Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Aug 05, 2011

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 18 Sep 2011 03:08

RajeshA wrote:
parsuram wrote:As for being an Avatar, Mohammad fits into being one of Shiva - rudra than of Vishnu. Would be a first for Shiva, btw.
Oh no! If that was a pointer to my post, I never spoke of Mohammed being some sort of Avatar. He is merely a prophet. He can be a prophet of Shiva, or Vishnu or whatever, but he remains only a prophet. That is the way Muslims like it. There is no need to make him more exalted than that.

But Mehmood of Gazni himself calls Muhammad as an avataara..

Here is sanskrit prayer by mehmood of gazni on a coin

avyaktameka muhammada avatar nripati mahamuda (the Invisible is One, Muhammad is the avatara, Mahmud the king).

I have always maintained the first step of bringing the ropers in line is asking them to translate their books and prayers in local languages and in sanskrit, just like rest of Indics do and say the prayers in local language. If you mean god, say Ishwara, and thousands of other names in the local language. no need to force a new foreign language. this tendency was seen in muslim rulers of India until Dara shikoh. Dara was really the finest of muslim power centers in medieval times. Unfortunately he lost to a fanatic and history changed.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 18 Sep 2011 03:46

Rudradev wrote:Some day that reaction will take shape. But who will first germinate that seed? Who will crystallize it? Who has the Dharmic fortitude to first defy Conventional/Establishment Islam en masse and say: "we are Muslims, but we will pick and choose what to follow in Islam in consonance with the civilized principles of our ancestors; we will not take dictation from you Mullahs and your Arabic book?"

Could it be India?

Ok, running for cover now

Okay, now we are talking!

(BTW, please no ji for me. It robs me of my fizz when I want to indulge in mullahgiri!)

Let us stipulate that Islam is badly in need of reformation. But the way Islam is structured, a true reformation simply cannot be imposed from outside. That greater jihad has to be led by a True Believer. Yet, the poisonous nexus between Islamic leadership and clergy means that no reformist will every become powerful enough in a muslim majority society to challenge the stus quo.

This is why the seed will only germinate in an authentically Islamic society, where a reformist Musalman leader has the power and the legitimacy to wage jehad, and is supported by a polity that has the civilizational genius to defeat the reactionary forces. I truly believe the only polity that can achieve this vijaya is India. Which is why the vajra will be Islam, but the weilder will be a modern, secular and democratic society that truly lives up to the ideal of Dar ul Islam.

Islam is not a monolith, and nowhere is this truer than in India. Besides the true greens, India has water melon, papaya, and avocado strains. And each comes with a choice in denominational flavor. Do we want a true green Deobandi, or a water melon Bereilvi? I am torn. I'd go with a Kutchi Bohra heritic, but those guys are too damn moderate to wage jihad. A papaya any denomination would be most acceptable to the larger polity, but would he be fatally handicapped when it comes to dealing with darker greens? I am inclined to favor an avocado Deobandi. Greatest credibility with the ummah, most potent against the reactionaries. Problem is, such a leader will not sound anything like a papaya, which is what we want to force all IMs to be and sound like. So I am not saying it will be easy. But it can be done. Only in India.

(I posted before knowing of the new thread. Will crosspost there as well)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Sep 2011 03:55

Y I Patel ji,

there is another thread for this discussion. Please Continue There. If I may say so, this thread is used differently.

All your posts are there.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Sep 2011 04:20

JE Menon wrote: If anyone can make a transcript of it (staying true to the Urdu, without any BRFite additions), it will be quite a valuable item...

29 minutes of it transcribed in Devanagari. Lots of ? where things were not clear to me.

http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... ebate.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Sep 2011 06:08

India should have ‘quiet’ talks with Pak on Afghanistan: Report

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 18 Sep 2011 06:36

Pakistan a haven for terror groups: NYT

“Admiral Mullen conveyed his deep concerns about the increasing — and increasingly brazen — activities of the Haqqani network and restated his strong desire to see the Pakistani military take action against them and their safe havens in North Waziristan,” said Capt. John Kirby, the chairman’s special assistant for public affairs.

Relations with Pakistan have not recovered from a near-rupture after the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos operating deep inside Pakistan in early May.

In recent days, American military officials said that a brazen attack on the United States Embassy compound and NATO headquarters in Kabul bore the hallmarks of the Haqqani network, a militant group based in Pakistan.

American officials have said they have compelling evidence that Haqqani fighters have received support and direction from Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 18 Sep 2011 07:09

all of indian MEA babus must (if they are indic and dharmic enough) say "no shit sherlocks" to all US state department babus about Pakistani perfidy on terrorism and these new development about napakistan not doing enough on "terrorism".

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 18 Sep 2011 07:11

The bottom line is that 100% pakistani people think that Mohammad Atta was a "Shaheed" and not a "terrorist" that is what matters most!! (shaheed==martyr for islamic cause).

100% of pakistani people include Army, RAPE and rest.

RAPE = Rich Anglophile Pakistani Elite

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Sep 2011 07:25

abhishek_sharma wrote:India should have ‘quiet’ talks with Pak on Afghanistan: Report

Provided Pakistani F.M. Hina Rabbani Khar and Mullah Omar are in the same room during the negotiations

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Sep 2011 07:29

Liberal façade of strategic depth — I —Farhat Taj
http://criticalppp.com/archives/57730

IMO, if anyone can save Pakistan it will be the women. The men, even if not enamoured of fundamentalism, I think can live with it because it gives them the upper hand. Women, IMO, understand that it is all up for them if Pakistan goes any further on the fundamentalist route.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Sep 2011 07:36

http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/18/munter-h ... qanis.html

“The attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago, that was the work of the Haqqani network,” Cameron Munter, the US ambassador to Islamabad, told Radio Pakistan in an interview aired on Saturday.

