Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - July 07, 2009

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Aug 2009 14:56

Hari Seldon wrote:If indeed TSP forms the nucleus of the caliphate, who becomes caliph?

Hari, that's a question for which Islam, to the extent I know of, has not given a clear-cut answer and hence the Shiat Ali and the rest of the history. Among the Pakistani Sunnis, there is nobody from the Quraish tribe. Even if somebody claims that, the Saudis will not allow that. It will be a bloody fight therefore.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Aug 2009 16:29

Indo-Pak ties on equality: Gilani

Replying to a question about Pakistan's relations with India, he said Islamabad has always maintained that the ties "should be on the basis of equality."

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 02 Aug 2009 18:21

Time to be pragmatic in relations with India
By Karamatullah K. Ghori
This guy is a retired Pakistani ambassador. Times must be tough.

To a world already saddled with the prickly issue of combating the global menace of terrorism, an India-Pakistan stand-off could only add to nervous tension.

For another, the two leaders seemed alive to the need of not letting the plethora of their complicated relations remain mired in the bog of one over-arching issue; Kashmir, in the case of Pakistan, and terrorism, in that of India.

They (Media) went to town angrily remonstrating and protesting that Manmohan had squandered the chips in his hands for nothing in return from his interlocutor. But these shrieks of angst were largely an expression of innate enmity against Pakistan than anything else. Manmohan Singh showed great maturity in refusing to remain a prisoner to the chimera of terrorism.

To the Pakistani pundits, it was a refreshing sight to see PM Gilani in the limelight of global attention.

Gilani is also a better choice for putting a new accent on relations with India. Soft-spoken and unassuming, just like his Indian opposite number, the two of them make an ideal pair to tackle the daunting task of repairing their badly bruised relations.

The Obama administration has put Afghanistan on the front burner of its global concern and priority. And Afghanistan’s chestnut can’t be pulled out of the fire without Pakistan’s help.

The Pakistanis may feel impelled — for entirely home-consumption — to congratulate themselves that they managed to pin down Manmohan on the Indian RAW provocatively bankrolling the Balochistan Liberation Movement and also larding its arsenal with weapons. The Americans have also been conscious of these Indian shenanigans in the Karzai-ruled Afghanistan where Indian consulates have mushroomed since the Taliban were ousted. These consulates have been up to their eye-balls doing everything other than consular work, according to independent think tanks in the US. Pakistan has had a genuine concern about the nefarious activities of these Indian spy dens focused on de-stabilising Pakistan.

The obvious message out of Sharm al-Sheikh is that American effort in calibrating — if not exactly choreographing — a new culture of soft diplomacy between India and Pakistan — otherwise, usually, given to rambunctious and loud-mouthed rhetoric — is making inroads into India-Pakistan relations.

Prime Minister Gilani has, no doubt, added a feather in his cap by being seen as an equal to his Indian counterpart at what deserves to be hailed as a watershed meeting.

It has gone on for far too long that Pakistan has adamantly insisted that it be treated at par with India by the outside world, especially by the West where Pakistan has invested the bulk of its diplomatic effort over the past more than half a century. The West, especially the US, which has always had a special place in Pakistan’s foreign policy orientation, obliged us on this account only because its Cold War interests were better served by taking a hyphenated approach to its relations with the two biggies of South Asia.

Pakistan is no longer in India’s league in Washington’s calculus, or that of any other country in the world. The twains are no longer on the same page with anyone. India is seen as a progressive and truly democratic country while Pakistan is unable to cast off its caricature of a violence-prone, military-dominated, feudal society with only pale pretensions of being democratic.

Let us accept the harsh reality that we aren’t the equals of India. We are a middling state compared to an India entitled, on the strength of its potentials, to becoming a world class power. Accepting one’s limitations isn’t something to be ashamed of. Our insistence on parity with India has only spawned an elitist culture in which the privileged and the powerful have thrived while the masses have suffered. The end of this obsession is the prerequisite for transforming the overall atmospherics in South Asia.

A new and pragmatic basis of relations with India will not only take the induced heat out of the equation but actually result in the empowerment of the people. A democratic culture, something we should be importing as an item of priority from India, would bring down the elite to the ground level and raise the people to the status they should rightly deserve in a democratic polity.

A new, out-of-the-box thinking on relations with India will be the first step in a journey of thousand miles, which ought to commence now when the Pakistani people are hankering for a new dawn of democracy and an open and democratic society where their voice and interests would reign supreme.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Aug 2009 18:26

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan roles in providing sanctuary for terrorists and the possibility of the Islamic Republic’s spy agency, the ISI, collaborating to proliferate nuclear technology to terrorists is recognised by UK’s Parliament.

UK House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee’s Eighth Report on Global Security dealing Afghanistan and Pakistan published on July 21, 2009:

158. We conclude that Pakistan's strategic importance derives not only from the sanctuary that its semi-autonomous border areas provide to extremists who seek to cause instability in Afghanistan, but also because of connections between the border areas and those involved in international terrorism. ……………….

160. We conclude that allegations raised during our inquiry about the safety of nuclear technology and claims of possible collusion between Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, and Al Qaeda are a matter of deep concern. ………………

From the chapter titled, “Pakistan's strategic importance and role in relation to Afghanistan” :

LINK

The Index for the complete report and links to its different chapters:

CLICKY

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 02 Aug 2009 19:35

Troops patrol Pakistani city after riots kill 8

LAHORE, Pakistan — Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of an eastern Pakistani city on Sunday after eight Christians died in riots led by Muslims, according to police.

Hundreds of Muslims burned and looted Christian homes in the city of Gorja in a rampage sparked by allegations that a Quran had been defaced. Shooting broke out, and six people were killed, including a child and four women. Two men wounded by gunfire died in the hospital overnight.

Officials said the riots, which began Thursday but had calmed before flaring again Saturday, had been instigated by members of a banned extremist Muslim organization.

Paramilitary troops were sent to Gorja to help police control the situation, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Saturday, amid allegations the police had failed to respond quickly enough to prevent the violence from escalating.

"Usually, Muslims and Christians live together peacefully. There have been some miscreants involved in this incident. We are investigating that," Malik said. {Harvinder Chennaswamy Ganguly & Co. for sure}

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2009 20:13

SSridhar wrote:Indo-Pak ties on equality: Gilani

What equality groper? Mijjile polish?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 02 Aug 2009 20:29

'Christian girls abused in Pak'

Ok. More love, peace and tolerance for the caliphate in the making. what else is nyoo?

