Bharat Rakshak

Agha Waqar Ahmad Pathan, the controversial claimant of running the car with water as fuel, had been arrested in cases of bank robbery and for possessing illegal arms in Karachi.

He was caught red-handed while committing an alleged robbery on August 25, 2010 in the limits of New Town Police Station

Agha Waqar, the resident of Dabar locality in the limits of A Section Police Station of Khairpur had mentioned his profession as “Private” in the police investigation. However during investigation, it was revealed that the accused was a stenographer in the Sukkur Range Police.

However, most of the time, he remained absent from his duties.

AIG Dr Amin Yousufzai expressed his surprise that Agha Waqar Ahmad Pathan was an employee of the police department. He was also not aware that Agha Waqar was his PA.

Pakistan alone cannot eradicate terrorism and that the international community should join hands

The Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI)thinks the problem will be over once Pakistan came out of the so-called war on terror

PPP views terrorism as a fallout of the international support to the Mujahideen resistance to the former Soviet Union

the international community now needs to fight collectively against suicide bombings and heroine as war weapon

Our material losses have reached almost 80 billion dollars

He was of the view that the Quaid-i-Azam envisaged Pakistan to be a country where political choices will be made by ballot and not by bullet LIARS

The PML-N senator thought that the task could not be performed by Pakistan alone; therefore, the international help was indispensable

The Jamaat-i-Islami believes that America’s presence in the region is the sole cause of terrorism

The IGP believed aggression-based TV programmes and cultural invasion by the foreign TV channels have increased the lust of our youths and caused acute depression among the down-trodden

anupmisra wrote:Pakis impotent on solution to terrorism
Paki parties, that is.

Pakistan alone cannot eradicate terrorism and that the international community should join hands

kish wrote:^^^ Simply Amazing.

Water waqar is not only a great 'scientist', but also works for the 'police' department who 'steals' when on leave.

anupmisra wrote:Another self-goal by an indian liberal WKK elite. I can pass off as a Pakistani: Kareena Kapoor.
Yes, Kareena, you certainly can. You qualify under the "brain dead" criteria.

sum wrote:

stating that India was like Radha and Pakistan like Krishna.

Didnt understand this analogy!

Veteran Pakistani television actress Saba Hamid’s daughter and singer turned actor Meesha Shafi is making her entry in Bollywood movie Bhaag Milkha Bhaag.Meesha has also been casted in Mira Nair’s adaptation of Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist.According to Times of India “Meesha, fame of the song Jugni from the Coke Studio Pakistan visited Mumbai last month to shoot for Bollywood movie Bhaag Milkha Bhaag produced and directed by Rakeysh Om Prakash Mehra. She will be acting against co-star Farhan Akhtar and Sonam Kapoor in the movie. Meesha arrived in Mumbai in the third week of August and was busy shooting for the movie till the end of this month.”Bhaag Milkha Bhaag is a biopic based on the life of Indian athlete and former Olympian Milkha Singh

Shamshad Ahmad - Tuesday, September 04, 2012
From Print Edition

For the third consecutive year, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India will be holding their “review” ritual, this time in Islamabad later this week. After the last two meetings, the first in Islamabad between S M Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi in July 2010 and then in Delhi last year between Krishna and Hina Rabbani Khar, nothing emerged except the two sides restating their known positions.

In Delhi last year, India managed to fudge the real issues by bringing an excessive media focus on Hina Rabbani Khar’s personal charm and her fashion accessories which did disappoint the people in Pakistan. The Bollywood frenzy and obsessive Twitter and YouTube coverage of the event overshadowed the outcome of her talks with her septuagenarian counterpart, who looked visibly piqued over the media’s ignoring him.

Given their history, there is no room for over-optimism. Having co-authored the process familiarly known as Composite Dialogue, I know when we negotiated and finalised this dialogue in June 1997, it was never meant to be an event. It was conceived as a process with a carefully structured framework to address the whole range of India-Pakistan issues, including Kashmir.

The process has remained hostage to India’s opportunistic mindset and the vagaries of the region’s geopolitics. We have seen that whenever the India-Pakistan peace process appeared to be making headway, some bizarre incident took place, derailing and then stalling the process. Musharraf’s reckless Kargil adventure was the first blow to the India-Pakistan peace process initiated in 1997. India exploited the global perception of the event as Pakistan-sponsored act of “intrusion” across the Kashmir Line of Control, although that country too had its own inventory of “operations.”