“There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.”

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Sep 2011 07:39

http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/18/qadri-ad ... aseer.html

Shows one more reason why religion and law should be separate. Look at the ugliness of trying to use religion as a defence for murdering someone.

RAWALPINDI: Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri confessed in the Anti-Terrorism Court on Saturday that he had killed Punjab governor Salman Taseer in Islamabad for his `blasphemous` statements.

....
...Qadri had also submitted a written statement of 40 pages, containing verses from the holy Quran, quotations from the life of the Prophet (PBUH), four decisions of the Caliphs and views of Hanafi, Shafai, Maliki, Hanbali and Jafria schools of thought from the Islamic jurisprudence about blasphemy under section 265-F (5) of the CrPC.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Sep 2011 07:54

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/18/munter-h ... qanis.html

“The attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago, that was the work of the Haqqani network,” Cameron Munter, the US ambassador to Islamabad, told Radio Pakistan in an interview aired on Saturday.

“There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.”

Like the earlier two attacks on the Indian Embassy, this too should have been ordered by the PA, executed by the LeT with logistics by Haqqani&Co.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 18 Sep 2011 08:33

TSPA's chutzpah is something else. This was a decapitation attempt in Kabul that we saw on the 13th (note the date).

They have overreached yet again. As feckless as Obama is, the US establishment and military industrial complex is too powerful and too stubborn to take this lying down.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Sep 2011 08:42

parsuram wrote:Pakis have made religion an issue. Indeed, pakis insist that religion IS the issue, only issue, issue more than, above all issues. Ergo, that is their Achilles heel, their weekest point, soft under belly, etc. That should make it target #1 for India. Rudra Guru is right. Pakis are terrified of Indian polytheism taking Mohammad. Swallowing him whole. One paki said it best: "to us, you are the Borg. you take entire religions and swallow them up. Look at what happened to Buddhism". To the extent Hinduism follows this, it is a legitimate part of discussions on dealing with paki terrorism. Having a seperate thread is good, but the essential part of comabating paki terror has to include attacking "their" religion - "paki religion"- obviously something quite distinct in and of itself. All one has to do is to make a cursory comparison - pakis with arabs, pakis with indonesians, etc. So, like the little boy that cried wolf, by all means, let us have the pakis screem "islam is in danger" over and over again. In the meantime, PUT islam in danger, by all means, let us be the "Borg". As for being an Avatar, Mohammad fits into being one of Shiva - rudra than of Vishnu. Would be a first for Shiva, btw.

How about a Vishnu avatar? Krishna had many lovers. Mohammad had many wives. Krishna was God in human form who came to save the world. Mohammad was a Prophet of God to guide the world's people. Mohammad led his followers to military victory. Krishna led the Pandavas to military victory. Ram set right the wrongs in society. So did Mohammad. Ram's rule was an ideal time on earth. So was Mohammad's time. Mohammad was an avatar of Vishnu.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 18 Sep 2011 08:47

SBajwa wrote:all of indian MEA babus must (if they are indic and dharmic enough) say "no shit sherlocks" to all US state department babus about Pakistani perfidy on terrorism and these new development about napakistan not doing enough on "terrorism".

ON the contrary. Those babus need to tell the State Department Babus onlee that "Oh that!! we knew about that going down about 3 weeks ago. You guys just dont have the right humint." Ya.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 18 Sep 2011 09:03

A_Gupta wrote:....
...Qadri had also submitted a written statement of 40 pages, containing verses from the holy Quran, quotations from the life of the Prophet (PBUH), four decisions of the Caliphs and views of Hanafi, Shafai, Maliki, Hanbali and Jafria schools of thought from the Islamic jurisprudence about blasphemy under section 265-F (5) of the CrPC.

AoA!! he should be set free.....

'No Haqqani network sanctuaries in Pakistan' ... so says Haqqani.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Sep 2011 10:27

[url=xxxhttp://www.dawn.com/2011/09/17/over-300-killed ... loods.html]paki begging soars as rain pours[/url]

Recent floods in Sindh caused by monsoon rains have killed almost 300 people and affected six million others causing damage to an area of 7.987 million of land destroying many crops.

The UN-led humanitarian community in Pakistan is seeking $337 million from donor countries for an emergency response plan to support the government in addressing the needs of flood-affected families in Sindh.

and they are giving up on IMF program for the 8th time, proving pak is a begger's economy.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 18 Sep 2011 11:03

Yes, but the Haqqanis still don't want to accept responsibility for the attack, because their "higher" leadership has ordered so. I wonder why that is... I mean, if their leadership and infrastructure is in Afghanistan, and there are no Pakistani linkages whatsoever, shouldn't they be proud of their acheivement - a fidayeen attack, which is basically a modification of the Mumbai attack - and undoubtedly done with shared expertise between LeT/Haqqani network?

Kayani is upping the ante, regardless of the bullshit he spouts at NATO meetings. He is throwing down the gauntlet. Hafiz Saeed had warned of what was coming in India, and it is beginning to play out with Mumbai/Delhi recently. Meanwhile, Americans are being attacked in Afghanistan with the Haqqanis. Both LeT & Haqqani are co-operating, sharing expertise, among other things. This is being co-ordinated at a higher level, which wants to take no responsibility - by taking no responsibility they retain both plausible (in their minds) deniability and yet manage to send the message they want to send. If we on BRF can get it, be damned sure the Americans and our own folk in Delhi can.