Now here's something hot off the oven. So deliciously new fresh and innovative, it has made even seasoned brows rise.....
Pak ready to discuss all issues: Gilani

/Just kiddin' in case some stouthearts really refuse to get it

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Aug 2009 20:31

India initiates deadly arms race

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 02 Aug 2009 20:51

Gerard wrote:India initiates deadly arms race

sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 02 Aug 2009 21:44

OT

Museum to be built on Indian side on Indo Pak border:Nayyar

AMRITSAR: A Museum on Indian side of Indo-Pak international border would be built in the memory of innocent people who were killed during India's partition in 1947.

Eminent columnist Kuldip Nayyar while talking to newsmen here Sunday said that Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal has assured him for peace of land at Indo-Pak border to build up the museum for the innocent people who were killed during the bloody massacre in 1947. Nayyar is also president of NGO ‘Hind Pak Dosti Manch’.

He further stated that on August 14 night, a candle light vigil also be organized at Joint check post of at Attari border. Various Pakistan based NGOs and politicians would also join.

---

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 02 Aug 2009 23:16

Kabul rejects claims of anti-Pakistan camps

KABUL: Afghanistan firmly rejected Sunday reported claims by a Pakistani minister that President Hamid Karzai had admitted that ‘terrorist’ training camps in this country were operating against Pakistan.

‘This is absolutely not true. This is baseless,’ Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said at a press conference, also denying that Karzai had further told his ministry to take action against these training grounds.

Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik reportedly told Pakistan’s GEO TV station that Karzai had made the admission during a meeting in Kabul last month.

Malik was also quoted as saying: ‘Karzai directed his security adviser and interior minister to destroy and close down all training camps working against Pakistan.’

Rejecting this claim, Atmar said the president had rather pledged ‘firm action’ against threats to Pakistan from Afghanistan should he receive evidence.

Atmar also disagreed

with the Pakistan minister’s reported claim that 90 per cent of militants arrested in Pakistan were of Afghan origin.

Kabul had ‘strong evidence’

that Afghan as well as Pakistani, Central Asian and Al-Qaeda-linked militants of various nationalities were operating from safe havens across the border, the minister said.

‘It doesn’t really matter which country is the origin of a terrorist,’ he added.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 02 Aug 2009 23:22

Guess who's the biggest landlord in TSP.

Where the Mullahs Are the Upper Crust
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

LAHORE, Pakistan

THE turmoil in the Swat Valley has raised a chilling prospect for Pakistan — that the Taliban’s Islamic takeover in the once-peaceful area was turning into a social revolution, with mullahs leading peasants in the seizure of property from rich landlords who had fled in fear of their lives.

The most worrisome question has been whether the revolution would spread from Swat to the much more populous and strategic province next door, Punjab.

In the logic of revolutions, one might expect it to. This is, after all, a country where more than half the population lives in desperate poverty in the countryside, and the rich live in walled estates, blissfully untouched by ordinary peoples’ problems.

But Pakistan is more complicated than that. Its politics and economics are far more local than national; regional, ethnic and cultural differences are very deep. The mullahs of Swat may be calling for the downtrodden masses to unite, but here in Punjab, religious leaders are still firmly tied to the upper crust.

Pakistan encompasses four provinces — Baluchistan, Sindh, Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (which includes the Swat Valley) — each with its own languages and culture. The western mountains are tribal and so remote that in some areas, Pakistan’s Constitution does not even apply. It is from those badlands that the Taliban swept outward to neighboring Swat, itself a multi-ethnic patchwork. Baluchistan, another border area, has its own struggle for national autonomy. Sindh is mostly agrarian, with Karachi, an economic hub, at its southern tip.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Aug 2009 23:43

SSridhar wrote:Chetak ji, I posted that snippet for the 'conditions' that would lead to the establishment of a Caliphate. All 5 conditions (we may add one or two more to the list) are more than met by today's Pakistan. I do not think there is any doubt about the relentless movement of the Islamic Republic of Paksitan towards a Caliphate. Whether such an entity will be established by the politicians, the PA, the Taliban, the clerics or the common Abduls of that country is moot. Again, there could be delays in achieving that dream but it is inevitable.

A Caliphate is not a 'failed state'. It is in the eyes of the beholder, as somebody said here a few pages back. It is indeed a pinnacle of achievement for the Believers. Remember there was a struggle between Egypt and a freshly-minted Pakistan in the 50s to stake the claims for the defunct Ottoman Empire ? So, the Pakistani struggle is long.

SSridhar-ji
I beg to disagree. A Caliphate requires clerics of mass following with high levels of scholarship and an ability to blend religious teachings with a governance structure, and articulate how that will bring about social justice to the masses. Like Iran. Their experiments might be messed up, by the clerics could articulate "vilayet-i faqih" and set up a system of governance that blends clerical oversight with functioning democratically elected government structure.

Pakistan on the other hand, is moving towards a blend of lebanese (of neither the army nor mullah-inspired and externally funded beards getting the upper hand), egyptian (the army is much more stronger than any political figure or the political system), and afghan system (bunch of warlords). Just a tad worse. The mullahs lack education and imagination, they simply use their madrassas to collect funds and train foot soldiers -- the mullahs themselves are busy making sandwich or selling diesel. The army is still strong and large, and use Islam to simply motivate the foot soldiers while the jernails swill whiskey. The politicians are the feudal class and are in it to prevent land reforms. A caliphate is not in the interest of any of these power brokers. The talibans are tribals who simply want to live in the seventh century and brook no interference--they lack the imagination to present the "soft" face of a caliphate and the strength to combat the former power brokers.

Who will lead the people in this scenario ? They are certainly not going to join up with the taliban.

On the other hand, I can see pakistan becoming a basket case which consists of (1) A significant section of the population which is functionally illiterate (2) A significant section of the youth who are unemployed, under employed and without any prospect of employment (3) An economy which neither attracts outside investment because of violence, nor can bootstrap from internal sources of non-industrial wealth like natural resources or agriculture (4) An unstable political system where there has been no smooth transfer of power even once

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Aug 2009 23:49

Anujan wrote:
On the other hand, I can see pakistan becoming a basket case which consists of
(1) A significant section of the population which is functionally illiterate
(2) A significant section of the youth who are unemployed, under employed and without any prospect of employment
(3) An economy which neither attracts outside investment because of violence, nor can bootstrap from internal sources of non-industrial wealth like natural resources or agriculture
(4) An unstable political system where there has been no smooth transfer of power even once

But this system can continue to survive and pass the test of time for 100-200 years. There will be chaos and anarchy but can survive for a long time.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 00:09

Why should a Caliphate need high orders of "education" at the top? None of the earlier Caliphs were highly educated, but they did alright in the cause of Jihad. It is the relative "education" that matters - the "education" of the Caliph relative to the "education" of the Mumeens. TSP theologians will do alright too - they have managed to de-educate the commons so they themselves do not need a huge advanatge in education.