To start with, in order to bring Kashmiri Muslims in a negative light, Hindu pundits living peacefully and coexisting with Muslims in the Valley for ages were terrorised and forced to abandon their homes and property and shift to Hindu-dominated Jammu or to India. In March 2000, coinciding with President Clinton’s visit to our region, a massacre of Sikhs in Chattisinghpura village was stage-managed to portray Kashmiri freedom fighters as terrorists and to malign Pakistan for its alleged support to them.

India mounted a coercive and subversive campaign to bring Pakistan under pressure to give up its Kashmir stand. Successive terrorist attacks on the Kashmir State Assembly building on October 1, 2001, and on India’s Parliament building in Delhi on December 13, 2001, were engineered. Pakistan was blamed for both the incidents without any investigations or a shred of evidence. In a blatant show of brinkmanship, India moved its armed forces to its borders with Pakistan and along the Line of control in Kashmir.

Intense diplomatic pressure by the US and other G-8 countries then averted what could have been a catastrophic clash between the two nuclear-capable states. A ceasefire at the LoC in November 2003 with several CBMs, including Pakistan’s assurances of not letting its territory to be used for any terrorist activity or cross-border infiltration led to the resumption of the stalled India-Pakistan dialogue in January 2004. The January 6, 2004, Islamabad Joint Statement between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee thus became the basis for the new bilateral approach which in larger measure was pursued under pressure from Washington.

Musharraf, for self-serving reasons, not only accepted India’s allegations of Pakistan’s involvement in cross-border activities but also solemnly pledged not to allow any cross-border activity in future. He needed America’s continued support to remain in power and went beyond all limits in making unilateral gestures of flexibility on Kashmir. Under Washington’s prodding, during his last couple of years, Musharraf even made a dubious “backchannel” effort for a status-quo-based Kashmir solution. India never responded to his gestures.

In complicity with Washington, India wanted to keep Pakistan under global pressure in the context of its alleged role in militant or terrorist attacks inside India. In fact, since 2006, India has been implicating Pakistan in every act of terrorism on its soil, and has kept the dialogue process hostage to its policy of redefining the India-Pakistan issues. It blamed Pakistan for attacks first on a train in Mumbai in July 2006 then on Samjhota Express in February 2007 and then on the Indian Embassy in Kabul in July 2008.

This was also the time when the indigenous Kashmiri freedom movement was beginning to attract global sympathy and attention. Barack Obama, then in the final stages of his election campaign, understood the delicacy of the situation linking it with his own post-election challenges in Afghanistan. He publicly undertook to encourage India to solve the Kashmir dispute so that Islamabad could freely cooperate with the US on Afghanistan. In his view, “the sources of Afghan instability are in Pakistan; those in turn are linked to Islamabad’s conflict with New Delhi, at the heart of which is Jammu and Kashmir.”

In November 2008, immediately after Obama’s election, curiously enough, the thinking in Washington was rocked by the Mumbai attacks shaking the very fundamentals in Obama’s Af-Pak strategy. The-then ongoing freedom movement in Kashmir and the prospect of American “activism” on Kashmir were a source of growing concern and anxiety in India. The Mumbai “terrorist attacks” created a new situation in the region, instantly shifting the global focus from both the Kashmiri struggle and Obama’s Kashmir agenda. India was the sole beneficiary of the 26/11 attacks which it used not only to stall the peace process but also to shift global focus from Kashmir by having the “K word” expunged from Obama’s Af-Pak strategy.

The US-led Afghan endgame beginning in 2010, predicated on Pakistan’s crucial role in facilitating the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, brought India back to the conference table. It is against this not very palatable backdrop that we have had foreign ministers-level meetings between India and Pakistan annually since 2010 as a pro forma exercise with no serious effort for conflict resolution. Terrorism, not Kashmir, is the main issue now. No wonder, this time in Islamabad, besides the pro forma review of the official-level talks in the preceding year, the two foreign ministers will have a litanies of complaints of sabotage and subversion to exchange.

