Pakistan News and Discussion-8

Naresh · (This post was last modified: 09-24-2006, 03:55 AM by Naresh.)

Ravish Ji :

I am heartened that you agree with me for Pakistan and Bangladesh to be left stewing in their own morning evacuations â or for that matter their evacuations at any time of the day or night.

In the hope(s) of India attaining Peace with Pakistan one does not wish to partake in the painful luxury of self-flagellation.

I wish you the best of luck in your hopes but such wish(es)-hope(s) by one tends to ensure that one will take leave of this world in sheer despair and disappointment.

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

09-23-2006, 07:01 PM

QUOTEhttp://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/21ks....&file=.htm

K Subrahmanyam

REDIFF INDIA ABROAD

Pros and cons of the joint war on terror 

September 21, 2006

K Subrahmanyam, the doyen of Indiaâs strategic affairs experts, assesses if the India-Pakistan joint working group on terrorism is a step in the right direction.

The agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Pervez Musharraf on setting up a joint working group on terrorism has come in for widespread criticism.

More than that, the prime ministerâs reference to Pakistan being a victim of terrorism has angered many. There are also allegations that the prime ministerâs change of attitude and certification of Pakistan as a victim of terrorism was due to US pressure.

On the other side, there are several arguments in favour of the working group.

**For one, General Musharraf has now accepted that terrorism is generated out of Pakistan. While he maintains that it is not State-sponsored he accepts that there are âfreelanceâ terrorists.

**Second, terrorism is being accepted as a core subject to be discussed in a dedicated mechanism between the two countries.

**Third, acceptance of freelance terrorists and groups within Pakistan would call for discussion of various groups in Pakistan, their activities and action taken against them.

**Fourth, Indian public opinion will not allow any flexibility on the J&K issue unless it is satisfied that there is progress in dealing with terrorism in Pakistan.

**Fifth, by terming Pakistan a victim of terrorism and separating the linkage between the Pakistani State and terrorist groups Pakistan is made more accountable in regard to controlling terrorist activity in its territory.

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in eating and the effectiveness of this mechanism will depend upon Pakistani bonafides.

Pakistan has a record of a quarter of a century of outsmarting the US and the CIA on both nuclear proliferation and terrorism. In fact, they continue to support the terrorist Al Qaeda and Taliban even as they manage to get certificates of cooperation in the war on terror from the US president.

The resurgent Taliban today is putting up stiff fight against US and NATO forces in southern and eastern Afghanistan. They could not have got their money from the drug trade, could not have got their arms and could not have trained their men without Pakistani help.

Yet Pakistan maintains its innocence and is to receive F-16 aircraft as a reward for its cooperation in the war on terror.

US President George W Bush vowed that any country which gave asylum to Osama Bin Laden and his associates would be treated as an enemy. Even as the US air force was pounding Torah Borah mountains in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden and his senior associates slipped into Pakistani territory and are safely esconced there ever since.

To add insult to injury, General Musharraf asserts that Bin Laden is in southern Afghanistan, an area under the jurisdiction of US and NATO forces. He implies that the US has not been competent enough to capture bin Laden in territory in which it operates.

Having allowed the Taliban to regroup and surge in southern and eastern Afghanistan, he has concluded a ceasefire agreement in Waziristan which will make it a safe haven for the Taliban. He claims to have the word of honour of tribal elders that the area would be free of Taliban activity. The history of Afghanistan and switching and reswitching of loyalties of tribal chieftains in that country would bear witness to the fact that such promises are of very little value.

Similarly, Pakistan has got away with shielding Dr A Q Khan and his nonproliferation activities. A recently published book by BBC journalist Gordon Correra, Shopping for the Bomb reveals that the CIA and Western intelligence agencies were aware of Dr Khanâs activities from 1987 onwards, and allowed him to carry on with his proliferation in the expectation that he would lead to the proliferating nations.

Despite this, General Musharraf gets away with his claim that A Q Khan operated on his own and the Pakistani government and the army were totally unaware of his proliferation activities. And US President George Bush accepts such a claim.

Today the US and NATO forces are put under risk because of Pakistani support to Taliban. Osama Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri are able to issue audio and video messages against US from their safe havens in Pakistan. Dr A Q Khan is safe from the interrogation of US and IAEA officials.