What they can work on is the minimalist survival model - basically grab land and trade routes, and live off the the produce of the labour of others, fundamental Caliphate strategy throughout its existence. When it waned, it was combination of factors very similar to the decline of the Roman empire. No reason why such a parasitic strategy cannot be successful for some time into the future.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 00:17

The Talebs can live off the "friendly" contest between Russia, PRC, UK and USA. They all have various degrees of overlaps in pairs, triplets in terms of common interests, but their ideological commitments will never make them one complete whole. So Talebs will survive as long as TSP is open to penetration by these powers.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 03 Aug 2009 03:09

Acharya wrote:But this system can continue to survive and pass the test of time for 100-200 years. There will be chaos and anarchy but can survive for a long time.

Yes thats true ! If a country gives up all pretensions of wanting to take care of its population and for various reasons its neighbors are afraid to attack and capture territory, and if each regional group is not strong enough to secede (and if key secessionists can be kidnapped, bombed, murdered), they can live like this for eternity ! Think Somalia. Or bunch of other Balkan and African states. Pakistan is not going to implode without a helpful Indian push -- like making the Balochis aware of their proud heritage and their right to self governance and access to their own resources.

Brihaspati-ji, it requires far more organization and will to upend the status quo than to maintain status quo. George Bush was not George Washington nor was he Abraham Lincoln, but Alabama did not secede under his watch ! What I am trying to say is that, a caliphate is *not* in the interest of the current powerful actors in Pakistan -- the army and the feudals. The mullahs are bribed off/bought off and most (big) mullahs are feudals anyway. Who is going to overthrow the current military-feudal-mullah setup ? Which clique of people has the mass appeal and well articulated idea of a religion-based alternative ?

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 03 Aug 2009 03:55

Actually these following three items need to be looked at together - Pakistan is trying its best to create the external-forces connection with Baluchistan - the intent is fairly clear...

First the extrapolation of Karzai remarks....
Afghans have terror camps targeting Pakistan - DENIED

KABUL: Afghanistan firmly rejected Sunday reported claims by a Pakistani minister that President Hamid Karzai had admitted that ‘terrorist’ training camps in this country were operating against Pakistan.

‘This is absolutely not true. This is baseless,’ Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said at a press conference, also denying that Karzai had further told his ministry to take action against these training grounds.

Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik reportedly told Pakistan’s GEO TV station that Karzai had made the admission during a meeting in Kabul last month.
......
Rejecting this claim, Atmar said the president had rather pledged ‘firm action’ against threats to Pakistan from Afghanistan should he receive evidence.

Next, adding on to what Christine Fair actually said...
Chritine Fair pours water on Pakistani hopes

Caught in the crossfire between India and Pakistan over the Balochistan issue is C. Christine Fair, a senior political scientist at the non-profit think-tank RAND Corporation. This March, Fair participated in roundtable discussion organized by the prestigious American magazine, Foreign Affairs, during which she was quoted as saying, "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity." The Pakistani press repeatedly cites her remark to bolster Pakistan's accusations that India supports separatists in Balochistan.
“But When you have analysts saying india’s doing nothing, it doesn’t help, because i don’t believe it’s true.”

Fair, who returned to Washington on Wednesday from a trip to India, addressed the controversy for the first time in an exclusive phone interview with Ashish Kumar Sen and insisted her remarks have been taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Excerpts:

Question: In a Foreign Affairs roundtable earlier this year you are quoted as saying: "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity!" What did you mean by this?

Response: I am fairly confident that every consulate in Zahedan - and I believe Pakistan has one as well - are not issuing a lot of visas. What I actually meant was something relatively innocuous that the Pakistanis picked up, took out of context and blew out of proportion, and that is that competent intelligence agencies cultivate assets. They have listening posts. They are there to gather information.

I would be surprised if consulates in countries that have competent intelligence services are not doing this all over the place. This is a relatively quotidian activity that virtually all consulates engage in. I meant something far more banal and yet benign, and quite frankly commonplace than what was attributed to me.

Question: How deeply enmeshed are Indian intelligence activities with the separatists in Balochistan?

I have never gone to any lengths to look at that issue and I do not know anyone who has a line of credible information. I have never insinuated anything other than what I have said to you.

Do you believe India is supporting terrorism in Balochistan?

I never said there was active support for terrorism, that was something that the Pakistanis attributed to me.

Question: Does India's decision to put Balochistan on the table help in moving forward the anti-terrorism dialogue? Do you expect Pakistan to be more willing to acting against LeT?

Response: ......

There is a lot of cynicism in Pakistan about the relationship between the military and the Taliban. Even though all these Taliban were displaced in Swat no high-value leader was killed.

What they are not going to operate against is LeT or JuD and I don't see any reason why they will, because, in part, one piece of evidence that suggests to me that LeT remains on the leash of the ISI is that it has never targeted the Pakistani state. There is not a single attack against the Pakistani state that can be attributed to LeT. The relationship with JeM is a lot more complicated.

and then we finally have the following, Amir Mir not only distorts Christine Fair's statements, but also raises the no-circumcision-is-proof issue... from Amir Mir's fairy tales continue

Balochistan apart, the sources say the Pakistani dossier also included pictures of several non-Muslims (all of them uncircumcised), who had been killed during the ongoing Pakistani military action in the Swat valley

Of course, it is another matter that from Omar Farroq's note on Circumcision and Indian Spies

ISLAMABAD: In the past, jubilant Pakistani authorities have announced that foreign (read Indian) agents were involved in explosions and attacks in the restive Swat region based on examination of the corpses of the killed attackers.

But the “acid test” cops and officials used to determine whether any of the dead ones was Indian was to check whether the man had been circumcised. If not, they would summarily dub him Hindu and therefore an Indian agent.

But as more such cases showed up, in places where there was not a ghost of a chance of any Indian involvement, doctors and officials began to worry about the methodology. It’s then that they stumbled on a little-known anthropological fact about Pashtun tribes in Waziristan, from where many of the Tehreek-e-Taliban or Pakistani Taliban come.

It appears that many in the backward tribal areas of the country like Waziristan don’t undergo the mandatory circumcision that all Muslim males should undergo. The story took a rather comic turn when some of government’s own injured paramilitary soldiers, when examined, were found to be uncircumcised. This was especially true of wounded soldiers of the Frontier Constabulary from Waziristan, engaged in fighting Taliban militants. ................