On Kashmir, in particular, they will not go beyond the same old narrative, just reiterating their respsective positions. That is what always happens after “cordial and constructive” talks in India-Pakistan scenario which somehow is losing relevance and credibility ever since South Asia became part of the larger US-led “great game” in this part of the world.

The challenge for Islamabad and Delhi now is to move away from their mutually ruinous template and take their own destiny in their hands to be able to address their outstanding issues including Kashmir, and live at peace with each other. They owe it to themselves to overcome their bitter past and work together for a better future.

The writer is a former foreign secretary. Email: [email protected]

Fiza Gilani - Tuesday, September 04, 2012
From Print Edition

As a child, I loved sitting next to my grandmother and listening to stories from the lives of different Prophets, specially the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). These stories always contained a message of compassion, of love, peace and humanity. There was one particular incident from the life of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) where a Jewish woman threw garbage at him every day.

Her intention was to provoke an aggressive retaliation from him side but her persistent attempts led to no avail. He took the same route each day, knowing she would be there to throw garbage on him and she continued with her daily ritual. One day when the Holy Prophet (PBUH) passed by her place, he was surprised that there was no garbage thrown at him. He knocked at her door to inquire about her, only to find that she was unwell and had no one to attend to her. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) took it upon himself to nurse her till she got well again.

This incident of compassion, amongst many others, is what I have been brought up listening to. This is the Islam I have always known. Unfortunately, over the past few years, I along with many others have been exposed to an entirely different and distorted version of Islam, where intolerance is dominant. This version of Islam I have neither read of anywhere in the Quran nor seen evidence of from the life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

When I decided to write about Rimsha Masih, a Christian girl, a patient of Down’s syndrome, who was accused of burning Quranic scriptures and arrested. I was told to “be careful” of writing on “such an issue.” Most advised strongly against it, saying not to talk about such subjects as they were a “ticking bomb.”

This both amazed and saddened me. Is this where we have brought Islam today, that Muslims are scared of talking about humanity or speaking up in defence of a child only because she’s not a Muslim?

I condemn any and all acts of burning scriptures, be they the Quran or the holy book of any religion. But at the same time, I also just as strongly condemn killing any person with religion being used as an excuse for attacking a member of a minority, especially if it is a girl child suffering from Down’s syndrome.

I want the world to be told that ours is not an intolerant religion. It does not allow us to kill people or reject them just because they do not belong to the same faith. The Quran and Sunnah teach us to be fair and act justly towards non-Muslims.

Why are we ruining the image of a beautiful, loving, peaceful and tolerant religion? Why don’t non-Muslims and other minorities feel safe in an Islamic state like Pakistan when, according to Islamic teachings, it is the duty of the state to protect the rights of all those living in it, no matter what religion they practise? Receiving good treatment is the right of a non-Muslim under Islam, not just a matter of courtesy.

Today it’s not non-Muslims but the self-proclaimed knights of Islam who pose a greater threat to our religion and country. This intolerance is weakening the roots of Pakistan and leading us to self-destruction. In the presence of such elements, we don’t need any outside enemy to attack us, we’re doing their job for them, and very effectively too.

I have high praise and appreciation for all the ulema who have spoken up in defence of this young child, held in prison for an act which we were not even sure she had committed. But it’s people like the imam from a local mosque in Mehra Jaffer who are ruining and tarnishing the image of a peaceful and tolerant religion.

According to an eyewitness, the local cleric added Quranic pages to the already burnt pages bought to him by a complainant. I urge our religious scholars and ulema to condemn this man and all like him, who taint our religion with their mala-fide intentions.

I appeal to the government of Pakistan that this man, when he is proven guilty, be severely punished for what he has done, so that no one dares to misuse the law of blasphemy anymore. And Rimsha must be immediately released and sent to her parents. It gives me shivers just thinking how traumatised the child must be!

An example should be set with this case, so that anti-Islamic elements who have been succeeding so far are permanently stopped and Pakistan becomes a peaceful place for all to live. Strong actions must be taken so that minorities feel safe here and practice their religion without fear.