At the same time Pakistan is acclaimed to be in the forefront of the fight against terrorism. President Clinton now reveals that the plan to train Pakistani commandos to capture bin Laden was vetoed by General Musharraf as the army chief.

The 9/11 Commission has brought out that the attack on twin towers and the Pentagon was planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. Money transfer to the lead attacker Mohammed Atta was made by Omar Sheikh, the Pakistani terrorist exchanged in Kandahar hijack.

The shoe bomber Richard Reid started his journey from Pakistan. Many of the terrorists who plotted the London transport system bombing were trained in Pakistan. The main players in the latest plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic had all visited Pakistan and were trained in terrorist training camps there.

In spite of all this the US is full of appreciation of Pakistanâs role.

If Pakistan has rendered services to the US in the war on terrorism that would not be kept a secret. But the US media, US think tanks, US servicemen and European diplomats make no secret of Pakistanâs support to the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan. Yet Pakistan has been able to get away with its massive terrorist activity against the US.

The only logical conclusion possible in these circumstances is that the US is under Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Pakistan has been able to convince the US that any pressure on it would lead to weakening of General Musharraf and his possible replacement by a jhadi general, and consequent risks of nuclear weapons and material falling into the hands of jihadis. Presumably, this blackmail has been effective and the US is prepared to put up with all Pakistani transgressions.

At the same time Pakistan feels that if terrorism is brought to an end, the US will lose all interest in Pakistan. Therefore terrorism has to be used an instrumentality to milk the US.

Given this record of Pakistan vis-a-vis the US, its successful dodging of responsibility for terrorism and its earning endorsement from the US leadership, Pakistan is not likely to be very cooperative in the joint working group in respect of terrorism generated from Pakistan vis-a-vis India.

India does not have even a fraction of the clout which the US has with Pakistan. In any case India has not made effective use of the material it has on Pakistani complicity in terrorism. Pakistanis killed and captured in Jammu & Kashmir or elsewhere are treated as statistics, and no attempt is made to project their links to Pakistani organisations and publish their photographs.

Though Masood Azhar and Omar Sheikh were in Indian custody for years, their interrogation reports have not been made use of in the information campaign against terrorism.

There is no harm in having a joint working group and attempting to make terrorism a core issue in the India-Pakistan composite peace process. But there should be no illusion that it is going to be productive with the Pakistanis, the past masters in the art of practising terrorism and disowning responsibility.

Above all, there should be an Indian strategy about handling this issue. But do we have one?

**acharya** · 09-24-2006, 05:43 AM

Your comment[s] on this article
Indians, Pakistanis don't like each other
Notwithstanding recent CBMs and peace initiative between India and Pakistan, people from both the countries continue to view each other in an âunfavourableâ and ânegativeâ light, according to an international survey report.
Click here to read the article

Total comment[s]: 5

Post your comment
Page[s]: 1

Send Feedback E-mail this story Print this story

â¢

Midia

I totally agree to the poit of view made earlier, in moments like these, where even the pope is careless in his comments, propagating similar surveys only catalyse the already polarised world. I have always had great friends from all communities and countries and since the past 10 years it seems to be getting extremely difficult to move on without being labelled as Indian, Pakistani, Jew or Sri Lankan for that matter!!
A phrase that I read somewhere resumes all this confusion.
"God created truth, the devil organised it and called it religion"
Midia save our planet..hurry!!!

Posted by: Vinod Kurup, Indian, Brazil, 23-09-2006 at 1636 hours IST

â¢

Indians,Pakistanis don't like each other

History is a fact that the entire subcontinent from the North of HindKush to the deep South of Kerala,India was a single landmass thanks to land divisions by the cunning British new identities were created based on artificial nationality and not on religion or language.By keeping the Hindus and Moslems(in effect the Pakis)British ensured that the subcontinent remained an ocean of hatred,war and poverty.

Posted by: G.Sriniwasan, Australia, 23-09-2006 at 1629 hours IST

â¢

Whats New ?

Thats true and known to all, the question is whats the use of such surveys, instead declaring the existing hatred why not the solutions given to the people.