It's a dare from the Pak military: This is the game we want to play. You don't want to play it by our rules? OK, this is what we will do to make you play. WTF are you going to do about it? And in the background is the silent mantra, heard by all: "We have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons". And the Chinese, like the Americans in the past, are being used. They don't have to do much. Facile gestures will do to serve Pakistan's purpose.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 18 Sep 2011 11:07

Thanks a million A_Gupta...

Guys, spread the link widely please. Even if one mind is opened, you never know how important that mind can be.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Sep 2011 13:34

JE Menon wrote:Yes, but the Haqqanis still don't want to accept responsibility for the attack, because their "higher" leadership has ordered so. I wonder why that is...

JEM, that is a very valid question. I can think of an answer to that.

One could be that the Haqqanis have always been silent operators. Though he is a Ghilzai and a legendary mujahideen commander during the 1979-89 Afghan jihad, Jalaluddin Haqqani is not a Kandahari. The emergence of the Kandahar-based Mullah Omar shifted the power decisively there and though Jalaluddin shares the same worldview as the Taliban, he is not powerful enough within the Talibani hierarchy. He certainly is not a Taliban because he did not come from the madrasseh. He should be described more accurately as a successful warlord who is on the side of AQAM. His contacts with the ISI, on the other hand, have been very deep and he comes from the Paktia province and shares affinity with the Pashtuns on either side of the Durand line. During the Afghan jihad, the ISI heavily favoured the non-Durrani groups and Yunus Khalis (of the Hezb-e-Islami) was a favourite, under whom Jalaluddin Haqqani served. None of the seven Afghan jihadi groups to which the ISI distributed money and material during the jihad days was a Durrani-led group. The Karzais (Durranis) were thus discarded by Pakistan and it is very evident from the time Hamid Karzai took over power. The Pakistani aversion to the Durranis is because of the latter's irredentism over Greater Pashtunistan encompassing NWFP within it and their close ties with India. Besides, the ISI has been a reliable supporter of the Haqqanis with funds and arms for three decades now. Certainly, the Haqqanis would abide by an ISI request. That is why Jalaluddin's son, Sirajuddin, has refused to accept responsibility.

And, why doesn't the ISI want the Haqqani to claim the responsibility for the attack ? First of all, there are few occassions in the past when the Haqqani-group 'claimed' credit for any attack. Besides, this could have been a joint LeT-Haqqani operation. Though the Haqqanis could very well execute such an operation all by themselves, the LeT wants to be involved in sarkari-sponsored terrorist operations so that it could retain those frothing-at-the-mouth-corner jihadis within its fold. Also, if the Haqqanis now claim credit, the US will pile-up pressure on the PA to act. Kayani has just now said in a NATO meeting that time was not ripe for any action in North Waziristan and that the PA alone would determine when to act there. At the same time, the PA, smarting from the Abbottabad insult is itching to teach a lesson or two. The downing of the Chinook last month that killed two dozen SEALs, including some who participated in Op. Geronimo is not considered enough.

We may not know how much evidence does the US possess of the Haqqani involvement. But, because of their own interests, they are quickly blaming them so that they can pressurize the PA.

And the Chinese, like the Americans in the past, are being used. They don't have to do much. Facile gestures will do to serve Pakistan's purpose.

Absolutely. The induction of the PLA into Pakistan and POK is to deter India and the US. Pakistan and China are increasingly becoming adventurous. A large part of Pakistan's behaviour comes from its assessment that the US is increasingly a spent force and will not have the will to call the Pakistani bluff with PRC displaying enough support.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Sep 2011 13:55

I personally don't think India will be "deterred" by the PLA in PoK. As far as India goes there has been no official information, no public announcement by Pakistan or the PLA that they are in Kashmir. If India needs to hit whoever there is in PoK India will hit them. In any case India is deterred from hitting Pakistan and that is what will save PLA ass.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 18 Sep 2011 14:05

As a side note, Indonesia going paki way, didn't know which thread this belongs to
http://us.en.vivanews.com/news/read/240 ... nt-to-jail
Victim of Indonesian Mob Attack Sent to Jail
"I'm the victim. Why am I getting a higher sentence than some of the perpetrators?"

..how the police, the judicial system and the government are helping fuel religious intolerance in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

Sudjana was convicted of inciting violence because he defied police orders to leave the scene when the attackers arrived at a meeting of the minority Ahmadiyah sect.

from http://us.en.vivanews.com/news/read/241 ... minorities

a small, extremist fringe has grown more vocal and violent in recent years. They've been emboldened by the inaction of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who relies on the support of Islamic parties in Parliament, and does not want to offend conservative Muslims by taking sides.

Seems Indonesia has learnt a lot from the most pious from pakistan. However, the Ahmediayas are the common minorities in both countries.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Sep 2011 14:51

shiv wrote:I personally don't think India will be "deterred" by the PLA in PoK.

But, that's what Pakistan thinks. I have been saying since the time PLA arrived on the scene along the LoC & IB that both PLA and PA are making wrong assumptions. PA has always misread Indian intentions and resolve since 1947.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Sep 2011 14:54

I had set myself the task of writing a transcript of this 28 minute interview of Pakhani President Suhrawardy in the US channel CBS's "Face the nation" around 1957 or so. The video is linked below and the transcript below that. See how the RAPE slimeball accuses india of spreading communism into Pakistan, among other things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNiFZ856fk0

Background announcer: Prime minister Suhrawardy - "Face the Nation"

Background announcer:"You're about to see Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy (HSS) Prime Minister of Pakistan face the nation and the questions from veteran correspondents representing the nation's press.Chalmers Roberts (CR) diplomatic correspondent for the Wahington Post and Times Herald, Bill Downs (PB) of CBS news and John Madigan (JM) of the Washington bureau of Newsweek. And now substituting for Stewart Melbourne from CBS news and public affairs, the moderator of "Face the Nation" George Herman (GH).