Banyan
Nuclear profusion
The build-up of nuclear arms in South Asia remains terrifying
Aug 25th 2012 | from the print edition

THE militant attack early on August 16th on the Minhas air-force base in Kamra, just 40km (25 miles) outside Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, involved an intense gunfight but was beaten back without much difficulty. Yet probably not before it had rattled nerves in the White House. According to a new book (“Confront and Conceal”) by David Sanger of the New York Times, late last year Barack Obama told his staff that his “biggest single national-security concern” was that Pakistan might disintegrate and set off a scramble for its nuclear weapons.

Inevitably Pakistan denied that Minhas held any of its nuclear warheads, believed to number about 100. In any event the country’s security arrangements, it claims, are “perfect”. As for the fear of “disintegration”, officials are used to pooh-poohing the overheated fears of foreign doom-mongers. Even if bearded fanatics entered the presidential palace and proclaimed a new caliphate, they would dismiss it as a minor upset and offer a cup of tea.

Government and politics
Yet Mr Obama is right to worry that Pakistan’s warheads and fissile material could end up in the wrong hands. He should also fret about their future in the “right” hands. Fourteen years after India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers, the world has become rather blasé about the risks of a subcontinental nuclear confrontation.

The history of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal gives at least three reasons for concern. First, no country has such an appalling record as a proliferator of nuclear know-how—and the proliferator-in-chief, A.Q. Khan, remains a national hero. Second, parts of the Pakistani establishment seem to sympathise with militant Islamist movements. It is hard to believe that no senior official or army officer was aware of the late Osama bin Laden’s comfortable sojourn in Abbottabad, a stone’s throw from an elite military academy. As Mr Sanger reported in an earlier book (“The Inheritance”), in August 2001 a nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, met bin Laden. Mr Sanger quotes an American spook as saying that Mr Mahmood “was our ultimate nightmare. He had access to the entire Pakistani programme. He knew what he was doing. And he was completely out of his mind.”

Third is the risk of terrorists breaching Pakistan’s defences. Al-Qaeda and other militant groups are known to be desperate to get their hands on fissile material or an assembled warhead. As Pakistan is apparently increasing its arsenal as fast as it can and investing in smaller and more easily waylaid weapons, the risks are mounting. This was the fourth attack by extremist groups on Minhas alone. Five other sites linked to the nuclear programme have also been targets.

Pakistan is not at imminent risk of a fundamentalist takeover. But the long-term trends are in the wrong direction. That is why America has given it hundreds of millions of dollars to keep its nuclear weapons safe, even though their very existence is an affront to the non-proliferation doctrine. In an irony typical of the United States-Pakistan “alliance”, the chief threat Pakistan now perceives to its arsenal is from America itself. Just after the American raid on Abbottabad in 2011 that killed bin Laden, Pakistan stepped up efforts to secure its nuclear weapons, by dispersing bits of them around the country. One way it does this, apparently, is in unobtrusive civilian vans that can get stuck in traffic.

Perhaps even Pakistani generals accept that this is not an ideal disaster-avoidance plan. Fear of capture or pre-emptive destruction of their nuclear defences seems to be one reason why they are determined to develop a third leg, after air- and land-based delivery systems, to Pakistan’s nuclear “triad”: nuclear-armed ships and submarines. As Iskander Rehman of the Carnegie Endowment, a think-tank, observes in a recent paper*, Indo-Pakistani nuclear rivalry is drifting “from the dusty plains of the Punjab and Rajasthan into the world’s most congested shipping lanes.” “It is only a matter of time,” he argues, “before Pakistan formally brings nuclear weapons into its own fleet.”

Other reasons for expecting this include a perceived need to match India’s own development of sea-based systems, missiles and missile defences, and fear that a future government in Afghanistan might be hostile. Pakistan has always felt the need for “strategic depth” in any conflict with India. In the nuclear age this has meant the ability to scatter defences around its western neighbour. Unlike India, Pakistan has never adopted a “no-first-use” nuclear doctrine. Huge fans of their bombs, Pakistani strategists argue that deterrence works. They point to Pakistan’s incursion in Kargil in 1999 and repeated terrorist attacks since then blamed on Pakistan. None provoked full-scale war. Three wars were fought between 1947 and 1971. So this is progress, of a sort.

Hot finish?