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 04:15

Caught in the crossfire between India and Pakistan over the Balochistan issue is C. Christine Fair, a senior political scientist at the non-profit think-tank RAND Corporation. This March, Fair participated in roundtable discussion organized by the prestigious American magazine, Foreign Affairs, during which she was quoted as saying, "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity." The Pakistani press repeatedly cites her remark to bolster Pakistan's accusations that India supports separatists in Balochistan.
“But When you have analysts saying india’s doing nothing, it doesn’t help, because i don’t believe it’s true.”

Fair, who returned to Washington on Wednesday from a trip to India, addressed the controversy for the first time in an exclusive phone interview with Ashish Kumar Sen and insisted her remarks have been taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Excerpts:

Question: In a Foreign Affairs roundtable earlier this year you are quoted as saying: "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity!" What did you mean by this?

Response: I am fairly confident that every consulate in Zahedan - and I believe Pakistan has one as well - are not issuing a lot of visas. What I actually meant was something relatively innocuous that the Pakistanis picked up, took out of context and blew out of proportion, and that is that competent intelligence agencies cultivate assets. They have listening posts. They are there to gather information.

I would be surprised if consulates in countries that have competent intelligence services are not doing this all over the place. This is a relatively quotidian activity that virtually all consulates engage in. I meant something far more banal and yet benign, and quite frankly commonplace than what was attributed to me.

Question: How deeply enmeshed are Indian intelligence activities with the separatists in Balochistan?

I have never gone to any lengths to look at that issue and I do not know anyone who has a line of credible information. I have never insinuated anything other than what I have said to you.

Do you believe India is supporting terrorism in Balochistan?

I never said there was active support for terrorism, that was something that the Pakistanis attributed to me.

Ms. Fair is backtracking .....

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Aug 2009 04:58

pgbhat wrote: Ms. Fair is backtracking .....

She is, but the whole drama, as it appears to me is more sinister than just making some statements and backtracking later on. For example, she is reported to have said that 'Indian officials confirmed to her, in private talks, that they were doing dangerous things within Pakistan from these consulates'. No Indian official would ever have said that. All these smack of a plan to create enough conditions for talks.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 05:02

Sharm el-Sheikh’s tragicomedy ---- Shahzad Chaudhry

Noted Indian Opinion writers have tried to forge glory in adversity for India through this carefully contrived hubris, but no one’s listening. The simpler explanation that the Pakistanis need to be concerned with is that while “we — India — may agree to talk to you on some issues, these shall be without a promise to deliver solutions. And even if no solutions are forthcoming anywhere, talks about terrorism and the progress to control, eliminate, and dismantle it from within Pakistan shall go on unabated, under our joint scrutiny.”

Solutions, per se, to Pakistan-sensitive issues are no longer necessary to continue talks on how Pakistan delivers on terrorism-related matters, since that is now a dominant global concern. This has most neatly taken out the “core” issue of Kashmir that did not even find merit of mention between the two prime ministers – or in the subtly crafted communiqué. What alacrity; who were they representing, anyway.

The second achievement in this great document, from the Pakistani standpoint, is the clause on Balochistan. According to the statement, the Pakistani premier mentioned that his side had some information on Balochistan; the Indians replied they would love to see it. How simple. Case done and closed; victory declared. I am certain the PM, the gent that he is, and the special enamour Dr Manmohan inspires in him, may have only alluded to the now widely acclaimed Indian hand in fanning insurgency in Balochistan, and the need thus for the Indian PM to rein in his boys. But, then again, given how nice and amenable the two prime ministers are, would they ever take on something as confrontational and contentious as a direct blame game? Would the Indian prime minister then have mentioned the years of discomfiture in Kashmir; and the two may have then agreed to draw the result at one-all? The result: Kashmir is out, and Balochistan in.

The Indian establishment is taking immeasurable pride in letting everyone know that they will be willing to talk about Balochistan, its internal dimensions, and what may be causing the internal strife, and wherever possible help Pakistan out of the difficulty. I thought we were en route to talk about Kashmir, and its dynamics of freedom, and on how the people there deserve to seek their fundamental rights.

The hilarity, however, continues; the Indian sensitivity is too far dented to see the unintended reversal of consequences, and continues to feel that accepting Balochistan as an agreed concern means India’s meek submission to Pakistan’s propounded allegation of the Indian hand in Balochistan. On the way home, when someone may have whispered another view into his ear, Pakistan’s prime minister was wise enough to realise the unintended doors that he had opened to the Indians in an area that currently ranks about the same level of nationalist sensibility as the East Pakistan of 1971, and hence the refrain that we will share with India the information when we deem it appropriate. No information – no responsibility in Balochistan; no information – no trial of Mumbai culprits. Match drawn; two-all; so much for finesse diplomatique and specialisation in acutely professional functions.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 05:05

India’s growing military muscle ---- Talat Masood

t would, however, be a folly to imitate or be reactive in responding to India’s military build-up. India’s size, population and resources, and its industrial, technological and economic base places it in competition with China and other major players. Prudence demands that we formulate domestic, foreign and defence policies that are commensurate with our power potential and based on well articulated national priorities. This does not imply that Pakistan should lower its security guard that could allow external powers to exploit. What is crucial is to balance resources between development and defence and take a more comprehensive approach towards security, keeping in mind that our immediate threat is internal. Moreover, acquisition of advance weapon systems alone is not sufficient to protect a nation against aggression.

The beginning of the end ---- Kamal Siddiqi

Our media highlights the noora kushti of our politicians. And we can spend hours talking about India We are indignant over the fact that India has launched a nuclear sub, unmindful of the fact that our neighbour is years ahead of us when it comes to almost all areas of development. We can’t build an education system to rival India’s but we dream of building a nuclear sub. It is a sad commentary on the state of Pakistan.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 05:11

Fear and dread

Ours is an intolerant society, and we are particularly intolerant of those whose faith is not Muslim. Intolerance is not only interfaith, as within the Muslim majority there are deeply-ingrained intolerances that manifest themselves as sectarian violence. There are those who are well aware of the fragility of the relationship between the faith-groups; and will do all they can to exploit it in the hope of furthering their own aims of destabilising the state and challenging its writ. Today it is the turn of the Christians to see their community laid waste and terrorised all for the sake of trumped-up allegations of blasphemy. This was proven by a statement of the Punjab law minister who said on Sunday that a preliminary investigation had shown that no incident of blasphemy had taken place. While a few weeks ago it was the turn of the Sikhs who fled the Taliban in Orakzai — some families who remained were held hostage by the Taliban while a couple of the male members were told to arrange for payment of the ‘jiziya’ that the local Taliban had levied on them. The Kalash, the tiniest of our minorities, live under constant threat by those demanding their conversion. The substantial Hindu minority of south Punjab go in fear of their lives as do those who live in Sindh where kidnapping of Hindus in recent months has intensified. Ministers and government officials and representatives of minority organisations have all converged on Gojra, promises of compensation have been made, and attempts to cool things down are in full swing. Sadly, this will be largely for naught. The only way to change this tendency towards mindless persecution is to change the message that goes into the minds of those that perpetrate it. We need to be hearing words of conciliation and fraternity from our mosques. It is our religious leaders who are our primary influence, and it is to them that we must look to douse the fires of intolerance and hatred. Would they? Do they have that within them? Or is inclusivity and tolerance beyond those who lead our prayers?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 05:18

view: Dimensions of dialogue —Jamal Hussain
POSTING IN FULL

Does India think that Pakistan’s apparent inability to successfully prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage is the only stumbling block in the frozen dialogue process; and that if this hurdle is overcome, progress on other issues will follow naturally?