GH: Insofar as western policy is concerned one nation forms the land bridge between the troubled middle east and the potentially troublesome far east, that nation is Pakistan a Moslem republic which faces Iran and the Arab world on one frontier and Burma and the Asian world on the other. At the ehad of the pro-western government of Pakistan is Prime minister Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy a lawyer with a background of working for labor organizations and a foreground of a fondness for the broadest possible kind of democracy.He has a reputation for frank and unabashed speech. We'll see about that now as we get our first question from Mr Madigan.

John Madigan (JM): Mr Prime Minister what have you and President Eisenhower accomplished in your conferences that could not have been effected at the ambassadorial level or through meetings of our state department with your foreign office

Suhrawardy: Well I think personal contacts have their value and uh we understand something more about American doctrine and American politics by personal contacts and I think that President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles understands more of my mind and what I propose to do.

Phil Downs(PB): Mr Suhrawardy the uh communique makes no specific mention of military aid. Your nation is a bridge between SEATO and the Baghdad pact. Did you get additional military aid?

Suhrawardy: Well I don't know, but it is obvious that all the time we are reviewing the..our military requirements Mr Downs. The position really is that we are not seeking military aid in such quantities as it will make it difficult for us to digest all the aid that we get <inaudible> want just enough military aid to save us from aggression

Chalmers Roberts (CR): You did ask sir while speaking to the President and the secretary for some additional military equipment is that correct?

Suhrawardy: We have assessed - all that I can say is that we are continuously assessing our requirements. At the present moment my view is that we have not received sufficient military aid.

CR: The communique that you have issued with the president jointly speaks of serious financial pressures on your governement due to maintaining your military forces which are allied of course with American forces in two specific pacts out there is your part of the world. What do you mean by that? What are those financial pressures and what are you asking us to help you do to relieve them?

Suhrawardy: Well Mr Roberts the position is that our revenue and our income is not sufficient to maintain our equipment at a proper standard. When I mean a proper standard it is not sufficient to save us from aggression - and all that we want is that America should come to our assistance to that extent that we shall be able without fear (sic) of being attacked by any quarter to carry on with our cooperative effort and our constructive efforts.

BD: Mr Prime minister speaking of aggression the Indian say that they fear an attack from Pakistan in the area of Kashmir. Do you intend to use military force to enforce what you consider your rights in that area.

Suhrawardy: Obviously not. We are not fools. The Indians are tremendously very much stronger than we are. It was the Indians that moved their forces on the borders of Pakistan twice, once in 1950 and another in 1955. We never moved our forces at their borders against them.

CR: Mr Prime minister you've just said in this communique with the president that you have "pledged to try to solve this Kashmir question with your Indian neighbors peacefully" yet in a speech that you made in your own parliament not long before you came here you said that you had reached in your approach to the United nations "our very last throw of the dice - we cannot continue to live under these conditions" You have been unable to solve this directly with the Indians, what do you mean by that. How are you going to solve it

Suhrawardy: I am afraid Mr Roberts you misunderstood me. I've said that so far as our relationship with India is concerned and the Kashmir question we have tried to resolve the question by mutual conversation and contacts but we have not reached any conclusion. Consequently we have approached the United Nations now and we expect that the United nations would do justice.

John Madigan (JM): Do you feel Mr Prime Minister that president Eisenhower is going to give you, through the United States in the United Nations, strong backing to try and get the demands?

Suhrawardy: Well I am certain about it. If he doesn't do so I will be deeply disappointed because I expect from him a sense of justice that he will try and seek that the matters between us are adjusted.

JM: He has so said and you have in the communique that you hoped that it would be solved on a just basis under United Nations "principles" I think was the term that you used.

Suhrawardy: Yes

JM: What action expressly will be taken by the Unietd States in the United Nations in relation to the Kashmir issue.

Suhrawardy: Oh I think Mr Madigan that the United States ought, in the security council, and later on in the general assembly which is necessary for us to go to the general assembly to use its weight and its influence and its persuasion to see that the other countries of the world also realise the justice of our case.

JM: You say that the United States ought" to do that. The president said that we will do that?

Suhrawardy: Well I expect that he will.

JM He has said so?

Suhrawardy: Well if he has said so then I am sure that he will.

BD Mr Prime minister we in this country are familiar with the fights over water. In Kashmir and the Indus valley which your country comprises um th Indians have been threatening to build dams which would cut off ah a large part of your irrigation water. Now we have had range wars over this question in the west in the past and even in the present I think - California and the rest of the..would you go to war if India did build these dams and cut off your uh livelihood that way?

Suhrawardy: Oh let us not talk about these hypothetical matters I ... I don't..I cannot conceive that India would ever be so . uhhh.. I would like a word ..so barbarous to stop the water flowing down our rivers.

BD: So what is the solution?

Suhrawardy: There are as you know six rivers. Most of them arise in Kashmir. One of the reasons why therefore Kashmir is so important for us is this water, these waters which irrigate our lands. They do not irrigate Indian lands. Now what India has done is not threatening it is actually.. it is building a dam - today and it is threatening to cut off the waters of the three rivers for the purpose of irrigating its land. Now if it does so, without replacement it is obvious that we shall be starved out and <inaudible> of people will die of thirst. Under those circumstances I hope that contingency will never arise you can well realise that rather than dying in that manner people will die fighting. Because that will be the very worst form of aggression. But I think that before any such situation can arise those countries of the world that undertake and have undertaken to ensure that peace exists and that matters betwen countries of our type are adjusted will step in to see that Indian does not perform any such barbarous <inaudible>

CR: Mr. Prime Minister that's at least a future contingency you're discussing. I'd like to ask you this about the Kashmir dispute with India. The Indians claim that the United Nations resolution on this question said that first of all you should pull you troops out of Kashmir and that all the other steps in the UN resolution were contingent on that including the idea of plebiscite and that you have never done that. What is Pakistan's answer to that charge?