Naval nuclearisation makes this analysis look recklessly complacent. India has been working on “Cold Start”, a plan for a blitzkrieg invasion of Pakistan that would not provoke nuclear war. India might think Pakistan is bluffing in its professed willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons against Indian ground troops on Pakistani soil. Weapons at sea could lower the threshold. Pakistan might be less loth to use battlefield nuclear weapons against an aircraft-carrier strike force than soldiers on its own soil.

As nukes move to sea, “dual-use” platforms that can be used for both conventional and nuclear weapons create an even more hazardous ambiguity than they do on land. What India sees as a prudent defensive response to China’s naval build-up might easily be taken by Pakistan as aggressive. A competitive arms race beckons—with the added twist that the navy, which would be in charge of seaborne nuclear weapons, is thought to be the branch of Pakistan’s armed forces most infiltrated by extremists.

*“Drowning Stability”. Naval War College Review, Autumn 2012, Vol. 65, No. 4

anupmisra wrote:Another self-goal by an indian liberal WKK elite. I can pass off as a Pakistani: Kareena Kapoor.
Yes, Kareena, you certainly can. You qualify under the "brain dead" criteria.

anupmisra wrote:Another self-goal by an indian liberal WKK elite. I can pass off as a Pakistani: Kareena Kapoor.
Yes, Kareena, you certainly can. You qualify under the "brain dead" criteria.

arun wrote:

anupmisra wrote:Warsi made Foreign Office minister

Oh God! How dumb and PC can the Brits get? .............{Snipped} ...............

Let us hope that having appointed a politician originating in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a Minister of State for Faith and Communities in the UK Foreign Office making her akin to the Deputy Foreign Minister of the UK; the UK Government for the sake of Indo-UK relations will have the good sense to keep her tightly leashed and muzzled during her stint as a Minister of State in the Foreign Office.

KLNMurthy wrote:

sum wrote:"stating that India was like Radha and Pakistan like Krishna."
Didnt understand this analogy!

Someone should tell pakis that Krishna is black.

sum wrote:"stating that India was like Radha and Pakistan like Krishna."
Didnt understand this analogy!

KLNMurthy wrote: Someone should tell pakis that Krishna is black.

shiv wrote: Yes.
Krishnaphalakam means blackboard in Sanskrit, and krishnapaksha is that half of the lunar month when the moon wanes and nights get darker.

pentaiah wrote:Tim is the true sishya of uneven Cohen and worthy successor in Indian circles I guess.
He is also strongly influenced by perkovich

India's ambassador to the US, Nirupama Rao, got singed by twitterati after she boldly backed New Delhi's proposal for a 500 MW cross border transmission to Pakistan which was announced in Parliament on Monday. Rao said in a tweet that India is "also responding to power needs of Nepal and Bangladesh".

The blowback was swift. "Madam, we don't have surplus power on d first place. Doing charity with a hungry belly is not pragmatic," one twitterer wrote. Another tweet, presumably referring to PM Manmohan Singh's support for the idea, snarkily described it as "this Punjabi Pappi-Jhappi diplomacy driven by old men with nostalgia of pre partition" and said it is "not based on realism" . But Rao, widely seen as one of India's ablest diplomats and someone who has taken to social media with gusto, would not be silenced, particularly after one tweet trashed the idea as "top class rubbish".

"Helping one's neighbours cannot be termed 'top class rubbish' as you so dismissively term it! We are not an island ," she shot back. "Why do you automatically assume that this will deprive us of electricity? That is never the intention & it will not be so," she explained in another tweet, adding that India had added 55,000 MW of power to national grid in 2007-12 , including 20,500 mw in FY 2011-12 alone, and capacity is being augmented further.

But the twitterati remained unconvinced. "Ma'am beg ur pardon but u indeed seem to b unaware about the acute power shortage even in Gurgaon n major infra woes," came one response , while another said "This govt has totally lost it."

The Pakistani media, meanwhile, picked up Rao's remarks and gave it wide play in Pakistan.

But on the very morning of her Twitter exchange, the National Public Radio ran a segment on India's blackouts — and it was not pleasant hearing. It reminded listeners that India recently had the world's biggest power outage, affecting 670 million people, or nearly 10% of world population. And even as the reporter sat down to interview a shopkeeper, the lights went out again.

