are threatened and some > times murdered. > > Many of the Hindu temples have been desecrated or > destroyed or converted into Government offices or > godowns. The famous Ram Bagh garden in Karachi has > been changed as Azam Bagh. Shraddhananda Park in > Sukkur has been changed as Gazi Abdul Rashid Park, > after the name of the killer of Swami Shradhananda. > Illegal encroachments on Hindu temples, goshalas and > lands, molestation and abduction of Hindu girls, > demanding of huge ransoms in kidnap cases and > frequent arrests of Hindus on false charges are the > order of the day in Pakistan. The population of > Hindus which stood at one crore in 1947 has come > down to 17 lakhs. > > When I came back to Bharat in 1964, I was astonished > to find the rights and privileges that the Muslims > were enjoying here. There were Muslim Governors, > Collectors, I.A.S. Officials, Police Chiefs, Judges, > Members of Parliaments and Legislatures, Ministers > and so on. After that there have been Muslim > Presidents also. > > The Muslims have had their rights protected by the > Constitution. Hence they have been able to build > mosques anywhere and run their reliious institutions > without any hindrance. They have got the right to > teach their religion in schools and colleges, > observe their customs and adopt their personal laws. > They have the right to start any business including > slaughter houses to kill cows, and have now acquired > monopoly in many trades. They are able to freely > propagate their religion and resort to conversions. > > They are able to freely propagate their religion and > resort to conversions. They are able to buy any > property anywhere and own it without any hindrance. > The Muslims have been contesting elections as a > community and under the flag of the Muslims League > which divided the country. The Muslim population > which was around three crores after the partition in > 1947 has now gone up to 14 crores. > > > > > > > Hindus in > Pakistan > Mizan Khan (103), 07/28/94 > Updates > Deepa Khosla (116), 01/24/96 > Michelle C. Boomgaard, 3/29/00 > Amy Pate, 12/1/01 > Hindus in Pakistan > Total Area of Pakistan: 803,943 sq. km > Capital:Islamabad > Country Population: 135.14 million (U.S. Census > Bureau estimate for 1998) > Group Population: 2.703 million (2.0%) > Analytic Summary > Hindus are most concentrated in the Sindh province > of southeast Pakistan (GROUPCON = 3). Before > partition, most Hindus in present-day Pakistan were > urban, highly educated and economically advantaged. > However, most middle- and upper-class Pakistani > Hindus immigrated to India after the 1947 partition > of the sub-continent. Those that remained tended to > be poorer and rural. Lacking the resources to > organize politically (large numbers are bonded > labor), Hindus have remained politically and > economically marginalized in Pakistan. > Hindus are a religious minority in a Muslim country. > They and their temples have periodically been > subject to violence at the hands of the country’s > religious majorities (COMCO98X = 5). Their status > within the country varies, in part, according to > relations between Muslims and Hindus in India. When > their kindred across the border destroyed the Babri > mosque in 1992, for example, Hindus in Pakistan > suffered as Pakistani Muslims stormed temples and > attacked Hindus. Hindus are also suspected of being > agents of the Indian government. > Hindus have been poorly organized politically, with > no national political party (ORGCOH = 0). > Furthermore, their identity is defined more by the > dominant Muslim culture than by their own > self-assertion (COHESX9 = 1). Despite this lack of > political history and organization, Hindus have > become increasingly vocal in the late 1990s (PROT98 > = 3), and have forged alliances with other religious > minorities (especially Christians) to agitate for > increased rights. An organization called the > Pakistan Hindu Welfare Association and coalitions of > Hindu panchayats (local councils of elders) have led > in political organizing. Hindus have mainly > organized around the issue of separate electorates, > with the Pakistan Hindu Welfare Association > convening a national conference on the issue in > December 2000. (In the system of separate > electorates, members of religious minorities may > vote only for members of their group which results > in their marginalization in the National Assembly.) > Protection from communal > violence and economic opportunity (and the status > of Hindu bonded labor) also are important issues for > the Hindu community in Pakistan. Hindus, like > Christians and Ahmadis, have also been > disproportionately affected by Pakistan’s > anti-blasphemy laws. > Hindus in India, and the Indian government, > frequently lambast discrimination against Hindus in > Pakistan. However, they have extended little more > than rhetorical support, perhaps sensing that more > than that would endanger rather than aid Pakistani > Hindus. Additionally, international anti-slavery > organizations have lobbied for the end of bonded > labor in Pakistan, but have not undertaken > "redemption" efforts for Hindu bonded labor as they > have for some other groups (most notably, black > Africans in Sudan). > Risk Assessment > Given the weakness of Hindu political organization, > it is unlikely that Hindus will opt for open > rebellion in the near future. (However, reportedly, > a Hindu organization did take responsibility for at > least one bombing in Islamabad in 2000.) But, they > are likely to continue the nonviolent political > action begun in 1998. As the Hindu population gains > confidence in their political organizations and, if > they continue to build alliances with other > minorities, their condition may improve. Some > mainstream Pakistani parties, including the Sindh > Democratic Party, and individual Muslim > intellectuals have expressed support for Hindu > aspirations. > Hindus still remain at risk for intercommunal > violence. The rise – and increasing militancy – of > fundamentalist Islamic parties add to this risk > considerably. However, political alliances with > other communities and secularly oriented parties may > alleviate this danger. The stability of Sindh could > depend on such alliances, as they may be necessary > to meet the sometimes desperate resource needs of > both the indigenous and immigrant populations. > Chronology > 1990 > November: Security forces moved to protect Hindu > temples in Pakistan as thousands of Muslims > protested against attacks on Muslims in India. The > actions in northern India followed attempts by > Hindus to raze the centuries-old Babri Masjid > (mosque). > Anti-Hindu protests were staged outside temples in > cities and towns of southern Pakistan where most of > the Pakistani Hindus live. According to the latest > reports, one Hindu man was killed and four temples > were damaged by Muslim demonstrators. > 1992 > December: Muslims attacked temples across Pakistan > and the government of this overwhelmingly Muslim > nation closed offices and schools for one day to > protest the destruction of the Babri mosque in > India. Marchers shouted slogans such as "Crush > India!" and "Death to Hinduism". In Lahore, the > capital of Punjab, Muslims used a bulldozer, > hammers, and their bare hands to demolish the Jain > temple near Punjab University. Police forces did not > intervene, nor did they act when a crowd stormed the > Air-India office, dragged furniture into the street, > and set the office on fire (The New York Times, > 12/08/92). > Hundreds of members of India's Hindu nationalist > Bharatiya Janata Party marched on the Pakistan High > Commission in New Delhi to protest attacks against > Hindus in Pakistan. At least 24 people have been > killed in Pakistan and at least 100 temples were > attacked by the Muslims (The Dallas Morning News, > 12/15/92). > Hindus in Pakistan assert that they are regularly > accused of being "Indian agents". The intolerance of > Pakistani fundamentalists has reportedly grown so > strong that some members of religious minorities > have begun to adopt Muslim names (The Toronto Star, > 12/04/92). > 1993 > January: A comparison between the human rights > records of India and Pakistan in 1992, which was > released by the US State Department, reveals that if > human rights were considered to be abused in India, > then the situation in Pakistan could only be > described as "appalling", with human rights > "brutalized" on a systematic basis. > The State Department accused Pakistan of persecuting > minority Hindus, Christians and Ahmadis. Hindus > asserted that they are subject to kidnappings, the > forced conversions of young women, and the > desecration of Hindu shrines. They also state that > they are not permitted to freely practice their > religion (The Ethnic Newswatch, 01/29/93). > September: The cabinet of caretaker Prime Minister > M. Qureshi has established a Commission on > Minorities to look into the grievances of the > country's minority communities and to ensure that > their shrines, temples and other places of worship > are preserved and well-kept. The Commission will > consist of official and non-official members. > Offical members include the Minister in-charge of > Minority Affairs and the secretaries of the > Ministries of Interior, Education, Law and > Parliamentary Affairs. > Update 01/24/96 > 1994 > May: The number of religious minorities charged > under Pakistan's restrictive blasphemy law continues > to mount. Since 1986, when the law was established, > 107 Ahmadis have been charged with blasphemy. The > blasphemy law allows a person to register a case > against anyone for blaspheming the Prophet Muhammad > by word or deed. In 1992, the government of Prime > Minister Nawaz Sharif made the death penalty > mandatory for blasphemy; in 1993 the law was > extended to include the names of the Prophet's > family. After months of criticism from local and > international human rights groups, Benazir Bhutto > has promised to introduce two amendments to the law. > The first amendment would ensure that the police > register a case only after they are directed to do > so by a court of law. The second amendment > stipulates a ten year jail term for giving false > information. These amendments are supposed to stop > the flagrant use of the blasphemy law in order to > fulfill personal vendettas. (Far Eastern Economic > Review, > 05/26/94). > 1995 > February: Although Benazir Bhutto's government had > promised last year to introduce amendments to the > country's blasphemy law, these amendments have still > not gone into effect. > In a wave of persecution of non-Muslims, all > cremation grounds outside of Sind were closed, > preventing Hindus from making funerary arrangements. > (London Independent 2/19/95) > Update: 3/27/00 > March 1995: Alleged Hindu infiltrators shot and > killed two American diplomats in Karachi. (Japan > Economic Newswire 3/8/ 95) > February 1996: Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto > approved a parliamentary motion which would allow > minorities to have Atwo votes@ - one for the > reserved minority seat which they have always had > and one for the general parliamentary seat. (Agence > France Presse 2/27/96) > September 1997: Hundreds of mostly Hindu peasants, > waving placards and banners and calling for the > release of jailed friends and relatives, protested > in Karachi against forced labor in southern > Pakistan's Sindh province. Human rights activist > Shakeel Pathan said about 4,300 poverty-stricken > peasants were languishing in the jails run by > influential Sindhi landlords. (Agence France Presse > 9/8/97) > March 1998: One person was killed and another > injured when a paramilitary soldier opened fire on a > group of Hindus protesting the national census, in > the locality of Jumma Goth in Karachi=s eastern > Landi district. Trouble erupted when enumerators > carrying out a national census demanded money from > the mostly illiterate community for filling in > census forms. The officials had earlier rejected > forms completed with the help of others. (Agence > France Presse 3/7/98) > August 1998: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif proposed a > constitutional amendment to make the Koran the > supreme law of Pakistan. Deputies from minority > communities including Hindus declined to support the > measure. (Deutsche Presse-Agentur 9/ 4/98) > June 1999: Pakistan's Minister of Islamic Affairs, > Raja Muhammad Zafarul Haq, announced plans to bring > websites that are insulting to Islam to the > attention of the United Nations and the Organization > of Islamic Conference. He noted the existence of at > least 125 such websites and mentioned that Hindu > parties were connected with them. (Malaysian > National News Agency 6/ 22/99) > August 1999: Hundreds of Pakistani Christians as > well as Hindus, Parsis and Sikhs staged a rally in > Lahore to demand the repeal of laws they said > discriminate against non-Moslem minorities in the > country. (Agence France Presse 8/11/99) > October 1999: The Pakistani Army staged a bloodless > coup, removing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and > placing Gen. Pervez Musharraf in charge of the > country. > References > 1. Amin, Tahir, "Pakistan in 1993," Asian Survey, > Vol. XXXIV, No. 2, February 1994. > 2. Europa Publications, Far East and Australasia > 1994. > 3. Keesings Record of World Events, 1990-94. > 4. Far Eastern Economic Review, 1994. > 5. Nexis Library Information, 1990-2000. > 6. Norton, James K., Global Studies: India and South > Asia, (Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group, > 1993. > 7. Phase I, Minorities at Risk, overview compiled by > Monty G. Marshall, 07/89. > > > > > > > > ------ > > 4 Hindus killed in Pakistan > > ISLAMABAD FEB. 9 2003 . Four Hindus were killed by > unidentified gunmen last night in a liquor shop in > the south-western Pakistani city of Quetta.The > gunmen tied the hands of six persons and opened > fire, killing four. The other two, including a > Hindu, suffered injuries. > PTI > > > > > > > > > > It is often argued that declining or failing states > increase the risk of > international conflict . A state that sees > itself as declining in power relative to others may > seek to wage pre-emptive > war, to fight while it can still win in hopes of > retaining con-trol > of assets and power. Joseph Nye raises several > historical exam-ples > of this phenomenon: Thucydides wrote that the > Peloponnesian > War was precipitated by a declining Sparta’s fear of > Athens’ rise. > Hundreds of years later, German fear of growing > Russian strength led > officials in Berlin to advocate war in 1914 rather > than wait until the > Russians grew even stronger. Britain entered that > same conflict be-cause > it hoped to halt German growth, having been unable > to reach > accommodation with Germany as it had with other > powers. > > Increasing domestic political disorder and chaos is > another factor > that can render a state more war-prone. It has been > argued convinc-ingly > that political transition generally, whether to a > democratic or an > autocratic regime, is inherently unstable and > increases the likelihood > of war. In a democratizing state, the rise of groups > and individuals > who compete for power in part by appealing to ethnic > or nationalist > symbols and allegiances can promote conflict. If > these symbols > apply to only a portion of the population, > antagonisms between > > groups within and outside the state are created or > exacerbated. > > Internal political dissent, whether or not > ethnically based, may also > lead a state to seek war as a means of fostering > unity against a > common foe and thus overcoming internal strife. In > pakistan’s case, > Baluchistan, Sindh, Balawaristsn (Gilgit Baltistsn) > fit such a pattern. > > Finally, a declining state’s weakness may invite > attack from other > states who see a window of opportunity to increase > their own power > through victory and/or conquest. Geoffrey Blainey > points out that > wars are fought because combatants believe they can > win. The de-cline > of an adversary may well foster such a belief, while > the declin-ing > state may not realize the extent of its weakness and > fail to capitu-late. > > A variety of factors of regime > transition—revolution, for > instance—can lead outsiders to see a state as weak > and vulnerable > (rightly or wrongly). > > A state might be thought to be headed toward failure > when there are > significant concerns about its ability to function > as a cohesive and > effective centrally governed entity. Civil war and > political disintegra-tion > may be the results of state failure, but some key > indicators that > the processes are under way include: > • The absence of a functioning economic system; > • The emergence of rampant corruption and a criminal > economy > (that takes the place of the absent legal economy); > • The emergence of privatized institutions for > personal security; > and > • The disintegration of military morale, capability, > and command > and control. > > In short, a state fails when basic rationales for > why people come to-gether > under a central government—guaranteed personal > security, > enforcement of the rules of economic transactions, > and a reasonable > sense of protection from external threat—cease to be > effectively > served by existing institutions. > > While these factors all serve as indicators that a > state is declining in > particularly dangerous ways, their presence does not > necessarily in-dicate > that the state has already failed or even that it > will fail in the > future. While we can recognize a completely failed > state—central > control is absent, law and order is nonexistent, and > militaries, if they > exist, are privatized—there is no clear > understanding of what point > along the path to decline marks irreversibility, or > the greatest danger. > It is, however, clear that these indicators serve > not only as signposts > of possible state failure but also as dangerous > developments in their > own right. > Because the dangers posed by a state’s decline are > often not limited > by the borders of that state, outside actors may > seek to take steps to > halt or reverse the decline (even as, as noted > above, others may try to > take advantage of it). In addition to the increased > risk of conflict, > other effects of state deterioration can worry > neighbors and others. > Internal or international conflict can create > refugee problems for > nearby states, straining resources and potentially > exporting political > instability. In today’s interdependent world, an > increasingly crimi-nalized > economy in one state contributes to the rise of > criminal ac-tivity > globally. Thus, when a failing or weak state is > unable to > respond to crises that affect other states’ security > interests, its neigh-bors > or other parties may take matters into their own > hands. > > > In failed states, the basic infrastructure of > governance > has broken down, leaving anarchy in its wake. > Political power in > failed states is exercised not by conventional > political regimes but by > outlaw warlords using mercenary armies to control > turf and relying > on systems of corruption, smuggling, and patronage > to finance > themselves. > > ============================================================ > > > Ethnic conflict. In states with ethnically > intermixed patterns of > population settlement, any significant loss of > central government > legitimacy or control, when coupled with the > existence of nationalist > history among one or more of the ethnic groups > involved, can pro-vide > the spark needed to ignite a violent conflagration. > Intermixed > patterns of settlement contain within them an > inherently greater risk > of conflict than do situations in which a minority > ethnic group is > clearly concentrated within a well-defined > geographical area. If cen-tral > government authority begins to weaken in states with > ethnically > intermixed settlement patterns, there is a risk that > the “security > dilemma” may kick in. This simply means that > measures that one > ethnic group takes to protect itself (e.g., village > self-defense patrols, > the stockpiling of small arms) could be perceived as > offensive and > threatening by the other group(s), who will then > take countermea-sures. > The resulting spiral in preparations increases the > risk of ethnic > warfare, especially if the legitimacy of the > national government con-tinues > to erode. If one of the ethnic groups involved has a > faster-growing > population than the other, then the effect of the > security > dilemma may become greatly magnified from the > standpoint of the > slower-growing group, creating additional incentives > to accelerate > preparations for violent conflict. Members of the > slower-growing > group may see themselves facing a closing “window of > opportunity” > after which the demographic dominance of the rival > group will > foreclose any option for asserting their claims to > certain lands and/or > political privileges. > This kind of demographic impact may have been one of > the sec-ondary > causes of the ethnic strife that has plagued the > former Yu-goslavia > during the past decade. Although Serb > hypernationalism > and the accompanying quest for a “Greater Serbia” on > the part of > Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Serbian > President Slobo-dan > Milosevic was the principal cause of the conflicts > in Bosnia and > Kosovo, the dynamics of differential population > growth rates could > well have served to fuel Serb feelings of insecurity > that had been ini-tially > created by these demagogic leaders. > From the 1960s onward through the 1980s, Muslim > population > growth rates in Bosnia outstripped those of Serbs, > as shown in Table > . This was due partially to fertility differentials > and partially to an > exodus of Serbian youth to urban areas in Serbia > proper in search of > economic opportunity. Over time, the increasing > Muslim proportion > of the total Bosnian population was translated into > greater Muslim > political, economic, and cultural clout at the > expense of the pre-viously > dominant Serbs. As Tim Judah notes, “After 1966 > Serbian > dominance of the administration and the Bosnian > communist party > began to wane. Increasingly Bosnia’s Muslims began > to make them-selves > felt in the running of the republic and in the > shaping of its > > > The Changing Bosnian Population Mix (percent) > > ----------------------------- > 1961 1971 1981 1991 > ----------------------------- > Serbs 42.9 37.2 32.0 31.3 > > Croats 21.7 20.6 18.4 17.3 > > Muslims 25.7 39.6 39.5 43.7 > > SOURCE: Tim Judah, The Serbs: History, Myth, and the > Destruction of > Yugoslavia, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, > 1997, p. 155. > > > future. When the Yugoslav federal government began > to unravel > in 1991, the demographic realities in Bosnia may > have helped to > increase the receptiveness of ordinary Bosnian Serbs > to the extremist > rhetoric employed by their leaders and thus also > their willingness to > mobilize for military attacks against Muslim towns, > villages, and > farms. > Kosovo presents perhaps a clearer case of > demographic shifts having > political and security impacts against the backdrop > of a dying state > superstructure. Between 1948 and 1981, the Albanian > proportion of > the total Kosovo population rose from 69 percent to > 77 percent as the > Serb share dropped from 23 percent to 13 percent.39 > This shift was > due mainly to very high Albanian fertility rates and > not to any real > decline in the absolute size of the Serb population > in Kosovo. As fed-eral > Yugoslavia began to show signs of strain in the late > 1980s, Serbs > in Kosovo began to agitate more actively for > Belgrade to offer them > greater rights and protections in the face of > growing Albanian control > of the Kosovo regional administrative bureaucracy. > This sense of > grievance held by the Kosovo Serbs provided the key > issue that Milo-sevic > and his kindred Serb nationalists used to come to > power within > Serbia in the late 1980s and to begin to manipulate > the ethnic ten-sions > of the federation for their own political benefit, > thus putting the > country squarely on the road to civil war and > disintegration. > In both Balkan cases, one can argue that > differential population > growth rates were perceived by the slower-growing > group as creating > conditions of closure that would allow the > faster-growing ethnic > group to steadily monopolize preferential access to > various privileges > and resources. Thus, the Serbs in each case may have > come to be-lieve > (with a lot of help from the heated rhetoric of > their demagogic > leaders) that the increasing population proportions > of the Bosnian > Muslims and the Kosovar Albanians would permit these > groups to > “lock up” access to senior government and > private-sector positions > that would, in turn, ensure the institutionalization > of preferential > treatment for their kinfolk in day-to-day provincial > life. > Bosnia and Kosovo are not by any means isolated > examples of the > dangers of demographic shifts in ethnically mixed > environments. > The history of conflicts in Lebanon and Northern > Ireland supports > the hypothesis formed on the basis of the Bosnian > war. The > Lebanese civil war of 1975–1990 began at a time when > Shiite Muslim > population growth was threatening Maronite Christian > control over > Lebanon’s national political institutions. Northern > Ireland’s “time of > troubles” between Protestants and Catholics began in > the early > 1970s, just as demographic trends in the province > were swinging in > favor of the Catholic minority. > Ethnic conflicts along these lines are especially > dangerous security > problems for outside powers to deal with because in > some cases, as > Chaim Kaufmann has shown, often the only long-term > comprehen-sive > solution that brings peace once full-scale ethnic > war has broken > out is a forcible partition of the warring groups by > outside military > forces. Such partition arrangements have to include > the creation of > borders that are easily defensible so that the > outside military forces > can depart with the assurance that peace will > survive. If a stable > partition cannot be achieved, the usual end state is > some type of > long-term foreign military occupation or > protectorate. In Northern > Ireland, British military occupation has been > required to control > Catholic-Protestant armed conflict, while Lebanon’s > civil war ended > only as a result of massive Syrian military > intervention. Indeed, the > Syrians remain the ultimate arbiter of Lebanese > politics to the pre-sent > day. And, of course, the bloodshed in Bosnia did not > end until > that country was occupied by NATO’s Implementation > Force (IFOR)in 1996 > . Thus, any outside power(s) seeking to intervene to > halt > ethnic bloodletting will often have to choose > between prolonged > direct military involvement or a partition that may > partially reward > some ethnic aggression. > > > > > > > >
Posted by: Mudy Oct 22 2003, 05:09 PM Sinha unveils 12 proposals to normalise ties with Pakistan; says no formal dialogue until Islamabad ends ‘cross-border terrorism’ in held Kashmir; Advani to hold talks with APHC NEW DELHI: India, trying to revive a stalled peace process, offered on Wednesday to talk with Kashmiri separatists for the first time and to open new border crossings with Pakistan, including one in disputed Kashmir ... Following are the 12 proposals announced by Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha: 1. Resumption of talks to restore civil aviation links, including overflight rights. 2. Discussion on resumption of rail links, following aviation talks. 3. Resumption of bilateral sporting encounters, including cricket. 4. Issuance of visas in cities outside the two countries’ national capitals, to shorten travel. 5. Permission to individuals aged at least 65 to cross into India by foot. Previously only groups could walk across, while individuals had to be on a bus. 6. plying of more buses on the New Delhi to Lahore, Pakistan route that now operates. 7. Establishment of links between the two countries’ coast guards, before and after fishing season. 8. Stoping of arrest of each other’s fishermen within certain sea areas. 9. Provision of free medical treatment to 20 Pakistani children. 10. Increase in the staff of each nation’s embassy. 11. Considering of ferry service between Bombay and Pakistan’s Karachi city. 12. Starting a new bus services, one between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad. The other would be a bus or rail link between Khokhrapar in Sindh province and Munabao in Rajasthan state.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 22 2003, 07:27 PM
It is a waste of time and effort.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 22 2003, 07:42 PM
It is before election act.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 23 2003, 07:23 AM
Wishful thinking or is there a whiff of truth here ? (This article will appear shortly on MUSHARRAF'S GOOSE GETTING COOKED? B.RAMAN "Oct. 22, 2003 | Last Thursday, a senior White House official called Mariane Pearl and Paul Steiger, the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, to report a new, key development in the investigation into the death of Mariane's husband, Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. "We have now established enough links and credible evidence to think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" -- the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks -- "was involved in your husband's murder," the official told Mariane. "What do you mean 'involved'?" Mariane asked. "We think he committed the actual murder." 2. So says a sensational article ( )on the kidnapping and murder of Danial Pearl, the US journalist, written by Asra Q. Nomani, the free-lance journalist, then living in Karachi, in whose house Pearl and his wife Mariane had stayed when he went on his ill-fated trip to Karachi from Mumbai last year to investigate a report that an E-Mail which had directed Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, to carry out his operation to blow up an American aircraft had originated from Karachi and that the E-Mail had been sent by the Jamaat-ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani organisation with many sleeper cells in the USA, Canada and the West Indies, including in the US Armed Forces. 3.In the year 2000, a mysterious web site calling for solidarity amongst the Muslims serving in the Armed Forces of the world suddenly appeared and started registering such Muslims. While it could not be defnitively established as to who was behind the web site, Police sources in Pakistan suspected that the Fuqra cells in the USA were behind it. One does not know whether Pearl knew all this when he arrived in Karachi, but his investigation, for as yet unknown reasons, was focussed on the background and activities of this organisation and its leaders. 4. In the hundreds of reports---open as well as confidential-- which had emanated from Pakistan till now on his murder the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) had not figured. The Pervez Musharraf regime initially projected the murder as the work of the banned Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), which continues to be active despite the so-called ban, and then the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), the banned Sunni extremist organisation, and then others. 5. Omar Sheikh, a British citizen of Pakistani origin, who had been working for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) since the early 1990s and who used to head the Lahore cell of AL Qaeda, was ultimately blamed along with some others. The appeal filed by him against the death sentence awarded to him by the anti-terrorism court and by the other accused against the prison sentences awarded to them has not been heard so far. The hearing on the appeal is being repeatedly postponed on some ground or the other. 6. Even as the hearing in the anti-terrorism court was on, the Pakistani media reported that the Pakistani authorities had in custody some other suspects, including some Yemeni-Balochis, who confessed to murdering Pearl. It was also reported that it was on their confession that the remains of Pearl were recovered by the Pakistani authorities. 7. Under the law in any country, when material objects relating to a case are recovered on the basis of a confessional statement of a suspect, the confession is presumed to be correct unless proved otherwise. Surprisingly, the Pakistani authorities did not charge these new suspects with the murder of Pearl. The anti-terrorism court, under pressure from the Musharraf regime, refused to take cognisance of the media reports in this connection and call for the production of the new suspects before the court. It accepted the denial of the State that any such confession had been made. 8.While the fact that it was an Yemeni-Balochi, who had slit the throat of Pearl before a video camera, had surfaced before, none of the reports so far had identified KSM as the man who did it? The revelation of KSM's role, if correct,raises a host of intriguing questions for which there are no answers at present: Did the Yemeni-Balochi suspects, referred to by the Pakistani media, speak about the role of KSM? If so, did the Pakistani authorities tell the US about it? Did Omar Sheikh mention KSM when he was in the informal custody of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) for some days after his voluntary surrender to a retired officer of the ISI, who was functioning as the Home Secretary of Punjab in February last year? Did Omar Sheikh tell the Karachi Police about the role of KSM when he was subsequently interrogated by them? Did KSM tell the ISI about his role when it interrogated him for some hours after his arrest at Rawalpindi in April last before handing him over to the US authorities? Was KSM's role independently known to the Pakistani authorities? If so, up to what level? Did Musharraf himself know about it? Was the US kept informed? If the Pakistani authorities knew about it, why did they readily hand him over to the US whereas they have not only adamantly refused to hand over Omar Sheikh, but even declined to allow the British to independently interrogate him, as reported by the "Daily Times" of Lahore? 9. There has recently been a number of developments, which indicate that the US is probably tightening up the screw on Musharraf, while continuing to support him openly and showering him with one assistance package after another. The first was the premature declassification of a document of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the Pentagon, prepared shortly after 9/11, which speaks of the nexus between the ISI and Al Qaeda. The US Government could have legitimately rejected the application under the Freedom of Information Act for the declassification of this sensitive document on the ground that this could damage the USA's relations with Pakistan. It chose not to do so. 10. The second was the US Treasury Department orders of last week freezing the accounts of the Al Alkhtar Trust of Pakistan and Dawood Ibrahim, the Indian mafia leader, living in Pakistan. The order relating to the Trust indicated that it was funding anti-US jihad not only in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. The order against Dawood spoke of his links with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Toiba, which is a member of bin Laden's International Islamic Front. 11. The US Government generally issues such orders only if it has its own independent information. It does not act on the information provided by others, unless corroborated by its own intelligence agencies. While the orders do not specify wherefrom it got the information, a careful reading would indicate that the information came from a senior operative of Al Qaeda, most probably KSM, though he is not mentioned by name. 12. Why is the US now bringing into the open secret information/findings tending to cast doubts on Pakistan's dependability as an ally in the war against terrorism? Is it to convey a warning to Musharraf that if Pakistan continues to help the Taliban against the Hamid Karzai Government and sponsor anti-India terrorists, it won't do him any good? It would be difficult to answer these questions with conviction on the basis of the evidence available till now. 13. An American academic, known to be close to the State Department, recently said in an interview on an Indian TV channel that while the US continued to back Musharraf strongly, he would not rule out the possibility of the US and Pakistan coming to a parting of the ways one day, if Pakistan's nexus with the jihadi terrorists continued. 14.Musharraf must be a worried man. (10-23-03)
Posted by: rhytha Oct 23 2003, 09:56 AM
US forcing Musharraf to get elected by 2005 23 October 2003: Rejecting controlled elections and "guided democracy" in Pakistan, the United States has ordered General Parvez Musharraf to get himself elected latest by 2005, or step down, and accordingly, the military and the ISI are going through the paces of setting up a political party for him. Apprehensive about the rise of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, US ambassador to Pakistan, Nancy Powell, called upon Musharraf and passed on her government's message of early restoration of democracy, and both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharief have been informed about the American decision. Bhutto and Sharief insist that Musharraf must permit them to return and contest the elections against him, since they fear he will otherwise split the PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz) and PPP (Pakistan Peoples' Party) in the search for experienced candidates and trained cadres, and the US has accordingly instructed Musharraf, according to senior Western diplomats. Nancy Powell delivered the Bush administration's ultimatum a week before the UN General Assembly session, so that Musharraf could prepare his objections when meeting US officials in New York, but both American thinktank specialists and state-department representatives rejected his pleas that the US proposal stemmed from a lack of understanding of the ground situation in Pakistan. Alongwith early elections, the US wants to restructure the Pakistan military, which will involve scaling down the operations of the notorious ISI, and keeping a strict watch on its terrorist activities in India and Afghanistan, though diplomats would not reveal more on this subject. The US has said that Pakistan will receive US military assistance only if it tailors its military according to US requirements, which will necessarily involve a return to the barracks, stepping out of government, breaking off links with terrorist organisations like the Al-Qaeda, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, and in return, America will also set up a thinktank with US and Pakistani servicemen. In line with its aim to moderate the Pakistan army, the US is also effecting a purge of hardline elements, and this is expected to occur soon, and as an outlet for disempowered service officers, America is permitting Musharraf to include them in his proposed political party, which will also comprise upwardly-mobile Pakistani youth, academicians, and defected politicians from the PML-N and PPP.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 23 2003, 07:17 PM
Benazir Bhutto Felicitates Hindus on Deewali Thursday October 23, 2003 (0540 PST) ISLAMABAD October 24 (Online): Former Prime Minister Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto has greeted the Hindu community of Pakistan on the occasion of Deewali being celebrated by Hindus today on October 24 . "I wish to extend on my behalf, on behalf of the Pakistan Peoples Party and on behalf of the people of Pakistan heartiest greetings to Hindu community, specially the scheduled castes communities on the occasion of Deewali" she said in a statement . Benazir Bhutto said that the Pakistan Peoples Party believed in the principles enunciated by our father founder Quaid-e-Azam that all citizens irrespective of their religious faith and social status were equal citizens of the state and enjoyed equal rights as enshrined in our Constitution . She said that the Pakistan Peoples Party believes that the Hindus, indeed all minorities, of Pakistan are equal citizens of the state and must be given equal rights including the right to vote for all candidates along with Muslim voters . "I am happy to say that as a result of the struggle of the PPP the provision in the original 1973 Constitution of joint electorate has been restored and the religious apartheid foisted by a military dictator ended". She said that the PPP will not let the system of separate electorate foisted again on the nation . The former Prime Minister said that the PPP has been in the forefront in protecting the rights of minorities in the country in accordance with the teachings of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and that she was proud of it . "The Party's struggle for the emancipation of downtrodden and the exploited covers the people belonging to all the communities regardless of their cast, creed and faith" .
Posted by: Mudy Oct 23 2003, 07:20 PM NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 23: New Delhi’s offer to open the old Munabao-Khokrapar rail link between Rajasthan and Sindh in Pakistan has prompted the Railway to step up work on gauge conversion of the tracks. Word’s gone out that if there’s a yes from Islamabad then the Railway should be in a position to reactivate the link within weeks. The re-opening of the link — it has not been used ever since the 1965 war — will be a big help for people on either side of the Rajasthan-Sindh border. Just 100 km separates Barmer from towns in Sindh but people have had to take the circuitous route via the Punjab border to get to the other side. Before Partition, it was the Munabao-Khokrapar link which served the trade route to Karachi port via Hyderabad in Sindh. .... ‘‘But the Pakistan government seems to be reluctant on reviving the link owing to the strategic vulnerability of Sindh. Plus the Wagah-Attari link is far more lucrative for them,’’ the railway official pointed out.
Posted by: muddur Oct 23 2003, 10:00 PM
President vows to maintain power balance in South Asia -- Detail Story PANO AQIL: President and Chief of Army Staff, Gen Pervez Musharraf, said here on Thursday that Pakistan was following a policy of minimum credible deterrent in the conventional and unconventional fields , which had been quantified keeping in view the respective forces levels that would be maintained at all costs. Addressing the officers at Pano Aqil Cantonment, the president said on no account would the balance of power in South Asia be allowed to be disturbed. He said in view of Indian intransigence and refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue for resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan, including the core issue of Kashmir, it "is this no-win scenario" for India that was ensuring peace in the region. Whenever there "is an attempt to upset the balance of power," Pakistan would take steps to rectify it, the president said. He spelt out various measures that had been undertaken for modernization of the Pakistan armed forces, including the induction of main battle tank Al-Khalid, Augusta Submarines and the JF-17 Thunder (Super 7) aircraft. The focus, he said, was on self-reliance and indigenization of the state-of-the-art weapons and equipment. Paying rich tributes to the unmatched professionalism and discipline of the armed forces, General Musharraf exhorted the officers and men to train hard during peacetime and continue to maintain their qualitative edge over the adversary. Earlier on arrival at the cantonment, the president was received by Corps Commander Lt-Gen Tariq Waseem Ghazi and General Officer Commanding Maj-Gen Asif Akhtar. He was introduced to the officers of the divisional headquarters. General Musharraf also visited a photo exhibition in the cantonment and lauded the efforts of the contributing units on illustrating life in the desert.