Suhrawardy: Pakistan's answer to that charge is the United Nations resolution and the reaffirmation of that resolution not so long ago was January the twenty fourth or twenty third 1957. After all this matter is raised <cough> by India before the security council ad this contention has been rejected. That is not the correct reading of the resolutions of the United Nations. These are nothing else but plausible uh excuses that are put forard by Mr. Nehru for the purpose of giving a semblance aah um ..some..some. adequate specious reason for his intransigence.

JM: On this very show last Sunday Mr. Prime Minister, Mr Nehru disagreed with your 100 percent.

Suhrawardy: Well I disagree with Mr. Nehru more than 100% if that is possible

BD: Mr. Prime Minister Can there be real peace between Pakistan and India until you settle or..the religious question. When India was partitioned there was probably one of the greatest bloodbaths in civilization's history took place.several million people were slaughtered for religious reasons. Is theer an answer to the dispute between the Hindu and the Moslem?

Suhrawardy: That mater is closed. India was partitioned on that ground. Ther were these tragedies that took place particularly between the two wings of the Punjab as passions were high. After that we have settled down to work. There are ..one eighth of the population of India is Muslim and one eighth of the population of Pakistan is non Muslim. We are trying our level best to see that justice is done to the minorities. So far as we are concerned we haven't had a single riot since 1950 when Nehru and the late Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan came to certain agreements regarding the treatment of the minorities. In India I believe that theer have been as many as four hundred and two from that time till now.

JM: Mr. Prime Minister a few months ago when Mr Nehru was here in the United States one of our coleagues referred to him as the "mystical man in the middle" - he meant - he was referring to Mr. Nehru's stand on non alignment and neutralism. What is your description of Mr. Nehru's position in the cold war?

Suhrawardy: Well I think that Mr. Nehru himself does not understand his position.Mr. Nehru occasionally leans on one side occasionally on the other. The result is he gets the best of both worlds that is to his advantage and I think he continues to pursue that policy because up till now he has not been caught short and..

JM: But you too said up until a short time ago I followed a policy of non alignment

Suhrawardy: No I don't think so..

JM: You are interpreted as saying until nineteen fifty-three fifty-four not connecting yourself with either side and I beleive you have said recently that you have learned something since that time which had attached you solidly to the west. Is that correct?

Suhrawardy: Yes the position was if I can cast my mind back- it was some time in 1950, when I <mumble> to the question of these defensive pacts and alliances and so on <mumble> was some time in 1950 when I thought it desirable that we remain aloof from the world conflict ..er.. and still I would say this, that the policy that I have <inaudible> down to my country is goodwill towards all and malice towards none.There's no reason why we should uh start in a shining charger and uh start tilting against windmills. The uhh uh in 1953 or 1954 it was not uh I do not thing I ever stated that we should not ally ourselves with any countries..

CR: Mr Prime Minister..

Suhrawardy: ..but, just one minute er at that moment I had stated that I had not sufficient knowledge of the political situation and of our state of preparedness er and so on.. uh because the uh government did not take either the country or the opposition into confidence uh uhh therefore as I said as I had no sufficient knowledge I was not prepared to give a dictum as to what should be our policy. As I said that recently I have come to know more about the situation and I am perfectly satisfied that <mumble> the manner in which Pakistan can be safe from aggression and the security of the middle east can be assured is through these security pacts into which we have entered.

CR: Mr. Prime Minister some of the cynics say that the erason Pakistan has joined these pacts with western countries especially the United States has to do in part at least with reasons other than military ones, that is, they have to do with economic reasons that is in fact your budget is supported to some 40% by the United States. Is that correct?

Suhrawardy: Well our budget is supported to some extent but that is not the reason why we have joined the United States. We were uh um on the - uh in the same boat as you know - <mumble> we fought in the same manner. On account of the religious fundamental principles that we profess. Therefore this has nothing whatsoever to do with the economic situation. After all uhh the United Nations is assisting us as it is assisting forty other countries that's an entirely different matter. But uhh we are not selling our independence <mumble> our independence of thought or really even independence of action except for these economic reasons 16:14

BD: Mr. Prime minister..

Suhrawardy: But should the United States choose to cut it off, we shall still continue on the path .. <inaudible>

CR: Is 40 percent a correct figure of the amount of your budget which comes by one means or another in the form of American help?

Suhrawardy: Well I wouldn't .. no I don't think so. I think aah.. the great portion of the foreign exchange which is available to us for our development purposes. That comes from the United states because most of our foreign exchange is committed to meeting our own defence requirements.

BD: Uh Mr. Prime Minister you are our bridge between the middle east, the uh south east Asia and just north of you there is a big nation called China, communist China and you've been there recently I believe..

Suhrawardy: Yes

BD: What is Pakistan's relationship and how do you feel about uh this colossus north of you?

Suhrawardy: Well I've told you that uh we our policy is uh not to have malice against anyone and so long as China does not interfere with us I see no reason why I should interfere with China. But China has <got?> a very important place in world politics and uh you have to wait it is trying to reconstruct itself

BD: Do you think the United States should recognise China?

Suhrawardy: Uh that is a matter of policy for the Unites States and I think that only recently your secretary of state Mr. Dulles has given what he considers to be very adequate reasons why uh China should not be recognised.17:54

BD: Do you agree with it?

Suhrawardy: To some extent I must say <drowned out by next question>

BD: Mr. Prime minister, diplomatic relations does your government have diplomatic reations with Peking or with the Formosa government?