Ejaz Haider’s incisive article “Drop the talks façade” (Daily Times, July 25) drew an equally interesting response from Subramanyam Sridharan from India. (“Based on realism”, Letters to the Editor, Daily Times, July 26) Further analysis on this serious issue is required.

Mr Haider hit the nail on its head when he asserted that Pakistan should seriously review its current mantra of insisting on the resumption of dialogue with India, especially given that it is being continually rebuffed by the latter on one pretext or the other. He has correctly concluded that under the given circumstances, Pakistan is better off in ceasing its efforts to restart the composite dialogue and instead focusing on the real internal issues that pose a far greater danger to its security and well-being.

Talks are critical to both India and Pakistan, but, unfortunately, India, in its apparent effort to draw the last drop of blood from what it considers a weakened Pakistan, is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship, which will eventually hurt its own interests as much as it would its erstwhile opponent’s.

A stable and economically sound India, at peace with its neighbours, will be the best harbinger of prosperity to the impoverished masses of the subcontinent. But for that to happen, both Pakistan and India have to move away from their troubled past. Under the current circumstances, an Akhund Bharat is as much an anomaly as the planting of a green flag at the Delhi Fort. These ideas are relics of an earlier era that must be buried if the two nations are to move ahead.

Mr Sridharan is perplexed about the concessions that Pakistan is seeking from India in the resumption of the stalled dialogue. This is not difficult to explain: all we ask for as in open and sincere discussion on outstanding issues between the two nations without any preconditions. Is that too much to ask?

India, on the other hand, is glued to a single-point agenda: Pakistan must successfully prosecute all those in its territory that India considers responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai carnage before it resumes dialogue.

But by the same logic, Pakistan should insist upon the conviction of the Indian colonel who was exposed by the Indian media of masterminding the attack on the Samjhota Express, in which the majority of casualties were Pakistanis.

It is true that Pakistani soil was used for planning the 26/11 attack on Mumbai and some of its citizens were involved. Pakistan, after some delay, admitted to these facts. However, the attack could not have been executed without substantial help from sources within India. For objectivity’s sake, these elements must also be publicly exposed and tried by India as it makes similar demands from Pakistan.

The organisations involved in terrorist attacks like 26/11 are also the ones that are challenging the writ of the Pakistani state; Pakistan is waging a major military campaign against all such forces. A number of Pakistani analysts are convinced that the current operations against these insurgents are part of a war for the very survival of Pakistan, but they also realise that defeating such entrenched element is not an overnight operation.

Does India think that Pakistan’s apparent inability to successfully prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage is the only stumbling block in the frozen dialogue process; and that if this hurdle is overcome, progress on other issues will follow naturally? Does India not realise that the very groups and networks that planned and executed the Mumbai attack have carried out far more heinous crimes in Pakistan? Pakistan’s failure to crush them is more a matter of inadequate resources than a lack of will. That such groups were under state patronage earlier does not make the task any easier, but even more difficult and challenging.

Note that the United States, with all its military might, is struggling to contain, let alone defeat, the Taliban-Al Qaeda combine in Afghanistan, where besides its own resources, NATO forces are also deployed. There are, according to reports, around 26 insurgencies raging in various parts of India. To its credit, India has managed to contain them, but is still unable to eliminate them. We will eliminate the terror groups, slowly but surely. There are no shortcuts in these complex and dangerous situations, as India is well aware.

Despite having spent my life in the military, I have rarely considered India the major threat to our existence; our archenemy, yes, but as a country that has the wherewithal to destroy us, no. We are fully capable of containing and beating back any misadventure against us. India can do us no serious harm without jeopardising its own security. The threat to our existence is from within, and if we do not stem the fissiparous tendencies among our people, we will disintegrate with or without Indian assistance.

One must not envy the place India has carved out for itself on the world platform; good for them, and we in Pakistan can only benefit from a stable and peaceful India. I am for the resumption of the broken dialogue process, but if India insists on talking on its own terms, we are better off abandoning such a course. We should instead concentrate solely on defeating militancy and the intolerance that has crept into our society over the past three decades using all available means, including the military, which must be employed sparingly and judiciously.

We must also focus on the social and economic development of our society. Once we get our house in order, India is likely to offer resumption of dialogue without any preconditions, and then we should welcome their overtures with open arms and open eyes.

Six decades of animosity will not evaporate overnight. Much sincere investment of time and effort will be required. Both Pakistan and India owe this much to their citizens.

The writer is a senior defence analyst

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 05:38

ANALYSIS: After the joint statement —Najmuddin A Shaikh

One can argue until the cows come home that given the present international ambience there is absolutely no prospect of any Indian adventure to take advantage of Pakistan’s internal preoccupations but this will carry little weight in changing the prevailing mindset in the army where the argument made will be that they have to be on guard as long as India has the capacity — since intentions can change or can be made to change by another terrorist incident engineered by the “enemies of peace” on either side of the border. Would the mindset change if the Indians were to withdraw some of the troops deployed on the border and to close down or make dormant some of their forward operating bases? I believe so.

In the climate prevailing in India this may appear an unrealistic prospect but I believe that if Dr Singh chooses he can use the new political strength he has acquired to move in this direction. He can argue that this would involve no risk since there is no prospect of Pakistani aggression and that nothing else would do more to strengthen the “peace constituency” and silence the enemies of peace.