Posted by: muddur Oct 23 2003, 10:02 PM
President Outlines Pakistan's Defence Policy Updated on 2003-10-24 10:27:36 PANO AQIL, Pakistan: Oct 24 (PNS) - President and Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, has said that Pakistan was following a policy of minimum credible deterrent in the conventional and unconventional fields, which had been quantified keeping in view the respective forces levels that would be maintained at all costs. He said this while addressing officers here Thursday. The President said that on no account would the balance of power in South Asia be allowed to be disturbed. He said that in view of Indian intransigence and refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue for resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan, including the core issue of Kashmir, it was this 'no-win scenario' for India that was ensuring peace in the region. He stated that whenever there is an attempt to upset the balance of power, Pakistan would take steps to rectify it, the President said. The President spoke about various measures that had been undertaken for modernization of Pakistan Armed Forces including the induction of main battle tank Al-Khalid, Augusta Submarines and the JF-17 Thunder (Super 7) aircraft. He said that the focus was on self-reliance and indigeniation of state of the art weapons and equipment. General Pervez Musharraf paid rich tributes to the unmatched professionalism and discipline of Pakistan Armed Forces. He exhorted the officers and men to train hard during peacetime and continue to maintain their qualitative edge over the adversary. Earlier, on arrival in Pano Aqil Cantonment the President was received by Corps Commander, Lt Gen Tariq Waseem Ghazi and General Officer Commanding, Maj Gen Asif Akhtar. He was introduced to the officers of Divisional headquarters. General Pervez Musharraf also visited a photo exhibition in the cantonment and lauded the efforts of the contributing units on illustrating the life in the desert.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM,1280,-3311648,00.html MULTAN, Pakistan (AP) - Intelligence agents and dozens of police commandos captured a suspected senior al-Qaida leader in a raid on a home in Faisalabad, an official said Sunday. The police official would not identify the suspect or give his nationality, but said a reward had been offered for his arrest and he came from an Arab country. Interior Ministry officials in Islamabad, the capital, were not immediately available to confirm the arrest. FBI agents were not involved in the operation, biggrin.gif unlike in previous arrests of top al-Qaida suspects in Pakistan, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 26 2003, 04:35 PM
Latest peace effort a final one: BJP October 26, 2003 17:01 IST The Bharatiya Janata Party on Sunday said the latest set of proposals offered by India to push forward peace initiative with Pakistan was a 'final effort' for long lasting Indo-Pak peace. "The Pakistani rulers should understand the ground realities and respond to the proposals positively, party president M Venkaiah Naidu told reporters at Chennai airport. "Pakistan should realise that Jammu and Kashmir was part and parcel of India and there was no question of giving even an inch of land in Jammu and Kashmir," he said. He said Pakistan should stop helping and abetting cross-border terrorism as there was no place for terrorism in peaceful co-existence. "Pakistan should correct the ground situation and take necessary steps for ensuring peace," he said. Naidu said the rulers of Pakistan, 'who are not elected and not accountable to the people', are not cooperating for ensuring peace even as people of both the countries wanted peace, he said. On POTA, he said the Tamil Nadu government should maintain the sanctity of the act and use it only against terrorist organisations and not against politicians.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 27 2003, 12:18 PM by B. Raman ... 10. The second was the US Treasury Department orders of last week freezing the accounts of the Al Alkhtar Trust of Pakistan and Dawood Ibrahim, the Indian mafia leader, living in Pakistan. The order relating to the Trust indicated that it was funding anti-US jihad not only in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. The order against Dawood spoke of his links with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Toiba, which is a member of bin Laden's International Islamic Front. 11. The US Government generally issues such orders only if it has its own independent information. It does not act on the information provided by others, unless corroborated by its own intelligence agencies. While the orders do not specify wherefrom it got the information, a careful reading would indicate that the information came from a senior operative of Al Qaeda, most probably KSM, though he is not mentioned by name. 12. Why is the US now bringing into the open secret information/findings tending to cast doubts on Pakistan's dependability as an ally in the war against terrorism? Is it to convey a warning to Musharraf that if Pakistan continues to help the Taliban against the Hamid Karzai Government and sponsor anti-India terrorists, it won't do him any good? It would be difficult to answer these questions with conviction on the basis of the evidence available till now. 13. An American academic, known to be close to the State Department, recently said in an interview on an Indian TV channel that while the US continued to back Musharraf strongly, he would not rule out the possibility of the US and Pakistan coming to a parting of the ways one day, if Pakistan's nexus with the jihadi terrorists continued. 14. Musharraf must be a worried man. (The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet ...
Posted by: Mudy Oct 27 2003, 08:26 PM ... He said that some leaders of Punjab through their statement were creating doubts that the Sindh leaders would establish their contact with India if the Khokrapar border was opened. He said that such negative attitude was hurting the feelings of Sindh’s people. The Muttahida leader said that the people of Sindh were blamed if they talked about opening of Khokrapar border but nobody opposed and doubted over the restoration of bus and train service from Punjab to India. The Muttahida chief said that the same attitude and negative trend were adopted in 1971 and the result of that attitude was not in the interest of Pakistan. He further said that there was a need to discourage such trends. biggrin.gif He opined no allegation should be levelled against any unit of the federation as the country could not afford this childish attitude. ....
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 27 2003, 09:52 PM
This is a laugh , why would Dhaka cooperate in this inquiry.,0008.htm IC-814 hijack plot was hatched in Dhaka Rajnish Sharma New Delhi, October 27 Investigations into the IC-814 hijack by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have revealed that the conspiracy was hatched in Bangladesh, where the ISI has a strong presence. CBI sources said the conspirators held a series of meetings in a flat in the Subzi Mandi area of Dhaka. The investigating agency has routed a Letter Rogatory to Dhaka through the external affairs ministry, asking the Bangladesh government to furnish details about the flat, its owner and occupants. Sources said the mastermind of the plot — Yusuf Azhar, brother-in-law of Jaish-e-Mohammed chief, Masood Azhar — had asked his Indian contact, Abdul Lateef, to come to Dhaka for an important meeting in September 1999. Lateef is currently in judicial custody. The last meeting where the blueprint for the hijack was finalised was held in the flat in September 1999. IC-814 was commandeered to Kandahar on its way from Kathmandu to Delhi in December 1999. At one of the meetings, Azhar said the plane had to be taken to Afghanistan. According to a CBI note sent to the home and external affairs ministries, Azhar also said that he had "talked to the Taliban, which had assured full support". Apart from Azhar and Lateef, the hijackers — Ibrahim Athar alias Chief; Sunni Ahmed Kazi alias Burger; Syed Akhtar alias Doctor; Zahoor Ahmed Mistri alias Bhola and Shakir alias Shankar — attended the meeting. Abdul Rauf, a close associate of Azhar was also present. Sources said the conspirators also decided to blow up the plane if India did not release the terrorists. New findings
Posted by: Mudy Oct 28 2003, 08:46 PM liar.gif
Posted by: Mudy Oct 28 2003, 08:52 PM * Rejects dates proposed by India for talks on resuming air links baaasmiley.gif It seems Pakis are under assumption that India is suffereing lot becuase of over flight issue. And second, they are thinking this offer is too good so something is wrong and will create another issue. Well thats what India want or atleast I want.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 28 2003, 08:54 PM MMA to protest outside Parliament House against FATA operation on Friday If General Musharraf is there, parliament will not be supreme and if parliament is supreme, then Mr Musharraf cannot survive,” ARD President Makhdoom Javed Hashmi told journalists after the opposition boycotted the National Assembly (NA) proceedings. “General Musharraf and his Legal Framework Order have to go to ensure parliament’s supremacy,” Mr Hashmi said.
Posted by: rhytha Oct 28 2003, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Oct 29 2003, 09:22 AM) * Rejects dates proposed by India for talks on resuming air links baaasmiley.gif It seems Pakis are under assumption that India is suffereing lot becuase of over flight issue. And second, they are thinking this offer is too good so something is wrong and will create another issue. Well thats what India want or atleast I want.
how much actually are we losing becoz of disrupted airlinks? blink.gif
Posted by: Mudy Oct 28 2003, 10:15 PM
Not much, per day 3 flights are forced to take longer route, but PIA are not flying anymore to couple of countries.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 29 2003, 06:35 PM ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A Pakistani opposition leader has been arrested on charges of treason, hours after criticizing army generals who meddle in politics, government officials said. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, president of the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) and the Pakistan Muslim League was arrested in Islamabad on Wednesday. He is also a parliamentary leader.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 29 2003, 10:03 PM
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 29 2003, 10:11 PM Note Sri Raman's affiliation with Observer research foundation is mentioned in the very beginning.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 29 2003, 10:57 PM
Cohen's doublespeak in the Unhindu paper Kolkata, Oct. 29. (PTI): Noted US foreign policy analyst, Stephen Cohen, today expressed apprehension that India's recent confidence-building proposals to Pakistan would not have the desired result as both countries would try to outdo each other with fresh proposals. "With India having put forward its set of proposals, I now expect Pakistan to come up with some of its own which India will find reasons to turn down. This will go on," Cohen said at a press conference here. However, the Indian proposals 'made sense' to him. "If the proposals are implemented, Indo-Pak relations will then be taken to a level which was prevalent in the 1950s when Kashmir was not as big a problem as it is today," Cohen said. Refusing to brand Pakistan as a terrorist state although it was 'allowing support' of Jehad, he said that the presence of Jehadi elements in that country was having a backlash domestically. "Most people in Pakistan are against the rise of Madrasas."
Posted by: Krishna Oct 30 2003, 12:01 AM
Now, Pak seeks Spain's help for peace negotiations with India,00050002.htm Abdul, Sam, Elizabeth se baath nahi banegi.........Jose / Juan tum log hi kuch karo......apni H&D khatrey mein hain! laugh.gif laugh.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 30 2003, 06:56 AM
I have always maintained that whatever importance the terrorist state has derives from its proximity to India. Here is Mazdak (Irfan Husain), the columnist from Dawn saying much the same thing. Mazdak is also right about the strategic importance of Pakistan. He does not quite say it in so many words, but as long as there is a strong resurgent India, the west will continue to prop up the terrorist state. If India does not succeed, then the importance of TSP will also wither away. The only way to break out of this Heimlich manouver is for India to set up a long term goal to destabilize the wretched state. By Irfan Husain
Is there a moral to be drawn from this view of the Pakistani economy? One is that if you are lucky, money does grow on trees: it's just a matter of shaking it from time to time. But on a serious note, geography does play an important part in determining a country's economic wellbeing. Had we been located in the middle of Africa, for instance, who would have bothered if we had fallen into a fiscal black hole? But given the strategic importance of our region, the last thing anybody wants is a fragmenting Pakistan that destabilizes the entire area. One problem with having a halwa economy is that rulers, planners and businessmen alike have become so dependent on these periodic infusions of external inflows that it is now almost like a belief in divine intervention to bail us out when we are in serious trouble. Now that the events of September 11 and their aftermath have helped push back the day of reckoning, we will revert to sitting back and waiting for the next bit of halwa to be sent our way.
Posted by: AJay Oct 30 2003, 02:22 PM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Oct 30 2003, 07:26 PM)
The only way to break out of this Heimlich manouver is for India to set up a long term goal to destabilize the wretched state.
I would say a short term goal rather than a long term goal, say 5 years. India has already lost a lot of ground to China. If Pakistan continues to be a problem for India for next ten years or more, India would miss the bus of becoming one of the great nations by 2025.
Posted by: Sudhir Oct 30 2003, 02:41 PM from Washington Times
Posted by: acharya Oct 30 2003, 07:25 PM can somebody review this This is amazing propoganda PART-2 PAKISTAN RARELY PART OF INDIA But, as the following discussion will prove, during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement. "At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith). "Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid) "The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the ‘lost-river’ forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid). "The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid) "Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown) The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asoka’s empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander. As pointed out by more than one writer, the five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that its independence had been a rule while its subservience to or attachment with India an exception. "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee) During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years. Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistan’s independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by India’s Hindu Governments. It is of these celebrated lands and of their intrepid people that we shall narrate the story here. In this article we shall give a brief historical background and the contribution made by each of the groups that inhabit it: We shall begin with a general account of the entire country first and then take up the history of each group.
Posted by: rhytha Oct 30 2003, 10:22 PM
QUOTE (AJay @ Oct 31 2003, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Oct 30 2003, 07:26 PM)
The only way to break out of this Heimlich manouver is for India to set up a long term goal to destabilize the wretched state.
I would say a short term goal rather than a long term goal, say 5 years. India has already lost a lot of ground to China. If Pakistan continues to be a problem for India for next ten years or more, India would miss the bus of becoming one of the great nations by 2025.
Exactly, we need to dismantle TSP for our long term. I don't believe in this "let them stew in thier own juice" BS by RAW furious.gif , they should actively propagate instablity and sectarinism in paki land. A diveded TSP is easy to handle, like bang can't shake its tail before us, similarly a punjabistan or sindhudesh can't do much maybe whine, besides sindudesh will be pro-india, because its economic prospertity will be linked to india. smile.gif
Posted by: rhytha Oct 30 2003, 11:10 PM
Excelletn Article by Ray Sahib smile.gif --------------- Here is another view why democracy flounders in Pakistan from the PINNACLE magazine, published by ARTRAC. ************************************************************************** MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN THE POLITICAL 'DEVELOPMENT' OF PAKISTAN AND ITS RATIONALE INTRODUCTION Pakistan shares a common heritage with India. Its Army, like the Indian Army, has inherited the apolitical culture of the British Army. Yet, there have been four coup d'états. 1 that toppled the civil governments in Pakistan. This is extraordinary since they should have imbibed the British ethos more than Indians as the British were closer to the Muslim community, as would be natural, since the bulk of their retainers were Muslims who had less of social inhibitions than Hindus. Unfortunately, Pakistanis apparently have not imbibed the British legacy either in their military or in governance. Why? The rationale for such repeated coup d'état is a very complex issue. It has its roots in the militarism that diffused through the political and social ethos of the areas that became Pakistan. That apart, it was also spawned additionally in the psychological, social and political catharsis that the events during the Partition havocked on the mindset of the migrant to Pakistan. The rather immature illusions of having been the rulers of India prior to the British and then to be reduced to being the legatee in the form of a moth eaten state called Pakistan instead of the Indian Empire, too added a serious irritant to the Pakistani Muslim ego.2&3 Therefore, it is not surprising given the mix stated earlier that the population sought salvation through the more disciplined military to rid them of the chaos, deprivation and ignominy that Pakistan had sunk to owing to the 'dis-focussed' governments that followed Jinnah and post assassination of Liaquat Ali. The global ascension of Nehru and India's stature in comparison also fed fat the grudge against 'Hindu' India, a fact which indirectly aggrandised the consolidation of militarism in Pakistan egged on by obscurantist elements. Unfortunately, this practice of military in governance has become more of a rule than an exception even though the popular acceptance index has diminished. An overview of the psyche that propels the destiny of Pakistan that is continually wracked by military coup d'états is thus essential since such 'turbulence' affects the stability of the region and impedes the progress of the sub-continental Nation States in today's highly competitive global existence. Such analysis of the underlining psychosis alone can assist in collaborating to bring stability and progress to the region. It is in the world's interest that a responsible and incorruptible democracy returns to Pakistan that is permanent in nature. Had Pakistan not been carved out of India, it may have been a 'normal' Nation. Therefore, the cause and the impact of the anti Indian psyche requires understanding to comprehend the militarism, visitations of military dictatorships and the role of the military in the 'development' of Pakistan. THE SOCIAL CHURN OF PAKISTAN Carved out of India, Pakistan came into existence with five provinces - Balochistan, NWFP, Punjab, Sindh and East Bengal. Balochistan and NWFP were tribal in composition [and loosely administered even in the British era] while Punjab, Sindh and East Bengal were peasantry predominant. Excepting East Bengal, because of the feudal structure of areas that became Pakistan, there was a deficiency in the constitutional and institutional ethos or awareness. Axiomatically, 'mai baap' environment of citizenry interactivity was a way of life. There were the rich and the poor and hardly any middle class. This was more so with the Moslem population of the States that became Pakistan. There was barely any industry or commerce worth mention except to some extent in Karachi. On the other hand, Punjab, the epicentre of Pakistani politics, was the cradle for the military. By the time of the First World War, Punjab alone accounted for 66 per cent cavalry, 87 percent artillery and 45 per cent infantry of Indian army. It was obvious that Punjab became historically military sensitive and its administration was essentially committed to the welfare of the soldiery. The military cast its shadow in all facets of the social milieu of Punjab. The extent of the military's influence can be well judged by the fact that in the first two decades of the 20th century, the Punjab government granted half a million acres as rewards to the soldiers. By the time independence was declared, Punjab and to some extent the Rawalpindi district swamped in domination in the Army. There lay the foundations of the militarism that grips Punjab and in consequence, Pakistan. Then came the partition. The Mohajirs, who were the migrant population from India, compromised of 20% of Pakistan's population. They were socially aware, better educated and intellectually and politically empowered. These migrant formed the middle class and axiomatically overwhelmed in representation amongst the bureaucracy, judiciary, commerce and industry. This was obvious since the indigenous population was feudalistic and socially and educationally and politically backward. This 'usurping of power' by virtue of the migrants because of their inherent talents has never been appreciated by the Punjabis who were thus getting sidelined in the participation in governance even though they too had a sprinkling in the cadres in comparison. Yet, given Jinnah's stature as the Qaid e Azam, they could do very little to exert themselves. The political scene was dominated by Jinnah's Muslim League which was virtually composed of the more educated, politically and socially savvy Moslem migrants of India. On the other hand, the military was staffed by the Punjabis and other indigenous tribes. This obviously led to a schism and the successive resurfacing of military governments is but a manifestation of the original inhabitants and predominantly the Punjabis attempting to establish their hold in governance which they feel is rightful theirs. Thus lay the foundation of the jockeying for power between the indigenous and the migrant population personified by the military and the rest that is now history. THE RATIONALE FOR THE ANTI INDIAN PSYCHE - CATALYST FOR THE ARMED FORCES INVOLVEMENT Interestingly, the anti Indian psyche that now forms the raison d'être of the Indo - Pak relationship and Pakistan's over zealous quest to assert a Muslim identity is not the handiwork of the indigenous Pakistani population. It is migrants who have shaped the psyche of the new nation. The migrants, being rootless and not having a single cultural and ethnic identity realised that they would be swamped into oblivion if sub-nationalism was allowed to develop roots in Pakistan. Being savvy, they realised that unless there was a bogey created that would divert attention, it would be suicidal. Hence, they whipped up the fear of India that was already prevalent because of the horrendous events of the Partition and required merely a push. However, realising that this phenomena would not last in perpetuity, they used Islam as a bulwark since this would remain in perpetuity. Hence, Islam was used as a cause célèbre in Pakistan to divert attention from sub-nationalism and instead propping 'one-ness' as the sole factor for the existence and propagation of Pakistan. As mentioned before, the anti Indian factor suited this line of militant Islamism immeasurably. Sub-nationalism was thus pushed into an insignificant pale except to some extent in East Bengal. The matter would have rested. However, in a masterful sleight of hand, the indigenous population of Pakistan, which dominates the Army, to better the Mohajirs at their game have fed fat the Mohajir inspired fear hate psychosis of India by keeping the Kashmir issue and the bogey of India on the boil to extract a hefty defence budget at the expense of progress in Pakistan and ensuring perks 'beyond the call of duty'. Mohajirs in the Army, like Musharaff, play ball to suit their personal interests. Thus, the one-upmanship game continues to the detriment of their citizenry and to the discomfort of the sub continent and the world! The anti Indian feeling had its foundation during the Partition. In India, which is a vast country, the reverberations die out as it progresses outward. Therefore, the mayhem and trauma of the Partition was experienced in Bengal and Punjab alone and found sober repercussions in the rest of India. This was not so with a tiny Nation as Pakistan. The bloodletting in Bengal and the Punjab was felt throughout Pakistan. Apart from the Punjab and East Bengal, the various elements in the Army extensively employed to control the mayhem as the Pakistan Military Evacuation Organisation (PMEO) also were affected. Moslems, unlike the other religious denominations, are more inward looking and cohesive and more subservient to the dictates of the mullah. The mullahs had a field day. The gruesome stories reached remote nooks of Pakistan. The Hindu - Muslim animosity that caused the Partition converted to deep rooted hatred! The Pakistani Army too got brutalised and politicised while participating through the mayhem. From Pakistan's point of view, to add insult to injury was the Radcliffe Award that demarcated the boundary of India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis felt short changed. In India, too many felt short changed. However, while Indians accepted the same as a fait accompli, there being no option if Independence was to be as per schedule, the Muslims of Pakistan could not reconcile. This added to the cauldron of hatred for Indians. The failure of being thwarted in 1947 in the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim majority State which acceded to India, failure to capitalise on Islam to rouse the Kashmiris and being defeated in war in 1965, the humiliating rout in 1971 with 90,000 of the best of the 'redoubtable and invincible' Pakistani Army and Pakistan torn in half and the Kargil folly where Pakistan was ensconced in the international doghouse, has only added to the hate India psyche. Worse still, through each defeat in the successive wars Pakistan thrust on India, was the exploding of the self deluding myth that Moslems are manifold braver and better than the avaricious feeble and emaciated Hindus [little do they realise that the nation is composed of all religious groups who are equally dedicated to the Indian nationhood!]. This shattering of the psychological indoctrination, based on assumed religious superiority, makes it difficult for the Pakistanis to accept the reality of India's intrinsic superiority in size and economy. The fact that in 1965 and also in Kargil it was the Moslems of India who alerted the country is too insulting to believe. That India historically has stood tall in the international arena without buckling or aligning to any major power has added to their national shame wherein they have found their Nation a handmaiden of the US and mortgaging their destiny to the dictates of the US. For proud Muslims, it is yet another bitter pill and a fulcrum of jealous anger against India. Thus, that the cup of Pakistani hatred brims over and India, in the Pakistani mindset, is the cause of their nation deprivations is but natural. GROWTH OF MILITARY'S PREDOMINANCE As elucidated above, the Pakistani psyche was moulded to suit the migrants' fear of sub-nationalism rising and swamping their rootless identity, the Punjabi's 'loss of power' and the abating of their predominance, the fervent focus on Islam as the saviour and uniting force and impertinently, a contrived fear of India. This resulted in a tussle between these various powerful focal points in the governance of Pakistan. This, in turn, resulted in a schizophrenic morass in the quest for a national identity. This unholy power struggle amongst the various vested interest groups and the mullahs lead to a chaotic state which was neither democratic nor representative. From Independence to 1958, turmoil and strife was commonplace and brimming sub surface. The Parliament was not representative since it had been elected indirectly. Even though the Constituent assembly was composed of the 'locals', the executive wing of the government was controlled by the migrants. The first coup had already taken place in 1954, at the hands of bureaucracy not the army. The Governor General, Ghulam Mohammad, dissolved the National Assembly and formed a so-called 'government of talents'. It was an amalgam of various ethno-regional, industrial, landed, bureaucratic and military interests being represented. However, the illegitimacy of the arrangement led to the indirect elections in 1955 to form the second Constituent Assembly. The elections were being postponed repeatedly because of the fear of various lobbies losing their clout to machinate governance to suit their interests. Making matters worse were the Bengalis who, as a 'bloc', were in the majority. Surahwardy of Bengal loomed as a sceptre, which could upset the delicate power equation of the Mohajirs and the Punjabis. The spatial distance between East and West Pakistan being large and discontinuous, the mentalities and ethos were equally disparate. The equation was further skewed by the irrational psyche of the Punjabis that they are a superior race to all. This psyche obviously did not fashion any bonhomie with the Bengalis nor with the other communities. Thus, there was an internal schism. The elections were to be held. Iskander Mirza was the President. This would mean that power base would shift to the representatives of the people; worse still to the Bengalis, who were unpredictable and were not too steeped in the form of zeal propagated by the Mohajirs and Punjabis. This fact or the handing over power to people's representatives did not suit the vested interests of the bureaucracy, military, the feudal satraps and other niches of privilege. In this disquieting milieu, the first military coup took place. The President, Iskander Mirza, invited the Army in. The Army did not alienate the vested seats of interests. However, for the Army, it was their first savour of power and it was sapid. The tables were slowly turned to bring in the supremacy of the Punjabi influence, the Army being predominantly Punjabi who was the erstwhile pacesetters of the destiny of the areas that came to be Pakistan. Ayub Khan's military rule was more benign than his successors, though during his tenure, Pakistan shifted to a Presidential form of government. He did bring in stability as also attempted to make Pakistan self reliant through industrialisation to some extent. In 1970, General Yahya was forced to call for elections as he was forced by the circumstances. The results resurrected the sceptre the vested interests feared, especially the military. The elections delineated the people along ethnic, linguistic, class and sectarian niches. The worst fear fructified. Mujibur, a fiery Bengali, would become the Prime Minister! This served none's purpose including the common Punjabis, who illogically reposed on themselves the fallacy that they were a superior race! Therefore, the turmoil in Pakistani polity suited the military and the bureaucracy. Bhutto, another charismatic leader, a Sindhi and West Pakistani, and the second polestar of popularity, was covertly propped up by the military. Bengalis, realising they were being short changed, rose in rebellion. The rest is history - the sad history of Pakistan. Yahya and the military cahoots attempted to brutally goosestep the Bengali aspirations and this came to a sorry pass. East Pakistan, plundered, raped and pillaged rose as a phoenix and emerged as Bangladesh! The military was disgraced. The Punjabi domination ebbed. The migrants and non Punjabis triumphed. Bhutto became the undisputed leader. Bhutto became the Prime Minister. The military and the Punjabi could not brook this shift in the seat of power, especially since it democracy was finally becoming a bedrock in Pakistan and the power brokers and vested interests [to some extent] banished into oblivion. Like all despots, Bhutto too overreached himself and played into the hands of the military. A popular movement against his autocracy was set afire. General Zia ul Haq, a Bhutto protégé, had Bhutto arrested and hanged, a more treacherous deed than that done by Aurangzeb to his father! He changed the form of government to a semi Presidential form through the 8th amendment to ensure that the Army rules supreme. The Pakistani history from Zia to Nawaz Sharif is too recent to repeat. However, it is pertinent to note that Sharif clipped the wings of the military by taking away the presidential powers to dissolve the National and provincial assemblies by passing the 13th Amendment in April 1997, much to the chagrin of the military leadership. The paternalistic attitude that still prevails in Pakistan has allowed the Army during each coup to hold the population's adulation initially, since the same adulation has allowed to politicians in the interim to ruin democracy through mis-governance and feathering their nests. Thus, the cycle continues with Pakistan meandering rudderless through a variety of governments, both military and civil! The Army has mastered the politics of 'bringing democracy to the doorstep'. Each successive coup engineered by the Army has used this trump card to justify the 'chaos' the civil government heralds. Ayub brought in 'Basic Democracies' as a part of the 1962 Constitution. It ensured that Local Councillors were elected and they acted as the Electoral College that not only elected the President but also the national and the provincial assemblies. This way Ayub ensured that politics was localised and de-radicalised. This way Ayub ensured that there was a direct link between the villages and the central government cutting across parochial party based patronage, especially since no party had the means to field 80,000 candidates! The District Administration was supreme in the allocation of funds. Indeed, this was a novel way to ensure a 'panchayati raj' and at the same time have a centralised control over the progress of the country. However, this scheme alienated the intelligentsia since they had no role to play. Therefore, there was turmoil and Ayub had to quit. Zia also realised that 'bringing democracy to the doorstep' was a failsafe method to ensure continuance of his power. He promised elections twice, but postponed the same since it could be disastrous for his regime since the environment clearly indicated a pro PPP tilt. . Therefore, he wanted to test the waters. He took the tested route through local bodies' election which was held regularly till the Movement for Restoration of Democracy in 1983 forced him to opt for election. However, clever as he was, Zia agreed for election but only on non party basis. This ensured an in built safety. In any case, the Constitution empowered the President to dismiss the government at will. Parvez Musharraf too has taken the routes the military dictators before him took. Instead of general elections that the Nation demanded, he opted for elections of the local bodies. To ensure centralised control, Parvez constituted the National Reconstruction Board, patterned on Bureau of National Reconstruction that Ayub has constituted. In short, it was to bring democracy to the grassroots and yet did not devolve on it the revenue raising power. This ensured dependency on the central government. Interesting is the analysis is that in spite of the cosmetic power to the local bodies, the actual power rested with the central government. This type of an environment where political and religious views in deciding the fate of the Nation was stifled, the political scene becomes murkier. With the political and financial patronage of the Central government [i.e. the Army with Musharraf as COAS as well as the Pesident] in the districts after the election of the local bodies and the wind tested, the Central Government engineered the election which threw up very odd bedfellows. This suited Musharraf's design to keep the US on tenterhooks as also to appease the population. In fat, it has become a strife between the Army and its bedfellows versus the Rest, which is composed of rather incongruous customers and hence more instability. This instability also fits the designs of the Army. In this context, the Army has always distrusted the politicians even more than they distrust India. They hold them in contempt as corrupt and self serving with little concern for Pakistan. That is the reason why the Army has always insisted on a hold on the foreign policy, especially after they were in disarray after the resounding defeat and disgrace of 1971. Likewise, during the democratic phase from 1988 to 1999, no defence policy could be framed with the sanction of the military. Every government of Pakistan had a watchdog body composed of the military to keep an eye of the affairs of the state. That the politicians are not the major players in the destiny of Pakistan, especially now, is borne by the fact that Nawaz Sharif took some step to normalising the relationship with India and was overthrown. In fact, he was back stabbed by Kargil! To his credit, he was the first Punjabi politician to publicly declare in 1997 to be ready to reconsider the intangible position of Pakistan on Kashmir [his own father opposed it]. He and Vajpayee thawed the tense situation with the Lahore bus, exchange of prisoners, visits of commercial and cultural delegations and the Lahore Declaration including the easing of the visa protocol. He also started the Track Two diplomacy. And yet, the Army prevailed. They orchestrated an asinine plan on Kargil defying military tenets and leaving it to Allah for re-supply for sustenance {the diary recovered in Dras indicated so} and then finally overthrew him! Thus, in short, the Army is totally supreme in the matters of governance. CONCLUSION The Pakistani military and to some extent the bureaucracy will continue to be at the helm of affairs in the governance of Pakistan. The rationale and the ethos for the same have been already explained in detail in this article. It is too deep seated for any quick change. The migrants, who are intellectually superior and form the bulk of the bureaucracy, will continue to ensure their supremacy and not allow sub nationalism to surface or else they are doomed to oblivion. Till today, even after 56 years of independence, they are not accepted as a part of Pakistan and are still referred to as Mohajirs. Likewise, the self proclaimed 'superior race' Punjabis will not abdicate their predominance and they have the Army [70% still is Punjabis] to put their money where their mouth is! Lastly, there is always the Indian factor, to strike the fear of God in any deviate! The only hope of salvation of this complex situation is the economic, social and political stability of Pakistan. This is achievable only through inter personal interactivity of the population of India and Pakistan and a better commercial equation between the countries. A prosperous nation is a contented nation! Kashmir will axiomatically find its slot. END NOTES 1. Generals Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Pervez Musharraf intervened in politics in 1958, 1969, 1977 and 1999 2. PAKISTAN RARELY PART OF INDIA But, as the following discussion will prove, during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, India's great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement. "At the close of Samudragupta's triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith). "Harsha's subjugation of upper India, excluding the Punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid) "The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the 'lost-river' forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid). "The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid) "Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta Empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown) The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asoka's empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander. As pointed out by more than one writer, the five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that its independence had been a rule while its subservience to or attachment with India an exception. "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer's nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee) During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years. Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistan's independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by India's Hindu Governments. It is of these celebrated lands and of their intrepid people that we shall narrate the story here. In this article we shall give a brief historical background and the contribution made by each of the groups that inhabit it: We shall begin with a general account of the entire country first and then take up the history of each group 3. Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present: 1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire. 4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India. 5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule. 6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India. 7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India. 9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India. 11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India. 12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India. 13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India. 14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts. 15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India. 16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India. 17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule. 18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India. The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally. BIBLOGRAPHY 1. Ayesha Jalal, The State of Martial Rule, Cambridge 2. Tan Tai Yong, Punjab and the Making of Pakistan, South Asia vol xviii, 1995 3. Swarna Aiyer, August Anarchy. Partition Massacres in Punjab 1947, South Asia vol xvii, 1995. 4. Dawn {Pakistan}. 5. HEA Cotton, Calcutta Old and New, General Printers and Publishers, Calcutta 6. Amelie Blom, The Multivocal State: The Policy of Pakistan in Kashmir, Institut d'Etudes Paris.
Posted by: rhytha Oct 31 2003, 09:41 AM Commentary: To deny is to lie By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor in Chief WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- The predictable deluge of categorical denials from Islamabad and less categorical versions from Riyadh flooded the Internet on queue. This reporter wrote from Pakistan last week that Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah and President Pervez Musharraf had reached a secret understanding when they met on Oct. 20: Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would provide the kingdom a nuclear "deterrent" in case of need. Saudi Arabia worries about (1) the future of the House of Saud; (2) Iran's nuclear ambitions; and (3) Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Pakistan has similar worries about Israel's recent $1 billion arms deal with India, also a major nuclear power and Pakistan's archrival. Add to the volatile geopolitical mix a sudden fear, shared by Gen. Musharraf and Prince Abdullah, that the U.S. could go down to defeat in Iraq, as it did in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. The two leaders, which we did not know when we filed our first report from Islamabad, decided they could not stand idly by and must respond positively to Bush administration entreaties for troop contributions. For this to happen, they would have to water down their preconditions of a Security Council resolution and an invitation from an elected representative Iraqi government. This is still too far in the future, and the need is now. Both Musharraf and Abdullah have concluded that a U.S. defeat -- or anything that could be perceived as a U.S. humiliation -- would have catastrophic repercussions for their regimes and for every other moderate government from Morocco to Malaysia and Indonesia on either side of the Malacca Strait. Under a scenario worked out by the two heads of state in Islamabad on Oct. 20, the Saudis would be the first to step up to the Iraqi plate with a token force, followed quickly by Pakistan with a large force of approximately 15,000. But this would still require an Iraqi governing council that stops squabbling over turf and begins to think and act like a real government. Musharraf's calculation is that when the Saudis dispatch a token force to Iraq, he will then be in a position to silence his own tough critics in Pakistan's two mainstream political parties, as well as the coalition of six politico-religious leaders known as the Muttahida-e-Majlis-e-Amal or MMA. Presumably none would dare criticize Saudi Arabia since MMA's honchos are still receiving Saudi financial support for both political parties and radical madrassas (that continue to disobey Musharraf's orders for a modern syllabus). The clergy's recent fatwa against any Pakistani soldier who sets foot on Iraqi soil with a weapon would presumably become null and void. Many things can still go awry. But for now, Abdullah has succeeded in making Musharraf accept President Bush's Iraqi case as well as its own. The Saudis find it intolerable that the only nuclear power in the Middle East (Iran is not an Arab country) is Israel. They confide that as long as the strategic equation is skewered in favor of Israel there will be no Palestinian state. The Saudis were shocked in March 2002 at an Arab summit in Beirut when prince Abdullah managed to get the entire Arab League to approve normal diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and 22 Arab countries in return for the pre-June 1967 war frontiers -- without so much as a beep out of Jerusalem or Washington. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia routinely deny anything of importance their governments haven't released to the media. For eleven consecutive years, the late Pakistani military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, dismissed stories about his secret nuclear weapons program as either poppycock or balderdash. When this writer suggested to him in 1982 he would be better off going public instead of denying what every western intelligence knew to be true, he said, "You have my word of honor, Arnaud, we are not developing nuclear weapons nor do we have any interest in acquiring any." During those eleven years, ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency) agents had been dispatched to every country that had built a nuclear plant "to spy or steal" for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. And after Zia was killed in a mysterious air crash, successive Pakistani presidents and prime ministers continued Zia's tradition of the big lie repeated often enough to demonstrate that artificial intelligence is no match for stupidity. In 2001, three months prior to 9/11, Musharraf sent his foreign minister to Washington to deliver Pakistan's word of honor that it was not assisting the Taliban. Two weeks before that, this reporter traveled from Quetta, the capital of Pakistani Baluchistan, and Kandahar, then the religious capital of Mullah Omar's medieval theocracy, and saw scores of Pakistani supply trucks on the only road into southwestern Afghanistan. After 9/11 and just before the U.S. unleashed Operation Enduring Freedom on Oct. 7, Musharraf dispatched ISI chief Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad to Kandahar to instruct Mullah Omar to turn over Osama Bin Laden in order to avoid war. Instead, the chief spook of an all-powerful agency advised Omar to hang on to Bin Laden. Again, spirited denials and denunciations of a lying western media. Two days before the first U.S. bombs fell, Musharraf fired and retired Ahmad. President Musharraf has denied almost everything of any importance that might lead Washington to question his loyalty. The exchange of nuclear technology for North Korean missiles? Never happened. ISI's links to al-Qaida? Bullfeathers. ISI-supervised training camps for Kashmiri jihadis (holy warriors)? Horsefeathers. ISI's involvement in the December 2001 terrorist attack against the Indian parliament in New Delhi? Media garbage. ISI's knowledge of Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl's executioners? Twaddle in all its unrationed splendor. While Musharraf was meeting with president Bush at Camp David June 24, Gen. Aziz Khan, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, a largely ceremonial post, denounced the U.S. at a public gathering in Rawalakot, Kashmir: "America is the number one enemy of the Muslim world and is conspiring against Muslim nations all over the world." Pakistani papers were advised to spike the story. To inquiring foreigners, the government said it was yet another anti-Pakistani lie. Growing opposition to Musharraf in the army? This is not denied because it hasn't been published yet. The president's stated desire to continue as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) -- the top military post -- for at least one more year has led to scuffling in the wheelhouse of the ship of state. Seven full generals are due to retire before that time -- without a crack at COAS. Aziz Khan, a fundamentalist, is one of them. Denials to come.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 31 2003, 10:06 AM
acharya, This article is complete lie, never seen such a distortion of history and facts. Are these people are in denial mode?