Mr. Sharma said India was ready to grant multi-entry and multi-city visas to businessmen from Pakistan. “I am only hoping that the agreement is signed soon. Mr. Krishna is visiting Pakistan this week-end, and, hopefully, something will happen,” he remarked.

Mr. Sharma said there was a need to also open up more land routes to allow more people-to-people exchange and smooth entry and exit (of terrorists from Pakistan) of business community from both nations. “The agreements will be signed soon. It is a matter of weeks, maximum,” he added.

“We will soon be coming out with detailed clarification and guidelines on granting permission to Indian business houses and individuals to invest in Pakistan. There were some doubts, whether the Indian industry is allowed to invest or not. The answer is yes. It is just a procedural formality. I have been informed that it is getting addressed. It is a just a matter of days. So, both ways investment flow will start,” he said. India recently allowed Pakistan nationals and companies to invest in India through the semi-automatic approval route. Bilateral trade between India and Pakistan stood at $2.7 billion in 2010-11.

Haider Abbas Rizvi, a member of Pakistan National Assembly, said that increase in trade and investment would help both sides to resolve other matters. “Our relationship should not become hostage to any issue or incident. Our dialogue process should be irrevocable. We have to ensure this in the future,” Mr. Rizvi.

ramana wrote:So Ms. Rao was true to the definition of an Ambassador!

ChandraV wrote: People like us, the great Indian middle class, will finally manage to get our voices heard by the powers-that-be. by other middle class bloggers and tweeters.

The federal government on Tuesday asked the Punjab government to crack down on Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) without further delay, as most cases of sectarian violence had been claimed by the defunct organisation.

This was observed in a meeting on Tuesday, chaired by Interior Minister Rehman Malik, to review law and order and security situation in the country. The meeting also ordered an investigation into the foreign visits of LeJ leader Malik Ishaq. It was observed that sectarian violence is being prompted by paid agents of elements hostile to Pakistan. The meeting was of the view that analysis of available intelligence suggested that there was a a strong nexus between the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and one of the factions of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). It was also observed that the TTP was fuelling sectarian strife in and around Quetta for financial gains.

The meeting also observed that two former Harkatul Ansar terrorists were supervising and handling the killings of innocent Shias in the country, adding that one of its members, Asmat Muawia, was operating from upper and central Punjab. The participants believed there was no religious strife between Sunnis and Shias and hostile elements were trying to create a conflict between the two sects.

In a bid to escape heavy firing from militants, security personnel took shelter in a room. Evidence gleaned from the footage indicates that the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants had “contacts” with security personnel at the base. Footage from a second surveillance camera allegedly discloses the attackers having a meeting around a table after their assault on the base. The assault led to a reconnaissance aircraft being destroyed, while two others were partially damaged. The two footages are approximately nine and five minutes long.

The assault led to a reconnaissance aircraft being destroyed, while two others were partially damaged.

Footage from a second surveillance camera allegedly discloses the attackers having a meeting around a table after their assault on the base.

Mr. Sharma said India was ready to grant multi-entry and multi-city visas to businessmen from Pakistan.

One night in March, police found a body slumped in the back of a black Toyota parked in an affluent district of Karachi, Pakistan's commercial capital.

The man, a prominent public servant named Abdul Rehman Dashti, had been shot in the face. His watch, ring and money were gone

Bheel is a friend to senators and his eldest son is a member of the national assembly. Bheel himself once campaigned on behalf of a politician aligned with the powerful military.

chaanakya wrote:The Press release from Hague

In these proceedings, Pakistan places two matters for determination by the Court of Arbitration:
. . .
The Agent of Pakistan, Mr. Kamal Majidulla (Special Assistant to the Prime Minister for Water Resources and Agriculture), spoke first on behalf of Pakistan. Mr. Majidulla recalled the “existential importance” of the waters of the Indus system of rivers to the people and agriculture of the Indus valley. He described the “Solomonic solution” adopted by India and Pakistan in the Indus Waters Treaty – the apportionment of the rivers of the Indus system between the two States.

He said that on this day in 1965 the people from all over Pakistan and representing all shades of opinion joined hands in standing behind the valiant armed forces in thwarting aggression.

“Let us, therefore, pledge that we will never allow anyone to endanger our existence as a moderate, tolerant and peaceful nation,” he said.