The writer is a former foreign secretary

Same old same old ... P'stan is not to be blamed for anymore terror attacks by terrorists who are enemies of peace..... they will keep on peddling this BS even if nobody is buying.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Aug 2009 08:26

Happened to see a programme, "Jinnah's Children" in the BBC last night. Our Madam appeared for a horrible, though a fleeting, moment and declared in the most stentorian voice that the Taliban were not the problem and it was the Americans.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Aug 2009 09:44

Afghanistan says Pakis are lying

As usual

Afghanistan on Sunday firmly rejected reported claims by a Pakistani minister that President Hamid Karzai had admitted that "terrorist" training camps in this country were operating against Pakistan.

"This is absolutely not true. This is baseless," Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said at a press conference, also denying that Karzai had further told his ministry to take action against these training grounds.

Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik reportedly told Pakistan's GEO TV station that Karzai had made the admission during a meeting in Kabul last month.

Malik was also quoted as saying: "Karzai directed his security adviser and interior minister to destroy and close down all training camps working against Pakistan."

Rejecting this claim, Atmar said the president had rather pledged "firm action" against threats to Pakistan from Afghanistan should he receive evidence.

Atmar also disagreed with the Pakistan minister's reported claim that ninety per cent of militants arrested in Pakistan were of Afghan origin.

Kabul had "strong evidence" that Afghan as well as Pakistani, Central Asian and al-Qaida-linked militants of various nationalities were operating from safe havens across the border, the minister said.

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 03 Aug 2009 12:09

Is that a Chinese doc at Peshawar?

PESHAWAR: Paramedic staff giving treatment to a policeman who was injured in firing incident at Lady Reading Hospital on Thursday.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/Default.aspx

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Aug 2009 12:14

Dilbu wrote:Troops patrol Pakistani city after riots kill 8

LAHORE, Pakistan — Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of an eastern Pakistani city on Sunday after eight Christians died in riots led by Muslims, according to police.

Hundreds of Muslims burned and looted Christian homes in the city of Gorja in a rampage sparked by allegations that a Quran had been defaced. Shooting broke out, and six people were killed, including a child and four women. Two men wounded by gunfire died in the hospital overnight. {Snipped}...

X Posted.

And as is normal for any religious motivated violence in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, be it Muslim on Minority Religion violence or Muslim sect on Muslim sect violence, at some point the involvement of a “foreign hand” will be conjured by a “respected” Islamic cleric

.

The violence in Gojra perpetrated by a section of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Muslim majority citizens on its Christian minority citizens is to be no different:

Mufti Muneeb hints involvement of foreign hand in Gojra violence

ISLAMABAD: Chairman Ruet-e-Hilal Committee, Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman while terming the Gojra incident unfortunate said that the involvement of foreign hand in that incident can not be ruled out.

Talking to a private TV channel, Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman said that foreign elements always tried to destabilize Pakistan by hatching conspiracies.

Online

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Aug 2009 12:47

pgbhat wrote:
Caught in the crossfire between India and Pakistan over the Balochistan issue is C. Christine Fair, a senior political scientist at the non-profit think-tank RAND Corporation. This March, Fair participated in roundtable discussion organized by the prestigious American magazine, Foreign Affairs, during which she was quoted as saying, "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity." The Pakistani press repeatedly cites her remark to bolster Pakistan's accusations that India supports separatists in Balochistan. .........................

Fair, who returned to Washington on Wednesday from a trip to India, addressed the controversy for the first time in an exclusive phone interview with Ashish Kumar Sen and insisted her remarks have been taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Excerpts:

Question: In a Foreign Affairs roundtable earlier this year you are quoted as saying: "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity!" What did you mean by this?

Response: I am fairly confident that every consulate in Zahedan - and I believe Pakistan has one as well - are not issuing a lot of visas. What I actually meant was something relatively innocuous that the Pakistanis picked up, took out of context and blew out of proportion, and that is that competent intelligence agencies cultivate assets. They have listening posts. They are there to gather information.

I would be surprised if consulates in countries that have competent intelligence services are not doing this all over the place. This is a relatively quotidian activity that virtually all consulates engage in. I meant something far more banal and yet benign, and quite frankly commonplace than what was attributed to me. ...............

Excerpt from the round-table ” What's the Problem With Pakistan?” organised by the Council on Foreign Relations which started the whole the issue.

During the round-table Christine Fair did try to get a tad cute, was shot down by Ashley Tellis for that and thereafter did some back-peddling.

Follow the bolded part of the Chritine Fairs first comment, thereafter Ashley Tellis’ and finally Christine Fair’s second comment:

Christine Fair: I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar--across from Bajaur. Kabul's motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India's interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India's rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan's near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it -- and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan's control.

Aqil Shah: Christine's observations provide damning evidence of the games states play. The Indians seem to be saying, "The Pakistanis did it to us in Kashmir, so we will pay them back in Baluchistan and elsewhere." So it should not be surprising that the Pakistani military continues to patronize groups it sees as useful in the regional race for influence, even if the costs to Pakistan's political stability outweigh the benefits.

Sumit Ganguly: I never suggested that the Indians have purely humanitarian objectives in Afghanistan. That said, their vigorous attempts to limit Pakistan's reach and influence there stem largely from being systematically bled in Kashmir. Their role in Afghanistan is a pincer movement designed to relieve pressure in Kashmir. Whether it will work remains an open question. Meanwhile, I know that the Indians have mucked around in Sind in retaliation for Pakistani involvement in the Punjab crisis. But as much as the Indians may boast about their putative pumping of funds into Baluchistan, why is the evidence for that so thin?

Ashley Tellis: What do key Pakistani actors want, especially the military? Obviously, they want security for Pakistan, along with the ability to protect their own interests inside it. Both objectives become problematic, unfortunately, when pursued in certain ways. The army is pursuing security for Pakistan in the east by combating India through a war of a thousand cuts and a rapidly expanding nuclear program, and in the west by a little imperial project in Afghanistan. There is a temptation to see the latter entirely through the lens of India-Pakistan competition. But Pakistan has interests in Afghanistan that transcend its problems with India. In fact, one of the crucial problems in both theaters is the exaggerated Pakistani fears of what it believes the Indians are up to. Aqil captures that paranoia quite well. I am not sure I buy Christine's analysis of Indian activities in Pakistan's west: this is a subject I followed very closely when I was in government, and suffice it to say, there is less there than meets the eye. That was certainly true for Afghanistan. Convincing Pakistanis of this, however, is a different story. I think Sumit and Shaun get the bottom line exactly right: Pakistan has to recognize that it simply cannot match India through whatever stratagem it chooses -- it is bound to fail. The sensible thing, then, is for Pakistan to reach the best possible accommodation with India now, while it still can, and shift gears toward a grand strategy centered on economic integration in South Asia -- one that would help Pakistan climb out of its morass and allow the army to maintain some modicum of privileges, at least for a while. The alternative is to preside over an increasingly hollow state.