Posted by: rhytha Oct 31 2003, 10:14 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Oct 31 2003, 10:36 PM)
acharya, This article is complete lie, never seen such a distortion of history and facts. Are these people are in denial mode?
What denial mode? frusty.gif They are in lying mode, twisting facts and truth to such an extent that even a maulvi will scratch his henna colored beard with slight doubt tv_feliz.gif .
Posted by: jrjrao Oct 31 2003, 12:01 PM
On the state of (dwindling) Hindu temples in Karachi... Deep in prayer By Ishtiaq Ali Mehkri
Posted by: rhytha Oct 31 2003, 11:47 PM
Kashmal in BRF in;f=1;t=005854;p=4#000146
A while back, Kaushal (where is Kaushal garu?) had put together a succint FAQ on the J&K issues, or had pointed to a site with that info. May be it is already in one of the header posts, but there were several audible aha's from those seeing it for the first time.
K where is that FAQ, can u post it here. smile.gif
Posted by: Krishna Nov 1 2003, 12:00 AM
Sorry to interrupt, but if this J&K FAQ is the same FAQ on Pakistan, then it was lost long long back. However, if anyone has any of this things saved on their HDD, please e-mail me a copy. Thanks! smile.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 1 2003, 12:11 AM
I think this is the FAQ they are referring to Also of interest are Arvind Lavakare's many articles on kashmir
Posted by: Ray Nov 1 2003, 12:00 PM
QUOTE (rhytha @ Oct 31 2003, 11:40 AM)
Excelletn Article by Ray Sahib smile.gif --------------- Here is another view why democracy flounders in Pakistan from the PINNACLE magazine, published by ARTRAC.
Intersting to find my article here.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 1 2003, 09:19 PM ISLAMABAD: Minister for Information and Broadcasting Sheikh Rashid Ahmed on Saturday said power-hungry politicians had been attempting to defame the Army. Addressing an open Kachehry at the Pakistan Muslim League House here, Rashid said those who worked in General Zia-ul-Haq’s cabinet were today opposing Gen Musharraf’s rule and defaming the institution in their opposition. "A genuine Muslim Leaguer would lay down his life, but could never go to such an extent," he said. Rashid said the politician had fabricated a letter on his own and he released it just to give a bad name to an institution like Army. "By doing this, he tried to serve the cause of the enemy," Rashid said. ....
Posted by: Mudy Nov 1 2003, 09:21 PM
Posted by: Ram Nov 2 2003, 07:50 PM
Gentlemen, I am glad I discovered this forum. This is Ram Sastry who used to be with the BR forum. I hope some of you remember me. Looking forward to a fruitful and productive discussions. Cheers Welcome aboard - Ram (remember your posts at BR, look forward to them here) All: Please use the Misc folder in General Topics for such posts -Viren
Posted by: Mudy Nov 2 2003, 08:11 PM
Terrorists earn a peon's wage By: M K Tayal November 2, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What motivates a young man to take up terrorism, enrol himself at a training camp in Pakistan, infiltrate India, fire at the Army and possibly never return home? It is a small pay package that equals the wage of a peon or driver. The lure of a mere Rs 3,000 per month ensures that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) meets its manpower requirements. However, not every terrorist gets Rs 3,000. Payments relate directly to performance, area of operation, number of casualties the terrorist has inflicted upon Indian security forces, motivation level and other HR criterion. In short, the ISI maintains dossiers and gives annual marks to its cadres very much like the Pakistan Army does for its regular employees. The pay scale is not rigid as it varies depending on the risks one is willing to take and his commitment to the cause. Some of the more ‘enthusiastic’ Kashmiri youth get around Rs 5,000. With the number of years one puts in, the annual increment increases. A Kashmiri company or battalion gets from Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000. A district commander gets around Rs 20,000. Nevertheless, one thing is clear that Kashmiri youth get a raw deal compared to the Pakistani or foreign counterpart. The Kashmiri mujahideen is paid less by the ISI than a Pakistani terrorist. The rank and file from Pakistan or Afghanistan or any other country gets a starting salary of Rs 5,000 that can go up to Rs 7,000. Commanders get much more. A commander starts at anything above Rs 25,000. The higher they go, the heftier the pay package and the more discreet it becomes. Lashkar-e-Taiba’s (LeT) Doda district commander Mohd Shahzad, a Pakistani national, captured by the Army after a fierce encounter in September 2003, said he came to Jammu & Kashmir to be a jehadi and was paid nearly Rs 20,000 per month but that limit was waived off as a special case. “Money didn’t matter. I could get as much as I wanted,” Shahzad had said. However, he remained silent when asked what was the amount his parents were getting in Pakistan. But it is sure that the money Shahzad got was for operations in his area and his logistical support. His monthly emoluments were being directly sent to his home in Pakistan. The main attraction in joining the ISI is the initial offer. A Kashmiri gets Rs two lakh as one-time payment to join. There is a catch. One must go over to Pakistan to get the complete four to five month training and then work his way back into India from the 120 launch pads. The basic training at the 85 training camps is the same and involves handling small arms (AK-47) and explosives, small unit tactics of raid and ambush and radio communication. The second term involves training of special operations-explosives. The fidayeens (soldiers on a suicide mission) get highly sophisticated training but their emoluments remain a mystery, since naturally none survive to tell their tale. “Poor economic conditions in the Valley force some to cross over to Pakistan for their training. The amount is too tempting for anyone to say ‘no’,” explains an official. There are other factors too at work. Competition and style for instance drive most youth into the realm of the AK-47. “It has become a style. If you don’t have a gun you don’t get good girlfriends and nobody respects you,” a militant said to an army officer serving in the Valley. Sources also point to the presence of foreign militants who come to the Valley after sessions of intense motivation and psychological drills. LeT’s Shahzad said he came to Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to fight jehadis as he was told harrowing stories of atrocities being committed on the Muslims in the Valley. I felt I had to take revenge but now after fighting the army for more than three years I realise the futility of this ‘freedom’ movement,” he said in a heart-to-heart talk. However, the ISI makes sure that those who help recruit while on the job are not neglected. It rewards handsomely. “If a militant motivates and enrols another youth, he can make upto Rs 1.5 lakh,” explained a source. However, initially the ISI made sure the money was delivered to the militant’s parents but as the numbers started dwindling, so did it the commitment. Though no one complains publicly, there have been reports of parents of the deceased militant not getting a single penny. Realising this, Kashmiri youths are now averse to taking up the gun while recruitment from Pakistan remains high.
Posted by: Ram Nov 3 2003, 07:06 AM
Friends, As I am new to this forum, please excuse me if the following post relating to Paki terrorism in J&K doesn't belong here. I have been following news reports, as all of you are, and I noticed that the situation in J&K seems to be a bit calm. Now, what I want to understand is this. Is this because Indian security forces are killing the Paki vermin and have them by the scuff of their neck? Or is it the case the Pakis are lying low for strategic reasons. Recall, earlier this year there were a lot of reports that tourism was picking up, terrorism was on the decline, people of J&K rushing in droves to get cell phone license etc. Then came PM Vajpayee's visit to Srinagar for the inter state CM meeting. And lo and behold, Pakis launched into ferocious terrorist assaults, clearly to counter India's desire to show that the situation in J&K was returning to normal. What this phase demonstrated was that Pakis can turn the terror tap on and off at will. Not a satisfying thought from India's POV. Or could the rise in terrorism post Vajpayee's visit be the result of the Paki vermin getting desperate in the aftermath of some of their big-wigs like Gazi Baba being houried? Yet another theory comes to mind. India recently renewed its 'hand of friendship' with Pakis with its 12-point proposal. Could that be the result of Pakis thinning the terror flow? In other words, there seems to be a background dance between India and Pak without public acknowledgment. Pakis go slow on terror, and India makes some moves towards normalization. And this dance will continue ad infinitum with both sides only posturing without conceeding anything substantial. Such a scenario is bound to flare up once one side (most likely Pakis) see that their posturing is fetching only diminishing returns. Remember, India is the status quo power, India is happy with the status quo, and India desires absolutely nothing from Pakis. In other words, a 'normal' inter-state relationship means India wins. Pakis on the other hand want to change the status quo and what they could not achieve on the battle field and through terror, they are trying to achieve through political posturing. Impossible. But in the end, I don't see what kind of 'peace' is possible with pakis given their current state of mind towards India. I don't buy into all this 'people to people contact' BS. Fact of the matter is that while Pakis may enjoy Indian entertainment, may want to enjoy Indian economic goodies and the like; their perpetual hostility towards India based on their Islamic exclusivity still remains; their desire to grab J&K being just a symptom of this larger hostility. Just my random thought after a long hiatus from posting :-).
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 3 2003, 09:10 AM
Sastry, i think by and large you are on the right track. India is the status quo power, and will make moves that will either let the status quo remain unchanged or give her a marginal improvement. Clearly , the terrorist state is trying to alter the status quo by any means possible. This dance will go on. Pakistan has powerful friends (China, US state department, KSA). many have poured scorn on the OIC but Pakistan has the proforma backing of the OIC, a grouping of 40 Islamic countries. My point is that TSP is under no compulsion to alter its behavior or concede anything, anymore than India has. So, the stalemate will continue. It is difficult to change this stalemate unless India neutralizes China's (most importantly) current very close relationship with Pakistan. This is not impossible, since the very reason for TSP's belligerence and intransigence is the backing of China which in turn is predicated on continued enmity with india. The point being nothing is permanent when it comes to relations between countries.
Posted by: vishal Nov 3 2003, 11:28 AM
Navy excercise with china is to begin soon i heard. Why not gift them one fast attack boat or one AKULAA-II (remove teeths....nukes capability before rolleyes.gif ) and then see they will become warmer towards india and colder towards pukki(not completely though) biggrin.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2003, 03:50 PM
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2003, 04:00 PM
I don't see any reason why Pakistan should stop terrorism as state policy against India and in future towards Afghanistan. With this policy they are paid well. Not only by US and Saudi, but other rich nation, they are treating (180 million) equal to India (1 billion). IMF , ADB all are happy to give money, even they are selling nuke, supplying terrorist etc. They are in best situation one can be. Gonda sevice get paid. Something funny is going around, if you are reading news for sometime. Why Pakistan is selling its assests all over world? They have recently closed US deal, before that they have sold property in Singapore, Indonesia, UK and other asian and African countries. Any clue?
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 4 2003, 06:18 AM
Kaushal - this topic was merged into this thread. It was titled 'Defining Terrorism' Asked if this latest proposal by the LTTE (Self-Govering Authority in Elam), would help it get the designation of a foreign terrorist organisation by the US lifted, Armitage said, "This in itself does not remove in any way the LTTE from the FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organisation) list. In order to be removed from the list, the LTTE must, in word and deed eschew the use of terrorism -- that is violence against innocent as a political weapon." This is Armitage's definition of terrorism (as of 4 November 2003, delivered in the context of the impending meeting of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with President Bush). If this is terrorism, how does Stephen Cohen articulate terrorism as a political tactic? And why does he gripe that President Bush blundered in declaring a globar war on terrorism? Why is he allowed to participate in drafting the report of the Council for Foreign Relations? Why does he prevaricate when he ignores the terrorism perpetrated (as an undeclared war) by Pakistan against the people of India, especially those living in Jammu and Kashmir? Kalyanaraman
Posted by: Viren Nov 4 2003, 01:49 PM
Since we don't have a running TSP nuke proliferation thread, will post it here for now.
Posted by: Viren Nov 4 2003, 01:51 PM
Mon dieu! Even le French know it now !
...... Brigitte, who is also described as a character from a cloak-and-dagger novel, stayed several times in Pakistan, where he cooperated with Muslim militants, especially those known to be affiliated with Jamaa Islamiah and al-Qaida......... ................ The Pakistani intelligence community has probably assisted a number of new Muslims to move freely through Pakistan and has even supplied them with travel documents .......
Posted by: Mudy Nov 4 2003, 06:25 PM
Pakis, first clean your own house. As many as 4,500 children are detained in Pakistan and more than 3,000 of these have not been convicted of any offence, said Amnesty International today, as it published a new report on children in detention in Pakistan. The report, 'Pakistan: denial of basic rights for child prisoners', reveals that children can spend several months or even years in detention simply because their families cannot afford to pay their bail. Bail is commonly set at 50,000 rupees (approximately £543) despite the fact that an average monthly salary even for a government worker is only 7,000 rupees. Once cases eventually get to trial conviction rates are as low as 15-20% ......
Posted by: Mudy Nov 4 2003, 06:26 PM laugh.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 5 2003, 12:51 PM
First step to bring Bhutto back .,1280,-3352406,00.html Popcorn time thumbup.gif
Posted by: acharya Nov 5 2003, 02:29 PM
Read this propaganda It is hilarious We need somebody to write articles refuting all of them We need a project for this A remarkable evidence of their constancy in this respect is the fact that while the length and breadth of Bharat is studded with their tirathas, --- holy towns, e.g. Kurkshetra in Hariana, Kashi (Benaras), Mathura, Haridwar (Hardwar), Prayaga (Allahabad) and Ayodha (Faizabad) in UP; Gaya in Bihar; Navadvipa (Nadiya) in W. Bengal; Cuttack Puri in Orissa; Avantika (Ujjain) in central India; Dvaraka in Gujrat; Kanchi and Ramesvram in the south; holy rivers all over Bharat and their holier confluences,--- not a single notable tiratha ever existed in what is now Pakistan (Islam in the Geo-historical Perspective of Pakistan, by Qudratullah Fatimi). -- PAKISTAN AND NORTHWEST INDIA Since the majority of the Pakistanis are descendents of the four racial stocks of Sakas, Kushans, White Huns and Gujjars. One may, with reasonable plausibility ask that since Hindu counterparts of these same races are spread eastward as far as western UP and Rajputana, do they also form part of Pakistani nation? The answer is a definite no. Here comes in religion or ideology which sharply and distinctly separates a Hindu Rajput from a Muslim Rajput, a Hindu Jat from a Muslim Jat, a Hindu Gujjar from a Muslim Gujjar and so on and so forth. This demarcation carries a world of difference within its bosom---a different thought-orientation, a different culture-pattern, a different outlook both physical and metaphysical; an attitude to life and hereafter diametrically opposed to each other. The two streams have refused to merge, mix blend and combine. All conscious efforts to fuse them have failed and all unconscious and unseen forces working towards their synthesis have disappeared in the dark recesses of history. The excertions of such intellectual giants as Kabir, Akbar, Abul Fazl, Faizi, Dara Sikoh and a host of lesser luminaries failed to create even the faintest impression on Muslim mind. Hussain Shah, ruler of Gauda who originated the cult of Satya Pir---common god of Hindus and Muslims---could hardly produce any results. Hinduism has been noted for and praised by many a western writer for its sponge- like quality of absorbing foreign races and religions which invaded this sub- continent and settled down in its alluring environment and enervating climate. They are said to have been overwhelmed by the all-pervading spirit of Hindu Dharma and were never able to free themselves from its warm and winning embrace. But Islam disproved this theory to the hilt. instead of yielding any ground (except on some minor cultural points) it made Hinduism yield, bend and break. Millions left that so-called all-embracing fold of social order and that all- pervading force of Hindu Dharma and swelled the ranks of Islam....... It was indeed a great success for Islam to have snatched away such a large segment of population from the Hindu fold and moulded it into a separate nation. Those very elements who were expected to absorb Islam and change its norm and form are today its most faithful adherents. Islam has done the impossible in this sub-continent----it has triumphed over forces which had trounced others. Geo-political compulsions did the rest. The Indus Valley and the Padma-Meghna Delta which have invariably remained independent of the Hindu-dominated Gangetic Valley, provided homelands to these new Muslims. These converted Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh stand as symbols of Islam's defiance of Hindu chauvinism; a colossal proof of Hindu failure to absorb and subdue Islam. But the encounter is only half way through; the bout is still unfinished. Both the brotherly states in the eastern and western wings of the sub-continent are still menaced by Indian expansionist designs. They need perpetual vigilance and perpetual preparedness to preserve their independence.
Posted by: rhytha Nov 6 2003, 09:16 AM
India and Sino-Pak. ties In the past India had tried, without much success, to keep China out of the subcontinent. If India can now think out of the box, leveraging Chinese power to restrain Pakistan becomes an interesting option
Posted by: Mudy Nov 6 2003, 11:57 AM
Terrorism reward ISLAMABAD, Nov 06: Pakistan expects to get about $395 million from the US during fiscal year 2004 (beginning October 1), including $200 million Economic Support Fund (ESF) for paying down about $500 million US debt. In addition, a report in the US House also indicated construction of a new $70 million Consulate Office in Karachi.
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 6 2003, 08:05 PM
November 5, 2003 The Real War on Terrorism Is in Pakistan, Not Iraq by Leon Hadar Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute,, and the author of "Quagmire: America in the Middle East." Influenced by his neoconservative advisers, President Bush once portrayed the American invasion of Baghdad and the ouster of Saddam Hussein as a pivotal battle in the global war on terrorism. According to this view, the Baath regime in Baghdad had extensive ties to radical Moslem terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, and was in the process of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was thus necessary to take the war on terrorism to Iraq to prevent the worst-case scenario: that Saddam Hussein would supply anti-American terrorists with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and help them stage an even more nightmarish 9/11-type attack on the United States. Well, even the president now admits that Washington has no evidence of a link to Osama Bin Ladin or to al Qaeda, and inspectors haven't found any WMD. If anything, the political chaos in post-war Iraq and the growing anti-American sentiments there has made the area a magnet for al Qaeda-style terrorists. Further, the fall of the secular Baath regime could lead to the election of an anti-U.S. and Fundamentalist Shiite-controlled government, not unlike the one that reigns in Teheran. More importantly, while Americans have been searching for WMD and for al Qaeda agents in Iraq, they could have discovered those same threats in Pakistan, a country the Bush administration describes as one of America's leading allies in the war on terrorism. In Pakistan, there are legions of bin Ladin followers; plenty of links between government officials and terrorists; and nuclear weapons that could fall into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This is not speculation. Indeed, Pakistan, under President Pervez Musharraf -- the general who, in a coup, overthrew a democratically elected government -- and whose military and security services had served before 9/11 as the leading backer of the Taliban, seems to be undermining stability in neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan also is reportedly harboring Islamic militants, fighting Indian forces in Kashmir and elsewhere, and playing an active role in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which it has already developed -- unlike Iraq or Iran, the latter another member of the infamous Axis of Evil. Several respectable news outlets, including Newsweek, have reported that members of a resurgent Taliban, enjoying the support of Pashtun tribes as well as sympathetic Pakistani military officers led by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), are using Pakistan as a base for strikes against the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. In fact, some intelligence experts suspect that Osama bin Ladin and other al Qaeda and Taliban leaders may have found sanctuaries in the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. At the same time, some members of the Pakistani security forces continue to provide assistance Islamic militant fighting against India's rule in Kahsmir. Indeed, U.S. officials admit that Musharraf has failed to crack down on those who support the fighters in Kashmir, who threaten to ignite war -- possibly one that could turn nuclear -- between Pakistan and India. More of a concern for the United States is the growing evidence that Pakistan's nuclear program -- an arsenal believed to contain between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons -- may have become a source of technology for North Korea and Iran. Also, some evidence points to some Pakistani nuclear scientists maintaining ties to al Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups. All of this suggests that under various scenarios, including the collapse of Musharraf's rule or a coup staged by radical Islamists, Pakistan could turn into a nuclear-armed ally of al Qaida. Ironically, while Washington has been shoring up Pakistan's military regime and perpetuating Pakistan's mismanaged and corrupt economic system, the U.S. has refused to take a step that could help members of Pakistan's middle class and its Western-oriented entrepreneurs, open American markets to Pakistani textiles. Under pressure from the U.S. textile lobby and other powerful protectionist groups, the Bush administration and Congress have been unwilling to make tough, but, necessary decisions. They are unwilling to help revive the economies of poor Moslem countries, such as Pakistan, by providing their exports with access to American markets. That protectionist policy not only undermines the interests of American consumers, but also plays into the hands of radical groups in Pakistan and elsewhere who are always ready to exploit the misery of the unemployed and the angry. While the United States should work with Pakistan in the economic arena, it should refrain from embracing the Musharraf regime as an ally. In a way, Pakistan -- not Iraq -- remains a central stage in America's continuing antiterrorism campaign. By diverting scarce military and economic resources to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq, Washington may have weakened its ability to contain those who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist acts and their benefactors.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 6 2003, 11:08 PM
May not be the most appropriate thread, but what the heck , BinLaden considers Pakistan his second home. The innate aversion toward the infidel is constantly fanned in mosques and schools... ---------------------------- As a Bin Laden wife, she could not even cross the street unveiled or walk in her garden. Once, when she wanted to buy swimwear, a male servant went out and returned with two suitcases full of bathing suits. She made her selection and the rest returned. . While her husband was out working, Binladin was confined to the house, caring for her baby daughter Wafah and "suffering the company of women who never read a book and only talked about their relatives and the Koran."…………….. A Western woman's journey inside the Bin Laden 'village' Osama's Swiss sister-in-law – By: Robert Kroon, International Herald Tribune GENEVA In the late 1970's, Osama bin Laden went to visit his brother Yeslam, who lived in the sprawling family settlement near Jidda. Answering the doorbell, Carmen Binladin, Yeslam's Swiss-born wife, stood face to face with her brother-in-law and invited him in. . But Osama bin Laden froze, grumbled something in Arabic, and turned his head away. "I was unveiled and he couldn't bear looking at my naked face," recalled Carmen, who is back in Switzerland and involved in a tortuous divorce battle with her Saudi husband, who also lives in Geneva. "My brother-in-law never deigned to speak a word with me," she added. . In a revealing biography, "Inside the Opaque Kingdom," Carmen Binladin chronicles her nine years of married life in a puritanical, male-dominated community, "where women are no more than house pets." . The book is a diary-style account of her struggle to cope with rules and strictures as suffocating as the desert climate. The English edition will be published by the end of the year by Virago in London. . The couple has three daughters but no son, much to her husband's disappointment. Binladin, who says that was not an issue in the divorce, returned to Geneva in 1987 "because I could no longer take it and I didn't want my children to grow up in a prison." The couple has been separated for more than 10 years, and the divorce battle is dragging on, for reasons she will not discuss. An elegant woman in her late 40's, she says she wrote the book as a "document for my three beloved daughters, not for my own notoriety or glory. After all, they have to live with that name, and after 9/11 that has been sheer hell." . In 1973 Carmen Dufour, daughter of a prosperous Swiss businessman and a patrician Iranian mother, met 23-year-old Yeslam Binladin in Geneva, a summer retreat for Saudis fleeing the searing heat of their desert kingdom. . "Yeslam was courteous, handsome and intelligent, and I was adventurous and impulsive," Carmen said in an interview at a Geneva lakeside hotel. . A romance blossomed between the green-eyed brunette and the westernized Saudi, who had a predilection for Schubert symphonies and fast sport cars. In December both enrolled at the University of Southern California, where Carmen took up English and Yeslam business administration. . The attentive Saudi plied his Swiss girlfriend with gifts and trips to Las Vegas in his airplane. One year after meeting, the couple decided to marry. . Yeslam's father, Sheik Muhammad, the legendary patriarch who spawned the prolific Bin Laden clan and forged its complex links with the royal family, had 22 wives, which explained Yeslam's 25 brothers and 29 sisters. In Saudi Arabia the notion of half-brother or half-sister does not exist. . Yeslam's insistence on a traditional marriage in Saudi Arabia beckoned like an adventurous challenge at a time when the Bin Laden name had not yet acquired its toxic connotation with terrorism. . In August 1974 the pair flew to Jidda. Misgivings gripped the young Swiss woman even before the plane landed in what she describes as "that brown, treeless, inhospitable land, where veiled women look like black triangles." She had brought her own Swiss-tailored abaya, a long, loose-fitting overgarment, but was told she had to put it on before disembarking. The wedding was an elaborate Islamic ritual with strict separation of men and women, loud Arab music and endless rounds of sweetened tea. . "It gave me a queasy feeling, but Yeslam showed understanding and assured me everything would be all right," Binladin recalled without bitterness. After the wedding the pair returned to California, but the oil shock was bolstering business for the Bin Laden family consortium, and Yeslam wanted to be part of it. So in 1976 they settled in Jidda. When Carmen entered her husband's modest, three-bedroom house in the "Bin Laden village," she recoiled. . "The whole place was green, with green walls, green carpets and so many chandeliers it resembled a lamp store," she said. "Fortunately, Yeslam allowed me to redecorate the interior." Although Carmen Binladin had married into Saudi Arabia's richest and most powerful clan, she decided to retain her Swiss citizenship, "a decision I'm eternally grateful for." . As a Bin Laden wife, she could not even cross the street unveiled or walk in her garden. Once, when she wanted to buy swimwear, a male servant went out and returned with two suitcases full of bathing suits. She made her selection and the rest returned. . While her husband was out working, Binladin was confined to the house, caring for her baby daughter Wafah and "suffering the company of women who never read a book and only talked about their relatives and the Koran." . For relief, there were visits to her countless new relatives. That is when she first saw Osama Bin Laden. "He was slight of built but tall, with a stern, commanding presence," she recalled. "All the Bin Ladens are Wahhabite Muslims, but Osama's fierce, forbidding piety intimidated even his more religious relatives. In that clan my brother-in-law was a revered personality." . Osama bin Laden, by then in his late 20's, was married to his mother's Syrian niece. "Osama had been a diligent student at Jidda's King Abdulaziz University," Carmen Binladin said, "and Yeslam said he didn't believe the gossip about Osama's wild days in Beirut." . Long before Osama's Al Qaeda notoriety, the family zealot had became a national hero while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. "He was a personal protégé of King Fahd," Carmen affirmed. "When the first Gulf war broke out in 1991, Osama wanted to send his warriors to fight Saddam Hussein. But Fahd declined the offer." . Carmen hoped Saudi Arabia would become a more livable place after the oil boom, perhaps something like Iran, where she had often visited her grandmother. Within a few years the petrodollar avalanche transformed dusty Jidda into a modern town. "But the mentality didn't change and it never will," Carmen said. "The innate aversion toward the infidel is constantly fanned in mosques and schools. And a woman in Saudi Arabia remains a voiceless, faceless object. I felt like a goldfish in a bowl, gasping for air." . In Geneva, where he runs his own private bank, Yeslam has publicly denounced his notorious half-brother and the Sept. 11 attacks. . Has Osama, stripped of his Saudi nationality, really become the outcast of the nation and his family? Don't believe it, Carmen said. "The clan ties are sacred," she said. "The financial conduits remain opaque. Westerners just don't understand the culture. A Bin Laden will never turn his back on a brother." . In her book she refers to an old Saudi maxim: "Me and my brother against my cousin, but me and my cousin against the stranger." International Herald Tribune
Posted by: Mudy Nov 7 2003, 11:40 AM SEOUL: President Pervez Musharraf said Friday Pakistan was fully justified in developing missiles and nuclear weapons to counter the threat posed by India, a foreign news agency reported. Concluding a three-day visit to South Korea, Musharraf said Pakistan would never compromise on national security. I think we are fully justified in developing our nuclear and missile capability because there was an external threat and if ever that threat arises in any other area ... we will again respond to it in a similar manner in the future also, he told a press conference. This is dangerous for regional and world peace point of view and I have been highlighting that imbalance in (unconventional) forces being created in our region to all world leaders, he said
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 8 2003, 01:26 PM,0006.htm Chandan Nandy New Delhi, November 8 Pakistan's complicity in the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 from Kathmandu to Delhi on December 24, 1999, has always been suspected here. CONVERSATION: THE EVIDENCE OF ISI HAND Hijacker to Indian negotiator: ‘‘Come and take charge of the aircraft’’. Negotiator: ‘‘Okay, we’re coming’’. Overheard voice (in Urdu): ‘‘Do not release the aircraft before you retrieve your baggage from the cargo hold.’’ Hijacker to negotiator: ‘‘Hum plane release nahin kar sakte’’. Negotiator to hijacker: ‘‘It will take time to clear the cargo hold and segregate your baggage and then there will be further delay. We guarantee you we will take the designated baggages of the passengers and return yours’’. Overheard voice: ‘‘Nahin, woh bahot zaruri hai’’. Hijacker to prompter: ‘‘Yeh (the Indians) nahin maan rahein hain’’. Overheard voice: ‘‘Tell them the baggage contains explosives.’’ The hijackers were allowed to remove their baggage. Indian intelligence later learnt the baggage held diaries containing phone numbers and addresses of contacts in Nepal. Now there's more information on the ISI's role in that hijack: senior Indian intelligence sources told the Hindustan Times that two high-ranking ISI officers were present on the tarmac in Kandahar when the Indian negotiating team landed there. They were later joined by colleagues, from the special operations wing of the ISI's Quetta station. Negotiations were being conducted over wireless sets. The five hijackers got careless and inadvertently allowed Indian negotiators to overhear them taking instructions from Urdu-speaking men (see box). Eventually, the episode had ended with the release of Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar, Mohammad Zargar, and Omar Sheikh, the man who was later convicted of killing American journalist Daniel Pearl. The aircraft and its passengers were released in exchange. The story is told in the book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by leading French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy. Levy quotes Intelligence Bureau special director A.K. Doval, who was in Kandahar for the negotiations, on this: ''In a building are three high-ranking officers of the ISI with walkie-talkies. And that's when three incredible things happen. 1. When the hijackers forget to turn off their receivers, we hear the voices of the ISI guys telling them what to do, what to answer, how to handle the situation. 2. When Sheikh, Azhar and Zargar are brought to the plane to proceed with the exchange, it's not the hijackers, it's the ISI guys who check their identities. 3. Finally, I (Doval) see one of the ISI men, who seems to be their leader, kiss Omar Sheikh, call him by his first name and say, 'So, back to Kandahar. I'm so happy to see you'. Senior intelligence officials confirmed Doval's account and said that after the hijackers had left with the freed terrorists, Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil and the Taliban Kandahar corps commander General Usmani told Indian negotiators that the ISI had controlled the hijackers.
Posted by: Viren Nov 9 2003, 06:25 AM
Posted by: Mudy Nov 9 2003, 11:50 AM,5936,7819717%5E421,00.html By Martin Chulov 10nov03 AUSTRALIAN authorities now fear that suspected al-Qaeda bomber Willie Brigitte may have been plotting attacks against Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, or military sites such as the Garden Island Naval base and Holsworthy army barracks. ASIO, which conducted secret hearings last week at the Sydney offices of the Australian Crime Commission, has spent the past two weeks building a case against Brigitte, and has reaffirmed initial suspicions that he was a skilled bomb-maker sent to Australia to commit a serious terrorist act. It is understood another man was interrogated by ASIO under new national anti-terrorist laws on Saturday, bringing to two the number of Brigitte's Australian associates exposed to the commission's coercive powers. Brigitte's potential interest in strategic nuclear and military sites has been discussed at length in at least one of the hearings. However, it is not clear whether it was as a worst-case scenario or stemmed from a fact-based piece of intelligence. One of the men questioned by ASIO officers and the Australian Federal Police over the past two weeks has been allegedly linked to the banned Kashmir-based Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organisation. He has strenuously denied being either a member of the group or a sympathiser. Audits of telephone calls have shown that contact was made between people in Pakistan who are of interest to Western intelligence agencies and members of the Islamic community in Sydney. .....
Posted by: Krishna Nov 9 2003, 02:47 PM
PM’s initiative: Strengthen Saarc, ignore Pakistan,0008.htm
India has decided to focus on strengthening the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and demonstrate a mature response, instead of being bogged down by Pakistan's obsession with Kashmir. The move has Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee's backing. South Block insiders say Vajpayee is keen that India takes the initiative to strengthen the regional bloc and use it as a medium for regional diplomacy. Vajpayee's address to SAARC Information Ministers’ meeting on Tuesday is expected to highlight his agenda. Following this, SAARC Health Ministers will get together in New Delhi from November 13-15. These meetings are part of a determined set of measures taken by India, which are being dubbed as Vajpayee's "SAARC initiative". Vajpayee, who remains committed to his peace efforts with Pakistan, has decided to adopt a regional approach. He has also brought in new players. These include I&B Minister R.S. Prasad, Health Minister Sushma Swaraj, Commerce Minister Arun Jaitley and Communications Minister Arun Shourie, besides officials from various ministries. Shourie will visit Pakistan for the SAARC Communications Ministers meeting in December, while under Jaitley's stewardship, officials will engage in discussions with Pakistan and other SAARC members to finalise the South Asian Free Trade Agreement. South Block sources believe the progress at these meetings will help prepare the climate for Vajpayee's Pak visit in January for the SAARC summit.
Posted by: Viren Nov 10 2003, 02:41 PM Is this the same Iqbal who wrote "Saare jahane se accha, Hindustan hamaara"?
Posted by: parshuram Nov 10 2003, 04:58 PM
QUOTE (Viren @ Nov 11 2003, 03:11 AM) Is this the same Iqbal who wrote "Saare jahane se accha, Hindustan hamaara"?
Yes, the very same SIR Mohammad Iqbal. He was well knighted for moving the concept of Pakistan along. Btw, his song "sare jahan sey achha..." was writen in context of muslim possessions, of which Hindustan was, ofcourse, the best. The song has (now deleted) lines: (Cheen-o-arab hamara, sara jahan hamara). All in good jehaadi spirit.
Posted by: parshuram Nov 10 2003, 05:16 PM
May be some of you IT savvy guys here can help - I cannot get to BR Forum from my home computer all of a sudden (starting friday, get "cannot find server"). I have a DSL connection with a wireless hub, with 3-4 PCs on line, but never had this problem before. Could get to BR from work, though. Is there a problem with BR?
Posted by: Krishna Nov 10 2003, 10:36 PM
QUOTE (parshuram @ Nov 10 2003, 05:58 PM)
Yes, the very same SIR Mohammad Iqbal. He was well knighted for moving the concept of Pakistan along. Btw, his song "sare jahan sey achha..." was writen in context of muslim possessions, of which Hindustan was, ofcourse, the best. The song has (now deleted) lines: (Cheen-o-arab hamara, sara jahan hamara). All in good jehaadi spirit.
I didn't knew this! blink.gif blink.gif If this is true why this song hasn't been banned, for good, yet?
Posted by: rhytha Nov 10 2003, 10:41 PM
QUOTE (parshuram @ Nov 11 2003, 05:46 AM)
May be some of you IT savvy guys here can help - I cannot get to BR Forum from my home computer all of a sudden (starting friday, get "cannot find server"). I have a DSL connection with a wireless hub, with 3-4 PCs on line, but never had this problem before. Could get to BR from work, though. Is there a problem with BR?
i have dsl too, iam getting it, strange huh.gif
Posted by: Krishna Nov 10 2003, 10:55 PM
QUOTE (parshuram @ Nov 10 2003, 06:16 PM)
May be some of you IT savvy guys here can help - I cannot get to BR Forum from my home computer all of a sudden (starting friday, get "cannot find server"). I have a DSL connection with a wireless hub, with 3-4 PCs on line, but never had this problem before. Could get to BR from work, though. Is there a problem with BR?
It's not clear from your post if you can surf the internet at all, from the PC that's giving ya trouble, when BR's inaccessible. Anyway, 2 things: If you cannot get onto the internet at all: Make sure you have a valid IP address, on the PC you trying to get to BR from. If you have something like or its not hooked to the network, or it's not getting network connection (this is your own home network, hub connection , not the internet connection, between the DSL modem & your ISP.) If Internet is fine but BR doens't show up: Clean up your Temp internet Files and cookies. Then try it. Still doesn't work, release / renew your IP address, then try it.
Posted by: Krishna Nov 10 2003, 11:49 PM
If nothing works even after trying all that, power off everything: your PC, modem, everything. Give it 10/15 mins, then power 'em back up.
Posted by: Viren Nov 11 2003, 08:18 AM
QUOTE (Krishna @ Nov 11 2003, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE (parshuram @ Nov 10 2003, 05:58 PM)
Yes, the very same SIR Mohammad Iqbal. He was well knighted for moving the concept of Pakistan along. Btw, his song "sare jahan sey achha..." was writen in context of muslim possessions, of which Hindustan was, ofcourse, the best. The song has (now deleted) lines: (Cheen-o-arab hamara, sara jahan hamara). All in good jehaadi spirit.