Suhrawardy: No our government has diplomatic relations with Peking government

JM: The communique - yours and president Eisenhower's spoke of "exerting influence" in the middle east to solve the problem there (the) Israeli-Arab problem. What do you specifically mean? What type of influence and how would you exert it?

Suhrawardy: Well I think that Palestinian question or the Israeli problem has got to be solved if we are ever going to be certain about peace in the middle east. And I think that it is the duty of all persons of goodwill to do whatever they can in bringing about <inaudible>

JM: What specifically can Pakistan or the United states do?

Suhrawardy: Well I think that they could bring the two parties together. They could try and reason ..

JM: Outside the United Nations?

Suhrawardy: Yes outside the United nations

JM: In other words you are calling upon the United States to act as an individual mediator in this problem?

Suhrawardy: It could.

JM: How about Pakistan? Would you be willing to be a mediator in this problem?

Suhrawardy: Yes I would

BD: There has been some speculation Mr. Prime minister that you have ambitions to lead the Moslem world or at least a <unclear>. Mr Nasser also has similar ambitions aaah where do you stand on this uhh struggle for the Moslem world if there is one?

Suhrawardy: I think there is no struggle. Mr Nasser has got ambitions well let him pursue his ambitions. I have no such ambitions. All that I have been wanting to do is to bring the Muslim world together so that they can sit down at the same table and discuss matter amongst themselves. All these disputes which exist between the member nations may be resolved. International - with regard to international disputes we may be able to put forth suggestions which may be able to resolve them. And so far as leadership is concerned my view definitely is that if any country desires to get the leadership of the Muslim world then that combination - namely the Muslim world coming together is bound to fail. 20:10

CR: Mr. Prime minister, how is Pakistan in a position to exert any influence in the middle east conflict between the Arabs and teh israelis when you have recently said of Israel "We have never recognised it and we shall never recognise it" You are entirely on one side of that controversy are you not?

Suhrawardy: Well I'm afraid that is the position of Pakistan because I am of the opinion that the creation of Israel was wrong. But after all there is Israel and uh everyone reallises that there must be an adjustment and an agreement between the Arab world - between the Arab nations that resent the existence of Israel and Israel itself. An agreement of this nature connotes that they recognise the existence of Israel. That they recognise that uh if there is an agreement betwen these two parties, then one of the parties is not exterminated. 21:12

CR: You would advise all the Moslem nations to accept Israel as a fact of life?

Suhrawardy: I'm afraid there is no other alternative. But there's no reason why Pakistan should recognize its existence as uh some thing that uh its a fact its a very unpleasant fact..

JM: Mr Prime Minister doesn't your discussion here regarding China, Israel, Egypt, all these countries, United States, Russia - you say don't tilt with windmills, windmills don't start a war does this not place you a little bit in the position of similar to Nehru's, non alignment and like everybody? 21:53

Suhrawardy: Oh no. On the other hand we say this, that if there is aggession with respect of any of the countries with which we have agreed it will be the duty of Pakistan to enter into the fray

JM: You're saying then that all these pacts are only defensive pacts

Suhrawardy: They are defensive.

JM: .. and that no more economic pressure should be brought to bear on any of these parties in the communist sphere of the world

Suhrawardy: Well I'm sure that that must also be the policy of the United states..

JM: Is it your policy?

Suhrawardy: ..not to have aggression

JM: Is it your policy to bring other pressures to bear on these nations

Suhrawardy: Well I think.. I .. As I do not believe in their ideology. I think that we should try and see that they conform more to the things that we believe in and uh possibly there are internal pressures as you can see now visible in these countries from which one can um hope that there is going to be a change in the internal policy of ..

George Herman: Mr Prime minister you personally are pushing for wide general elections in your own country and yet one of your neigbours to the South under distinguished Moslem leader Mr. Sukarno has said that he thinks that the people of Asia are not yet ready for this broad kind of democracy. What is your answer to that? 23:17

Suhrawardy: Oh Mr Sukarno might speak for his country but not for ours. I think that we are. I think that the British have given us sufficient background to have..they have brought us up in that uh within that atmosphere of democracy.

GH: If I may follow your line of thought then you do not feel that the Dutch people gave the Indonesians enough of that kind of background

Suhrawardy: I wouldn't like to into the internal history of Indonesia.

BD: Do you fear in your own country an ideological invasion from the north? In other words do you have a political threat of communism in uh in Pakistan?

Suhrawardy: Well uh I must say that attempts have been made to infiltrate into our country and there has been some demand of spread of communism and unfortunately uhhh communist countries themselves have not to that extent directly interfered <mumble> or have infiltrated but have utilised neutral neutralist countries.

CR: You're saying that - are you saying sir that this communist spread of subversion is coming through the Indian communist party rather than <unclear> say the embassies of the Soviet Union and Chinese communists?

Suhrawardy: Well that's rather an embarrasing question but there is no question about it that uhh that uhh there are Indian agents in our country that are preaching communism amongst our people

BD: Prime minister recently our ally Britain uhh changed her mind or at least diverted from our policy to liberalise her trade with Red China. Are you also going to liberalise your trade with red China?

Suhrawardy: Well we have been trading with red China to some extent, we have been selling it uh cotton we have been taking from them coal. I do not think that uhhh our trade can be of such a nature as uh can be considered to be of strategic value to China. 25:39

CR: At the start of the program Mr. Prime minister you spoke of personal contacts with Presdent Eisenhower saying they were good because it dispelled certain doubts. What doubts did you have concerning teh United Sates or President Eisenhower?

Suhrawardy: Did I use the word ..