Christine Fair: I am not trying to blow Indian activities in the region out of proportion, rather stressing the need to not dismiss the importance of Pakistani perceptions of those activities simply because one thinks they are exaggerated. These activities matter to some in the Pakistani elite and to a broader public that is fed a steady stream of information about them. Countless surveys demonstrate the Pakistani public's peculiar view of the region and their country's activities in it. Public opinion matters to the army, and it will not cooperate with the West's desires unless such cooperation enjoys support among Pakistanis at large. Coercive measures against the army -- which I tend to support to some extent -- are at odds with attempts to persuade Pakistanis of the real nature of the threats their government has brought upon them and the need for immediate action in response. Regarding the formation of perceptions, Pakistan's educational system is, of course, the font of these problems. Alas, Washington has focused entirely too many (wasted) resources on the so-called madrassah problem while failing to acknowledge the much larger problem of Pakistan's public schools, which educate some 70 percent of the student population. (Private schools of varying quality educate another 30 percent of full-time students, with madrassah enrollments largely a rounding error.) Attitudinal surveys of older children in religious, private, and public schools show very different views on militancy, violence, minority rights, and the conflict with India. Private-school students have the most reassuring worldviews, suggesting that those schools, the vast majority of which are not elite, are doing something right. Surely, market incentives could be bolstered to encourage private-school expansion and utilization.

Foreign affairs

[/quote]

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2009 14:15

http://blog.taragana.com/n/pakistani-ar ... ps-128194/

Pakistani Army, intelligence elements back terrorists: British MPs

LONDON - A powerful group of British MPs expressed concern Sunday that elements within Pakistani Army and intelligence services do not share their civilian government’s resolve to fight Islamic terrorists and continue to be fixated on India.

The concern expressed by the British parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee was echoed by Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, the minister of state for foreign affairs who quit his job last week citing personal and family reasons.

In a report published Sunday, the Foreign Affairs Committee also said that whereas Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari had pointed to terrorism as the main enemy of his country, large parts of the security establishment of Pakistan continue to be fixated on India.

The report on Afghanistan and Pakistan commended the civilian government in Islamabad for having taken some important steps to counter-insurgency at a considerable cost in terms of military lives lost.

We welcome the increasing recognition at senior levels within the Pakistani military of the need for a recalibrated approach to militancy but we remain concerned that this may not necessarily be replicated elsewhere within the army and ISI, it added.

The report welcomed Zardari’s recent remarks that he regards terrorism rather than India the real threat to his country.

However, we further conclude that doubts remain as to whether the underlying fundamentals of Pakistani security policy have changed sufficiently to realise the goals of long-term security and stability in Afghanistan, it added.

Lord Mark Malloch-Brown offered a similar view to the committee.

He said, We are convinced that [the ISI] is on board institutionally, and that the leaderships of both the army and the ISI are supportive of the president and his strategy, which is reflected through the meetings that we have had with (Chief of Army Staff) General Kayani.”

There is a difficulty, that within the ISI there may remain individuals who have some sympathy with these groups, said Malloch-Brown, a respected minister.

The Foreign Affairs Committee said, President Zardari’s comments at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (in June) as well as his recent remarks to the effect that terrorism, not India, was now seen by Pakistan as the greater threat, while welcome, do not dispel the suspicion that a large part of his country’s security establishment continues to be fixated on India and on the possibility of a future military conflict between the two countries.

PS:The Pakis are "fixated" with India as the enemy and our dear PM is equally "fixated" with them as worthy of trust!

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Aug 2009 14:23

With Robin Raphaels’ pro Pakistani {and anti Indian} track record, a case of the appointing the Fox to guard the Hen House

:

Robin Raphel gets key job in Pakistan

Monday, August 03, 2009
By By Qudssia Akhlaque

ISLAMABAD: The Obama administration in an astute move has decided to appoint former US assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, Robin Raphel, an old South Asia hand and one known to be Pakistan’s friend, as coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan, it was learnt. ………….............

The News

Excerpt from B. Raman’s article on the appointment of Robin Raphael. As is evident quite an India hater:

Robin Raphel: Old Anti-India Hand to Join Holbrookes Team?

3. During her posting in the US Embassy in New Delhi, she was actively interacting with the various anti-India groups in Jammu & Kashmir and it was reportedly on her advice that the Hurriyat, as an umbrella organization of these groups, became very active.

4.After Bill Clinton assumed office as the President in January,1993, she joined the State Department as the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South Asian Affairs under Warren Christopher, who was the Secretary of State. It used to be said that she knew the Clintons from her younger days and this gave her easy access to the President despite her junior position in the State Department. She exploited this to prevent Pakistan being declared as a State sponsor of terrorism after the Mumbai blasts of March,1993.

5. It was during her tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State that the Clinton Administration declared Jammu & Kashmir as a “disputed territory” and started calling for the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This refrain has once again been taken up by the Obama Administration.

6. Towards the end of 1993 , during a non-attributable discussion with some Indian journalists in Washington DC she reportedly defended this formulation and contended that the US considered the Kashmiri territory transferred by Pakistan to China in 1963 when Ayub Khan was the President also as disputed territory, whose future was yet to be decided.

7. The “Times of India” prominently carried this story on the front page without identifying the official of the State Department who had talked to the Indian journalists on the Kashmir issue. Enquiries made by the Government of India identified the official as Robin Raphel. ………….

B. Raman’s Blogspot

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2009 17:28

"JAWS-3"

Hilarious news what!! Good old "Jaws" is back to give us more toothsome displays of her diplomuttic talent.Jaws' poor late hubby,the then US ambassador to Pak, flew into "Firdaus" along with that great Muslim,Gen.Zia accompanied by an infamous crate of mangoes! "Jaws" was then given the job of looking after "toy-boy" Pak,as compensation for her great loss.As Asst.Sec. of State,Jaws talents as a diplomutt were in ample evidence in India where she demanded meetings with our then PM despite her lowly status protocolwise.Later on,the roles were reversed as it was Pak who "hired her" talents as a lobbyist! As a veteran backscratcher of the Paki establishment,"Jaws" is perfectly placed to serve Uncle Sam and the generals once again,as she knows where the Pakis love to be scratched,massaged and their pleasure points tickled ,in order to perform tricks for Uncle Sam! I wonder who pulled this veteran State Dept. 'houri" out of the has-been chest-o-drawers.But then,for the Pakis a-wailing-and-a-wanting in these desperate times of woe,it's "any port(hole) in a storm"!

PL.read this most illuminating 4 page article on Indo-US relations."Jaws",batting for the US, played a role in helping the Taliban get to Kabul,and did b****r all in stopping the blowing up of the Bamiyan Buddhas.