I didn't knew this! blink.gif blink.gif If this is true why this song hasn't been banned, for good, yet?
Krishna: On the contrary, the song and the author should be given the maximum publicity possible. Think of the positive pys-ops value - a Paki who wrote 'Hindustan' the best nation in the world wink.gif Not that we need anyones certificate, but now and then is great to puncture the pakee.gif H & D biggrin.gif
Posted by: Viren Nov 11 2003, 08:19 AM
Talking of puncture, cool.gif P.S: Guys, Please Misc folder in the General Topics forum for off-topics
Posted by: parshuram Nov 11 2003, 08:42 AM
QUOTE (Krishna @ Nov 11 2003, 11:06 AM)
QUOTE (parshuram @ Nov 10 2003, 05:58 PM)
Yes, the very same SIR Mohammad Iqbal. He was well knighted for moving the concept of Pakistan along. Btw, his song "sare jahan sey achha..." was writen in context of muslim possessions, of which Hindustan was, ofcourse, the best. The song has (now deleted) lines: (Cheen-o-arab hamara, sara jahan hamara). All in good jehaadi spirit.
I didn't knew this! blink.gif blink.gif If this is true why this song hasn't been banned, for good, yet?
Actually, the song has been suitably edited (certainly not what Iqbal would have considered "suitable" biggrin.gif ). Major changes are, of course, giving up claim to China and Arabia biggrin.gif (cheen-o-arab hamara..), and, at the end (Muslim hain hum, vatan hai sara jahaan hamara - ie "we are muslims and the whole world is our home land) has been changed to Hindi hain hum, vatan hai hindustan hamara. Perhaps that should have been "Hindu hain hum, vatan hai... biggrin.gif . I have my own additions that need to be made to this song: Kashmir hai hamara Aur Sindh-o-Punjab aur Gandhara Pashchimi Baloch aur purbi Bangal bhi Hindustan ka hai pyaara Saarey jahan sey achchha... Enjoy and thanks to all for your suggestions to fix my BR access at home. I can still not get there, while rest of access to internet sites work ok. I guess I will stumble back on BR from home one of these days.
Posted by: Krishna Nov 11 2003, 12:54 PM
QUOTE (Viren @ Nov 11 2003, 09:18 AM)
Krishna: On the contrary, the song and the author should be given the maximum publicity possible. Think of the positive pys-ops value - a Paki who wrote 'Hindustan' the best nation in the world wink.gif Not that we need anyones certificate, but now and then is great to puncture the pakee.gif H & D biggrin.gif
Viren, You are right. If we can present it properly it has a lotsa psy-ops value! biggrin.gif *We evil banias! devilsmiley.gif *
Posted by: Krishna Nov 11 2003, 01:00 PM
QUOTE (parshuram @ Nov 11 2003, 09:42 AM)
Kashmir hai hamara Aur Sindh-o-Punjab aur Gandhara Pashchimi Baloch aur purbi Bangal bhi Hindustan ka hai pyaara Saarey jahan sey achchha...
clap.gif clap.gif (good show!) Jug jug jiyo tum... Jug jug jiyo tum... ....Aye Hind ke laal! Tumhari har tamanna puri ho devilsmiley.gif ....yeh hum dua kartey hain!
Posted by: acharya Nov 11 2003, 01:02 PM
Time to Change Tack by Brigadier (retd) Usman Khalid ( Published in News International, London, 7 Nov 2003) In the wake of the arrest of Javed Hashmi, the opposition is in rebellious mood. The people do not believe that a President in uniform who led a coup d'etat four years ago would let the civil government rule the country. What they see is a President who has the final word in Defence and Foreign Affairs. That is the French system that, I believe, is well suited to Pakistan. But if it were imposed by fiat or through the back door, it would be discredited even before it is given a chance to underpin stability as it does in France. General Musharraf has had ample opportunity to sell his ideas or amendments. He just didn't. I believe it is never too late. That the political parties are operating again, helps make a fresh political start on a three-point theme: 1. When the black economy is bigger than the legitimate economy, the country is stable either under Mafia or Military rule. Since the two main parties that alternated in power for ten years, were transformed in Mafias, military intervention was inevitable. It is irresponsible to restore unfettered democracy when it would surely return the very same Mafias to power. 2. Democracy cannot function without political parties comfortable inside the establishment defending the polity of the country and bridging divides rather than widening gulfs. The military cannot rule indefinitely. It must focus on reducing the size of the black economy and help build at least one major party that is not constructed as a Mafia. 3. Democracy is a word whose meaning changes with the context. It is a pillar of stable governance in some countries (like in West Europe); it is an instrument for keeping the ruling class perpetually in power (like in India and America) and it is an instrument of subversion in others (like in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran). Democracy in Pakistan has not facilitated change or delivered good governance; it has perpetuated Mafia in power and has allowed enemies to engage in subversion freely. I doubt if General Musharraf is merely interested in staying in power. I am of the view that his main interest is that his legacy is not discredited. The problem he faces is that his political and administrative reforms were ill conceived, badly structured, and too dependent on sustained foreign input. If he was judged on the basis of his reforms only, he must know he would be judged as a failure. The longer he defends his failure, the more ignominious would be the end. I believe he realises it. That is why he is focussing on Gawadar, Saindak, the roads, the canals and the dams as his prime legacy. I believe he is wise to do so. That he is facing resistance to his proposals for dams from those opposed to Pakistan's polity, strengthens his position inside the establishment. Mafia are afraid only of the military. It would give them great satisfaction if they can humiliate the military and force it to abandon vital projects. They know that public humiliation of the military would leave them unchallenged and in control of state power. That all of the opposition are outside the establishment and are as unpopular as they are ineffective is a time for more (not less) and major reforms. General Musharraf used administrative methods poorly the last time to design and introduce reform. He should use the political methodologies to articulate and introduce reform. This requires a theme that I have suggested in three points above. Pakistan must begin to employ the political process for politics. Changes in the society and the system must preclude Mafia rule and insulate it against subversion. This is more than an objective, it is determination to put and sustain 'wise and patriotic' leadership in power. If the military is to carry the blame, let it carry the blame for what it delivered, not what it contemplated and abandoned - for Thal Canal, for Kalabagh Dam, for three more dams on River Indus, and more. If PML-Q is to be non-Mafia party of the establishment, it must act like one. Mr Jamali is a patriotic leader, who is cool and wise. We can do without charismatic leaders of erstwhile ruling Mafias. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- The writer is Director of London Institute of South Asia
Posted by: vishal Nov 11 2003, 01:06 PM
QUOTE (Krishna @ Nov 12 2003, 01:30 AM)
clap.gif clap.gif (good show!) Jug jug jiyo tum... Jug jug jiyo tum... ....Aye Hind ke laal! Tumhari har tamanna puri ho devilsmiley.gif ....yeh hum dua kartey hain!
are kai kai kai karatos re krishna..... ROTFL.gif clap.gif clap.gif
Posted by: rhytha Nov 11 2003, 01:10 PM
lately iam worried about paki's. sad.gif more newspaper editorials have started writing about genuine issues like economy, the rape of the PA on thier land, democracy, opposing mulla's etc etc devilsmiley.gif but i still have faith in our beloved pakee.gif
Posted by: vishal Nov 11 2003, 01:11 PM
Parshuram, regarding your net problem... see there is a light in your modem.Make sure its ON.(check if your modem is on?) maybe you are not connected to net. huh.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 11 2003, 03:12 PM
I doubt if General Musharraf is merely interested in staying in power. I am of the view that his main interest is that his legacy is not discredited. The problem he faces is that his political and administrative reforms were ill conceived, badly structured, and too dependent on sustained foreign input. If he
Atlast people of Pakistan are realizing what a mess Mushy is. He is clever and at this moment US and other aid agency are pouring billions in his pocket. Worst will come when Pakis will realize how deep they are in debt. Which brings back to same old question , Why Pakistan is selling its assests all over world? Either as usual they want to copy India as India sold its sick industry to private body or they are in initial stage of financing another war with India.
Posted by: parshuram Nov 11 2003, 05:25 PM
QUOTE (tovishal2003 @ Nov 12 2003, 01:41 AM)
Parshuram, regarding your net problem... see there is a light in your modem.Make sure its ON.(check if your modem is on?) maybe you are not connected to net. huh.gif
Thank you and to all who offered help and suggestions. I am back on line with BR (all other sites were accessable).
Posted by: Viren Nov 12 2003, 09:11 AM
The commissioner said when the design of the Baghliar project was sent to Pakistan the commission raised objections about plans of raising the floodgates. "We will see on the spot whether there is a need for building floodgates. We had conveyed to India that the site did not need flood gates...We will see whether our objections are tenable or not," he added.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 12 2003, 11:41 AM,,2-10-1462_1444290,00.html Islamabad - Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali has ordered authorities to crack down on fashion shows because they are un-Islamic and give Pakistan a bad image, a local newspaper reported on Wednesday. An interior ministry order dated October 25 was carried by Wednesday's The News daily, directing hotels and officials to put an end to the gala parades that are a regular event at city hotels. "It has been observed that different functions are organised under the garb of fashion shows at leading hotels of the provinces and federal capital, which militate against our national culture and Islamic values," the order said, according to the newspaper. "Such activities are not reflective either of our culture or heritage and subsequently paint the government in bad light. "The prime minister has taken serious notice of such undesirable activities and has directed that the administration and hotel management be issued strict instructions to avoid recurrence of such programmes, which are not in consonance with Islamic values and norms of decency." ....
Posted by: Mudy Nov 12 2003, 11:45 AM ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri disclosed on Tuesday that Pakistan has rushed experts to its high commission in London to take all precautionary measures, including the debugging of its mission, to ensure that there were no security lapses in future. It has also asked the British government that a method has to be found so that the alleged bugging of its mission could be verified and confidence restored between the two countries. "Debugging of the high commission will be a very costly affair and it will be a very expensive exercise for the government.[beggars want more money I told the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, that the Vienna Convention has been violated. He told me that British law forbids him to go into details about the incident but Pakistan has suggested that the threshold of confidence between the two countries has to be restored. Some method will be found for confidence to be restored," Kasuri said at the Foreign Office after his return from the European countries. ....
Posted by: Sudhir Nov 12 2003, 03:40 PM
This needs to be forwarded to that group of fools from 'glorious,Wonderful, Aleeshaan Pakistan' residing in Germany ( are writing letters to the 'jootha' BBC pakee.gif
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 12 2003, 03:48 PM
Mudy : Your Post : Pakistan to debug HC in London: Kasuri Here's the proof : user posted image Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Nov 13 2003, 12:14 PM
Sinha slams Pak minister's comments on Vajpayee On Board the Prime Minister's Special Aircraft: India lashed out at Pakistan Information Minister Shaikh Rashid for his comments on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, describing these as reflecgtive of his "class." Reacting to remarks attributed to Rashid that he did not know that Vajpayee was heard of hearing, External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha told reporters on board the Prime Ministers flight from Moscow to Tajikistan's capital Dushanbe, "this shows his class and the class of Pakistani politicians in general." India had no desire to match Pakistani politicians in their behaviour but would like them to know that "we hear clearly and speak clearly," Sinha said. The Pakistani minister had made the controversial remarks after shaking hands with the Prime Minister at SAARC Information Ministers' Conference in New Delhi on Monday where he claimed to have verbally invited Vajpayee to attend SAARC summit in Islamabad in January, a claim denied by Vajpayee. Meanwhile, official sources said that as of now Vajpayee intended to attend the SAARC Summit also this would be formally conveyed to the hosts in due course
Posted by: Viren Nov 13 2003, 12:32 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 12 2003, 02:45 PM)
beggars want more money
Mudy: Haven't you seen the pattern with these pakee.gif It's always something or the other - we lost half our nation- give us money; we have afghan refugees because of your war- give us money; we have mullas who'll take over- give us money; we have tough eastern neighbor- give us money; we have terrorist in our country - give us money; we have terrorist in your country - give us money; we have lots of madarassas- give us money; our plane went down in kutch coast- give us money; we lost revenue as you cancelled matches- give us money; we have no democracy- give us money; your missile landed on our hut - give us money; yehudis are conspiring against us - give us money; our ex-PMs stole money- give us money; our 1000 year war with India hero told us to eat grass- give us money; we have sectarian violence- give us money; our London office is bugged - give us money; our hotels where Saudis stayed was bugged - give us money; As Amitabh says in Trishul - "toojse bhada bekhari maine zindagi main nahi dekha" cool.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 14 2003, 12:50 AM
Just finished reading Bernard Henri Levy's 'who killed Daniel Pearl' We should give this book wide publicity. he says flat out that TSP was involved in 9-11 at very high levels. The actual facts are not all that new but his conclusions are those that we have been espousing. He has pretty much accepted the Indian version of events.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 14 2003, 11:14 AM KARACHI (AFP) - The United States has warned key ally Pakistan that banned Islamic extremist groups pose a far-reaching threat as they emerge from the shadows under new names. Many of the banned groups are operating with the same leaders but by altering their names are making a mockery of Musharraf's pledge to stamp out Islamic militancy. US ambassador Nancy Powell told the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations in southern Pakistan late Thursday that the US was "particularly concerned" about the development. "These groups pose a serious threat to Pakistan, to the region and to the United States," she said. The US envoy cited Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, which were banned by President Pervez Musharraf in January 2002 with three other extremist organisations: the Sipah-e-Sahaba of Sunni militants, Shiite militants Tehreek-i-Jafria, and Tehreek-i-Nifaz-e Shariat Mohammad. ......
Posted by: Mudy Nov 15 2003, 09:15 PM BRUSSELS: Hours after separate explosions near two synagogues in the Turkish city of Istanbul, Pakistan’s security services are reported to have been put on their unprecedented highest alert amid intelligence reports that international gangs of terrorists may launch terrorist attacks in Pakistan during the week when friends and relatives of Aimal Kansi are observing his death anniversary, reliable security sources in Brussels told The News. ......
Posted by: vishal Nov 15 2003, 11:15 PM
Mudy, Jang ka elaan ho chuka hai....... biggrin.gif laugh.gif cool.gif tongue.gif baaasmiley.gif specool.gif clap.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 16 2003, 03:13 PM
Bugging of Pakistan high commission This is with reference to the letter "Bugging of Pakistan mission" (Nov 14) by Syed A. Mateen regarding The Sunday Times news article about the bugging of the Pakistan high commission in London. What was astonishing about The Sunday Times report was the fact that security at the Pakistan high commission was almost non-existent. This was demonstrated by the fact that visa applications were filed in open cabinets in the basement of the high commission, and even papers marked 'secret' were also filed in open cabinets in the offices of the military attache. Worst of all, the encryption codes to the messaging device were written on a post-it note on the wall of the room that housed the machine. pakee.gif The Pakistan government is justified in askings why its high commission was bugged, though it is a close ally of the United Kingdom in the war against terror. However, the real question the government has to ask itself is whether its staff at the high commission or at the foreign ministry have the required level of professionalism to run the high commission. clap.gif
Posted by: vishal Nov 17 2003, 11:29 AM
Mudy, if it is not foolishness of pak i guess(if in case it is not)then, just think how confident they were while doing all this illegal immigrant and kashmir terrorists funds thing.This shows a possibility that they were soo much confident that they must had support of that country(UK) in past.Its possible. UK's recent sweat talks with indians is a new move.It was not present before.They changed SIDE. cool.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 17 2003, 12:27 PM
This shows a possibility that they were soo much confident that they must had support of that country(UK) in past.Its possible.
That was, now also, Pakistan, a terrorist nation still able to gets its support from all old colonial countries and trouble makers for India.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 17 2003, 08:05 PM "COLOMBO: Pilots of an international airline on Monday refused to fly 102 Pakistan men who were being deported from Sri Lanka after overstaying their visas, officials said. The men were to be flown home on a commercial flight out of Sri Lanka’s only international airport, officials said, without naming the airline "They wanted the men to be handcuffed and each to be escorted by two guards," a prison official said. "We can do the handcuffs, but we can’t afford to send so many guards on a mission like this." biggrin.gif ..... clap.gif
Posted by: Gill Nov 17 2003, 08:58 PM
What exactly makes a nation a terrorist nation? Isn't it a right of a nation to be hostile to its neighbor, be prejudice and inflame hatered in its citizens against a nation? Frankly Pakistan has done more than this. It has violated all norms of international laws, and commitments and bilateral treaties. In its violations, it has openly committed war crimes against another country by targetting innocent civilians and turning its own population into merciless killers and goons. Hello. humantarians and peace loving doves of India. Stop spreading false messages that people of Pakistan are loving caring and want peace. And for the Indian government, stop telling us that war is against the regime in Pakistan not its people. It is the people of Pakistan that are terrorists. It is the same people who want annihalation of Hindus from this planet, it is the same people who dream of ruling our land and our women. Yes the last sentence seems too medival, but talk to a Jihadi, this is what they say. So which faction of the Pakistani population are we talking about, when we say they want peace? So called leftist elitie social brigade of India and weak doves who spread lies, are welcome to identify one single faction in Pakistan that will openly say that their nation today is worse than Nazi Germany. You wont find any such people. Speak to any Pakistani any where on this planet, they are happy with their leaders and do not wish to give up their anti-India mindset. Afterall hating Kafirs is the only link to confirm their Muslim identity. And these sorry fags like humans think that they can relate themselves to the Palestinians. Why certainly they can, just like Nazi Germany had Hitler, who spoke of annhilation of Jews, these brand name clotheswearing Palestinians, healthy looking [than any Paki on TV], driving Mercedes have Arafat who speaks of Jewsish genocide, dont be left behind Pakistanis, they have General Musharraf, who has defeats and losses on his resume, who speaks who dropping nuclear bombs on Hindu India. OOh so much hatered from a man who's grandparents were once Hindus. Hitler left two of his henchmen among us didnt he? Anyway before we say Pakistan is a terrorist state, treat it as such, and include all under that label, not few. India should lead the world in declaring Pakistan a terrorist and a Nazi like nation, the world will follow soon. Any hiccups? Gill wink.gif
Posted by: rhytha Nov 17 2003, 10:18 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 18 2003, 08:35 AM) "COLOMBO: Pilots of an international airline on Monday refused to fly 102 Pakistan men who were being deported from Sri Lanka after overstaying their visas, officials said. The men were to be flown home on a commercial flight out of Sri Lanka’s only international airport, officials said, without naming the airline "They wanted the men to be handcuffed and each to be escorted by two guards," a prison official said. "We can do the handcuffs, but we can’t afford to send so many guards on a mission like this." biggrin.gif ..... clap.gif
WTF ROTFL.gif The only good paki is a paki in handcuffs clap.gif
Posted by: Gill Nov 18 2003, 12:18 AM
Only a dead Pakistani is a good Pakistani Please visit this website and then tell me, which Pakistani is seeking peace with India or does not want genocide of all Hindus from this planet? Also read what Benizar Bhutto the new humantarian and self-proclaimed smart ass world leader had to say: [How can world leaders associate themselves with evil minds as such?] "Former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto has described recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane as ''one of the most successful hijackings in the recent history as it succeeded in drawing the attention of the international community to the Kashmir dispute.'' In a statement issued from London yesterday, she said New Delhi's accusations against Islamabad of sponsoring terrorism in various parts of India have never been proved in the past. She urged both India and Pakistan to defuse tension through revival of dialogue and resolve Kashmir dispute peacefully. Bhutto supported signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by both India and Pakistan and warned that delay would put Pakistan into a corner." UNI Gill mad.gif ALL PAKISTANIS ARE TERRORISTS NOT ALL MUSLIMS.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 18 2003, 10:15 AM
Excellent site : Everyone must visit this site. Added I have made changes in first post of this thread.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 18 2003, 10:27 AM Spokesman pledges to choke terror funding; asks Kabul to avoid accusation, cooperate in war on terror; UN resolutions on Kashmir still valid By Mariana Baabar ISLAMABAD: The ongoing operation against three banned extremist outfits would be completed in the next 72 hours, announced Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan here on Monday. The operation against banned militant parties that had regrouped and were still operating inside Pakistan is on course. Sources of terrorist funding, if any, would also be choked, he told journalists. "This decision was taken in accordance with the existing anti-terrorist law and done in our own national interest. We did not get a cue from anyone. The president and the prime minister have also highlighted the rationale of the steps taken," he said. Pakistan on Monday sent a strong message to Afghanistan asking it to respect the efforts of Islamabad in its role in war against terrorism instead of criticising its efforts. "Don’t quarrel with the fire-fighter. Let us coordinate our efforts as both Pakistan and Afghanistan are friends, neighbours and allies in the war against terrorism. We regret that the Afghan foreign minister has criticised Pakistan. It is not fitting for the foreign minister to go to Washington and bad mouth Pakistan and give statements against us," said Masood. The spokesman was responding to criticism by Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah who said during a recent visit to Washington that Pakistan was supporting the regrouping of Taliban on its soil. Masood, while putting the record straight, said after meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, he had changed his tune and in fact started to moderate his tone in his comments on Pakistan. "He has made two sets of statements. First he made negative ones saying the Taliban were regrouping with our help. But after meeting with Colin Powell his tone was more moderate and he praised the good role that Pakistan is playing," said the spokesman. Kabul was also asked to put its own house in order and ensure law and order on its own side instead of trying to throw the blame across the border. "There are so many problems inside Afghanistan. There are warlords, factional fighting, production and trafficking of narcotics and weak monitoring of the Afghan-Pakistan border. Instead we have employed over 70,000 troops and laid down a vigilant network, which has produced results," said Masood. Replying to a query, the spokesman said there are several methods under which both Pakistan and India can sit together and discuss the Kashmir issue. "The UN resolutions are operative and reflective of the international community. This UN resolution on Kashmir is valid until a new resolution is adopted. Besides the UN resolution, there is also the Simla Accord," he said. On the future of the confidence building measures between the two countries, Masood said the experts from both sides would meet in New Delhi from December 1-2 for the restoration of air links. "We shall go with open mind and our position is well-known and remains unchanged," he said. But when he was asked how could Pakistan have an open mind if its position remains unchanged. He said the real problem was not how the Kashmir issue could be discussed by the two countries but the reality that India was not interested in talking to Pakistan. The spokesman said despite the statements of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Pakistan has as yet not decided to send troops to Iraq. Rumsfeld last week had said Pakistan is one country that would replace UK and US troops. Responding to another question about the "healing touch" of the chief minister of Indian occupied Kashmir, the spokesman ridiculed this perception and said the record showed that this was more of a "killing touch". "Since India and Pakistan are not holding a dialogue, disgruntled Kashmiri youth are joining militants. The youth are joining the freedom movement in resistance," he said. The spokesman particularly pointed out the presence of "toy bombs" across the LoC, which killed children who picked them up because of their attractive designs. "This is against the Vienna Convention," he said. "There is no change in our policy. Our condition remains the same. While we welcome the UN Resolution 1511, it falls short of our expectation. We would like our peacekeepers to be welcomed by the neighbours of Iraq and the Iraqi people. Such a peacekeeping mission should also have a distinct identity. However, we remain engaged with the US and the UK on this issue," he added. But the spokesman evaded questions when asked what the Pakistani troops, if they went, were expected to do and what exactly their role would be. "This is speculative as we have not decided to send any troops. It is as yet premature to say anything," was all he could say. Though it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has given licences to the royalty from the United Arab Emirates to hunt the endangered species of Houbara Bustard, the spokesman was evasive in his replies and refused to comment. He was asked to comment on the permission given for the continuing killings of these birds to nationals of a country to which 40,000 Pakistani children mostly from southern Punjab were sold as camel jockeys in the past eight years. When asked if relations between the UAE and Pakistan were under review, the spokesman maintained that both countries had good relations but he did not have the required information at the time on the other issues. Pakistan for the time being has only the word of the Tajik government to rely on when it says that India is not building a military base in the Central Asian Republic. To a query the spokesman said, "Our ambassador has talked to the adviser of the Tajik president and has been told that there is no truth in these reports. These rumours have been circulating for quite some time and we are monitoring the situation as we know that a lot of activities are going on there," he said.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 19 2003, 06:50 PM (VOA) - Pakistan is disputing allegations by the new U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, who says Pakistan needs to do more to stamp out Afghan insurgents allegedly taking shelter in its territory. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad says insurgents loyal to Afghanistan's former Taleban government are using Pakistan's territory to launch attacks against Afghan and foreign targets across the border. But Pakistan's foreign ministry spokesman, Masood Khan, denies the charge, saying his country has made Pakistan inhospitable territory for Taleban remnants and their allies, including the al-Qaida terror network. "I wish the U.S. envoy had chosen his words more carefully and instead of giving his individualistic interpretation had synchronized his statements with what the State Department has been saying in the past week," he said. biggrin.gif "The State Department has said that Pakistan is committed to the war on terrorism and is doing everything that it can to effectively fight terrorism." Mr. Khan reiterates that Pakistan has taken effective measures to prevent any illegal movement across the border with Afghanistan. "We have deployed 70,000 troops in the area and created a quick-action force, which is conducting successful operations," he said. "Pakistan is denying sanctuaries to al-Qaida fugitives and to the Taleban regime remnants." ... liar.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 19 2003, 06:52 PM ISLAMABAD, Nov 19 (Online): Amir Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Sardar Ijaz Afzal Wednesday said that only settlement of Kashmir issue could pave the way of peace in South Asia (SA) . "People of SA are under threat Blackmailand surrounded by war clouds due to non settlement of Kashmir issue and all is happening just because of persistent stubbornness shown by Indian side," he said this in a statement issued here . JI AJK Amir went on to say that until and unless India will sway away its stubbornness and delaying tactics in settlement of Kashmir issue in accordance with United Nation's resolutions the peace in the region was impossible . While slamming Indian atrocities in held valley he said that India should stop killing innocent Kashmiris and urged upon International community to play its role in stopping Indian hand from atrocities over innocent Kashmiris . He vowed that Kashmiris will take revenge of each and every innocent Kashmiri killed by Indian forces .
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 21 2003, 04:34 AM THE FRIDAY TIMES (PAKISTAN NEWSPAPER), NOVEMBER 21, 2003 WRITING ON THE WALL Najam Sethi's E d i t o r i a l Last week the government of General Pervez Musharraf announced a ban on three jihadi outfits which were earlier banned by the United States. As if on cue, the police swooped down upon them, "sealed" their offices and detained dozens of their activists. Their bank accounts were ostensibly "frozen". This is supposed to be another historic blow against extremism and terrorism. Rubbish. General Musharraf's thunderous assertions are sounding like a scratched 78 rpm record. Two years ago, we received a blast of the same banalities. The Jaish i Mohammad, Sipah i Sahaba, and Tekrik i Jafaria were "banned" by Pakistan (after they were outlawed by the United Nations Security Council), their offices "sealed", their leaders arrested and their empty bank accounts frozen. Soon thereafter, everyone was released, the three parties renamed themselves as Khuddam ul Islam, Millat i Islamia and Islami Tehrik respectively and were allowed to function, recruit people, collect funds for jihad, publish their journals and give rousing sermons against all infidels. In fact, Maulana Azam Tariq, the leader of the renamed Sipah Sahaba, was encouraged to contest the 2002 general elections and "helped" to become a member of the National Assembly so that he could duly provide "that crucial single vote" enabling Mr Zafarullah Jamali to scrape together a government. Similarly, Allama Sajid Naqvi, leader of the Tehrik i Jafaria, alias Islami Tehrik, was allowed to contest elections and become a respectable member of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. And Mr Masood Azhar, the leader of the Jaish, alias Khuddam, was encouraged to preach jihad and collect funds all over the country. In fact, in a brazen display of bonhomie with the khakis, he recently preached his doctrine of jihad in a grand mosque in the very heart of Lahore's military cantonment. The pattern has become predictable. Whenever American pressure to clamp down on extremism breaches a threshold noise level, Islamabad is quick to offer a sop. In January 2002, it was President Bush and last week it was Nancy Powell, the American Ambassador to Islamabad. In between these two bans and many meetings of "pious people" drummed up by the government to "tackle religious extremism", we have been subjected to gruesome sectarian killings in Quetta and Karachi which have been squarely laid at the door of one or another such organisation. Meanwhile, the world is increasingly convinced that Pakistan is the original home of radical Islam and terrorism. A recent poll in the EU claimed that 48% of the respondents thought Pakistan was a threat to world peace. This perception hasn't been helped by the fact that the Musharraf government has made no effort to stop local jihadi leaders from their violent tirades against the "West and all infidels". What is so special about these Islamic groups that the Pakistan army cannot countenance an end to them? Why must ordinary, moderate Pakistanis, and the world at large, continue to pay the price for their extremism and radicalism? When will the Pakistani state realise that the price of mollycoddling them has become prohibitively high? The answers are obvious enough. Radical Islam has served to keep the Pakistan army in power (even when it is not in office). It has provided the jihadi cannon fodder for keeping the Kashmir issue alive, which in turn has sustained long-term hostility with India, which in turn remains the raison d'etre of soaring defense expenditures. Radical Islamists have also helped to weaken the thrust of the mainstream, moderate, political parties that have come to challenge the Pakistan's army's self-proclaimed role as the primary motive force of this country. But will this formula work as effectively for its patrons in the future? No. First, radical Islamists are increasingly forging their own national, regional and global long-term agendas that don't square with the short-term imperatives of their military patrons. Indeed, some of them have enormous potential to destabilize their creators - as Mulla Umar did to Musharraf's Pakistan and Osama bin Laden has done to the House of Saud in Arabia. Another major attack by Al Qaeda in the US or in Britain or in Europe would likely unleash dire consequences not just for Muslim peoples all over the world but also for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Within the region too, the jihadis have enormous potential for destabilization - as we saw when they attacked civilian targets in Kashmir and New Delhi and provoked the Indians in December 2001 to march their army to the border with Pakistan and threaten all-out war. Another such attack could plunge the region into crisis and conflict. Second, the record shows that radical Islam is incompatible with nation-building, democracy, universal human rights and economic development - critical elements of the new world order. It perpetuates a clash of civilizations and is inimical to global stability. If Pakistan continues to harbour radical Islamists in its midst the price will surely become prohibitive. If General Pervez Musharraf can read the writing on the wall and act to uproot extremist "Islamists", he will do himself, the Pakistan army and the Pakistani nation great good. But if he is guided by the same provincial notions of national security, army infallibility and military ascendancy as in the past, then we have all had it.
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 21 2003, 06:45 AM
Last Updated: Friday, 21 November, 2003, 11:33 GMT Asian terror group 'rebuilding': trained in Pakistan, Indonesia The Bali attacks killed 202 people A new generation of militants is being groomed by South East Asia's Jemaah Islamiah group to carry out more Bali-style bombings, Singapore has warned. Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said JI was rebuilding after recent arrests, training leaders in religious schools in Indonesia and Pakistan. "Troubled times are going to last for a long time," he said. JI, which some governments link to al-Qaeda, has been blamed for the Bali attack and a hotel bombing in Jakarta. "As an organisation it is only disrupted, it is by no means eliminated," he said. Mr Wong highlighted the September arrests of 19 suspected JI members studying in a religious school - known as pesantren or madrassas - in Pakistan. "Trained in both religious and military and terrorist skills, these young men were being groomed to be the next generation of leaders in the JI," he said. Mr Wong said the group included sons of Malaysian, Indonesian and Singaporean JI members, and was set up by the son of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, the group's alleged spiritual leader. An attack on Jakarta's Marriott Hotel left 12 dead "In Indonesia, the next generation of JI soldiers are also being groomed in JI-controlled religious schools," he said. But Marty Natalegawa, spokesman for the Indonesian foreign ministry, said Singapore was "stating the obvious" about the continuing threat in the region. "The JI network is not the monopoly of one or two countries," he said. "What is more important is identifying what steps should be taken to address it." Mr Natalegawa said Indonesia was doing that, and it had carried out a number of successful operations against militant groups. "But we don't have the mechanisms which some of our neighbours have, where they simply arrest people without due process," he added. "We have to act in a manner which is in accord with our observing of civil liberties." Vulnerable Dr David Wright-Neville, of the Global Terrorism Project at Monash University, Melbourne, said the comments from Singapore were in line with previous warnings. "They don't think anyone else takes JI seriously enough, and their position in the region makes them all the more vulnerable," he said. "So they tend to always put a fairly pessimistic spin on things to worry their neighbours' neighbours, particularly Australia and America." Dr Wright-Neville agreed that JI was still a threat, with a number of senior members still at large. "I also think the group can replenish itself, although it takes time to rebuild all the skills." Hambali was arrested in August A number of JI's leaders have been arrested recently, including the group's alleged head of logistics Hambali. He was arrested in Thailand in August and is currently in US custody at an undisclosed location. The man now leading JI's military operations has been named by some security analysts as Zulkarnaen, whose real name is Aris Sumarsono. Dr Wright-Neville said Zulkarnaen was previously in charge of the illegal finance networks that funded JI. "He has moved up the hierarchy, " he said. "He is bright and dangerous. He doesn't have the operational nous that Hambali had, but he is clever and capable of learning."
Posted by: Mudy Nov 25 2003, 12:15 AM
Compulsive Terrorist state back in business Pakistani troops shell border region of J&K Indo-Asian News Service Jammu, November 25 Pakistani troops on Tuesday shelled a border region of Jammu and Kashmir, just two days after Islamabad announced a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC), military officials here said. liar.gif
Posted by: rhytha Nov 25 2003, 09:10 AM
I don't support this ceasefire offer, thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif dry.gif , we should'nt have supported this ceasfire, though i like the idea of our jawans recouping and planning ahead. Besides paki's are doing this for thier self intrest liar.gif (i can't figure out for what?? can anybody enligten me graduated.gif ) and for nothing else and we should not accept any terms from them , everything should be in our terms or we dont have a deal
Posted by: rhytha Nov 25 2003, 10:15 AM
Valuable Link Putting it in bookmarks thread as well graduated.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 25 2003, 10:33 AM
For India it is a good opurtunity to fence border. Restock for winter as ceasefire won't last for long( my take is -less than 1 month). Jawans can take vacation. By Iftikhar Gilani NEW DELHI: While thousands of people living along the dividing line in Jammu and Kashmir will breathe a sigh of relief after Eid, the ceasifire announced by Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali will also help Indian forces erect fences along the Line of Control (LoC). The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly was recently told that 18,582 families, comprising 83,804 persons had migrated from border areas to safer places since May 1999, when shelling and firing on the border had intensified. At present 11,044 families, comprising 43,510 persons, continue to be displaced from villages in Jammu sector. Last year’s massive military movement and occasional artillery exchanges caused migration even in comparatively peaceful areas. Life was thrown out of gear in almost all the areas along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir. “We have had a considerable number of families on the border areas leaving their homes for the last three years. Now the population of migrants has swelled by over 7,000 families more,” said a senior functionary in the state government. Most of the migration has taken place from areas near the Line of Control (LoC) like Nowshehra and Poonch and near the Working Border (WB). In many deserted villages, the fields that once grew maize have been taken over by wild grass. Both countries share a 1,049 km border in Jammu and Kashmir. This includes over 185 km of the Working Border (WB) - of which 22 kilometres is fenced; 740 kilometres is the LoC and the rest is the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) on the Siachen heights. Although the areas in Jammu sector were the most tense, fierce artillery duels were regularly being reported from north Kashmir and more recently from the otherwise calm Kargil heights. Reports from Kargil said over 200 families from the hamlets of Batik, Kharbu, Kaksar, Hunderman and neighbouring areas had migrated to safer places due to shelling recently. Although only selected media people are allowed into the border areas, reports suggest that even though the confidence building measures fly across New Delhi and Islamabad, the forward areas continued to be in a war-like situation. Battle tanks, heavy artillery guns (including the Bofors) stand positioned at all the strategic places. The Border Observation Posts (BOP) are still overcrowded with troops. Moreover, the latest initiative will also help India to erect fences along the stretches of the LoC, which allegedly have been found vulnerable to infiltration.
Posted by: rhytha Nov 25 2003, 10:59 AM
Now we know where the ceasfire came from... tongue.gif Powell, Sinha discuss ceasefire November 25, 2003 21:53 IST US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday night telephoned External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha and discussed the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Sinha told Powell that India was "happy" to respond to Pakistan Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali's offer for ceasefire along the International Border, the Line of Control and Siachen Glacier in Jammu and Kashmir, official sources said. Sinha noted that Pakistan had responded favourably to improving communication links between the two countries.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 25 2003, 11:18 AM
Why ceasefire at this stage. Is it because of problems in Iraq and US can use Paki amry in Iraq? or Afghanistan border need more attention and US is pressurising Pakis to check West border? or Pakistan is low in new terrorist? India is not under pressure and I think US at this stage can't annoy India, as any chance of forces or reconstruction efforts by Indian will go in drain.