CR: You didn't use the word doubt, you said "Not clear in each others minds what you were thinking or what the United States was thinking"

Suhrawardy: No. On the other hand possibly we were more confirmed in our views as to our attitude and uh..

CR: Did you get everything you wanted while you were in Washington?

Suhrawardy: Nah I didn't come here for a "got everything" - there's something that's gone wrong with you all to think that anybody who comes here comes here with the idea of wanting something. Surely coming here and talking to your leaders means that I can also contribute something in the matter of <inaudible>

CR: That wsn't said in the term of derogation Mr. Prime minister. It meant the legitimate desires that you might have

Suhrawardy: umm well we all know the position and the ah relationship that exists between us and that's that. Surely we come here in order to um make friends and to know the people more and to have personal contacts and <inaudible> about the civilization and culture of your country.

CR: You want a "meeting of minds" that's what you're saying and not merely material..

Suhrawardy: Well I should put it like that Mr Roberts. That probably is correct. 27:05 I mean it's true I don't place myself on the par of the United States by any means. The United States is a very great country and it has given a certain moral philosophy which did not exist before - namely the country helping other smaller countries is something people did not realise <inaudible>

GH: I'm afraid that's all the time we have Mr. Prime Minister. hank you very much for coming here to face the nation. My thanks also to our panel of distinguished newsmen, Chalmers Roberts of The Washington Post and Times Herald, Bill Downs of CBS news, and John Madigan of Newsweek. This is George Herman.

sanjchopra · Post by **sanjchopra** » 18 Sep 2011 15:37

US drone crashes in Pakistan: security officials

An unmanned United States drone aircraft crashed in Pakistan's lawless northwestern tribal district on Sunday after suffering a technical fault, local security officials said.

Two intelligence officials in Wana, the main town of South Waziristan, confirmed the incident. It was an armed Predator drone, they said.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 18 Sep 2011 15:54

^^
We can soon see lizard like Pledatol dlones in green paint.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Sep 2011 16:26

x-posted

ISLAMABAD: The ambassador of Tajikistan, Zubaidin Zubaidov, has told reporters that his country and Pakistan were ready to start work on the Dushanbe-Chitral highway.

Speaking to the media at the embassy here, he rejected some demands that the road should be built through the Ghizer district of Gilgit-Baltistan.

He said from Tajikistan’s border to Chitral’s Boroghil valley, the distance was hardly 20 km while that to Ghizer it was around 400 km. He said for his government, the road through Chitral was the most suitable one.

He said both the countries were waiting for a go-ahead signal from the government of Afghanistan and as soon as Kabul gives approval to the project, work on the highway would be started.

The ambassador said that by building the highway, his country would get direct access to the Gwadar port.

Afghan government’s ‘go-ahead signal’ awaited on Chitral – Dushanbe road: Tajik envoy

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 18 Sep 2011 16:34

Thanks SS, for that detailed and precise post.

It is exactly that which is my point, i.e. that the Haqqanis are not claiming responsibility precisely because they are based in Pakistani army controlled land and because they have been told by their controllers in the ISI not to claim responsibility. There is no other reason for this lack of a claim of responsibility, unless they are not the ones who carried out this attack - and we all know that they are the only ones who could have done it.

Now the question is what the Americans are going to do about it... My feeling is that the Americans are playing their classic game, which we have seen before in various places and in various forms. A steady, but well-phased, escalation of rhetoric with each new breach by the Paks of what the Americans considerable acceptable behaviour by their client state. The Paks have no choice but to sit quiet and take it, or escalate themselves. So far they are escalating. To me it seems like we are heading quite fast to a point where one of them will have to blink...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Sep 2011 17:21

Qadri pleads guilty to killing Taseer
We should see very interesting defence arguments. It would be also interesting to see how many judges will hear this case eventually and what judgement will be given. The case may eventually end up in the Federal Shariat Court too and the killer exonerated.

Qadri's counsel Raja Shuja-ur-Rehman told reporters outside the prison that his client had admitted to killing Taseer, and that nobody had instigated him to do so, the Dawn reports.

He said that Qadri had also submitted a written statement of 40 pages, containing verses from the holy Quran, quotations from the life of the Prophet, four decisions of the Caliphs and views of Hanafi, Shafai, Maliki, Hanbali and Jafria schools of thought from the Islamic jurisprudence about blasphemy under section 265-F (5) of the CrPC.

Qadri contended that Taseer had committed blasphemy under these references and, every person who committed such act or supported a blasphemer or doubted that the punishment of blasphemer was unjustified or practically tried to abolish sentence for commission of blasphemy, was liable to death.

The defence lawyer said the prosecution raised no objection to the statement, therefore, the judge admitted the statement and made it a part of the court record.

Raja Shuja said Taseer was a national leader and his personal conduct was public property, and that every citizen had a right to question a leader's conduct. {and arrogate to himself the power to punish}

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Sep 2011 18:01

JE Menon wrote:Thanks SS, for that detailed and precise post.

It is exactly that which is my point, i.e. that the Haqqanis are not claiming responsibility precisely because they are based in Pakistani army controlled land and because they have been told by their controllers in the ISI not to claim responsibility. There is no other reason for this lack of a claim of responsibility, unless they are not the ones who carried out this attack - and we all know that they are the only ones who could have done it.

Now the question is what the Americans are going to do about it... My feeling is that the Americans are playing their classic game, which we have seen before in various places and in various forms. A steady, but well-phased, escalation of rhetoric with each new breach by the Paks of what the Americans considerable acceptable behaviour by their client state. The Paks have no choice but to sit quiet and take it, or escalate themselves. So far they are escalating. To me it seems like we are heading quite fast to a point where one of them will have to blink...