Can India have a strategic partnership with the United States? (Re-issue (Article) Pg-3.
Posted online: Monday, July 27, 2009 at 6:07:12 PM

By a strange coincidence, some years later, I met Sidney Sobers who was number two at the US Mission in Pakistan in 1970 and later a Charge d'Affaire in that country. I asked him as to why the Pakistan Army did not put up a fight against the Indians in the difficult riverine delta terrain of East Pakistan? A candid response was given to my queries.

According to Sobers, the US military attaches in Islamabad visited several forward areas in Pakistan before the Indo-Pak war broke out. They realised that the terrain in East Pakistan was tough and, with a hostile local population, there was no way that the Pakistan Army could put up a fight.

The expectation of the Pakistani commanders in the East was that Pakistan would be able to capture Amritsar and some territories in the West. Pakistan could then bargain with India that it would not vacate Amritsar unless the Indians moved out of East Pakistan. This is what Sidney Sobers told me.

It was the failure of the Pakistan Army in the western sector that forced Nixon to move the Seventh Fleet, but it was too late. The Pakistan Army in the East had already surrendered.

From Sobers statement, it became clear to me that the US had been fully involved on the side of Pakistan in that war. There should be reports and information available in the archives of India's External Affairs Ministry to the goings on of that time. Let those not be forgotten.

The United States policy vis-à-vis South Asia has not changed. When questioned during her recent visit to New Delhi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave credit to her husband (Bill Clinton) for developing good relations with India.

During Clinton's first term (1992-1996), this author carried a message of friendship from then Foreign Minister Inder Kumar Gujral to be conveyed through Robin Raphael, who was then Under Secretary of State for South Asia.

I had an hour-long interview with Robin Raphael and she gave a measured reply to Gujral's message of friendship. In the course of my TV interview, I was left aghast on learning the fact that the US was more than actively involved in supporting the activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Taliban could never have reached Kabul if the US had not given it tacit support. The Clinton administration failed to even decry the blowing up of the Baamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban.

http://www.india4u.com/india4unews/Can- ... 1419-3.htm

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 18:12

Has anyone asked the following question to all those non-state actors sitting in Washington pontificating on the need for the Pakistanis to protect what they have and their rashtra - "what is it that is so worthwhile to protect within Pakistan?" What exactly is so valuable in TSP in its entirety, that is worth protecting - either by the Pakis or their gartuitous friends?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Aug 2009 18:42

Pakistan blames Christian killing on 'external hand'

They said the government believed that the incident had been planned to trigger riots between Christians and Muslims and the government was not ruling out involvement of an external hand.

Sipah-e-Sahaba is an extremely vicious Sunni Wahhabi organization which is the 'Mother of all Terrorist Organizations' in Pakistan. It doesn't need an external stimulus to kill the infidel. When it kills Shi'a as kufr, does it need justification for others ?

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 03 Aug 2009 18:45

Pak court indefinitely adjourns trial against 26/11 mastermind

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Aug 2009 20:58

A new Pakistani insinuation is that India instigated the Pakistani Muslim mob to run riot and burn to death fellow Pakistani Christians in Gojra.

Perhaps those Masked Men from Jhang talked about in the Dawn article posted by S.Sridhar a couple of posts above were unclothed below the waist

:

Intelligence agencies present Gojra violence report to IG

Updated at: 1743 PST, Sunday, August 02, 2009

LAHORE:

……………………..... According to Intelligence sources, the Interior Ministry had, on July 18, informed the provinces through a circular about the possibility of terrorist activities.

The circular had alerted Punjab districts including Faisalabad, Tob Tek Singh, Sialkot, Rawalpindi and Okara.

It warned that terrorist activities may be carried out in these areas in retaliation of Mumbai attacks.

GEO TV

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 03 Aug 2009 21:12

There seem to be a disappointing amount of fall in suicide vaccum bulb explosions!

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Aug 2009 21:18

Excerpt from an article that appeared in the Seoul Times:

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Letters from Tokyo

Pakistan and Burning Alive of Christians

By Lee Jay Walker
Tokyo Correspondent

………………Turning back to Pakistan and the latest massacre of six Christians in Gojira (the figure may be higher) it is clear that burning women and children in order to protect a book, is deemed to be both logical and Godly in the eyes of these Sunni Muslim fanatics. Yet of course it is not logical and it is certainly not Godly because it is an act of mass barbarity against innocents.

Remember, if you close your eyes and visualize the area of modern day Pakistan in the past you would have seen a world of many religions. Buddhists would have wandered this land in the past to preach about the Buddha and of course Hinduism is the very fabric of the Indian sub-continent. While other faiths, for example Jains, Zoroastrians fleeing Islamic persecution in Persia (Iran), and Sikhs, would have wandered far and wide.

Yet in modern day Pakistan you have virtually no Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and other minorities left because they all either fled because of persecution or to escape dhimmitude. While in the distant past, massive persecution and countless massacres eroded this rich diversity.

Therefore, in modern day Pakistan this Sunni Islamic madness continues and now they are killing each other in the north of the nation, while causing mayhem in Afghanistan. At the same time, they are killing minority Christians, Shia Muslims and Ahmadiyya Muslims. It is like a state of madness with no end game apart from complete Sunni Islamization and then an internal Sunni Islamic war on the grounds of who is the most radical.……………

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Aug 2009 23:04

arun wrote:Excerpt from an article that appeared in the Seoul Times:

Letters from Tokyo

Pakistan and Burning Alive of Christians

By Lee Jay Walker

Yet in modern day Pakistan you have virtually no Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and other minorities left because they all either fled because of persecution or to escape dhimmitude. While in the distant past, massive persecution and countless massacres eroded this rich diversity.

Therefore, in modern day Pakistan this Sunni Islamic madness continues and now they are killing each other in the north of the nation, while causing mayhem in Afghanistan. At the same time, they are killing minority Christians, Shia Muslims and Ahmadiyya Muslims. It is like a state of madness with no end game apart from complete Sunni Islamization and then an internal Sunni Islamic war on the grounds of who is the most radical.……………

A ) I thought that the word "Dhimmitude" was a BRF connotation. Apparantly such a word exists, and "Dhimmi" means protected, the -tude adds a suffix as in servi-tude.

B ) The last paragraph seems to encompass it all doesn't it? So now there are two battles being fought within Pakistan.
1. Sunni vs the kufr. (The Ahmediyas are already Kufr, the Shi'as are on their way to being branded kufr - only that a strong Iran seems to be acting as a bulwark)
2. Believers vs the munafiqs.