Posted by: vishal Nov 25 2003, 12:31 PM
QUOTE (rhytha @ Nov 25 2003, 09:40 PM)
Besides paki's are doing this for thier self intrest liar.gif (i can't figure out for what?? can anybody enligten me graduated.gif ) and for nothing else and we should not accept any terms from them , everything should be in our terms or we dont have a deal
Rytha, i don't have lighter....sorry... huh.gif Will somebody give me lighter to enlighten our friend?..... biggrin.gif ROTFL.gif
Posted by: vishal Nov 25 2003, 12:34 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 25 2003, 11:48 PM)
India is not under pressure and I think US at this stage can't annoy India , as any chance of forces or reconstruction efforts by Indian will go in drain.
Mudy, why US can't annoy india???? ohmy.gif they are doing it always...isn't it? and what is reconstruction thing related with india?? huh.gif i think US don't need india for any recons.?
Posted by: Mudy Nov 25 2003, 05:08 PM
vishal, India is already doing lot of subcontracting jobs, including fixing Hospitals, power plants, schools.
Posted by: acharya Nov 25 2003, 06:49 PM
'Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc' By Vishnu Makhijani, Indo-Asian News Service New Delhi, Nov 22 (IANS) By the Islamisation of social studies textbooks, successive Pakistani governments have caused incalculable damage to the future of generations of students, a new book contends. "Whether it is civil or military governments, the contents of the textbooks have been consciously manipulated to serve the interests of the ruling power. This has come at the cost of correct information and reasoned analysis," says Yvette Claire Rosser in "Islamisation of Pakistani Social Studies Textbooks" brought out by Rupa and Observer Research Foundation. An alumnus of the University of Texas at Austin, Rosser is a South Asia expert with special interest in the educational structure in India and its tangential impact on the curriculum in the U.S. To legitimise Pakistan as a Muslim homeland, "historians had to nurture the image of the Muslims as a monolithic entity, acting in unison and committed specifically to Islamic values and norms", she says. "In the past few decades," she says, "social studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours. "Vituperative animosities legitimise military and autocratic rule, nurturing a siege mentality. The textbooks are an active site for negatively representing India and smothering the subcontinent's Hindu past," the author contends. The result is, says the monograph quoting Inayat Magsi, a Sindhi psychiatrist at Karachi's Civil Hospital, "a xenophobic and paranoid acceptance of authoritarianism and the denial of cultural differences and regional ethnic identities". General Zia-ul Haq, who overthrew Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's unpopular but democratically elected regime in 1977, is eulogised because he took "concrete steps in the direction of Islamisation" even though he usurped the political process and suspended civilian rule for 11 years. Pakistani textbooks also tend to describe martial law as being inevitable and stimulated by the rise of "un-Islamic forces" and "corrupt bureaucrats", the author holds. The result is that "in the minds of generations of Pakistanis, indoctrinated by the 'Ideology of Pakistan' are lodged fragments of hatred and suspicion," says the author, contending the maximum damage occurred during the 1977-1988 period when Zia was in power. All students in Pakistan have to take compulsory courses called 'Pakistan Studies' and must pass standardised tests based on the subject. The textbooks range from students in Class 9 upwards to the BA level. "The rubric in these textbooks must be learned by rote," the author says. Extremely glaring, Rosser says, is the treatment meted out to Akbar, widely regarded by Indian historians as the most enlightened of the Mughal emperors. "This is in direct contrast to the perceptions of Pakistani historians and curriculum writers, who see Akbar as harmful to the ultimate interests of Muslims in the subcontinent," she notes. According to Mubarak Ali, a progressive historian living in Lahore, Akbar had been systematically eliminated from most Pakistani textbooks to divert attention away from his "misplaced" policies. Where he does find mention, the author says, discussions about Akbar are short and superficial. "This omission is an amazing hiccup of historiography. In which 55 very essential years are simply eliminated," she adds.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 26 2003, 12:09 AM
Pakistan tries again to shutter terror groups KARACHI, PAKISTAN – When Pakistani police last week raided the office here of a banned extremist group linked to American journalist Daniel Pearl's murder, the militants gave them the slip and quietly moved to a local mosque. Now Mohammad Ejaz and other activists with the outlawed Jaish-e- Mohammad spend days and nights at the mosque, carrying on jihad, or holy war. "For us, every mosque and madrassah is an office. It is the home of Allah and his soldiers, and a shield against the conspiracies hatched by [US President] Bush and [Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf," says Mr. Ejaz. Thousands of Islamic militants like Ejaz have changed their cellphones and shifted to mosques and remote locations to evade another government crackdown on groups responsible for violence in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Aghanistan. This latest round targeted six organizations, including several banned last year only to reemerge under new names - demonstrating the ability of the militants to stay several steps ahead of Islamabad. "Mujahideen do not get hurt by such bans," says Saif-ul Islam, spokesman for Jaish-e-Mohammad. "It can create temporary hurdles, but cannot stop us from jihad." Sources within the banned groups say they plan to go to court against Islamabad's decision and will change their identities again to continue operating. But the clampdown is far from complete. Tens of thousands of trained militants are members of these groups, which have made deep cultural inroads through literature available at roadside bookshops. Some groups have clandestine overseas branches in European and Gulf countries, and receive large donations through hawala, an informal banking system. "There is no doubt about President Musharraf's intentions to eliminate religious militancy and extremism, but he cannot change the system alone," says a Pakistan-based Western diplomat. "He needs the wholehearted support of sympathizers in law enforcement agencies, and the military establishment as well, who still think that extremists can bleed India in Kashmir and counter India's increasing influence in Afghanistan." "If America wants to eliminate the terror network of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan then it has to rein in the militant jihadi groups of Pakistan because they are a part of the nexus," says a Western diplomat.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 26 2003, 10:27 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Developments leading up to the ceasefire actually started several weeks ago when, under immense US pressure, Pakistan's Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI) shut down its "Forward Section 23" in Pakistan's Azad (Free) Kashmir, which meant the closure of all training camps and ISI operations offices in that region. Not only this, but also under US pressure, Pakistan was asked to provide access to its national data base and records of those involved in terror activities, which, according to the US definition, includes militancy in the name of jihad. For this purpose, a special wing was established in the Federal Investigation Agency of Pakistan (FIA), which normally handles matters related to white-collar crime. This special investigation cell is jointly headed by Fareed Nawaz of the FIA and a member of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. This is a clandestine operation to fight terror, and information relating to it has been obtained by Asia Times Online, it has not been officially disclosed. According to sources close to the Pakistani administration, the US leaned heavily on the Pakistani leadership to force the ISI to abandon its Kashmir operations in mid-stream. Just recently, a new recruitment campaign for militants - to be used in cross-border raids into Indian-administered Kashmir - was started in all big cities. And militant organizations were given huge funds to mobilize their activists and attract new recruits. And, it is said, President General Pervez Musharraf held meetings with jihadi leaders in which he assured them that he supported "jihad in Kashmir" with his "heart and soul". After these assurances, the Jamaatut Dawa (formerly the Lashkar-i-Toiba) was encouraged, with all means and resources, to stage a large gathering in Mureedkey, Punjab, where thousands of jihadis gathered and vowed to liberate Kashmir. Maulana Masood Azhar of the Khuddamul Islam (effectively the Jaish-i-Mohammed) was also invited to address the gathering. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 26 2003, 10:57 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 26 2003, 10:57 PM)
Not only this, but also under US pressure, Pakistan was asked to provide access to its national data base and records of those involved in terror activities, which, according to the US definition, includes militancy in the name of jihad.
Mudy- this was what I was implying in my post a few weeks ago... It does seem that the US is doing something big to the TSP ghazis behind the scenes. I am not sure that it will positvely affect India, but may lend a facade of control the Kashmir terrorism. The Pukes will simply activate the Moslem agents already in the valley, rather than sending new ones in.
Posted by: rhytha Nov 26 2003, 11:59 AM
QUOTE (vishal @ Nov 26 2003, 11:50 PM)
This is Opera winfrey show of US to india in paki-land. If US is serious then they can easily attack or raid atleast in pok camps since they have better satellite intelligence than india of these camps. rolleyes.gif
and why should they attack pok camps, dry.gif they are inside pakistan with the ISI and mulla army and running all operations catching and cataloging all jihadi, dry.gif SHIT they run pakistan as of now, why do they need to attack pakistan which will definetly be costly in economic and human terms when they can destroy or neutralise them from within, with far lesser cost. dry.gif makes sense to them, but we are left holding the lamp dry.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 26 2003, 12:35 PM
HH, I agree with you, looks like US is doing some flexing at this moment. But it all depends on Paki Army Pakiness. They have already started creating problems in NE. It will take some money to activate some cells in India.
QUOTE (vishal @ Nov 26 2003, 11:50 PM) This is Opera winfrey show of US to india in paki-land. If US is serious then they can easily attack or raid atleast in pok camps since they have better satellite intelligence than india of these camps. and why should they attack pok camps,
Nobody will gain attacking POK camps, it will only destroy some temperoray sheds and dozen jihadi. They should actually use Daizy cutter in Mureedkey, Punjab during some speech, which will really make some visible impact on WAR on TERRORISM.
Posted by: rhytha Nov 26 2003, 12:38 PM
Some good things do happen in pakiland smile.gif The other Pakistan Mohan C Padman, Bangalore WHEN I was working in Zahedan, the capital of the Province of Sistan and Baluchistan in southern Iran, I found the shortest (and cheapest) way to get to India was by taking the Pakistan Airlines flight to Karachi via Quetta, and then changing at Karachi to fly on to Bombay. However, I had to stay overnight at Karachi as the connecting flight to Bombay was on the following afternoon. On my maiden venture I was seated next to a couple of doctors going on vacation to India. Two of their colleagues were seated across the aisle and they were all hyper excited at the thought of getting back home after a year or more away in Iran. They asked me my opinion about travelling to India via Pakistan and I discovered we were all tyros on this trip, so it was with a mixture of curiosity and faint unease that we all disembarked at Karachi airport, where on discovering we were Indians on transit, the authorities immediately seized our passports and under armed escort, we were taken by coach to the city hotel where we were to stay put until the next day, when we would be escorted once again back to the airport to retrieve our passports and sent on our way. In effect we were under house arrest for a day and since it was only late afternoon we were chafing at the bit to get out and see the sights of Karachi. I rather foolhardily suggested we ignore the armed guard at the entrance and walk out with a show of confidence. After all some of the other doctors spoke Urdu and short of stripping us, how could the guard tell one brown human from another? We all trooped out and the guard didn't even glance at us, he was busy contemplatively scratching his stomach, as we passed through the hotel gates and on to the tarred road outside which meandered through the city. We walked along looking at the people and since they didn't know who we were, they completely ignored us. We passed a church and we passed mosques and as we walked along I thought how much the buildings reminded me of Bangalore, particularly the Cantonment part, so many grey stone and other edifices painted the reddish brown so favoured by the British in military towns. Other parts were more like Bombay, especially as one approached the seashore. And the heat was by no means Bangalore! In fact, by now we were sweating and looking around for a place to sit in the shade and have a drink. We spied a small restaurant with the manager visible behind his desk at the dual exit/entrance doorway busily writing out bills, receiving payment, giving change and barking out instructions to the staff all seemingly at me the same time. We paused at the entrance and explained to him that we didn't have any Pakistani money with us. Would he accept dollars instead; or Indian rupees, interjected one of the doctors? The manager assured us he would take any money offered. We sat down at a table in the dim interior and ordered tea and biscuits, all fortunately being of the same mind that tea actually cooled one down more than anything else. We were a bit surprised when the manager joined us a few moments later and asked us whether we were from India and then told us that his parents had come from India just after Partition. His parents had missed their home and talked about India with such affection. In fact we realised that the usual plagiarised Hindi music was playing in his restaurant, though at a modest pitch. He had bought the tape in the flourishing black market. He got it at a discount if he paid for it in Indian rupees, because that is what the smugglers used to pay for them. Apparently there was a massive Indo-Pakistan informal free trade agreement that operated to the satisfaction of both sides. At points along the desert border where there were few guards, the 'Indian traders’ threw well-padded parcels of the latest banned Indian music over the barbed-wire fence and in return the ‘Paid traders’ threw over packets of money. Of course, many other things were thrown over which were of mutual benefit to both sides – all duty-free and tax-free. Noticing that we had finished our tea, the manager-owner ordered our waiter to bring ‘special tea’ which came in a cracked china teapot, the knob of the lid carefully tied with string to the handle so that it didn't fall off when the pot was tilted. The tea was extra sweet and mixed with the milk in the typical standardised Indian form. The manager himself poured out the tea for us; then excusing himself returned to his strategic viewpoint at his desk. After we had finished we picked up the bill and the doctor asked the manager how much it would be in Indian rupees. The manager said he wouldn't take the rupees. We were stunned. The doctor asked him why he had said in the beginning that he would take the money. The manager replied, tears in his eyes, “I won’t take your money. How can I take any money from my own brothers?”
Posted by: Krishna Nov 26 2003, 12:48 PM
I hope Mr. Padman never names the tea-stall owner else he gonna have his b@lls chopped off outside some mosque, after some mulla checks out that article over the net, on a friday.
Posted by: acharya Nov 26 2003, 05:45 PM
Pakistan Should be Identified as Part of Central Asia By Ahmed Quraishi PAKISTAN adjusted its identity and national security direction at three crucial times in its history; first after Pakistan’s independence; second, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and third after 9/11. And each time, the Middle East and the United States were the common denominators. Our interests overlapped with Washington’s and, at the same time, our umbilical cord with West Asia was further emphasized. After each one of the three historic events, Pakistan became more integrated with its Middle Eastern and Central Asian roots. Moreover, those events unintentionally helped deepen and broaden the definition of Pakistani nationalism that would have otherwise been exclusively centered on India. Pakistan today stands in familiar grounds: We seem closer than ever before to the greater Middle East, stretching from Morocco to Central Asia, encompassing Turkey and Iran; and our interests in the region – in achieving peace, security and prosperity – coincide with those of Washington’s. Left to the whims of Islamabad’s India-focused Foreign Service and a docile intelligentsia, Pakistan by now would have been completely absorbed into the Indian-dominated cultural system of South Asia. A generally passive Pakistani media and academic elite could have only worsened this cultural conquest by willingly reinforcing the country’s cultural transformation into an Indian satellite state. This intelligentsia unmistakably failed over the past half century to accentuate the distinct nationalist character of the Pakistani state. Islamabad should exploit this unplanned strategic tilt toward West Asia to push forward an organized Pakistani economic, cultural and political penetration of the region. This would complement Islamabad’s expanding ties with Central Asia and balance unnatural attempts to seal Pakistan’s fate in an Indian-dominant South Asia. This would require three things: (1) a decision to send soldiers to Iraq to help its people in nation building and build long term relations with Iraq’s new leaders; (2) an imaginative public diplomacy campaign in the Middle East to transform Pakistan’s popular image; and last, (3) the introduction of a ‘culture shock’ in the Pakistan Foreign Service, which, among many other failings, does not have a single Arabist in its ranks (or a Turkic, for that matter) for a country that happens to have an entire seashore on the Arabian Sea and happens to credit several Arab allies for financially backing our military ambitions. National security urgency The avoidance of becoming an Indian sidekick in international relations through assimilation into Indian-dominated South Asia is national security urgency for Pakistan. The subcontinent is India’s natural historic, cultural and ethnically homogenous basin. It was so before Muslims invaded and settled in the area coming from Arabia, Persia and Central Asia. The emergence of Pakistan was the natural consequence of India being given back to its indigenous people. India’s new invaders, the British, and the old ones, the Muslims, had to go, ridding India of all things alien to its history, culture and ethnicity. India’s Muslim minority ruling elite was a culturally and ethnically distinct nation. After losing its power to the new British conquerors, this distinct Muslim nation faced the prospect of melting into a larger but different cultural mass, the way Muslims disappeared in Spain after the Spanish conquest. A second option was independence. The Two Nation Theory, and Pakistan, was crafted by perceptive founding fathers who selflessly devoted their health and careers to a historic idea in a decisive moment in time. That is the foundation of Pakistan. And the ruling establishment of this country must not allow any foreign guest, least of all an Indian, to criticize the foundation of Pakistan in Pakistani newspapers or, as did Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, while visiting the country. Mr. Yadav, an Indian politician who visited Islamabad last week, knew he was attacking the pillars of this country’s sovereignty when he said to reporters as soon as he set foot on Pakistani soil: “We were one nation but were unfortunately divided. Now we are here to show our brothers and sisters in Pakistan that we are sincere in seeking peace.” Mr. Yadav’s idea of seeking peace with Islamabad is by calling for a rollback of Pakistan’s independence. This is as offensive as having a Soviet politician landing in Washington on a ‘peace mission’ in the 1950s only to call for the destruction of capitalism and the free society. Or having a Turkish official telling the formerly Ottoman-ruled Slavic republics it was “unfortunate” they were divided from the mainland. Or, better still, having a Pakistani official land in New Delhi to tell the media:“We were one nation when we occupied and ruled over you, unfortunately the British came and changed all that and now we want the Taj Mahal back.” Mr. Yadav knew none of the Pakistani peaceniks that received the Indian delegation at Wagha would object to an attack on their nation’s sovereignty. And they should not be blamed. After all, Islamabad’s state bureaucracy has been imposing the South Asia unity theme on the Pakistani nation for the past decade with an unusual vigor. Islamabad should change its official line gradually and quietly. Pakistan is not part of South Asia. Instead, Pakistan is a borderline state between West, Central, and South Asia. Pakistan’s historic, cultural and ethnic ties to West and Central Asia must be vigorously emphasized and given priority over any ties to South Asia. Pakistan’s state television should take the first step in that direction. Weather bulletins must not show Pakistan as an extension of South Asia. A better replacement could be a map showing the country as an extension of West and Central Asia. Then there is the question of preserving the sanctity of state ideology. Can a Pakistani writer be given space in India’s largest newspapers on regular basis where she or he can criticize the Indian government and dispute its version of events in held Kashmir? Would an Israeli newspaper give space to an Arab to criticize the foundations of the state? Would American newspapers give space to a Russian, Arab, or a British writer to question the foundations of the American republic or smear its founding fathers? The answer is no. But recently, an Indian writer was given a platform in a major Pakistani newspaper to ridicule the Two Nation Theory that provides the foundation for Pakistan’s independence. This is not a call against free speech. Healthy discussion of policy must be welcomed. But this is not 1947. It is 2003. Almost six decades have passed since that theory first appeared. The time for questioning its viability is over. Pakistan is a reality today, and that theory is its foundation. To question the theory, which, by the way, has not been proven wrong by any standard, is to commit a national security offense. Pakistan Government must strictly proscribe any attacks on the nation’s state ideology. That is a cardinal rule of sovereignty. Strategic reservoir In Tunisia, streets are named after Quaid-e-Azam and Pakistan’s former foreign minister, Sir Zafarullah Khan. In Jordan, late King Hussein named a street in a trendy Amman district after late president Zia ul Haq. Schoolbooks in Turkey, Iran and most Gulf Arab states teach the history of held Kashmir with a Pakistani bias. I should know. I am a graduated.gif of Arabic schools. The Arab peoples, unlike some of their governments, such as the former regime in Iraq, have always been warm supporters of Pakistan. This fact, obscured in recent years because of Pakistani Foreign Service negligence and ineptitude, remerged in May 1998 after Islamabad flaunted its nuclear capabilities in response to an Indian provocation. Most longtime students of Pak-Arab relations were astounded at the scale of euphoria in Arab media. That day, Arabs from the Gulf to Egypt erupted in pride; mosque imams mentioned it in their prayers; ordinary Pakistanis were congratulated, and Arab newspapers were filled with applauding editorials and articles. They were proud that ‘one of their own’ resisted international pressure and gave a befitting response to a challenge posed by a seemingly stronger adversary. Pakistani defiance and courage struck a raw Arab nerve that has been humiliated for years because of perceived Arab official weakness in front of Israel. Ayub Khan’s Pakistan was close to the Middle East, but Islamabad drifted away from West Asia, sucked increasingly into an Indian dominated South Asia because of Kashmir. Arabs and Muslims rediscovered Pakistan in 1979 as the peoples of the free world came to the defense of Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Social ties between Arabs and the people of Pakistan spiked to levels not seen practically since the vast Arab settlements here almost a millennium ago. And then came 9/11 to leave a permanent global impression of Pakistan as a nation that is part of the historical, linguistic and cultural system of a greater Middle East stretching from Morocco to Central Asia, encompassing Turkey and Iran. ZA Bhutto and late Gen. Zia ul Haq played crucial roles in cultivating relations in the Middle East. But the present government of President Pervez Musharraf seems to be best placed to win acceptance in the region with its moderate politics that combine Islam with liberalism. Musharraf is the first Pakistani president since the days of General Ayub Khan to cut across the gamut of political ideology in the Middle East and win acceptability. This acceptability is political capital that must be used to enhance and improve Pakistan’s economic and political clout in the region. And with reforms that would make Arab governments more representative of their peoples, Pakistan has a chance to help translate the popular Arab goodwill into public pressure on their governments to increase their support for Pakistan in international forums. Stake in American success Cold war dynamics were behind some of the differences between Pakistan and several Arab governments. While Islamabad backed the Free World, most large Arab countries were Soviet satellite states. Also, Pakistan’s diplomatic corps’ modest performance failed to improve Pakistan’s image in the region. But whenever given a chance, the people of the region – as opposed to their governments – always viewed Pakistan with respect. Mr. Yasser Arafat, the receiver of several Indian state awards who never reciprocated in Kashmir Pakistan’s strong backing for Palestine, or for that matter Saddam Hussein, represent the types of Middle Eastern governments that were opposed to us and seldom reflected their peoples’ goodwill towards Pakistan. The Iraqi Ba'athist government, in particular, played a big role in contaminating Arab media and culture with proactive anti-Pakistani propaganda. This was Ba'athist Baghdad’s way of punishing Pakistan for being part of the Baghdad-based CENTO alliance of anti-Communist countries back in the 1950s along with Turkey, Iran and Jordan. The alliance gave Pakistan a seat on Middle East’s table of important players; a seat which comes naturally to Pakistan having close historic, ethnic and cultural ties to the region. The alliance imploded when power in Baghdad was seized by pro-Soviet Arab nationalist Ba'ath party that, taking a leaf from the Soviet book, created a formidable media machine that spewed venom against moderate regional governments like Pakistan. By a stroke of luck, our American allies have decided they want such governments removed in order to refashion the Middle East to make room for prosperity and security by giving the people economic and political freedoms. This presents Pakistan with a unique opportunity. Washington has committed to a long-term transformation of the Middle East. This goal is already underway in both Palestine and Iraq. The US has pushed for the replacement of Yasser Arafat’s inept and corruption-infested authority with a new transparent government. And in Iraq, the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, which has established a provisional all-Iraqi administration, is already the most representative of all Arab governments and is busy drafting a constitution that will enshrine freedoms and equality for the first time in the Middle East. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, “A transformed Iraq can become a key element of a very different Middle East in which the ideologies of hate will not flourish.” This is an area of American policy that Islamabad can agree with, silently at the least, because it serves our interests as well. We have a stake in Washington’s success in transforming the Middle East. An ideology of hate, such as the Ba'athist nationalist creed, was behind the festering anti-Pakistani trend within the secular Arab intellectual elite. The writings and sayings of this elite often prevented even sympathetic Arab governments from taking stronger pro-Pakistan positions. This is why Islamabad must send its military to Iraq. And instead of a traditional peacekeeping deployment, the mission must be turned into the beginning of an organized Pakistani economic, cultural and political penetration of a Middle East under transformation. The way to do that is by employing a creative and vigorous public diplomacy campaign using the media and people-to-people contacts to transform and embed Pakistan’s image in the region. This will reflect positively on trade and diplomacy. But a true change of mind in Islamabad will require a change of heart by its change-resistant diplomatic corps. Reforming the diplomats Maps at the headquarters of our diplomatic bureaucracy place us in the “heart” of South Asia. The maps at Microsoft headquarters in Dubai, for example, place us in the Middle East, in a region stretching from Morocco to – you guessed it – Pakistan. The Foreign Office had concluded sometime in mid-1990s that Pakistan has no future but in an Indian-dominated South Asia. At roughly the same time as our diplomats were daydreaming about a united South Asia, smart multilingual handlers and strategists at the three giant IT companies Compaq, IBM and Microsoft concluded that Pakistan should be part of their Middle Eastern, and not South Asian, operations. In 2000, I had the opportunity to meet with a joint Microsoft-Cisco-Compaq team putting out a road show from Pakistan to Morocco for dealers and clients. There were Arabs, Turks and Pakistanis in the team. Interestingly, it was a Persian-speaking Pakistani who ran the team’s seminars for Iranian clients. A Microsoft official said his company found young Pakistani experts as useful tools for Middle East seminars. I thought that was such a good metaphor for how Pakistani expertise can be useful in an important untapped market. If only our policymakers paid attention. At a time when the President of Pakistan is pushing for a proactive global Pakistani diplomatic engagement, the Foreign Service is ill prepared to communicate Gen. Musharraf’s confident message and engaging style to the world. The president must have experienced this ineptitude firsthand during his recent tour of three important Middle Eastern capitals. Gen. Musharraf is the first to know that a host is most impressed when addressed in his or her native language. The president practiced this PR stint himself immediately after seizing power in Islamabad in 1999 when his first media appearance was through Turkish TV—in Turkish language. Yet the Pakistani Foreign Service does not have any Arabists. Some diplomats who studied the language at the peak of Pakistan’s engagement with the Middle East during Ayub Khan and ZA Bhutto’s administrations have either retired or simply vanished without exploiting their skills. I will not compare our Foreign Service to the Turkish or the Iranian diplomatic corps, which have abundant Arabists, but to the Indian Foreign Service that is increasing the number of its Arabic-speaking servicemen. In 22 Arab countries, there is a bigger chance of finding an Arabic-speaking Indian diplomat than a Pakistani diplomat. Pakistan Foreign Service has a stifling culture that emphasizes uniformity in thought and punishes creativity and dissent. In such an environment it is hard to expect the emergence of the next Henry Kissinger from its ranks. That’s a distinction that will probably go to some other country’s foreign service. Exceptional Pakistani foreign ministers, like Sahibzada Yaqoub Khan, Sir Zafarullah Khan, ZA Bhutto, and the current foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, are anomalies not borne by the Pakistani Foreign Service culture. This, of course, does not diminish the fact that some of our diplomats are world-class statesmen. But the majority is stuck in a bureaucratic rut; the byproduct of a civil service culture that makes most of them think in terms of preserving their benefits and positions instead of challenging the conventional thinking and risk losing the benefits. If all the perks are guaranteed through a civil service code regardless of creativity, then why bother change? The National Security Council must seriously consider some legal or constitutional amendments that can allow the president or the prime minister to introduce ‘political appointees’ to the senior posts inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including the Under Secretary and the heads of regional departments. This will allow the president or the prime minister to appoint visionaries and dreamers who believe in the chief executive’s foreign policy and can implement the visions and values that the president or the premier wants the diplomatic corps to promote around the world. With the emerging realities in our Middle Eastern and Central Asian neighborhoods, the Pakistani Foreign Service must be able to communicate the president’s foreign policy agenda more effectively. New interests in a reformed Middle East must be clearly identified, a redline must be drawn around our state ideology, and the reckless march into an Indian-dominant South Asia must be tempered in favor of a balanced borderline-state position between West, Central and South Asia. The writer is a free lance journalist based in Islamabad. E-Mail:
Posted by: vishal Nov 27 2003, 01:00 PM
acharya, good one thumbup.gif that clears one more aspect behind "people to people contact" initiative taken by ABV. really a very smart step. laugh.gif specool.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 28 2003, 11:18 AM
Hillary Clinton praises Pakistan's role in fight against terrorism Flush.gif Friday, November 28, 2003 Posted: 11:56 AM EST (1656 GMT) ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton praised Pakistan's role in the war on terror during a meeting with the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the state-run news agency reported Friday. The former first lady and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, met with Musharraf late Thursday in Islamabad after returning from Afghanistan, where they had Thanksgiving with American troops. Clinton praised the rebuilding of the country and the work of U.S. forces. But she said more troops are needed to provide the kind of security needed by the government, U.N. workers and relief agencies against attacks by pro-Taliban forces. Two years after the Taliban regime was driven out of Kabul, Clinton also expressed concern that pro-Taliban cells now based in Pakistan are crossing the border to launch attacks against coalition forces and relief workers in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 29 2003, 06:33 PM LAHORE: Former Taliban leader Mulla Mohammed Omar was seen in Quetta last week, according to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, reports BBC. Mr Karzai told The Times newspaper he had received information that Mulla Omar was spotted praying in a mosque. There have been no confirmed sightings of him since the Afghan war ended. Mulla Omar is one of the three men most wanted by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The latest reported sighting of the cleric comes nearly two years after the last Taliban stronghold fell to US-backed forces in Afghanistan. Karzai told the London-based newspaper that Quetta was a stronghold for fighters opposing the coalition forces. He called on President Musharraf to prevent hard-line Islamic groups in the city from supporting those responsible for the increase in violence in Afghanistan. Rashid denies charge: Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed rejected Karzai’s claim, APP reported. He said he hoped the Afghan leadership would “desist from issuing statements which could impede relations between the two countries”.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 29 2003, 07:43 PM,0008.htm Aditya Sinha New Delhi, November 30 Pakistani jehadis are streaming into Iraq to fight American occupation troops, say Government sources. This is a consequence of the Al-Qaeda having taken up the war against the US in Iraq as its current ‘big project’, they say. Reports reaching New Delhi say jehadis recruited from Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan are being organised by Maulana Masood Azhar’s faction of the former Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Khuddam-ul-Islam (KUI), and by the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI). Azhar was among the three militants released by India in exchange for the passengers of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 hijacked in 1999. The jehadis are infiltrating into Iraq from two fronts — Saudi Arabia and Iran. The KUI, which is influential in Pakistan’s southern Punjab and in Karachi, is believed to be sending jehadis from Karachi via the porous Iran-Pakistan border. Others are going via Dubai and other Arab countries. Former intelligence official B. Raman says six Pakistani HuJI members are in Jordan coordinating jehadi activity in Iraq. He adds that the banned Lashkar-e-Tayyeba is now coordinating activities for Osama bin Laden’s International Islamic Front, and that it is collecting funds for jehad in Iraq. Government officials link this new trend to a statement that Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan) chief Qazi Hussain made a few months ago, where he said that peace with India was a tactical move, so that the mujahideen could go fight the “American-Jew menace” in Iraq. Raman says the need to defeat the US in Afghanistan and Iraq was the major theme of speeches by Islamist organisations to mark Id on Wednesday. Officials see no reason to be surprised at this movement of Pakistanis to fight Americans in Iraq. They point out that the main sustenance for the Al-Qaeda comes from both the Pakistan establishment (a link that Daniel Pearl was investigating when he was murdered) and the Pakistani jehadi groups. Besides the fact that three top Al-Qaeda fugitives were caught in Pakistani cities, officials also noted that in the past two years, whenever an Al-Qaeda-linked suspect was caught in other parts of the world (in London this week, in Istanbul last week), links with Pakistan were uncovered. At least one of the Istanbul bombers had trained in Pakistan, and the London suspect had Pakistani origins. The sources did not know if the Americans were aware of the fact that Pakistani jehadis were going to Iraq to fight them. However, the Pakistani government’s recent crackdown against Azhar’s cadres may be an indication.
Posted by: vishal Nov 29 2003, 09:50 PM
americans know everything.....and they know how to play.... i am only waiting pathetically the day our politicians and BABUS will give up chola of mahatma....and learn how to play like US mad.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 29 2003, 10:02 PM
i am only waiting pathetically the day our politicians and BABUS will give up chola of mahatma....and learn how to play like US
I am also waiting for Lord Krishana avtar or Chanakaya. Either of them will be great for India fuck.gif
Posted by: Krishna Nov 29 2003, 11:21 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 29 2003, 11:02 PM)
i am only waiting pathetically the day our politicians and BABUS will give up chola of mahatma....and learn how to play like US
I am also waiting for Lord Krishana avtar or Chanakaya. Either of them will be great for India fuck.gif
IMHO, we should wear the chola of Mahatma Gandhiji while play 'em all like US. cool.gif And, I think we're doin' it already (or have started to do it. smile.gif )
Posted by: vishal Nov 30 2003, 02:55 AM
QUOTE (Krishna @ Nov 30 2003, 11:51 AM)
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 29 2003, 11:02 PM)
i am only waiting pathetically the day our politicians and BABUS will give up chola of mahatma....and learn how to play like US
I am also waiting for Lord Krishana avtar or Chanakaya. Either of them will be great for India fuck.gif
IMHO, we should wear the chola of Mahatma Gandhiji while play 'em all like US. cool.gif And, I think we're doin' it already (or have started to do it. smile.gif )
Krishna, it is called overflow of optimism...... biggrin.gif Mudy, chanakyan avatar? blink.gif i think its over? ab dubara hoga kya? furious.gif ROTFL.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 30 2003, 11:24 AM
Pakistan wants to revive air links with India As if India is desperate, it is Pakiland which can revive their sick PIA argue.gif President General Pervez Musharraf says Pakistan will agree to revive air links with India at a meeting on Monday between the two countries' aviation officials. The meeting will take place in New Delhi. The two countries broke off air links after an attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001. General Musharraf said the offer to open Pakistani air space was a gesture of goodwill, to show that Pakistan is sincere in its efforts for peace in the region. India and Pakistan are embroiled in a dispute over Kashmir. Last week, for the first time, they agreed to a truce.
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 30 2003, 04:18 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 30 2003, 11:54 PM)
Pakistan wants to revive air links with India As if India is deperate, it Pakiland which can revive their sick PIA argue.gif
Mudy, PIA has been far more inconvenienced by the Over Flight Ban than India. AI / IA lost out only on the Flight to Kabul. The rest of the Flights to Western Destinations encountered “Deviations” only in the case of Flights from New Delhi directly Westwards. PIA, however, lost out badly and had to cease there Flights to Colombo (Why), Dacca, Jakarta, Kathmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Manila and Singapore. You can check this out on the PIA web site : So the Lotastaanis had to agree to Indian Over Flights if they wanted to continue their Eastward Flights. Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Nov 30 2003, 06:48 PM
I don't understand why India is pushing for Air-link other than flight to Afghanistan. Let PIA suffer.
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 1 2003, 01:08 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Dec 1 2003, 07:18 AM)
I don't understand why India is pushing for Air-link other than flight to Afghanistan. Let PIA suffer.
Mudy, IMO India has always shown itself as trying to placate Lotastaan so that the world does not see India as the obdurate obstinate one. I believe that Prime Minister Vajpayee refused to go to the SAARC meeting until India had over flight rights. The Lotastaanis, if you remember, countered by saying that they would permit the flights between India and Lotastaan. It seems Vajpayee held his ground so Riff Raff had to eat crow. Lotastaan is caught between a Rock and a Hard Place i.e. Keep the Over Flight Ban and admit to their countrymen that India is the reason for PIA not flying to the Seven Eastern Destinations whereas at the other end now that the Flights commence PIA will lose more money. Of course PIA will make huge profits on the Lotastaan-India Run. Anway let us wait and see. I do feel that the Samjhota Express, Bus Service in Kashmir, Rail and Bus Service in Rajasthan and Ferry Service to Mumbai are not at all necessary. But then if the Government of India is bent upon providing better services to the Lotastaani Cross-Border Terrorists (the words of Lotastaani Foreign Minister not mine) then so be it. Cheers
Posted by: rhytha Dec 1 2003, 03:58 AM
We need this all this measures in the context of us-pak relationship, Musharaff is as usual playing to the audience in the west. Thier is basically 0 pressure of india over pakistan, the only pressure we can apply is thru US. is a excellent writeup on the on mush's dance
Posted by: vishal Dec 1 2003, 10:57 AM
QUOTE (rhytha @ Dec 1 2003, 04:28 PM)
We need this all this measures in the context of us-pak relationship, Musharaff is as usual playing to the audience in the west. Thier is basically 0 pressure of india over pakistan, the only pressure we can apply is thru US. is a excellent writeup on the on mush's dance
rytha, i don't agree with that india has no way to put pressure on pak.India always has 1000s of ways to do that. Point is whether our politico want to do that? and have balls to do that? By the way,if this is true that there is no way india can put pressure on pak or control pak then i think we shoulddo suicide.(which i will never agree with) thanks.