+1

The Pakis being Pakis, will go over the line with another 'plausibly deniable' Faisal Shazad ("He's American not Pakistani" argument). In a presidential election cycle, it's going to invite massive US response. Not necessarily B-52s but a strike on the crown jewels. This will be a big approval ratings boost for Obama.

As I've said before IMHO, GoI has outsourced its Pakistan policy to the US and maybe this is the end product they were hoping for.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 18 Sep 2011 18:37

He said that Qadri had also submitted a written statement of 40 pages, containing verses from the holy Quran, quotations from the life of the Prophet, four decisions of the Caliphs and views of Hanafi, Shafai, Maliki, Hanbali and Jafria schools of thought from the Islamic jurisprudence about blasphemy under section 265-F (5) of the CrPC.

I think there is food for thought in that for those who feel that co-opting the superficial into 'Hinduism' somehow will suffice to restrain the violent impact of Islamist interpretations into our societies. Many aspects of Islamic doctrine will have not to be respected, but rejected outright. Many nations including Islamic ones have already done so. Qadri's trial will show Pakistan's struggle. Qadri and his Counsel would have given the very same examples that are doled out by Pipes, Sina etc..and which are protested by 'Islamic moderates' as misinterpretations..whereas it is has been well observed how Qadri fan clubs have been propagating all over including on Facebook etc. That kind of thinking on co-opting in some form will result in hastening Islamization of India pronto.

Our fear to confront the violent aspects of doctrine be it by pandering for 'votes', Psec'ism, appeasement, Co-opting it as our own etc are only laced with outright danger to the very core concept of Bharat. Today we don't talk/ fight about Indic superficials like naming laws, roads etc only after our Rishi's or Sages or thinkers..we reflect and feel pride that our Indic value systems embody themselves in qualities of Pluralism, Incluvism, respect for different faiths etc, but we have to be firm when we expand that core which is perfectly acceptable to a large section of Indian Muslims if not Indian Islam. But when we clarify/ expand on our value systems with time we must make sure we don't compromise them by superficial co-option. That in one stroke damages our core. Respect for people of different faith in no way must imply respect for their doctrine. That is an essential difference that is being lost in the plot to try and think out of the box.

Qadri's trial will show up that conflict..within Pakistan.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 18 Sep 2011 18:55

Sacked Pak NSA got ISI nod to reveal Kasab info: WikiLeaks

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's sacked national security adviser Mahmood Durrani has claimed he had "written authority and had conferred with the ISI" chief before admitting to the media that 26/11 Mumbai terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab was a Pakistani, shows a US cable revealed by WikiLeaks.

Prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani axed Durrani January 7, 2009, and a day later he met US ambassador Anne Patterson. Durrani told Patterson that he had consulted with ISI chief general Shuja Pasha about announcing Kasab was Pakistani.

The ISI chief had been very specific that the government wanted to disseminate that information, reported Dawn. The cable points out Durrani saying he was one of the four people authorized, in writing, to make such statements on behalf of the government.

The Pakistan government, however, did not coordinate the release of the information with foreign secretary Salman Bashir, first denying it and then confirming it. The PM learnt about the statements when he was in Lahore and out of the loop, the cable says and Gilani decided to fire Durrani for not consulting him. The US envoy went on to say Gilani had received a memo authorizing Durrani to confirm Kasab's nationality, but he may not have seen it.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Sep 2011 19:10

Don't mean to re-post, but what I find interesting about the comment from US ambassador to TSP: US envoy links Haqqani militants to Pakistan government is implicating TSP govt. In the past, US would go out of its way to protect TSP, i.e., separating out TSP govt (10% & Co) from TSPA/ISI, and even when they would want to revelal the truth, it would be half baked, i.e., "elements of TSPA/ISI". So what has changed?

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 18 Sep 2011 20:19

CRamS wrote:Don't mean to re-post, but what I find interesting about the comment from US ambassador to TSP: US envoy links Haqqani militants to Pakistan government is implicating TSP govt. In the past, US would go out of its way to protect TSP, i.e., separating out TSP govt (10% & Co) from TSPA/ISI, and even when they would want to revelal the truth, it would be half baked, i.e., "elements of TSPA/ISI". So what has changed?

American blood. Dead Americans. That changes Everything.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 18 Sep 2011 20:53

Dilbu wrote:^^
We can soon see lizard like Pledatol dlones in green paint.

From BEEBs

Pakistan troops fight Taliban after US drone crash

Pakistani troops have battled Taliban fighters for the debris of a US unmanned drone which crashed in a north-western tribal area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14964951

I wonder why???

More baksheesh in sight.....like vultures scavenging

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 19 Sep 2011 03:58

Suhrawardy: Well I disagree with Mr. Nehru more than 100% if that is possible

So this more than 100% fetish started way back itself...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Sep 2011 05:09

True Momin Qadri has 400%enly surpassed the Hoor Luving Ghazi Ilum Deen in the religious piety and pure practice of Pakistaniyat. He has indeed fullfilled his religious obligations to kill the blasphemer and earned the spiritual benefit in this and other world not only for himself but his father , brothers and other male family members. Lets hope at least 20% of population of Pakistan follow the footsteps of this brave young man and kill all the munfaqeens and murtads hiding in the Kabila.

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Sep 2011 06:44

No, this is not about the normal “IT” aka Islamic Terrorism that emanates from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan where among others people strap on suicide vests and blow themselves in an act of Jihad while chanting Allah Hu Akbar. This on the other hand is about that lesser known ”IT” aka Information Technology in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Calls for promoting IT culture in Pakistan

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Sep 2011 07:06

In the Land of the Pure, there is Pure and then there is Pure:

Cleric held for Quran desecration