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 1 2003, 04:12 PM
rhytha : The following two articles show the hand of the USA and UK in forcing Lotastaan’s Riff Raff to have a Cease fire with India and in taking steps towards making Peace with India to allow Indian Aircraft Freedom to Over Fly Pakistani Air space : Islamabad: Brushing aside the impression that the ban on over flight for India has been lifted under pressure from the United States, Pakistan said it was gesture of goodwill from Pakistani president, a news agency reported. The recent initiative by President Musharraf to lift ban on Indian over flights unilaterally was a gesture of goodwill, Foreign Office Spokesman Masood Khan told a press briefing here Monday. Answering a volley of questions regarding Pakistan's decision to lift ban on Indian over flights, at his weekly press briefing stressed that the objective behind the move was to resume the stalled dialogue between the two countries. Had President General Musharraf not taken this decision, the technical level talks between air officials of the two countries held in New Delhi on Monday would have collapsed, he added. In reply to another question, he made it clear that Pakistan would never compromise on its principled stand on Kashmir issue adding Islamabad wants the recent steps should lead to composite dialogue between the two countries. When asked had Pakistan been given any assurance that India would respond in kind to what he called a gestures of goodwill, Mr Khan maintained that no assurance had been given to Pakistan in this regard. However, he said Pakistan hoped that India would reciprocate the gesture of good will and come to the negotiating table. Continuing, he said after these steps India should not have any excuses regarding the resumption of much needed talks on all issues including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Answering another question, the spokesman informed that there were indications that Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee would attend the forthcoming SAARC summit to be held in Islamabad in January. About the duration of ceasefire being observed Pakistan and Indian on the Line of Control, working boundary and Siachen since Eid, Mr Khan was of the view that Pakistan has set no time, as it wants indefinite ceasefire. He also denied the reports that Pakistan itself did not take the initiative of ceasefire rather some one else persuaded it to take such a step. When asked why Parliament was not taken into confidence before making such big moves, he held the view that it was not necessary that President should consult every of its steps with Parliament. ISLAMABAD: British Airways will resume flights to Pakistan from Monday, following their suspension in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, official media said. BA will operate flights from London to Islamabad on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays, while the return flights will depart Islamabad on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. I suppose on reading these two items you will agree that Riff Raff is finally Obeying Orders from Bush, Blair & Co. Cheers
Posted by: Ram Dec 1 2003, 05:31 PM
Musa's logic: 1) Establish dialogue between India and Pakistan 2) Make the Kashmir dispute a focus of talks 3) Eliminate all solutions that are unacceptable to Pakistanis, Indians or Kashmiris 4) Find the win-win solution for Kashmir If all solutions that are unacceptable to Pakistanis, Indians or Kashmiris are eliminated, then what is there to discuss; asuming of course that India is foolish enough to make Kashmir the 'core' issue in the first place? smile.gif But I just want to understand Mushy's logic if anyone can explain what he means.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 1 2003, 07:54 PM
Ram, Mushy is diverting Mad mullah and crazy jihadi attention towards core issue Kashmir once again, so that these motivated should not take long hike towards Iraq, which now THE place for majority population of Pakistan.
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 2 2003, 02:37 AM
rhytha : G GANAPATHY SUBRAMANIAM TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2003 03:29:12 AM ] NEW DELHI: Air-India and Indian Airlines will benefit in a big way if Pakistan’s offer for resumption of overflight facilities turns operative without further delay. The net gain will be around Rs 50 crore per annum which is the additional cost borne by the two carriers to avoid Pakistani airspace. Air-India could save Rs 40 crore per annum while Indian Airlines will save Rs 10 crore every year, if the offer is not subject to any conditions, highly-placed sources in the civil aviation ministry and the airlines said. The major increase in expenses pertains to flights taking off from Delhi, the sources said. After take-off from Delhi, Air-India flights to US and Europe fly at least an hour extra to avoid Pakistan’s airspace. The national carrier has seven such services a week. Air-India gets to save at least 14 hours of additional flying time every week. Since the extra flying during the return journey is also one hour, the gross additional flying time on each service is around two hours. Therefore, The Gulf-bound flights of Air-India and Indian Airlines would also benefit once Pakistan allows Indian carriers to use its airspace. As of now, all the West-bound flights of the two carriers fly over the Arabian sea to avoid Pakistan’s airspace. There will be no major impact in the case of flights originating from Mumbai. The main gainers are the West-bound flights taking off from Delhi for overseas destinations. Pakistan’s offer has come as a pleasant surprise to Indian officials engaged in the ‘technical’ discussions as the last round of discussions in Pakistan witnessed intense pressure being mounted on the Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to make a blanket commitment that overflying rights will not be suspended by India in future. As the political and policy direction was going through modifications, the DGCA did not make any such commitment and the talks ended without resumption of airlinks and overflight operations. The Pakistani side seems to have now made a climb-down with the new offer announced by President P Musharaff on the eve of the current round of ‘technical’ discussions. The offer from Pakistan has made a world of difference to the current round of talks which otherwise was seen to be heading for another stalemate. India was very keen on resumption of overflights but was not in a position to provide any blanket commitment to Pakistan, he sources said. On the other hand, Pakistan wants India to resume fights to Karachi and Islamabad. Apart from additional fuel needed to take a longer flight path, the airspace ban was also affecting the utilisation of the A-I and IA aircraft. The two airlines also faced additional costs in terms allowances paid to crew members. Passengers were also suffering since they had to spend more time on the aircraft. Close on the heels of the militant attack on Parliament (on December 13, ’01), India decided to scrap overlfight facilities for Pakistani aircraft and also snapped air links to Pakistan. On its part, Pakistan reacted with a similar ban but Islamabad claims no official order was issued to prevent Indian aircraft from entering Pakistan’s airspace. Hence, the demand for not resorting to a similar ban in future. While Air-India as well as Indian Airlines carried on with their operations despite having to take a circuitous route to avoid Pakistan’s airspace, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) had to scarp bulk of its East-bound operations. Pakistan’s national carrier faced a major setback as compared to the Indian national carriers. I trust Admin will be able to exhibit this post in January / February 2005 when AI / IA will still be Losing Money “Hand Over Fist” It must always be borne in mind that India’s DDM and Leftist-JNU-Anti NDA types screamed about AI-IA losing out due to the mutual Over Flight Bans but until today they did not highlight THE PLIGHT OF THE PIA. Even in this Article which should have been titled “PIA to re-start its East Bound Services which were Scrapped due to Over flight Ban” Cheers
Posted by: vishal Dec 2 2003, 10:53 AM
Peregrine, why do some people hurry to bring conclusion that washington did this and that for india?.......tell me where in your article it is proved that US,UK forced mushy for soft stance?........ i see necessity of time for mushy to take these steps bcoz : Tensions in tribal areas are leading to explosive scale due to increased clashes of US army and jehadis. so he is feeling to shift resources from indian side border to tribal areas and islamabad to save his own ass from jehadi anger. what US,UK will achieve by starting talks between india and pak?.....and 3rd thing is US knows well now india won't start talks unless terrorism is stopped from what is point in forcing air links?
Posted by: Mudy Dec 2 2003, 11:02 AM
Only reason I can see why US and UK will push Pakistan to establish air link is to revive PIA so that they don't have to see Mushy every three months with begging bowl. But they will be disappointed. biggrin.gif
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 2 2003, 01:47 PM
QUOTE (vishal @ Dec 2 2003, 11:23 PM)
Peregrine, why do some people hurry to bring conclusion that washington did this and that for india?.......tell me where in your article it is proved that US,UK forced mushy for soft stance?........
Vishal, 1. The USA is in trouble in Afghanistan and hopes that the Lotastaani Army will seal the Afghan/Lotastani Border. This will require the Lotastaani Army to stop the confrontation with India. The UK dangled the carrot of British Airways resuming their Flights to Lotastaan. In addition Riff Raff realised that he was in the Bad Books of the USA and UK as they had all the records as well as the information from Two Years of bugging the Lotastaani High Commission in London. 2. The USA also BADLY NEEDS Indian and Lotastaani Troops in Iraq.
i see necessity of time for mushy to take these steps bcoz : A : Tensions in tribal areas are leading to explosive scale due to increased clashes of US army and jehadis. so he is feeling to shift resources from indian side border to tribal areas and islamabad to save his own ass from jehadi anger. B : what US,UK will achieve by starting talks between india and pak?.....and 3rd thing is US knows well now india won't start talks unless terrorism is stopped from what is point in forcing air links?
A : Absolutely correct. I have already covered in 1. B : The USA started Arming Lotastaan in the early 1950s – Encircling Russia and China in the Cold War. In addition it provided huge amounts of Arms, Equipment and Money in the 1980s – Afghanistan War. The successive Lotastaani Government, Administration and Leaderships have lied and Brainwashed the poor Abdul the Bulbul Lotastaani that Lotastaan won all four wars i.e. Kashmir, 1965, Bangladesh and Kargil. Oc Course it is not India’s Fault but Riff Raff has a job on his hands trying to stop Cross-Border Terrorism. Hopefully with the commencement of Over Flights, which are needed more by Lotastaan than India as explained in my previous post/s and possibly only New Delhi/Lahore Bus Service should strengthen Riff Raff’s hands so that he can get the Lotastaani Generals and ISI to put a stop to the Cross Border Terrorism. We do not need any India-Lotastaan Bus, Rail, Ferry, Air Services and would not have had them except for the following reasons : - Indian Muslims wanting to travel to Lotastaan to meet their relatives and Lotastaani Muslims wanting to travel to India to meet their Relatives. - Indian Sikhs wanting to visit the Two or Three Holy sites in Pakistan. Since India has weakened its stance by using its so called Secular Values to pander to the Minority we are today experiencing the Lotastaani Problem. This is India’s Fault – Gandhi, Nehru and the Rest. Anyway the Indian Government is now realising that even the Majority has a Right. So let us wait and see how things develop. Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Dec 2 2003, 07:08 PM ISLAMABAD, : President General Pervez Musharraf Tuesday suggested the developed nations to do not target Muslim migrants in the backdrop of September 11, 2001 events. He said this while talking to Burnson Mickinley, Director General of the Geneva-based International Organization of Migration (IOM). The later called on President Musharraf at Awan-e-Sadr. Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar was also present on the occasion. “In the post 9/11 periods, while regulating international migration, immigration authorities of the developed countries should not target Muslim imigrants as a group,” Musharraf said. The President said that about 350,000 Pakistan would seek employment abroad during the next year. Pakistan appreciated the assistance being given by the IOM to Pakistan in the field of labour migration. Mr. Burnson Mckinley and two other members of his delegation are visiting Islamabad. While briefing Mr. McKinley on Pakistan’s polices, President Musharraf said, “regional and international migration was natural phenomenon and an essential component of globalization.” He said that because of the dependence of both developed and developing countries on migrants, it was important that migration flows should be properly managed and regulated. The president said that human trafficking and illegal migration had transnational dimensions and, therefore, required coordinated international responses. One way out was to enhance opportunities for prohibitive employment and comprehensive economic development within the developing countries so that unregulated outflows of migrants could be stemmed, he said. President Musharraf then apprised the IOM Director General about the infrastructure projects mutilated in Pakistan, inter alia, to create jobs and the steps taken to alleviate poverty through micro-financing schemes.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 2 2003, 07:09 PM liar.gif ISLAMABAD, : President General Pervez Musharraf has pushed the ball for regional peace in the court of India while offering unilaterally the resumption of air links between Islamabad and New Delhi. “The resumption of air links would benefit Pakistan in the tune of $ 485 million every year whereas the Indian benefit could be even 100 times more than that of Pakistan,” Director General Civil Aviation Authority, Air Marshal (Retd) Pervaiz Akhtar Nawaz told in an exclusive interview. He said that in the head of permission to India for over flying Pakistani air space would benefit alone $ 85 million and $ 400 million would be earned from the direct landing of Indian airlines to Pakistan every year. He was of the view that the initiative taken by President Musharraf a day before the formal negotiations in New Delhi “was a historic decision that express willingness of Pakistan to restore full normal neighbourly relations with India ....
Posted by: rhytha Dec 2 2003, 10:48 PM
Also Mush needs to be in good books of US and UK to get the 3 billion conditioanl AID. that's why all this circus of ceasefire,airlinks and things like that. Hope ABV and co. don't fall head long in mush's snake oil
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 3 2003, 02:46 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Dec 3 2003, 07:39 AM)
Mudy : The Lotastaani DG Aviation isn’t lying. It is the Truth that the Lotastaanis have lost far far more than the Indians by this Over Flight Ban. I refer you to my earlier post where I said :
It must always be borne in mind that India’s DDM and Leftist-JNU-Anti NDA types screamed about AI-IA losing out due to the mutual Over Flight Bans but until today they did not highlight THE PLIGHT OF THE PIA. Even in this Article which should have been titled “PIA to re-start its East Bound Services which were Scrapped due to Over flight Ban”
The Lotastaanis will now be able to reinstate PIA's Flights to Kathmandu, Dhaka, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Jakarta and Manila which they had "ceased" due to the Over Fight Ban. India is tying its best to ”bend backwards” to ensure that Lotastaan stops cross-border Terrorism and have Lotastaan agree to LOC as Border without losing Saichin or the Kashmiir Valley. Mark my words : The Lotastaanis will take every Indian concession and continue in their “wicked old ways”. Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Dec 3 2003, 10:12 AM
$ 485 million every year whereas the Indian benefit could be even 100 times more than that of Pakistan
Peregrine, My point is Pakistan is going to gain more, it ridiculous to say that Indian benefit could be even 100 times more. They are telling us, they will gain little but hey we are favoring you, infact it is other way round.
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 3 2003, 10:54 AM
Mudy, There are two issues here : - Pakistan will gain / save USD 485 Million. That is a Fact. Being a Lotastaani he knows what he is talking about. - His statement : the Indian benefit could be even 100 times more than that of Pakistan. What the h*ll does he know about India. He is a Lotastaani. It is natural for him to talk cra*p. My point is not the benefits of India but that of Pakistan. As far as Indian Savings are concerned : IA / AI WILL save Rs. 50 Crores i.e. about USD 10-11 Million. That’s it. In fact in my posts I have always said that Lotastaan stands to gain far more than India. As such in a Lotastaani Article we can accept Lotastaani savings but disregard their statements about India. Cheers
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 3 2003, 11:04 AM
QUOTE (vishal @ Dec 2 2003, 11:23 PM)
Peregrine, why do some people hurry to bring conclusion that washington did this and that for india?.......tell me where in your article it is proved that US,UK forced mushy for soft stance?........
And though external affairs ministry officials deny any rethink on the question of sending troops to Iraq , diplomatic circles here are abuzz with fresh speculation. The last time the US asked, the Vajpayee government cited the ongoing tension with Pakistan as a reason for not being able to spare troops. But with a ceasefire along the LoC now in place — presumably with some help from Washington — the US is once again looking at India with a questioning eye.
Posted by: acharya Dec 3 2003, 06:25 PM
This is in reply to some comments by Mr. Khan and other Pakistanis. I just can't believe how ignorant and brainwashed they are about our liberation war. Here are some comments: >> Mr. Khan said: "Generals Yahya, Tikka, and politicians like Bhutto and Mujeeb were nothing but a bunch of criminals who conspired against Pakistan, and as a result Pakistan got dismembered. These men are not only criminals but traitors and low birth scoundrels." Again: "The power should have been given to Sheikh Mujib, no doubt about this fact." I'd urge Mr. Khan to take off Sheikh Mujib's name from the list, because he wasn't part of any conspiracy to dismember Pakistan. He fought for the right of Bangalees, for our beloved language, and for his party. If he was given the power, as Mr. Khan mentioned, and if the Bangalees were treated fairly, there would be no reason to fight for liberation. >> Mr. Khan said: "However, there was no justification for mass murder of Non-Bengalis, which started around 6th or 7th March, 1971, exactly 3 weeks ahead of Pakistan Army's "police action". A peaceful civil dis-obedience movement would have been a more civilized and Islamic alternative of mass murder and ethnic cleansing campaign started by Mukti Bahini, 3 weeks before Pakistan Army started the "police action" on March the 25th 1971." Again: "The genocide did occur, but of Biharis and non-begalis. Half a million of them were wiped out at the hands of Mukti Bahini." What kind of nonsense is it? It shows the kind of Goeblism, lies, bias, media brainwash the Pak Junta started around 1971 and is continuing till now. I cannot help laughing at the ignorance, and be disgusted at Pakistanis denial/distortion of truth. Arrogance has a limit. Do these morons know that Mukti Bahini didn't even exist before the systematic genocide of 25th March, 1971? There was no mass-murder 3 weeks before, rather there were waves of civil protests because the Pak regime had the audacity to disregard the popular democratic choice. Bhutto even said that "There will be blood-bath if Sheikh Mujib is given the premiership." Do these morons know that Pak military surrounded the Rajarbagh Police Headquarters on the dawn of 25th night with tanks and ammunitions and killed a couple of thousand police brutally by shooting at them while they were asleep? They (Pak military) tried to kill all Bangalee police, army officers, security personnel, intellectuals, teachers, technocrats etc. in order to crush the very backbone of our society. That's what started the liberation war, and rightfully so. How dare they call that a "Police Action"? I feel pity to these morons because probably their history books taught them otherwise. >> Mr. Khan said: "Compare that number to 60 thousand Bengalis killed, half of them combatants and insurgents of Mukti Bahini. Now as for as the other 30 thousand civilian Bengalis killed I feel extremely sad that this happened to them. May Allah rest them in peace and award them highest ranks in the Paradise". Again: "Its time for repentance from Allah. As I said in my second email that as a Pakistani I love Bangladesh and wish it goodluck." "What needs to be done now is to forgive and forget. Blame game is only going to perpetuate the painful saga of 1971 indefinitely. What is the gain from such hatred ?? nothing." Do they sincerely believe that only 30 thousand Bangalees and half a million non-Bangalees and Biharis were killed? I just have one thing for them: May Allah open their eyes and help them find the truth. May Allah punish those hypocrites who pretend to be true Muslims, claim to be the bearer of the Islamic torch, while committing criminal acts and denying the truth. There were no official estimates of how many Bangalees were killed and while the figure 3 million may be a little exaggerated, it was definitely not less than a million. On the other hand, There weren't even half a million Biharis/non-Bangalees present in Bangladesh at that time, so what are they talking about? I am pretty sure this figure would not be more than a couple of thousands. Whatever happened to them, it was due to a backlash for their anti-liberation campaign, for their collaboration with Pak army and the Razakars/Al-Badrs, and hatred to Bangalees. What else do they expect from a war-torn society? Do they think we feel happy that they got killed? No. We also ask Allah for the salvation of all the lost souls, be them Bangalees, Biharis, Muslims, or Hindus, but we also want justice. It's not a blame game for us. We want recognition for our sacrifice, and repentance from Pakistan government for what they did in 1971 in the name of religion and unity. I DO NOT have any personal hatred against any Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Muslim. I am neither pro-Pakistan, nor pro-Indian. However, I believe Pakistan should at least officially apologize for it's atrocities in 1971 (just as Germany did for WWII), and remove the misunderstanding and uneasiness between us. May all creatures of Allah live in peace together .
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Dec 4 2003, 02:06 AM
Global Jihad Central: Lashkar-e-Musharraf -- Kaushik Kapistalam Lashkar-e-Musharraf Kaushik Kapisthalam After 9-11, many Americans remember Pakistani dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf's speech to Pakistanis in English, in which he explained his U-turn on the Taliban and Al Qaida. Faced with a "with us or against us" ultimatum from an angry America, Gen.Musharraf told his rich Pakistani elite brethren that Pakistan had to finally "shun extremism" and join hands with the US. What many Americans do not know is that Musharraf gave another speech on September 19, 2001 in his native Urdu in which he gave a different explanation for Pakistan's jihad U-turn. The alliance with America, he told his jihad-loving fellow Pakistanis, is not going to be permanent. Instead Musharraf likened it to Prophet Mohammed's temporary alliance with the Jews, called the Treaty of Hudaybiya. He reminded his jihad loving countrymen that the Prophet made a calculated decision to side with the Jews, so that he can ward off the infidels. Later on, the Prophet went back on the alliance and was able to defeat the Jews. Musharraf's message to Pakistani jihadis, who know their Quran well, was crystal clear – Pakistan's U- Turn on terrorism was temporary and the jihad would resume after the immediate crisis with America was averted. A few weeks ago, Pakistani strongman Gen.Musharraf announced a new crackdown on previously banned terrorist groups. His faux Democratic government announced a fresh ban on the now renamed terrorist groups. Proclaiming these new steps, Musharraf said - "apart from the inhumane aspect of terrorism, it is also adversely affecting the economic growth and investment. Pakistan is at a critical cross-road where it needs to avoid pitfalls so that it can take a lead role in the world." Clearly this indicates that Musharraf has decided to take a stand against the terrorists for good, right? Not quite. To fully understand the recent steps, one must take a look at the past. In January 2002, Gen.Musharraf announced what seemed to be radical steps in the war against terror. He banned terrorist groups, including Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, both of whom were involved in a long terrorist campaign in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This crackdown was not voluntary. In October 2001, a Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist launched a suicide attack on the Kashmir State legislature, killing dozens. Jaish chief Maulana Masood Azhar even conducted a press conference in the Pakistani city of Karachi, taking credit for the atrocity. Pakistani authorities immediately took damage control steps, making Jaish withdraw the claim. But the damage was done. On December 13, 2001, another group of "fidayeen" terrorists launched an audacious attack on India's parliament in New Delhi, which was foiled. India immdeitately blamed Jaish and Lashkar. Western diplomats, who saw India's evidence, backed up India's claims. These attacks spurred India to mobilize its army, threatening to take out the terrorist training camps in Pakistani territory. It was in this background, with American diplomatic pressure and Indian military threat that Gen.Musharraf was forced to ban Jaish and Lashkar. Even before the ink dried on the proscription papers, these groups renamed themselves. The freezing of the groups' bank accounts was a joke, since they were tipped off and withdrew most of the funds hours before the freeze took effect. On the legal front, the crackdown turned into a revolving door for the terrorists. While more than 2000 terrorists were arrested following the 2002 ban, all but a handful were released after a few weeks. But what happened with the leaders was egregious. Jaish chief Azhar and Lashkar's Hafiz Saeed were whisked away to the safe houses of Pakistan's sinister intelligence service, ISI. After a few months of R&R, they were released without any charges being pressed against them. To make up for their troubles, Pakistan government even paid them a fat stipend! While Musharraf claimed that he let the legal process run its course, what he did not say was that both the terrorist chiefs could have been prosecuted under existing Pakistani anti-terror laws. A top Al Qaeda leader, Abu Zubeida was found hiding in a Lashkar safe house. Pakistani authorities are on the record stating that Jaish-e- Mohammed terrorists had been responsible for a series of Church bombings in Pakistan, including one that killed Americans. As the leaders of their respective groups, there was plenty of evidence against Saeed and Azhar. Once freed in 2003, the terrorist leaders took to jihad with renewed vigor. Jaish's Azhar and Lashkar's Saeed barnstormed around the country, recruiting volunteers for Jihad in Indian Kashmir and Afghanistan. Saeed, in particular, spewed venom on America in one rally after another and even collected funds for widows of the "martyrs" in Iraq. Some of the rallies were conducted in military property, addressing Pakistani troops, which indicates a high level of collusion between Musharraf's government and the terrorist groups. One of the many examples of the clout of these groups was an incident involving the arrest of Gunawan, the brother of Indonesian terrorist mastermind, Hambali from a Lashkar-e-Taiba owned seminary in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi. Even as Pakistani authorities were slapping the cuffs on Gunawan, Lashkar's Saeed was giving a "commencement" speech to the Jihadi graduated.gifs in the same compound, asking them to consider suicide bombing as a career step. Dying in such an attack, Saeed told his captive audience, would guarantee the "martyr" an entry into paradise. So why did Musharraf act now? Just two days before the latest steps, US Ambassador to Pakistan, Nancy Powell, issued an unusually stern warning, naming Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba in particular. Such statements are unheard of in the diplomatic realm. The fact that Ambassador Powell made such a strongly worded reprobation indicates a level of frustration in the American circles with Musharraf. While he may privately promise the moon, his public steps are nothing but a smoke and mirrors show designed to show action where there is none. Just days after the latest "crackdown", there are signs that this too is a farce. While Musharraf banned the latest incarnation of the Jaish, he put the Lashkar-e-Taiba's new avatar only on a "watch list" even though Ambassador Powell specifically named Lashkar in her warning. The logic of placing a previously banned terrorist group a "watch list" and calling it a crackdown is facetious to say the least. Despite being on a terrorist watch list, Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed was allowed to address a 150,000 strong rally on Eid day marking the end of the month of Ramadan. "Jihad is inevitable for the glory of Islam. The jihad process is continuing in Kashmir, Bosnia, Palestine and Iraq. Jihad has made Jews and Christians worried. They call jihad terrorism. We will continue jihad without any fear or pressure and will not stop it on the asking of anybody," said Saeed, seemingly undeterred by Musharraf's "crackdown". Even more comically, Musharraf's minions announced that this time around they would not arrest the terrorist volunteers, instead settling for a "cash surety", which they claimed would keep the jihadis on a leash. This being the Ramadan month, the jihadis are flush with cash, thanks to the Islamic practice of Zakat, which calls for the rich to donate to the needy and the suffering. In Pakistan, Zakat has traditionally been one of the main sources of funds for jihadi groups. With plenty of money, the jihadis can easily afford to pay the surety and vanish into the hinterlands, until their leaders call them into action. Moreover, Reuters reported a week after the ban that Pakistani banks indicated that they had still not closed the terrorist accounts. This is more than enough time for the jihadis to clean out their accounts. All these indicate that the latest "crackdown" is a mockery. Contrast this with Gen.Musharraf's tough action against his political opponents. Asif Ali Zardari has been in prison for seven years without trial. Pro-democracy leader Javed Hashmi has just been arrested on flimsy charges of "inciting the army". And these are people whose parties received almost 50% of the popular vote amongst them. So why cannot Gen.Musharraf, who has personally stated that the extremists number only 1% of his country, take action against their leaders? For a dictator who rules by fiats, there is no excuse for not putting terrorist leaders permanently behind bars. Despite its pretense as an ally against terror, Pakistan today has become global jihad central and a haven for terrorists. From Indonesia to Australia to Kenya to Britain and even Turkey, every terrorist event seems to have a Pakistan connection. Every Islamic terrorist, no matter where he is arrested, seems to be either born in, trained in or has been hiding in Pakistan. The fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons makes it doubly dangerous. The multiple bogus crackdowns on terrorists show that Musharraf kept his promise to his jihadi allies that he made on September 19, 2001. Clearly, Musharraf still views the jihadis as an asset and not a threat. While the world is concerned about a renewed Al Qaeda, it must take notice of the happenings in the country that has always provided succor to Islamic terrorists of every hue. So while the US may proclaim its successes in the war on terror, it can only ignore the resurgence of the Lashkar-e-Musharraf at its own peril. Kaushik Kapistalam is an IT professional based in Atlanta who writes frequently on south Asia.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 4 2003, 02:24 PM
BB returning to Pakistan Soon: Amin Fahim Pakistan Times Monitoring Report LAHORE: The Chairman, Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD), Amin Fahim on Wednesday disclosed that Ms Benazir Bhutto would soon be returning Pakistan and expressed his commitment to continue his struggle till that time. He was addressing a function at Karachi Hall of Lahore High Court in Lahore arranged by the People's Lawyers Forum to commemorate 37th Foundation Day of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). Secretary General PPPP, Jehangir Badar, Vice President LHC Bar MM Alam, MPA and Lawyer Sajida Mir, Ahmed Awais, Chaudhary Ghulam Abbass and others also addressed the gathering. Paying tribute to the legal fraternity, Amin Fahim said that our struggle for the rule of democracy would continue. He said that such socities never make any progress where provision of justice is denied to the people. Jehangir Badar said that PPP had come into existence to ameliorate the lot of the downtrodden and the party would continue its struggle under the leadership of BB till its objective is achieved. Bilawal, Asifa fly back to Dubai Bilwal and Asifa, children of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto left for Dubai Wednesday after spending Eid with their father Asif Ali Zardari. The two children had arrived here on November 25 to celebrate Eid with their imprisoned father. Bilwal and Asifa were seen off at the airport by the Pakistan Peoples Party activists and leaders.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 4 2003, 02:26 PM NEW DELHI: India on Wednesday rejected President Pervez Musharraf’s offer to withdraw troops from Kashmir, reiterating that Jammu and Kashmir was its ‘integral part’. Indian State Minister for External Affairs Dig Vijay Singh told parliament that India was committed to resolve all outstanding issues with Pakistan according to the Simla Accord and the Lahore Declaration. In reply to a question about President Musharraf’s offer for simultaneously withdraw troops from Kashmir, he said Jammu and Kashmir is integral part of India and the issue will be resolved after withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the territory under Pakistan’s control. Singh also said that New Delhi had conveyed to the US that Washington must take into account the Indian security concerns, while providing military aid to Pakistan. He said the purpose of offer for establishing hotline links and holding meetings between the coast guards of the two countries twice a year from January next was to avoid frequent arrests of both sides’ fishermen. "Now India is waiting for Pakistan’s response in this regard," he added. Separately, Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha has said the summit-level meeting between India and Pakistan will not take place on the sidelines of the Saarc summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad next month. In an interview with a private TV channel, he said that India would not hold high-level talks with Pakistan. Rather the process of mutual dialogue between the two sides would be resumed from the low level, he said. The minister rejected that India’s foreign policy was focused on Pakistan.
Posted by: acharya Dec 4 2003, 03:23 PM Rape of Unbelievers in Islam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mindset of Pakistanis favouring 1971 Genocide By Abul Kasem This re-count starts when I was in Thailand in 1973 to do my post graduated.gif studies in Engineering. The Institution was AIT and being an international institution for post graduated.gif study there were students from many parts of the world, though the majority were from the Asian countries. There was sizable number of Bangladeshi as well as Pakistani and Indian students. Bangladesh was just liberated and most of us still had the fresh memories of the holocaust and never expected the Pakistanis to be friendly with us. But to our surprise, we found that most Pakistanis were quite nice a bunch of friendly helpful people. They were extremely curious about what had happened in Bangladesh during that turbulent nine-month period. Many a time we used to have lengthy chat sessions with them. These Pakistanis were extremely religious. And they used to preach on us on all aspects of the last revelations of God, that is Islam. They used to think that our knowledge of Islam was incomplete, erroneous and filled with Hindu practices. They used to preach on us like a priest gives sermons on the followers. Their devotion to Islam was so strong that they forced the canteen manager to open counter for Muslim students so that they (the Muslims) can eat the food sanctioned by Islam. Naturally, many Bangalees who are religious minded were greatly impressed by their words and practices. But a sinner like me was very skeptical about their words and actions right from the very beginning. Then came the topic of creation of Bangladesh. Naturally, they sided with the Pak army although they expressed sorrow for the lives lost. When they heard that 3 million people were massacred and that the action of Pak army cannot be dismissed simply as an act of restoration of peace and order they simply laughed. The reason was that they did not believe what had happened to our people in occupied Bangladesh. When we asked them how many Bangalees were killed, they quoted a figure of 3,000 or to that order. They also insisted that those killed were mostly Hindus so we should not bother too much about the massacre. That was to say that the killing of Hindus was all right. We pointed out that the figure of 3 million was not invented by the Government of Bangladesh but the figure was from reliable foreign sources such as AFP, Reuters, Time magazine, etc. We also told them that a Pakistani journalist by the name of Anthony Mascarenhas has written a book titled ‘The Rape of Bangladesh’ where he had quoted a similar figure. The Pakistanis simply dismissed those facts and said that the foreign journalists were bribed by India to write these figures. When we asked them how did they get the figure of 3,000, they said that that figure was released by the military authorities. And how about the 200, 000 rape cases? They were adamant that not a single woman was raped. Such is the power of Pak oligarchy and Pak military to condition peoples’ mind. Now, the interesting point was that whenever the atrocities of the Pak army were mentioned to them, they were all adamant that we (the Bangalees) are to blame for that. Why? Simply because we were not good Muslims. How? If we were good Muslims, we should not have voted for the Awami League. They told us that the right parties to vote were Pakistan Muslim League or Jamat-i-Islami. It was no secret to guess that most Pakistanis considered us (Bangalees) as non Muslims as almost all of us voted for Awami League. Therefore they opined that the genocide was not really a genocide! It was getting rid of the non-Muslims. After all, they (the non-Muslims) were not really human beings. Everyone knows that Thailand and especially Bangkok has plenty of seedy joints to have fun and frolic with young women. I shall admit that I went to one of those joints along with a couple of friends of mine. Being a sinner I did not have serious problem with those things. However, one day we got the shock of our lives when we found these Pakistani Islamists sitting comfortably and blithely at the massage parlour and ogling at the scantily dressed amorous Thai sex kittens. Then they saw us. To our surprise, they expressed no shame or they even did not try to hide their faces. They openly welcomed us and shook hands with us as per Islamic style. We were simply stunned and lost for any word. The Pakistanis even told us which girls were good and sexually attractive, etc. etc. They were not ashamed or afraid to admit that they visited those joints quite frequently. Most of them had their favourite girls with whom they had plenty of erotic fun. Those things were unbelievable to me and I thought that I must have been in Mars or another planet or that God has changed his mind on sins and virtues. After a few weeks, an opportunity came for me to ask one of these Islamists as to what would happen to them since they have committed the sin of zina. They were very surprised at me for this impertinence. He told me that they have committed no sin. What? No sin! My brain must have failed to work! I simply could not hold my breath any longer to listen to what they had to say. He told me that Thais were not Muslims; so having fun with their girls were all right. In fact, he told me that that had been the practice in Islam for centuries. Whenever the Muslims defeated the non-Muslims, they could do whatever they (the Muslims) wanted with the non-Muslims. The Muslims can use the non-Muslim women as sex slaves and please themselves as they wished. A Muslim even had the right to kill the women if he wished. In simple language the non-Muslims were not really human beings. They (the non-Muslims) were inferior even to cattle and animals. Moreover, the Pakistani told me that the Prophet had allowed to have sex if a man is living overseas. I could not believe of what I was hearing! He then quoted me from his memory many verses from Koran and Hadith to support his views. Then I reminded my Pakistani friend that there was quite a small minority of Muslims in Thailand. So, if by accident he had sex with one of the Thai Muslim prostitutes what will befall him. He answered glibly, “No problem.” When I return to Pakistan I shall have a Milad Mehfil and ask for forgiveness. Finally, the Hajj is there for him to receive the forgiveness. But he said that that might not be necessary because he was very sure that none of the girls he had sex with were Muslims. If a Pakistani reads this re-count he/she may be greatly offended, no doubt about it. Many Pakistanis will defend that the view by one person does not mean any thing. No apology will be sought. Any Pakistani can form whatever opinion he thinks is suitable. It is up to him/her. Let us look at the wider implications of what my Pakistani Islamists had said. Was it an individual’s wrong interpretations of the holy books of Islam? Was it the mindset of a mentally sick person? Do not be fooled by these thoughts. For when we look back, we see that that was the mindset of Pakistani army recruits who unleashed a reign of terror leading into massacring millions of Bangalees. Pakistanis may differ on many matters but when the question of Islamic superiority comes, they are unanimous. This was the work of the Oligarchy, the army and the clerics of Pakistan. These groups have rigidly programmed the vast majority of Pakistanis with the thought that they (the Pakistanis) have the absolute superiority in Islamic matters. And this thinking got a further boost with the detonation of Islamic bomb in 1998. We Bangalees have no problem with their superior thinking. The only trouble is that these dangerous thoughts have cost 3 million dear lives of Bangalees. So, to put everything in a simple language, the Pakistani army did not kill any human being in Bangladesh. They only cleared the field from pest; just like a farmer spreads insecticide to free his crops from devastation. So, is the case of the Pak army. They simply eliminated the non-Muslims and the not so good Muslims to protect the good Muslims those who would follow them. The question of remorse or guilt feeling does not arise at all. You see, the Pak army did not rape any women. They simply enjoyed the flesh of non-Muslims. Even if there were some excessive force being applied, there is no need to feel guilty about that. The ubiquitous Milad is there; the Hajj is there too to remove even the slightest trace of culpability. A serial killer is a psychologically sick person. He gets pleasure in seeing the suffering of a dying person in his hands. But deep down, the serial killer knows that what he is doing is wrong. He is surely aware of the eventual punishment if he is caught. That is why, most serial killers readily admit their crime and on many occasions regret of their actions when he recovers from his sickness. How about the perpetrators of a genocide? They are perfectly normal. Most of them are really very nice, polite, and soft spoken (like the Islamic Circle of North America’s leader Ashrafuzzaman Khan). But there is one trait that separates them from the rest of us and that is, the uncompromising faith in the supremacy of what they belief and their inability to accept the existence of others if they do not follow them. Any means is justified to advance their belief even if that means the annihilation of an entire race. That is why no Pakistani has ever condemned the genocide of the Bangalees. That is why they will do that again if an opportunity lends itself. Since no crime has been committed, the question of trial of the perpetrators of genocide does not arise at all. Isn’t it so? This is the mindset of the planners and executioners of Bangladesh genocide. This is the mindset of Yahya Khan, Tikka Khan, Golam Azam, Ayatollah, Ashrafuzzaman -------. This why we have Auswitcz, Kosovo, Bosnia, Palestine, East Timor -----. Is Islam the only religion responsible for the genocide? Surely not. Every organised religion on earth has sanctioned murder, rape loot, plunder ---etc. as long as that is directed towards the non-believers. Religion has a cousin to go with it. That is racism. Religion and racism go hand in hand. That is why we have Hitler, Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic and so on. Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the masses.” In today’s world that is a very understatement. If people take opium they become addicted and ruin their health. There should not be any problem for humanity on that. Today, religion has become a vermin (read pest) for humanity. This cancerous virus has spread in every human being on this planet. I am not sure if we will find an antidote for this disease in our life time or not. Why did I write this essay after all these years? It can be summed up by a quotation from Shakespeare. The famous bard wrote, “A little fire is quickly trodden out; Which, being suffered, rivers cannot quench. ( Shakespeare, ‘Henry VI, Part Three,’ IV, viii,7. (A fire ‘suffered’ is one permitted to burn.). The fire is still burning inside me although the events of 1971 may be more like some specks of dust in the minds of Bangalees who till this day would not admit that Pakistanis have done excess all in the name of religion. Abul Kasem Is an academic and writes from Australia.
Posted by: muddur Dec 4 2003, 07:35 PM
'Pakistan no match for Indian navy' By: M K Tayal New Delhi: Two days before Navy Day and with a Rs 3,000 crore deal for Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov in hand, naval chief Admiral Madhvendera Singh said Pakistan was no match for the Indian navy. However, he said the Chinese navy was a formidable foe. “The Chinese navy is larger than ours. They have more subs, destroyers and small frigates but we are better in one area - we have one aircraft carrier, Virat. China does not have an aircraft carrier,” the naval chief said, addressing the press in the run-up to Navy Day. “After India acquires aircraft carrier Admiral Groshkov, we will become more powerful,” he added. The deal with Russia for Admiral Groshkov will be signed later this month during the visit of Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov. The naval chief refused to confirm or deny whether the overall package included India getting on lease two Russian Akula class nuclear submarines and nuclear capable TU-22M long-range maritime bombers. The Indian navy has an acquisition budget of Rs 11,000 crore, which according to the naval chief, is more than adequate. While Admiral Groshkov, which has completed nearly half of its shelf life, cost Rs 3,000 crore, the smaller ships the Indian navy is planning to buy range from Rs 25 crore to Rs 300 crore in price. Interestingly, nearly 80 warships out of the total strength of the 139 ships are aging and will be decommissioned in the next 10 years. In a separate statement, Vice Admiral Madanjit Singh, Commander-in-Chief, Western Naval Command had on Monday said the Indian Navy was planning to induct 23 more warships into its fleet. Admiral Groshkov Cost: Rs 3,000 crore Weight: 44,500 tonne Features: Armed with a squadron of MiG-29k fighters Will be inducted: In four-and-a-half years. That means around 2008, just before the current AC, Virat is decommissioned.
Posted by: Reggie Dec 5 2003, 12:47 AM
Before Agra, India legitimized Musharraf by recognizing him as the President of Pakistan. The international pariah suddenly became legit, thanks to Vajpayees life-line. Vajpayee is about to throw a second life-line to Musharraf by offering unpreceedented concessions during the SAARC farce. It will come back to haunt India. Trickster Musharraff's islamic mind is playing the great game of hubidiya (sp?) against India. Like the Commonwealth, Pakistan should have been kicked out of the SAARC community of members because of the military coup by Musharraf. It is amazing that the founders of SAARC did not have this important clause inserted in its charter.
Posted by: vishal Dec 5 2003, 11:23 AM
Reggie, bcoz u know founder was not from BJP cool.gif If there is anything wrong(or most bizzare) with india then it is that we don't use our intelligance agencies.Otherwise we can breakup pukki-land within just 1 year.They are using ISI,MAFIA,Underworld to chieve everything possible to break our india.And we are treating them like soft baby with a shock-activated nuke in his hands so that it should not explode. hey god, give us parashuram, give us arjun, give us partha, give us netaji, give us bhagat singh, plz never give us impotent people as our leaders. sad.gif
Posted by: Mudy Dec 5 2003, 10:20 PM
India warned against fencing LoC: ISPR guitar.gif ISLAMABAD: The Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Friday said Pakistan has warned New Delhi against fencing the Line of Control. “Fencing is a violation of agreements. Kashmir is a disputed territory and no side could alter its status,” ISPR Director General Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan told BBC. He said Islamabad would use diplomatic channels to resolve the matter. He said sustainable peace in the region could only be achieved if India gave positive response to peace efforts by Pakistan. He said both sides should show sincerity in resolve longstanding issues. “Efforts to destroy peace must be avoided,” he added.—APP
Posted by: Reggie Dec 6 2003, 08:31 AM
This is what I had feared (a few posts ago). Precisely when India should be "wringing" the neck of a dying Pakistan, India is about to commit a massive blunder by offering all sorts of economic life-line to Pakistan. All in the name of peace. It will come back to haunt India. Pakistan will ask for the moon, India will offer the SUN! Expect Pakistan to demand India to set up IT schools on the levels of IITs and see how TiE rushes in to Pakistan to "collaborate" in setting up such schools. Just watch how FICCI, CII rush in to "help" Pakistan set up institutions so the terrorist countries can then learn how to export in detriment of Indian manufacturers and service providers. Wait and see how Pakistan demands massive economic aid from India (and India succumbs to) in return for a sustainable peace in the region. ****************************************************** Elusive peace with India offers tempting economic benefits for Pakistan ASSOCIATED PRESS ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 6 — After 56 years of conflict with India, whispers are growing in Pakistan about the benefits of peace. Rather than shells and bullets, truckloads of fresh vegetables and consumer goods could come across the border from India, they say. A reduced military budget would allow for desperately needed spending in education and infrastructure, and foreign investors could finally come knocking.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Dec 6 2003, 11:44 AM
This whole Hindi-Paki Bhai bhai is a result of behind the scenes US action. It is clear that the US achieves this by the usual carrot and stick policy. The US has realized that India is by and large a real democracy- that means the popular aspirations are likely to heavily influence national action. The US also realized that the Indian population unlike that of Israel does not really think much about its Islamic enemies other than for a few days after a major terrorist strike. Rest of the time the Indians are busy thinking about Roti/chaaval ityadi. So the basic American game plan is to keep the Indian Roti and Chaval in their control and play stick and carrot with it. As result with threats of American withdrawal from the Indian economy, they have coerced India into relieving their ally TSP. This is done by leveraging the power of the populist demand for Roti/chaval on a nationalist government. So now that TSP will live for longer than Krishna expects they gain an additional leverage to contain India if she is threating to grow bigger than they want. This goes hand in hand with them working on the Indian elite to orient themselves in an Ameri-centric way. While I do not watch movies I heard from a knowledgeable colleague that there are a several of Ameri/west-centric movies coming up these days in the Bolly-circles. I am also told that they even employed an American pornographist in one of the movies. This has been an age old tactic of positive image-building- the women and paradise leitmotif.
Posted by: vishal Dec 6 2003, 12:49 PM
one thing is sure.... it is not coincedance, that a baywatch blond worked in bollywood movie... that shah-rukh khan danced in front of american flag that more american centric movies are being made than actual indian that indians specific topics are totally absent from bollywood today.. that bollywood becoming a window to WEST... humm...i agree with this psy-op theory cool.gif
Posted by: Mudy Dec 7 2003, 12:36 AM,0008.htm Chief of banned terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed Maulana Masood Azhar has said that in Islam the only meaning of jihad was killing, even as another terrorist group supporter asked Pakistan to declare that suicide bombing against west was jihad. "In Islam the only meaning of jihad was killing, and those who projected the concepts of jihad Akbar and jihad Asghar were against Islam," Azhar was quoted by an Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt as saying. Azhar was speaking at a gathering at Pattoki in Pakistan organised by another banned terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba. Jihad Akbar is supposed to be non-violent while jihad Asghar is supposed to be the war by the sword. He said it was a conspiracy against Islam to say that jihad was not killing. Another supporter of terrorist groups in Pakistan, justice (retired) Javid Iqbal said at a seminar in Lahore that Pakistan and the Islamic world should declare that suicide bombing against the west was actually jihad. It was the United States that was doing terrorism and not the suicide bombers of various organisations, he was quoted by daily Jung as saying.
Posted by: muddur Dec 7 2003, 02:18 PM
What's bollywood got to do with these SCUMS ???? When will they STOP equating Indian Muslims ==== Pakistan ???? mad.gif: mad.gif: DOWN with this media BTW, who is this By SAJEDA MOMIN ???? A MAD Paki ??? liar.gif thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif Flush.gif A turban clad Sunny Deol, muscles rippling under a blood-stained kurta runs atop a running train shooting down with a single AK-47 helicopter after helicopter bearing the ubiquitous green star and crescent as the Pakistani train hurtles towards the Indian border — this is the climax scene of the box office hit Gadar, a love story set during Partition and its aftermath. Without paying too much attention to details like does India really need a huge army to take on Pakistan when Sunny Deol can do it all by himself, jingoistic and anti-Pakistan films have flourished in India in the last few years. Animosity Now as relations between the two warring nations begin to thaw the Pakistani foreign minister Khursheed Kasauri has made an intelligent appeal to Bollywood — lay off making films which depict Pakistan as the enemy. As he rightly says they serve no good purpose but simply spur anti-India films being made across the border and fuel animosity. Bollywood’s own King Khan — Shahrukh, the heart-throb of millions and currently rated as the most powerful star along with Big B Amitabh Bachchan, echoed Kasuri’s comments on the same day at a bash in Singapore. For the first time he had the guts to openly say “I detest Hindi films which depict Muslims, Islam or Pakistan in a bad light”. Whether it is Border, Hero, Mission Kashmir, Zameen or the yet to be released multi-starrer LOC, Pakistan — and the ISI — has become Bollywood’s bogeyman, much like the Soviet Union was for Hollywood before the fall of Communism. Ever since relations with our neighbours on the western front deteriorated, Bollywood has been able to find the enemy, but unfortunately it has often blurred the line between Pakistan the nation-state, and Islam the religion. Considering it is an industry which has a disproportionately high number of Indian Muslims working in it, lately many of the films have been insensitive to minority sentiments in their enthusiasm for Pakistan-bashing. While the jingoism in the “so very patriotic’’ Gadar can be tolerated, stretching this to being anti-Islam is unpardonable. A flagrant example of this is when the “brave’’, but “sensitive’’ hero Sunny is asked by the Pakistani villain, played by Amrish Puri, to convert to Islam if he wants his bride back. After much agonising Sunny agrees. But it is the depiction of this ceremony that is most offensive. Before a huge crowd of “Pakistanis’’ (shot at the Bara Imambara in Lucknow) the hero is converted to Islam not by reciting the qalma (which is bearing testimony to Allah) as is the Islamic practice, but by chanting “Pakistan zindabad’’. Sunny, who of course bears no ill towards anyone, obliges but it is when he is asked by the qazi to chant “Hindustan mordabad’’ that our red-blooded Indian cannot hold back his anger and destroys everyone in sight. Gift from heaven Where the director or scriptwriter got this particular version of an Islamic conversion ceremony is anybody’s guess, but it is certainly a gift from heaven for the likes of Praveen Togadia and Narendra Modi. The Rs 4,000-crore industry churns out 800 films annually, twice as many as Hollywood, and it is estimated that 14 million Indians go to the movies every day, not taking into account the numbers who watch films in the comfort of their home. That gives Hindi films the capacity to brainwash at least 14 million people daily. The reach and impact of Bollywood is phenomenal. But with power comes great responsibility, and it is the latter which many directors are not showing lately. Gone are the days of Amar, Akbar Anthony when Bollywood tried to spread the word of communal harmony. Up to the 1980s most Hindi films had the token kind, good-natured Rahim chacha or David uncle to depict the multi-religious nature of India. The character was often added even if the story line did not necessarily need it, but it was done for the cause of political correctness. But in the changing political climate of the 90s with the rise of the BJP and when Hindutva began to be projected as being synonymous with Indian nationalism and culture these figures were discarded, probably when they were needed the most. Unlike in the nationalistic films of yore like Upkaar, Kranti or Karma where a Muslim character was always present generally shown dying for Mother India, a runaway hit like JP Dutta’s Border did not have a single Muslim soldier in the regiment fighting the Pakistanis. Released at a time when Hindu-Muslim relations in India were strained, it depicted Muslims on both sides of the border as cowards and traitors. Almost 50 per cent of Bollywood’s audience is Muslim whether it is the 150 million Muslims in India or their co-religionists across the border, in the Arab countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, and many other parts of the world where sub-titled copies of Hindi films flourish. That no Hindi blockbuster is released during the Islamic holy month of Ramazan when Muslims try to avoid films is testimony to the trade’s appreciation of the importance of this segment of viewers. Then why the insensitivity to their feelings? Ever since Independence it is Bollywood films which have thrived in Pakistan so much so that their own film industry has never taken off. Pakistan even banned Hindi films in order to protect its own fledgling film industry but it was unsuccessful. Whether it is homes in Pakistan or in those of its diaspora spread across the world, Pakistanis only watch Bollywood. They can reel off the names of Hindi film actors but won’t be able to tell you the name of a single Pakistani actor, unless he or she appears in television plays. It is not only in the interest of international relations that Bollywood stop Pakistan-bashing, but also for domestic communal harmony. Stereotypes of the Muslim terrorist add fuel to the fires started by organisations like the VHP. Critical acclaim The producer of noted Bengali film maker Mrinal Sen’s comeback film Amar Bhuvan starring Nandita Das backed out at the last minute because he did not want to invest in a story line which had an all Muslim theme so soon after the Gujarat riots, even though the film had nothing to do with Hindu-Muslim relations. He believed it would make bad financial sense as it would not appeal to viewers. Sen and his team went on to make the film on a tiny budget as they believed in it, and the film received critical acclaim. Hindi film producers and directors are no different. They too are affected by the current political climate. Karan Johar’s hit film Kabhie Khushi Kabhie Gham originally had the Hindu hero falling in love with a Muslim girl from Delhi’s Chandni Chowk. But he too did not want to take the risk of negative viewer-reaction and so converted it in to a typical rich versus poor love story, and raked in the money. Johar would have certainly been more daring as a director and done greater service to the cause of Hindu-Muslims relations if he had stuck to the original story line, though he may not have made as much money. Considering the influence of Hindi films on society, it is in the greater good that the Rahim chachas and David uncles are brought back. Some may consider them caricatures of Muslims and Christians, but they served a very useful purpose; at least they gave a better image of minorities than the current trend. The author is Assistant Editor, The Statesman When terrorists can be freedom fighters,0012.htm
Posted by: muddur Dec 7 2003, 02:48 PM
Posted by: Mudy Dec 7 2003, 04:16 PM
Jihadi terrorism and cognitive dissonance Ishtiaq Ahmed The terrorist attacks of 9/11 have radically changed perceptions about security, state sovereignty and borders, citizenship and civil liberties: but all for the worse. Not surprisingly an anti-Muslim wave is sweeping the world and non-Muslims are expressing apprehension and suspicion about Muslims in different ways. Some sensible voices can always be heard saying that only a tiny minority of extremist Muslims pose a problem to world peace; most Muslims are peaceful and decent. But since the small violent minority is feared to be present all over the world, this is no comfort for those who wish to protect themselves from wanton acts of violence and terror. How has the Muslim world reacted to 9/11? Very little serious research has been done on this subject, but since I am constantly engaged in a dialogue with Muslims of various nationalities and sectarian and political persuasions my experiences may be of interest. My impression is that only a minority of Muslims seriously believe that 9/11 was a crime committed by Muslims. Most seem to think that it was the work of the enemies of Islam. They believe that a grand conspiracy has been hatched by Zionists, CIA, FBI, Hindus and fundamentalist Christians to tarnish the fair name of Islam and demonise Muslims. Some theories argue that even if it were true that 15 men who took part in those operations were Saudis and the rest Muslims from other Arab states, they were either agents of the enemies of Islam or had been hypnotised or drugged into crashing themselves into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The fact that Osama bin Laden has himself spoken on Al-Jazeera TV, confirming that Al Qaeda masterminded not only 9/11 but many subsequent bombings all over the world is dismissed as fake and manipulated propaganda. Another variant of the conspiracy thesis is that Osama bin Laden and his associates are CIA agents and not true Muslims. How do we explain these Muslim reactions? There is no doubt that the Muslim community feels cornered and attacked by the detractors of Islam. Indeed, if Muslims believe that their faith preaches the unity of humankind and that peace is the mission of Islam they cannot simultaneously accept that some pious Muslims can act contrary to the Islamic teachings. We need to understand this psychological situation. Psychologists have developed the concept of cognitive dissonance to explain how individuals or groups of individuals rationalise a contradiction between two cognitions or beliefs or a contradiction between cognitions and facts. When confronted by a situation in which their primary cognition is threatened by counter evidence they disconnect themselves from the facts and hold on to their primary belief. Thus if the primary belief or self-image is that Muslims cannot use violence unjustly, the evidence conflicting with their beliefs will be declared spurious and, therefore, inadmissible. The greater the idealised self-esteem about oneself, the greater the reluctance, or, we can say, cognitive inability, to accept evidence or facts contrary to that idealised self-image. The classic example is that of the German response to the Nazi epoch. For many proud Germans the phenomenon of Hitlerism was simply not possible; how could the bearers of the most advanced culture within the Western civilisation produce such an anomaly? How could a people that had produced Hegel and Kant be ruled by a monstrous regime as the rest of the world was alleging? The general tendency was to see themselves as victims of a Jewish-Communist-Anglo-Saxon conspiracy. Only after the war did a proper self-criticism began to develop among Germans and they realised the error of not seeing reality as it was. It is therefore important to discard all idealised and glorified versions of the past and present a balanced and realistic account. It is high time Muslim academics take upon themselves a critical but constructive review of their culture and civilisation. Just as Christians have, despite the teachings of Jesus about turning the other cheek, been guilty of staggering crimes against humanity; and two thousand years of persecution have not precluded the Jews from acting violently and mercilessly against Palestinians; and Hinduism’s doctrine of ahimsa has not prevented its followers from practising apartheid against their lower castes and casteless peoples, there is nothing to suggest that Muslims can never commit acts of terror because their faith does not allow them to. Extremism and terror are deeply rooted in the history of Islam. The third pious successor of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Hadrat Uthman, was murdered in 756 A.D. by Muslims, many of whom were members of families that in the past had shared close, friendly relations with him. The dissenting sect of Khwarjis took the extreme position that the Quran is a complete source of all knowledge and therefore there is no need for human endeavour when dealing with issues of the world. They assassinated the fourth caliph Ali in 661 AD because in their opinion he had deviated from the Quran. The massacre at Karbala of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) grandson, Imam Hussain, and his 72 followers in 680 AD, by a Muslim army remains one of the most heartless acts of human felony. It was avenged in 750 AD when the ruling Ummayyad clan was tricked into attending ostensibly a reconciliation dinner arranged by the rival Hashimite clan of the Prophet (PBUH). Except for one Ummayyad who escaped and established his rule in Spain, all the others were brutally killed and their bodies dumped under the table while the hosts enjoyed a long night of eating and festivity. Therefore to believe that in the beginning of the 21st century Muslims are incapable of using terror or of deviating from the lofty standards of their faith is sheer delusion. Acts of terror and cruelty can be found all along in Muslim history, but there can be no doubt that most of the time Muslims have lived in peace and made important contributions to the development of human civilisation. In terms of social analysis it is a major fallacy to assume that beliefs or ideas always govern human behaviour completely or even essentially. Both Western and Muslim responses to 9/11 remain unbalanced. The need of the moment is daring scholarship that can correct all misconceptions, prejudices and biased generalisations. The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is
Posted by: Mudy Dec 7 2003, 04:25 PM
Pakistan Is ...... By BARRY BEARAK Published: December 7, 2003 Maulana Azam Tariq's assassins were of the thorough sort, firing 30 or 40 bullets into their victim, aiming especially at the head and neck. The Sunni cleric died along with his driver and three bodyguards, murdered near a tollbooth in a high-security area of Islamabad, the rich, spacious and usually sedate capital of a poor, crowded and deeply tumultuous country: Pakistan. Azam Tariq was considered an extreme man even in a nation abundant with extremists. Often accused of ordering the deaths of innocent Shiites, he made his home in Jhang, a robust city in the vast plains of central Punjab. It is a relatively prosperous area, with an occasional tractor to share beastly burdens with the water buffalo. But the greatest portion of the wealth remains with feudal landlords, most of whom are Shiites. Resentment of these landlords helped provoke years of spasmodic sectarian violence. This reciprocal bloodshed joined the other centrifugal forces that always seem to be flinging Pakistan toward bedlam: the religious fanaticism, the ethnic separatism, the political corruption, the four military takeovers, the three wars with India, the two wars in Afghanistan, the inconstant friendship of America. As it happened, I interviewed Azam Tariq two days before he was gunned down. ''Anyone will know how to find me,'' he had promised in lieu of directions. And indeed, people in Jhang confidently pointed the way through the curvy and narrow lanes of an old neighborhood, where an automobile seemed a clumsy machine amid motor scooters and donkey carts. Maulana is a term of respect for a scholar, one dutifully applied by Azam Tariq's thousands of followers. That morning, the maulana was busy at his small compound, encircled in his office by dozens of supplicants needing help with their unpaid bills and unresolved quarrels. A bespectacled man with a henna tint to his stiff beard, Azam Tariq, 41, was wearing a turban, its long tail hanging over the front of his white linen shalwar kameez. He sat patiently on the floor behind a cloth-covered table, his ministrations repeatedly disrupted by phone calls. Outside were young sentries with machine guns. A closed-circuit TV monitored the mosque across the street. When Azam Tariq saw he had guests, he excused himself from the office and led my translator and me to a simply furnished guest room. An aide was sent to fetch bottles of 7Up and a plate of cookies. Then, unprompted by questions, the maulana began an enthusiastic self-defense, portraying himself as a reasonable man of virtuous restraint. Rather than killing Shiites, he said, they ''should merely be declared non-Muslims'' and jailed for 10 or 15 years. ''We have never called for violence against anyone.'' These were lies, which was to be expected. Pakistan is a great hub of duplicity, and the maulana was just one of the many chameleon characters who seemed able to operate at both its center and fringe, something like the nation itself, which is one of America's essential allies in the war against terrorism and also one of terrorism's essential incubators in its war against the West. Each time I visit the country, I hope for some blossom of understanding but return with the wilt of confusion. This is a nation of confounding murkiness, where every kind of deception, collusion and outright sham are recurring motifs in the political theater. Rumors and conspiracy theories are as commonly exchanged as rupee notes, the information -- some of it even true -- then twisted, inflated and endlessly rearranged. Much of the trickery is institutionalized. The I.S.I. -- the shorthand name for the military intelligence agencies -- is widely presumed to be an expert puppet master, the great Oz of a manipulated society. Rumors were the reason I wanted a word with the maulana. I'd heard that he had cut a deal with the military a year ago to spring himself from jail. Since Pakistan's most recent military coup, in October 1999, the country has been run by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, an often brash former commando. From the first, he professed a devotion to democracy and a loathing for the nation's ample supply of knavish politicians. His deepest belief, however, seems to be in his own indispensability, and he has connived to hold on to power even after allowing national elections. His patriotic campaigns against corruption and extremism have most often given way to the more pressing priorities of mundane self-interest. The case of Azam Tariq is but a single example. Two years ago, soon after 9/11, the general ordered the jailing of the maulana and several other incendiary mullahs. Months later, in one of his many rousing denunciations of radical Islam, Musharraf officially outlawed Azam Tariq's organization, Sipah-e-Sahaba (Warriors of the Prophet's Companions), saying Pakistanis were ''fed up'' with ''fratricidal killings.'' But these pronouncements, however sincere, meant little in practice. Much like other banned groups, Sipah-e-Sahaba merely had to change its name to go on operating. In fact, when elections were finally held, Azam Tariq was able to win a seat in Parliament from his prison cell. Three weeks later, a court released him. Curiously enough, he then allied himself with the pro-Musharraf coalition in the Assembly, becoming one of many unlikely bedfellows in the governing majority, among them several legislators newly liberated from the distractions of lingering criminal cases. ''No, no, absolutely no deal was made,'' the maulana assured me, insisting that the timing of his release was purely a coincidence. Speaking in Punjabi, he swiftly changed the subject, preferring more familiar topics, like the many fruitless efforts by Shiite extremists to kill him. ''I've had 11 attempts on my life, with knives, guns, bombs, even rocket launchers,'' he boasted, as if these brushes with death verified his importance in life. As goodbyes were said, he embraced me in the traditional way, pulling me toward him so that our right shoulders touched. Then he apologized for not having provided a full meal. In amends, he ordered his brother to escort us to a restaurant called Kim's. ''Best Chinese food in Jhang'' was the last thing I heard the maulana say. The Smoldering Fire o be honest, Pakistan frightens me. Not the being there, despite recent attacks on foreigners, despite what happened to Daniel Pearl. I have visited Pakistan a few dozen times since 1998, most recently for five weeks this fall. Almost always I've found the people warm and generous and protective. Rather, what greatly alarms me is Pakistan as a potential meltdown, a nuclear power with too many combustibles in the national mix. I am hardly alone in my fears -- and yet this nation rarely finds itself under the American magnifying glass. ''Pakistan is an incredibly important country, but I don't think there's an awareness of that in the United States,'' Richard Haass told me. He had recently left the Bush administration as director of policy planning in the State Department and assumed the presidency of the Council on Foreign Relations. ''If you'd ask most people what are the biggest issues in the world, they'd say the Middle East, Iraq, North Korea, perhaps Afghanistan, a long list. But not a lot of people would say Pakistan.'' He, too, has pondered the dangerous skein of possibilities. ''Sure to be a nightmare is a breakdown in order. They haven't institutionalized succession in any meaningful way. At worst, you could have a loss of control over their nuclear weapons.'' Pakistan has a population (150 million) larger than all but five nations and more nuclear warheads (perhaps 50) than all but six or seven. Since its establishment, it has been in want of a coherent national identity: some there sarcastically call it less a nation than a crowd. Born in 1947, it was awkwardly excised from the British Empire in two separate pieces, an east and a west that happened to be 800 miles apart, with the largely Hindu behemoth of India situated in between. This new nation was meant to be the Muslim homeland of the subcontinent, but the formal role of Islam was left ambiguous and has ever remained an issue. Religion alone proved insufficient glue. In 1971, Pakistan's eastern half went its own way after Bengali Muslims -- with India's assistance -- broke loose and created Bangladesh. Four contiguous provinces remain: Baluchistan, Punjab, the Northwest Frontier and Sindh. Significant numbers of the present citizenry feel their greater bond is to ethnicity -- be it Pashtun or Baluchi or Sindhi -- and would rather not be part of Pakistan at all. Also under Islamabad's control is Azad (''Free'') Kashmir, one-third of a lovely Himalayan territory claimed by both the Indians and Pakistanis. The dispute is the main reason these neighbors continue to kill one another. Though the British are long gone, the Pakistanis themselves remain colonized by privation. About two-thirds of the population survives on less than $2 a day. Nearly two of every five children are undernourished. Only 44 percent of all adults can read (only 29 percent of the women). The mosques, rather than the government, provide what frayed social safety net there is. Perhaps that is because Pakistan is habitually broke. Barely 1 percent of the population pays income tax. More than half of the central budget goes toward the military and repayment of the national debt. Politically, Pakistan has been reliably unsteady, with democracy only a sporadic presence. The military has controlled the country for about half its 56 years. No elected government has ever completed a full term, and even when one is in place, it stays there only at the pleasure of the generals. The army -- some 500,000 strong -- is commonly thought to be Pakistan's elite institution. The military doesn't just dominate civilian affairs; its various ''welfare trusts'' are among the nation's largest industrial conglomerates. The Fauji Foundation, linked to the army, has substantial ventures in gas fields, sugar mills, a fertilizer plant, an oil terminal and an overseas employment service. Its corn flakes and other breakfast cereals control 80 percent of the market. Profits supply ex-servicemen and their families the quality schools and health care that most Pakistanis so badly lack. The great murkiness of Pakistan is largely the fault of this formidable army and the skulking I.S.I., which have pursued furtive alliances with many of the nation's most violent Islamic extremists. For more than a decade, the military has trained and financed civilian jihadis who cross into the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir to create havoc. This guerrilla combat was once an entirely indigenous Kashmiri rebellion against New Delhi, but the Pakistanis quickly hijacked it. Radical groups supplied much of the manpower, often enlisting students eager to enter paradise through the golden door of a martyr's death. The relentless havoc has time and again nudged the two new nuclear powers close to war. The alliance between the army and I.S.I. on one hand and extremists on the other has also led to a contorted set of cross-dependencies. Loyalties are now confused, and many Pakistanis wonder whether fundamentalist elements in the army's officer corps are more sympathetic to the jihadis than to their own superiors. Musharraf's own dedication to the Kashmir cause is indisputable. In early 1999, just months into his tenure as army chief, he ordered the paramilitary forces of the Northern Light Infantry across the agreed cease-fire line. When the troops were finally discovered, the Pakistanis claimed they were mujahedeen acting on their own, a feeble story belied when the bodies of dead soldiers began to be returned to their families. The Indians responded to the encroachment with air power, giant howitzers and thousands of troops. This semi-war ended only after Nawaz Sharif, then Pakistan's prime minister, made a desperate July 4 trip to Washington seeking diplomatic intervention by President Clinton. In a retelling of the episode, Bruce Riedel, a special assistant at the White House, wrote that there had been ''disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment.'' Musharraf has since assured the world that Pakistan is a responsible custodian of its nuclear arsenal. Still, pressures for one-upmanship with India are immense. According to American officials, Pakistan began swapping vital nuclear secrets with North Korea in exchange for ballistic missiles in the late 1990's. The dealings apparently continued after Musharraf's coup, but by the time they were disclosed last year, Islamabad was already a front-line warrior against Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded tepidly, imposing sanctions on a single Pakistani nuclear laboratory. In the past 25 years, American policy toward Pakistan has largely been devised to fit the events happening next door, in Afghanistan. Immediately after Sept. 11, Washington reinvigorated a waning friendship with Islamabad, employing President Bush's with-us-or-against-us ultimatum. The Pakistanis were ordered to forsake their Taliban associates, avail air bases to American troops and join in the hunt for terrorists. In many ways, Musharraf was pleased to comply. He had been treated warily in the West. Intimacy with America would come with generous military aid, forgiven debt and a new role for him, that of a reputable statesman. There was precedent for Musharraf's abrupt rehabilitation. An earlier Pakistani ruler, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, hanged his civilian predecessor, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and imposed a punitive version of Islam especially harsh on women. And yet however much Zia had fallen into bad odor, the air was freshened by his strategic usefulness after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Throughout the 80's, jihad was a word to be embraced, not abhorred, in Washington. The United States employed Pakistan as the conduit for billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan resistance. The I.S.I., tutored in artifice by the C.I.A. itself, thrived in the role of middleman benefactor to the many mujahedeen groups. Surely, the defeat of the Soviet Union was beneficial for the United States, but American policy lacked a fuller vision for the region. By 1989, when the Soviets finally fled their misadventure, Pakistan was awash with weapons, the inevitable leakage from the gushing pipeline. It was also an increasingly cordial locale for the heroes of radical Islam, the thousands of Pakistanis who fought in the jihad as well as the many ''Afghan Arabs'' from around the world who, like Osama bin Laden, had come to battle the infidels. With the Soviets vanquished, they would begin to look for new enemies. Making Democracy Safe for Musharraf ne evening in Islamabad, I decided to visit a session of the National Assembly, where the same scene had been repeating itself for months. Once the session was called to order, members of the opposition rose from their soft leather chairs and began pounding notebooks and tubes of paper on the curved tables before them. A ritual chant accompanied this arrhythmic drumbeat: ''Go, Musharraf, go! No, L.F.O., no!'' After about five minutes of this noise, the defiant legislators walked out, leaving pro-Musharraf lawmakers behind in a half-empty chamber. The main grievance was the Legal Framework Order -- the L.F.O. -- Musharraf's unilateral redrawing of the Constitution. He has bestowed upon himself the power to appoint Supreme Court justices and military chiefs, dissolve the Parliament and fire the prime minister. In other words, officials -- whether elected or otherwise -- were free to perform their duties so long as the general did not disapprove of how they did it. After the 1999 coup, Musharraf promised his countrymen a ''true democracy,'' a way of governance he found hard to define though he openly supposed it would require his continuing guidance. Much the same had been pledged by the three previous military rulers, but the public was again keen for a fresh start, and the coup was widely cheered. Pakistanis had soured on Nawaz Sharif, an opulently wealthy industrialist whose greatest passions were food, cricket, fast cars and then more food. Musharraf, on the other hand, presented himself as a man who would countenance no corruption. People from some of Pakistan's leading families were arrested on fraud charges without regard to their political connections. The general demanded that bank loans be repaid, a bothersome innovation for many of the rich. I spent time with Musharraf during these early days. He is a forceful man who expresses himself with such common sense and seeming candor that it is hard to imagine a word being untrue. He favors declarations like ''It's high time we face facts!'' And yet for most Pakistanis, the general has been a disappointment. Anticorruption campaigns gave way, once again, to political vendettas. Farouk Adam Khan had been chief prosecutor during the initial period of crusading. One Sunday night, I found him in his law office, sitting under the dim light of a single desk lamp. ''Pervez Musharraf had a great opportunity,'' he said, ''but he lost it in the pursuit of power.'' The general learned the ins and outs of politics, best defined as how to keep the outs from getting in. In May 2000, the Supreme Court validated his coup. This occurred after the 13 justices were ordered to sign a loyalty oath to the new regime -- and the 6 who refused had been replaced. The court then recovered some of its dignity by setting an October 2002 deadline for parliamentary elections. At the time, Musharraf was referring to himself as Pakistan's ''chief executive,'' though the title of president later became his preference. He won a five-year term at the job in a national referendum with only his name on the ballot and a simple choice of ''yes'' or ''no.'' The reported tally showed 98 percent in the affirmative, a vote considered implausible by most observers -- even if no campaigning against Musharraf had been allowed. Within months, the new president, swept along by his landslide, issued the Legal Framework Order. The parliamentary elections posed some difficulties for Musharraf, but not insurmountable ones. To have a malleable National Assembly, he would need support from a political party. Pakistan had plenty of those, but the two main ones relied on the cult of personality -- and their esteemed personages had long been on the lam. In an odd secret deal, Nawaz Sharif, head of the Pakistan Muslim League, traded prison in his homeland for exile in Saudi Arabia. Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of the hanged Zulfikar, had herself twice been prime minister, inheriting the Pakistan People's Party. Educated at both Harvard and Oxford -- and charged with corruption by both Pakistan and Switzerland -- she now lived in both London and Dubai. Neither Benazir Bhutto nor Sharif could have run again anyway. Musharraf had installed new rules for public office. Some were laudable, like reserving a quota of seats in Parliament for women. Others were quirky, moralistic or simply cunning. A college degree was required, disqualifying all but perhaps 4 percent of the population. Accused bank defaulters also could not run, nor could their relatives or business associates. Yet however unusual these rules, it was their selective application that was most disturbing. In a detailed criticism of the election, observers from the European Union said the inconsistency was the ''result of a government strategy, in certain cases through the enforcement of person-specific provisions.'' Politicians allying themselves with Musharraf were often given ways around legal obstacles, the report noted. A few of the more ambitiously recruited were then rewarded with posts in the cabinet. As might be expected, many Pakistanis believe the I.S.I. was shoulder-deep in election mischief. Intelligence agents may well have intimidated more than a few. Stories of such threats are common if difficult to confirm. ''They handcuffed me, put a black hood over my head, threw me in a car and put a blanket over me,'' Ahsan Iqbal told me. He was once responsible for economic planning under Nawaz Sharif and had refused to switch sides. ''They took me to one of their safe houses.'' There, he said, he was entombed in darkness for 16 to 18 hours until the abductors pushed him back into the car and abandoned him in a remote area. ''They were letting me know that if I misbehaved, something worse could happen.'' With Benazir Bhutto absent, I instead visited her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who once bore the unfortunate nickname Mr. 10 Percent, a reference to the money he supposedly took off the top while his wife ran the country. For the past eight years he has been in prison, and the only way to see him was during one of the hearings in his continuing legal saga. ''Come here, right next to me,'' Zardari said affably. He was sitting in the side yard of a courthouse in Rawalpindi, relaxing under a tree. He pinched my arm and nodded to his left. ''The I.S.I. is posted there. Better put away your tape recorder.'' I had been expecting the dashing man I had seen in photos, a playboy polo player known as much for his dalliances as for his marriage. Instead he appeared pasty and bloated, a fidgety guy in a wheelchair with back problems and diabetes. His eyeglasses hung on a band around his neck; his cane rested against a tree stump. During his first years of captivity, he was tortured, he said. He stuck out his tongue to show me a groove excavated from the center. Our conversation rambled, and he was emphatic in denying any wrongdoing. He himself brought up the matter of a $180,000 diamond necklace his wife is said to have bought with dirty money. ''She doesn't need more jewelry,'' he said, as many a husband would. And her family was wealthy. ''Benazir has more jewelry than she can count.'' To him, their legal troubles were part of some conspiracy. ''The world is not Camelot,'' he said, as if summarizing some philosophy's central truth. An old air-conditioner was rattling in the background. When it unexpectedly stopped, Zardari sent a man into the courthouse to restart this camouflage of noise, again nodding warily toward the I.S.I. agents. ''Musharraf is basically a wolf in sheep's clothing; he's playing footsy with the world,'' he said ruefully. But he seemed to envy the president more than dislike him. Musharraf had dumb luck on his side. ''If it wasn't for 9/11, we would have won the election hands down. He couldn't have kept Benazir from coming back. He couldn't have changed all those laws.'' He couldn't have kept Asif Zardari locked away. The Mullahs Are Coming! ven without Benazir, her party got slightly more total votes than the one loyal to Musharraf, but his side won the most individual seats in Parliament. The biggest surprise, however, was the success of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (M.M.A.), or United Action Forum, an odd coalition of six religious parties never before known for mutual harmony or strength at the polls. It won the third-largest block of seats. More stunningly, it did well enough in provincial races to control the assembly in the Northwest Frontier and become a major partner in a ruling coalition in Baluchistan. Government by ''the mullahs'' has long been a dreaded prospect by the vast majority of Pakistanis with less doctrinaire views, and the M.M.A.'s unexpected victories intensified fears that ''Talibanization'' was creeping its way across the land. Seven months later, extremists -- shouting the all-purpose invocation ''God is great!'' -- inflamed those anxieties by marauding through the city of Peshawar. As police placidly looked on, the crowd confiscated CD's and tapes from stores and burned music and movies in a bonfire. They blackened the faces of women on billboards. In the meantime, politicians in the new government spoke of plans to not only enforce their version of Shariah law but also compel its obedience with patrols of religious constables. Conspiracy theorists and others reacted to the M.M.A.'s election success with a frenzy of suspicion. They began to call the coalition the Military-Mullah Alliance, speculating that the wily Musharraf had backed the religious parties to scare the gullible Americans into meting out more aid. (''The mullahs are coming! The mullahs are coming!'') To them, it seemed the M.M.A. had received an unfair leg up. Degrees from madrasas (religious schools) had been accepted to fulfill the educational requirement for candidates. On the ballots themselves, where each party was denoted by an emblem, the M.M.A. was granted the symbol of a book. In a mostly illiterate country, some people were then easily persuaded that their choice was to vote for or against the Holy Koran. Before leaving Islamabad for Peshawar -- one center of religious extremism -- I discussed this hypothesis with a crafty political operator named Mushahid Hussain. He had been minister of information under Nawaz Sharif and endured 440 days of house arrest after the coup. But Hussain has a very agile mind, capable of elaborate spin moves. Once freed, he joined Musharraf's party and was now serving in Parliament's upper house. By his reckoning, the M.M.A.'s strong showing owed more to the other parties' disarray and the mullahs' savvy use of anti-Americanism. ''India-bashing has been replaced by America-bashing,'' he said. We chatted for about an hour, but what I recall most was a friendly warning as I left his house. ''Let me know if you want to talk anything over, but not on the phone,'' the former information minister told me. ''Remember, all the phones are bugged.'' Peshawar, capital of the Northwest Frontier, is just east of the winding canyons of the Khyber Pass and Afghanistan. The province is largely Pashtun. By custom, women are kept hidden away. When outdoors, they are usually secreted beneath the billowy cloth of a burka. Among most Pashtuns, sympathy remains high for the Taliban, if not as models of Islamic behavior, then at least as ethnic brethren. Religious bullying was nothing unusual in the city, and it was easy to find new instances. Musicians were no longer able to find work. ''Now, even at weddings, some mullahs come up and say this is not allowed, this is against Islam,'' Sher Muhammad, an old man who plays the harmonium and drums, said with despair. ''If I play my music to feed my family, does that mean I am not a Muslim?'' Such complaints aside, what seemed most remarkable to me was how little of any religious agenda the M.M.A. had put in effect. Inexperienced at government, the coalition partners were a disparate bunch. A few powerful mullahs wanted to flip the calendar back 1,400 years to the days of the Holy Prophet, but others were content enough with the present. Mufti Ghulam-ur-Rehman, the white-bearded man in charge of the Council for the Enforcement of Shariah, entertained visitors while sitting cross-legged on the floor, but there was a fax machine on the cabinet behind him. ''It is a modern world,'' he said cheerily. ''TV has become a necessity of life.'' Malik Zafar Azam, the M.M.A.'s minister of law, is a green-card holder who owns an Italian restaurant in Arlington, Va. ''I'm a good chef of spaghetti and pizza,'' he claimed. He still goes back and forth to America, though not so often since the bank foreclosed on his Virginia townhouse. He recalled appearing on a Pakistani TV show: ''They said to me, 'Oh, my God, you are the law minister; you're making all men wear beards and do all these things.' I said what the hell are you talking. I have no beard, and I wear short pants.'' There are Talibanizers at work, no doubt -- and more all the time. But the Taliban in Afghanistan was originally welcomed more as sheriffs than mullahs, their stern theocracy considered an antidote to plundering warlords and social chaos. Pakistan does not have the predicate of such pervasive lawlessness. Indeed, the M.M.A. may well have its hands full simply staying in power. As always, I heard rumor upon rumor, hard to fully believe, hard to fully discount. In one story, the I.S.I. was buying the nine votes needed to topple the religious coalition in the provincial assembly. This would provide a heavy hammer over the M.M.A., which has been stubbornly opposing Musharraf on the Legal Framework Order. The cost per politician was said to go as high as 10 million rupees, about $160,000. Talibanizers have other resistance to overcome. Fundamentalism provides a powerful pull, offering purpose to the otherwise ignored. But it is not the only magnetic force. Even in largely Pashtun Peshawar, the masses are being tugged in multiple directions, including toward modernity and the West. Internet cafes, which the Taliban would never have tolerated, are opening one after the other. Training in English is a chief selling point of private academies. Music and movies are sold openly. Pinups of Indian actresses are marketed side by side with those glorifying Osama bin Laden. More than 200 cable-TV operators are collecting a $4 monthly fee from tens of thousands of subscribers; even more people are stealing the service. Other cleavages divide Pakistan. Water itself sunders the provinces as each one vies for the precious flow of the Indus. Human rights activists struggle against death sentences in blasphemy cases and laws that sometimes make a woman the guilty party in her own rape. In the chaotic megalopolis of Karachi, thousands of terrorist murders have taken place during the past decade, the mayhem caused by two warring political factions. While this feud is presently at an ebb, sectarian killings keep the quotient of disquietude high with a particularly senseless touch, the targeting of doctors. An estimated 70 are dead. ''I was tipped off that I was No. 2 on a five-person list set for execution,'' Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbassi told me. He is a Sunni, but the Hussain part of his name had caused him to be mistaken for a Shiite. For days, he desperately tried to get word to the proper terrorists. Finally, he reached a maulana with jurisdiction. ''He apologized that they were mistaken.'' Internal nationalisms have troubled the country from its first days. Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri is head of the Marris, one of the largest of the Baluchi tribes. His loyalty is to a greater Baluchi nation, not some British mapmaker's creation called Pakistan. Befitting his status as a nawab, or ruler, he lives in Quetta in a large compound with armed guards stationed at the gate. His hair is white, his beard neatly clipped. He gave his age as ''well over 70,'' and he spoke the fine English of a well-educated man. His feelings about Islam were hardly reverent. ''In our part of the world, a mullah is someone who washed the dead, not a job you'd much admire,'' he said with wry contempt. Neither has he much use for America, the ''leading shareholder'' in world imperialism, and wondered how a nation great enough to produce Noam Chomsky could also deliver George W. Bush. His worst scorn, however, was reserved for Punjabis, the largest ethnic group in Pakistan and the dominant one in the army. He recalled fighting them over the years. In 1974, some 80,000 troops were deployed against a Baluchi insurgency. Even today, government forces are ambushed in the mountainous Marri lands east of Quetta. ''Why must Punjab be in my destiny?'' he asked. Destitute tribesmen would benefit from a road the government wants to build. But the purpose of development is merely to exploit his people's mineral resources, the nawab said disdainfully. ''So we fight on with the pen, the mouth and the gun.'' He paused to scoff at the sad irony of the storied Baluchis being part of an artificial nation. ''Religion is only one aspect of life. It's not enough for a country.'' "You People Are Offensive" Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan, is just 50 miles from the Afghanistan border. This city may once have been Baluchi, but now it is also very much Pashtun. One poor neighborhood of high walls and narrow lanes is even called Pashtunabad. Most of its residents are Afghan refugees, including many easily identifiable as Taliban by their turbans. Some are merely students. But others are soldiers, going back and forth to their homeland to fight against American troops and the Karzai government. Their favored means of transportation is the motorcycle. One rumor is that the bikes are furnished by the I.S.I. If true, this raises one of the more popular sets of questions. Has Musharraf approved it? Or do rogues in the intelligence services have their own foreign policy? While wandering through Pashtunabad, I asked to enter a small, dark room where young Taliban men lived. They were suspicious of an American, but with customary Pashtun hospitality, a cushioned seat was offered and tea was poured into clear glasses half full with sugar. ''We study in the madrasa,'' said Abdul Baqi, a 27-year-old who seemed the leader. I wanted to know if he was learning any subjects beyond Islamic teachings, and when he said yes, I asked him if he could name any planet besides earth or multiply five times seven. He could not, but he had a question of his own: ''When will America be satisfied? When it kills every Muslim in the world?'' This question might just as well have come from a Pakistani. As I have fears about an unhinged Pakistan, Pakistanis have fears about a wanton America. The parallel apprehensions have much the same vocabulary: a nuclear power, prone to irrational behavior, too eager to go to war, a penchant toward duplicity. Sometimes, there is even the part about religious extremism. ''George Bush is a mullah; he is a fundamentalist, too,'' Abdul Hakim Baloch, a writer in Quetta, told me. ''I don't know how history will treat the Americans, but you are committing one of the greatest crimes of all time. Bush thinks he must destroy Babylon as the verses of his Scripture tell him. But you cannot conquer the world based on superstitions.'' As an American in Pakistan, I was on a lecture tour where I was the one being lectured. Some decisive juncture had been passed, and people were erupting with accusations. Whomever I saw, extremist or not, educated or not, they told me they had finally lost patience with America, which in their eyes had grown hateful toward Islam and hypocritical about democracy. Aitzaz Ahsan, a prom-inent politician and lawyer, opposes Musharraf. ''Here again is another dictator the Americans are willing to sit in their laps as if they have run into a long-lost loved one,'' he said in exasperation. ''We are back to Square 1, except this time, while attempting to demolish the demonic mullahs that we created ourselves, we are actually fueling their responses on a much wider theater.'' That theater is Iraq -- and perhaps beyond. A common suspicion is that an unquenchable America is after territory, after oil, after blood. The sympathy that poured forth after 9/11 is spent. For many, the winning of two wars has turned American sorrow into vulgar triumphalism. ''You people are offensive,'' I was told sternly by Salima Hashmi, one of Pakistan's leading artists. ''I don't care who your enemy is. You don't kill two of his sons and then show them off on TV.'' These were feelings I could understand. They were reasoned criticisms. I might disagree with some of the thinking, but it all fell within the arena of legitimate debate. Much of what I heard, however, seemed to come from an inverted world, the axis spinning backward, all the essential story lines turned inside out. There is no polling data to cite, but it seems that most Pakistanis, including a great many of the college-educated, continue to believe that the World Trade Center was attacked as part of a Jewish conspiracy -- and perhaps one that involved high-level cooperation from the United States government. ''Who gained from these happenings?'' I was asked by a 35-year-old man named Haroon. ''Not Islam, not America, only the Jewish people.'' He demanded an investigation: Why had no Jews come to work at the World Trade Center that day? Why had Jewish businessmen withdrawn all their money from banks ? There were multiple variations to this conspiracy theory, including a few that had Osama bin Laden acting as an Israeli hireling. When I responded with incredulity, I was pitied as a naif. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the well-traveled, highly educated leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest religious party, even patted my hand. ''This required a very sophisticated infrastructure,'' he said of the trade center attacks. Hadn't I read the analyses on the Internet, he wanted to know: the Arabs involved lacked ''the capabilities to do all the planning'' for such a complicated operation. He suspected Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. He thought they might have been assisted by the United States military. Gen. Hamid Gul, the retired head of the I.S.I., tendered a similar theory. ''The longest it would take for a U.S. Air Force aircraft to be on the tail of a hijacked plane is seven minutes,'' he told me, blaming collusion between the White House and ''Zionist intellectuals'' for the attack. He easily connected the dots. The same Zionists had recruited Monica Lewinsky, he said. ''She keeps the dress for two years and doesn't talk about it?'' He threw his head back in laughter. ''The American people are so gullible!'' The Feudals and the Ghost Schools Most every village has a mosque. It is easy to happen upon the austere music of Muslim prayers. Harder to find are the chalkboard scratchings of an everyday school. Pakistan's education system is a mess even by the sorry standards of South Asia. According to the World Bank, more than a third of the nation's 10-year-olds have never attended class. According to the United States Agency for International Development, Pakistani boys average less than two years of attendance, girls less than one. ''Ghost schools'' are a strange aspect of the problem. There are perhaps 10,000 of them: solid buildings, missing only the bodies and souls of teachers and students. Villagers often use the vacant classrooms to store grain and the courtyards to pen livestock. Parents want their kids in school. If there were teachers, there would be students. But Pakistan's education budget as a percentage of gross domestic product is puny, according to a Unesco estimate, smaller than most of the Muslim world, smaller even than most of sub-Saharan Africa. And of those teachers who are paid, many simply fail to show up, relying on an inept bureaucracy to ignore their truancy. In a place called Masterano Kallai, I witnessed the reanimation of a ghost school. Some of the village's few literate men had volunteered to teach. Rooms were swept free of fodder and dung. A small blackboard was hung from a nail to the cement wall. More than 100 children arrived in the afternoon, some of them barefoot, many coming after a morning of hard lifting at a nearby brick kiln. Families with enough money send their children to private schools while many of the poor take advantage of the free education offered by the madrasas, some of which provide a reasonably full curriculum, and some of which provide only rote memorization of the Koran, and some of which provide the combatants for jihad. General Musharraf has repeatedly promised to reform the madrasas, requiring them to teach from an approved syllabus. But to do so would be an expensive, meddlesome task, and despite some boasts to the contrary, the government has yet to make even an approximate count of the madrasas, let alone change their lesson plans. The want of schools reflects the want of democracy. However many ruptures there are in Pakistani society, the greatest gulf is that between the rich and poor, and the poor are easy to ignore in a nation controlled by generals and landlords. Kaiser Bengali, a noted economist, told me that 4 percent of Pakistan's rural households own 50 percent of the land. ''It is something like 16th-century feudalism,'' he said. In many farming areas, the biggest landowners are actually called ''the feudals,'' and some are powerful enough to make their own laws and operate their own jails. In the cities, a feudal is more likely to be a thug who runs a land mafia, falsely staking claim to property and forcing people to pay rent. Karachi, one of the world's 10 biggest cities, has sprawling squatter settlements that far outstrip every electrical line, every sewer pipe, every water tap. I spent a morning in Ibrahim Hydri, a fishing village outside the city. Boats were returning from three days at sea, and the crew was shoveling out the storage bins of fast-aging shrimp and pomfret. A grim fisherman named Saleh Muhammed said sale of the catch would barely cover fuel costs and dock fees. His family lived in a hut of scrap wood and thatch. A ''feudal'' was threatening to burn him out unless he could come up with 3,000 rupees (about $50). These were despairing days for small fishermen. Prices had plunged after the sea itself became tainted. On July 27, an oil tanker ran aground just outside Karachi's harbor and, after bewildered authorities allowed the cracked vessel to languish for 18 days, a massive rupture opened, disgorging 30,000 tons of crude. The fish kill was immense. This oil spill was nearly as big as the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989 off the coast of Alaska. But with no terrorism angle, the event was mostly ignored by the foreign news media. As the oil washed onto Karachi's best-known beach, it sullied the marvelous vista of an affluent neighborhood's high-rise apartments. Three months later, when I stood on the shore, the hapless ship was still marooned, its bow at an odd angle like a broken bone. A top layer of oily sand had been scooped from the beach itself, but some of the spill had seeped a full 20 inches down. Waves were dumping more dirty water on the dirty beach. Patches of foamy brown stained the sand where the sea rolled in. ''Is that oil?'' I asked Brian Dicks, a British expert, who was standing beside a backhoe. ''Oh, no,'' he answered, ''That's raw sewage. Comes in streams from the big apartment buildings. Some people take care of their waste, some don't.'' In this case, the sea's use as a latrine was actually an advantage, he explained. Nitrogen and phosphates from the sewage were helping break down the oil. America's Great Ally Pakistan is tough on prognosticators. Each time I am there, people tell me the place is about to spin apart. And yet for all the gyrations, it remains in one piece. Some would argue that despite its mischief, the military is the tie that binds. But the generals are also to blame for so much of what has set the country reeling in the first place. Cynicism is a contagion in Pakistan. Musharraf is not only criticized for selling out to the Americans; he is also excoriated for selling out too cheaply. After all, this may be a limited window. Historically, the United States is all too forgiving when it needs Pakistan and then smugly reproachful when it does not. Nevertheless, for now Pakistan is on the payroll. In June, George W. Bush proposed a $3 billion aid package to be dispensed over the next five years, half for military use, half for economic aid. He and Musharraf presented the news together in Camp David. The two presidents appeared pals that day, looking relaxed as they walked shoulder to shoulder. Bush said America has ''had no better partner in our fight on terror than President Musharraf.'' Still, it is hard to imagine that these men altogether trust each other. Bush surely remembers that the general had befriended the Taliban until the day he was drafted into the war on terrorism. And Musharraf undoubtedly recalls that Pakistan's last military ruler, General Zia, met an untimely end in a plane crash. A good many Pakistanis again see a conspiring hand, supposing that the C.I.A. did away with an ally after his usefulness had run its course. Shaping American policy toward Pakistan requires a prolonged balancing act on a particularly high wire. Nuclear misbehavior must be discouraged, but economic sanctions would only push a volatile country toward bankruptcy and disintegration. Human rights should be stressed, but perhaps not if it keeps Al Qaeda suspects from being immediately handed over. Big infusions of economic aid are vital for development, but how can the money be kept from religious radicals and the hopelessly corrupt? A full return to democracy ought to be demanded, but past civilian governments have been kleptocracies. Sadly, no oasis is visible ahead. There is no obvious Mandela figure, no Walesa, no Havel waiting in the wings. There can be no Velvet Revolution to inspire the Pakistani masses. Between the Koran and the Kalashnikovs, too many people covet too many incompatible things. But if elected governments have been disappointing, military ones have been disastrous. And the eventual bridge to cross is more than Musharraf. It is the army itself -- and its dominance, whether onstage or behind the scenes. Some way or another, Musharraf's time will pass. The great fear in the West has been that the next general will be much harder to deal with, someone with a long beard and no taste for whisky. But the greater likelihood is that after Musharraf simply comes another Musharraf, a slightly different model but still a man with the same loyalty to military pre-eminence. Idealists in the world believe there is no substitute for democracy. It may be hard work, but it must be tried, and if it fails, it must be tried again. The will of the people should not be forsaken for expedience, the body politic not sacrificed for Realpolitik. Such sentiments have rarely been better expressed than in an eloquent address last month at the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. The main topic was democracy and Islam, and President Bush said, ''The daily work of democracy itself is the path to progress.'' For emphasis, he repeated the thought with new phrasing. ''It is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy.'' Bush singled out two recalcitrant Muslim allies: Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Pakistan went unmentioned. Barry Bearak is a staff writer for the magazine. His last article was about starvation in Africa
Posted by: Krishna Dec 7 2003, 10:55 PM
Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar has ruled out a peaceful version of jehad, saying in Islam, the only meaning of jehad was killing and any other interpretation went against the religion. The remark was followed by yet another exhortation by a supporter, asking Pakistan to declare suicide bombing against the West as jehad. ‘‘In Islam, the only meaning of jehad is killing, and those who projected the concepts of jehad akbar and jehad asghar were against Islam,’’ Azhar was quoted by an Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt. Azhar was speaking at a gathering at Pattoki in Pakistan organised by the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Jehad Akbar is the non-violent version while jehad asghar is war by the sword. Azhar said it was a conspiracy against Islam to say that jehad was not killing. Another supporter of militant groups in Pakistan, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal said at a seminar in Lahore that Pakistan and the Islamic world should declare that suicide bombing against the West was jehad. It was the United States that was involved in terrorism and not the suicide bombers of various organisations, he was quoted by the Jang as saying.
Posted by: Krishna Dec 7 2003, 10:57 PM
US too soft on Pakistan, warns New York Times,~warns~New~York~Times New York: Pakistan is a nation of confounding murkiness where every kind of deception, collusion and outright sham are recurring motifs in political theatre, according a media report published here. Much of the trickery is institutionalised. "The ISI - the shorthand name for the military intelligence agencies - is widely presumed to be an expert puppet master, the great Oz of a manipulated society," says an article in New York Times magazine. The article expresses concern that government could lose control over the nuclear weapons in a country riven by sharp regional, religious and ethnic divisions and says that its military ruler Pervez Musharraf is more guided by self-interest to keep himself in power than his profesed love for democracy. In the past 25 years, it says, American policy towards Pakistan has largely been devised to fit the events happening in Afghanistan. But politically, the country has been "reliably unsteady" with democracy yet to take roots. As an example, the article says, the US response was very tepid even after it was disclosed that Islamabad had been swapping vital nuclear secrets with North Korea in exchange for ballistic missiles in late 1990s. The Bush administration imposed sanctions against just one laboratory because Musharraf had joined its fight against al Qaeda.
Posted by: Reggie Dec 8 2003, 12:52 AM
The USA is just not SOFT on Pakistan, imo, it is complicit in the Tabliban resurgence. ************** (from an American who lives in Afghanistan. Straight from the trenches). Who is behind these attacks? This is not an indigenous, spontaneous uprising. All of these attacks originate in Pakistan; top Taliban leaders live and organize their activities openly in the Pakistani city of Quetta; the border is for all intents and purposes open. The problem of terrorism in Afghanistan is intimately linked to the regional strategy of Pakistan. The U.S. military fights Taliban members when they can be found in concentrated groups inside Afghanistan. But once they cross the border, they are beyond reach.The U.S. government, by not holding Pakistan accountable for its open support of the Taliban, is in fact contributingto the problem. ************************************* America's operation in Afghanistan is morally bankrupt and I am ashamed my tax dollars are being used to blow innocent Afghan children while the real Pakistani perpetrators are being hailed as allies in war against terrorism. mad.gif
Posted by: Viren Dec 8 2003, 07:42 AM
A few hours from war Operation Parakram -- The Unfinished War by Lt. General (Retd.) V. K. Sood and Pravin Sawhney Published by Sage Publications Inc. 2003 India's two leading strategic minds say war with Pakistan is inevitable and it would take place in the near future. Their names are Lt. General (Retd.) V. K. Sood, a former Vice-Chief of Army Staff and Pravin Sawhney, South Asia correspondent of the Jane's International Defence Review, UK, respectively. Their study on Operation Parakram (meaning valour) has been published in the book titled 'Operation Parakram -- The Unfinished War.' The book includes a chapter on militancy in Kashmir by Ghazala Wahab. It is an excellent study if one wants to understand the current Indian strategic thinking and the current strategic situation in South Asia. The authors are, however, unable to hide their own hawkish position vis-a-vis Pakistan at more than one place -- despite having a good understanding of the subject. The authors say that India was just a few hours away from war around January 5 or 6, 2002 but the political leadership changed their minds under the US pressure. They argue that war has been averted for the time being but it is bound to take place in the near future. Both the Indian army and the Indian political leadership understand this. That is why they described the end of Operation Parakram as 'strategic relocation'. The authors write, "The [Indian] army believes that a war with Pakistan cannot be ruled out, and hence the need for a speedy mobilisation. The government agrees with its military leadership that gunpowder be kept dry. There will be a need to order Operation Parakram-II in the near future. And this time it would be real." The book is quite critical of the strategic planning of the Indian government. The authors argue that the Indian government mobilised the Indian army -- in the wake of the Pakistan-based mujahideen's attack on the Indian Parliament -- without fully understanding the post-9/11 international situation. The Vajpayee government did not fully understand how important Musharraf had become for the United States in its war on terror. Using the with-us or against-us paradigm, the authors say nobody in India asked the simple question: "If Musharraf was with 'us', how could he be with the terrorists at the same time?" Under these conditions "it was presumptuous of India to believe that the US would put Musharraf on the mat for its sake." As India mobilised its troops, the US asked India to wait for the announcement General Pervez Musharraf was to make on January 12, 2002. The authors again criticise the Indian government for welcoming Musharraf's January 12 high-profile speech without a deep analysis. The speech ignored India's demands and instead pledged support for the indigenous freedom struggle in Jammu and Kashmir. Bent upon not displeasing the US, India lost the opportunity to give a taste of its own medicine to Pakistan. Quoting a lot of evidence, the authors say that much before the Operation Parakram was launched the lower level formations of the Indian army had become restive because of the Pakistan-supported militancy in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. "As the government's counter-insurgency measures proved ineffective, the units adopted a calibrated offensive action across the line of control to engage the Pakistan army and sanitise areas of infiltration..." The troops got full support from the formation commanders. The authors say that the formation commanders fully justified such acts because "Pakistan must face local military defeats. The regions to the south of the Pir Panjal range, especially Akhnoor, Mendhar, Bhimber Gali, Poonch and Pallanwala became the focal points of India's local, calibrated offensive action." The authors do not agree with the Indian political leadership that Operation Parakram has achieved its political objectives without fighting a war. The Indian leaders have claimed that General Pervez Musharraf denounced support to jihad in his speech on January 12, 2002 because of Operation Parakram. He also closed down some of the training camps in Azad Kashmir and arrested a few jihadis. India also succeeded in holding elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in relative peace as "infiltration in the year 2002 came down to 53 of the figures of the corresponding period of the previous year." The experience gained during the mobilisation enabled the army to reassess and revalidate its operational plans and procedures. The authors say these were not the objectives of Operation Parakram. Another argument they use in favour of their thesis is that Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee later regretted not going to war with Pakistan. The authors, however, add that the Operation Parakram has done "several good things". For instance it provided an opportunity for the political and military leadership in India to frequently interact and understand each other. "The 10-month long mobilisation has made the army confident of employing its dual-tasked forces, which were moved from the Chinese front in the east to Jammu and Kashmir in the west against Pakistan," they say. The authors have many suggestions to offer to the Indian political leadership. "Even as another Operation Parakram has a robust future, India, would need to be clear on two fundamental issues: One, the political leadership should have enough resolve to withstand US-led world pressure to end a likely war before its sought objectives have been met. And two, the military gains of Operation Parakram cannot be frittered away -- the next war with Pakistan should logically be a full-scale conventional war." They conclude their study by saying, "Even as the military is bracing itself for another Operation Parakram -- it would be real this time -- the political leadership should attempt to see the strategic imperatives as they are, and not as they ought to be."
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 8 2003, 09:12 AM,001300270001.htm Asian News International Lahore, December 8 Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf does not have policies of its own, and is 'licking the feet' of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, claimed former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan. Speaking to reporters at Talagang, a sub-district of Pakistan's Punjab province, Imran said: "We have no policy of our own. Our government is licking the feet of Vajpayee," adding that the present government is also a lackey of the US. He also said that his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party was not inclined to accept President Pervez Musharraf in uniform even after passage of constitutional package by the two-thirds majority of both the houses of Parliament. "We will accept the constitutional package as law after it is tabled by the government in the Parliament and is validated by the two thirds majority of both the houses. However we will not nod our yes to president in uniform", Online News quoted him, as saying. He observed that his party is engaged in a fight for a change in the archaic system. "The day our courts will be free from all pressure, the country and countrymen will see heralding of real democracy and prosperity," he said. Citing the Commonwealth's decision to continue with Pakistan 's suspension, he said it was a right one. He also predicted that an unprecedented change in Pakistan is imminent, adding that there could probably be a revolution. "We should seek resolution of the Kashmir issue around the negotiating table without budging from our stated position," he said. He also ruled out the possibility of general elections in 2004 and opined that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir should return to the country and play their due role in national politics. Cheers biggrin.gif
Posted by: Viren Dec 8 2003, 11:39 AM
Peregrine: Needs to be cross posted in humor thread biggrin.gif
Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf does not have policies of its own, and is 'licking the feet' of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, claimed former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.
Now where is a ISI goon when you need him. They assualt reporters like Amir Mir and Imran gets away! Oy Paki pakee.gif where art thou H & D? tongue.gif
Speaking to reporters at Talagang, a sub-district of Pakistan's Punjab province, Imran said: "We have no policy of our own. Our government is licking the feet of Vajpayee," adding that the present government is also a lackey of the US.
Don't know as to how ABVs knee recovery is coming along. Must be that Mush licking that's preventing all that healing huh ? rolleyes.gif
He also said that his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party was not inclined to accept President Pervez Musharraf in uniform even after passage of constitutional package by the two-thirds majority of both the houses of Parliament.
Silly Khan - lived under military dictatorship for how many years now? Some guys will never learn will they?
Citing the Commonwealth's decision to continue with Pakistan 's suspension, he said it was a right one.
So why don't all the cricketing bodies 'suspend' Pakis too? blink.gif
"We should seek resolution of the Kashmir issue around the negotiating table without budging from our stated position," he said.
If wish were horses pigs would fly .... or was it otherway around?
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 8 2003, 01:47 PM
Viren, I thought that this, the Lotastaan Thread, was the Humour Thread. ROTFL.gif There are two reasons for Imran’s outburst : 1. Most probably Riff Raff has nominated another Jernail as Chairman of the Lotastaani Cricket Board instead of Imran. 2. Just to demonstrate to Riff Raff that Imran can act tough. In case Riff Raff sends his goons Imran will either plead (i) “I have been misquoted” or (ii) “I never said any such thing” Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Dec 8 2003, 03:32 PM PARIS: France and Pakistan on Monday agreed to enhance cooperation in the defence field. This was stated by Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, while briefing newsmen after talks between Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali and French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie here. He said these talks covered important aspects of defence nature, especially, the needs of the Pakistan Air Force and the Pakistan Navy, besides bilateral relations. He said as a follow up of these talks, a high-level Pakistani delegation would soon visit France. The training in military field also came under discussion. On relations with France, he described them as "consistent and based on a long friendship", which has helped promote bilateral cooperation in the defence field. Rashid said the international community has concerns about the situation in Afghanistan. "Some anti-Pakistan forces have been creating misunderstanding between Islamabad and Kabul. These nefarious designs would not be successful, as Pakistan has always supported government of President Hamid Karzai. "Pakistan has been playing an active role to promote peace and reconstruction in that country", the minister stressed. ....
Posted by: Peregrine Dec 8 2003, 04:34 PM
The Taliban have got Two Indians and now they give their Peaceful Treatment to Lotastaanis : KABUL, AFGHANISTAN: One Pakistani engineer was shot dead and another was missing Monday, after gunmen attacked their vehicle in eastern Afghanistan, their company said. The engineers were ambushed while traveling on the country's main Kabul-Kandahar highway near Muqur in Ghazni province, said Fatima Kazmi, executive director of Bahar, a Pakistani construction firm. The dead man was identified as Anwar Shah, 38. Security staff protecting workers along the road later found the vehicle, its windows shattered by gun-fire, and two other Pakistanis. One engineer was missing, she said. The car was unmarked, and it was unclear who had carried out the attack. Workers on the road, a prestige reconstruction project mainly funded by the United States, have been the target of a series of attacks and abductions by suspected Taliban militants. Bahar is not working on the road, but is a subcontractor for Louis Berger Inc., an American firm overseeing the road project. The Islamabad-based firm is building schools and clinics in several provinces. It has also supplied heavy equipment for the U.S. military headquarters at Bagram, north of the capital. Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Dec 8 2003, 07:26 PM
acharya, "Pakistan is...." is already in Page 8 of this thread, I have deleted duplicate copy.
Posted by: Krishna Dec 8 2003, 08:21 PM
Jamali telephones Atal, says thanks,0008.htm
In the midst of "positive developments" in Indo-Pak ties, Pakistan Premier Zafarullah Khan Jamali on Monday night telephoned Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and appreciated him for confirming his attendance in the next month's SAARC summit, saying that a "warm welcome" awaited him in Islamabad next month. During the five-minute conversation, Vajpayee told Jamali that he was looking forward to his visit to Islamabad, official sources said. Both the Prime Ministers agreed that there have been "positive bilateral developments" over the past few weeks, including the ceasefire along the Line of Control. They felt that it was important to sustain the positive trends, the sources said. Jamali, who called at 19.30 hrs from Paris, conveyed to Vajpayee his appreciation for the Prime Minister's letter confirming his attendance at the SAARC summit and said a "warm welcome awaits" him. Vajpayee recalled that in their last conversation in April they had discussed the importance of people-to-people contact and economic cooperation and said progress had been made in these areas. The Prime Minister expressed the hope that the SAARC summit would focus on progress in all aspects of regional economic cooperation. Jamali said he was availing the first opportunity to ring up Vajpayee, who left for the Commonwealth summit in Nigeria on the day his letter confirming his participation in the SAARC summit was sent to the Pakistani Premier last week.
Folks, Is there any chance of Kargil-II in the midst of all this positive-relations BS?
Posted by: Mudy Dec 8 2003, 08:41 PM
Kargil II is possible as US is leaving TSP by 25 Dec 2003. Expect something in middle of next year, if they are stupid enough, which they are. Next year, India and US both will be busy in election and Mushy can decide to do something crazy in Commando style. Oct 2004, he had promised to shed his Army uniform, let see ?? Interesting time ahead.
Posted by: Krishna Dec 8 2003, 08:47 PM
No doubt Mudy. For some reason, I'm getting this feeling that Mushy won't go for a Kargil-II in the conventional sense but something on the likes of Parliament type attack. Take out the leadership. OTOH, get some of their own goons to kill some muslims in a mosque, in India, and put the blame on Hindus. Let India get into a civil war mode..... The more I think about this the more I'm getting convinced: Pakistan is planning........
Posted by: Mudy Dec 8 2003, 09:40 PM
crazy in Commando style.
Kargil II will be sabotage etc, create civil war like situation. That can bring BJP down and will serve TSP purpose. I won't be surprised if they target temples or election rallies.

<< Home

November 2003 / December 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / March 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 /

Powered by Blogger