Posted by: Kaunain Shahidi, India, 23-09-2006 at 1409 hours IST

â¢

I agree to Mr.Misra

I think i should agree to Mr. Misra's opinion that all the problems in the region are because of India's neighbours who are all hostile and unfriendly. India on the other hand is the most friendly & peaceful country in the world and the proof is that it is the only country in the world to have ceasefire agreements with almost all of its neighbours....lols

Posted by: Muhammad Irfan, Pakistan, 23-09-2006 at 1328 hours IST

â¢

Nothing surprising !

Nothing surprising about the survey results ! Barring Pakistan and China no other country views India unfavorably and the reasons are partly cultural and partly historical. In regard to China, the Chinese invasion of 1962 and China grabbing vast territory of India has alienated Indians and the same attitude still persists. In fact, Indians view China with suspicion for its expansionist designs as evident from lits claim to Indian territory in the North-east. Besides, racially, culturally and linguistically India has little in common with China except Buddhism which too has been eliminated during the âcultural revolutionâ As far as Pakistan is concerned, the country is viewed as a global nursery of terror housing training camps for Muslim Jihadis who infiltrate into India with their murderous missions. The foundation of Pakistan itself was laid on hatred and bloodshed, justified in the name of âtwo-nation theoryâ. The Kashmir dispute which has been politicized by successive heads of Pakistan has further embittered the relations notwithstanding that the two countries are culturally closer to each other than to China.

Posted by: Sharad C. Misra, India, 23-09-2006 at 1259 hours IST

Attitudes' Survey

Indians, Pakistanis don't like each other

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 1003 hours IST
Updated: Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 1121 hours IST

India-Pakistan Washington, September 23: Notwithstanding recent CBMs and peace initiative between India and Pakistan, people from both the countries continue to view each other in an âunfavourableâ and ânegativeâ light, according to an international survey report.

Advertisement
The two South Asian neighbours are not alone in their acrimonious relationship, with people from China and Japan also showing equal dislike for each other.

The report also found that Indians âoverwhelminglyâ support improved relations with the United States (70 per cent), and 75 per cent of Indians who know about the proposed nuclear deal between the two countries support it.

But a majority of Indians believe China will overtake the US as the dominant world power, although the Chinese themselves were less optimistic about it.

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, which was released on Thursday, 50 per cent of Indian respondents find Pakistan âunfavourableâ while only 33 per cent gave them the âfavourableâ tag.

Among the Pakistani respondents, 67 per cent regard Indians as unfavourable.

Among their other neighbours, both the Chinese and Japanese express general unfavourable views of Pakistan, while Chinese tend to feel negatively toward India.

Also, more than half of American respondents had unfavourable views of Pakistan.

The six-nation survey -- conducted in India, Pakistan, China, Japan, the US and Russia -- found that China's growing military strength was seen as threatening by neighbours India, Russia and Japan. Even its burgeoning economy was considered a bad thing by half of Indians.

09-24-2006, 11:35 AM

QUOTE50 per cent of Indian respondents find Pakistan âunfavourableâ 
It should be 100%

Naresh · 09-24-2006, 02:32 PM

Mudy Ji :

The Mills of the Lord Grind Slowly â but they Grind Exceedingly Small.

What the Leadership of 850 Million Indian Hindus could not think of has been Publicly Aired by a Leader of about Forty Million Spanish Christians :

[center]Muslims must apologise for conquest : Aznar : Former Spanish PM defends Pope <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' />[/center]

MADRID, Sept 23 : Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar on Friday defended Pope Benedict XVIâs comments about Islam, saying the pontiff had no need to apologise and asking why Muslims never did, according to newspaper reports published on Saturday.

âWhy do we always have to say sorry and they never do?â Mr Aznar told a conference in the United States.

âIt is interesting to note that while a lot of people in the world are asking the pope to apologise for his speech, I have never heard a Muslim say sorry for having conquered Spain and occupying it for eight centuries.â

He was referring to the Muslim conquest of much of the Iberian peninsula, which lasted from the eighth to the 15th century.

Mr Aznar, Spainâs right-wing prime minister from 1996 to 2004, took the country into the US-led invasion of Iraq, despite overwhelming public opposition.

His government was voted out of office following a terrorist attack in Madrid in March 2004, in part because of fears that his policies had made Spain more vulnerable.

Addressing Fridayâs conference in Washington on âglobal threatsâ, Mr Aznar said: âWe are living in a time of war... Itâs them or us. The West did not attack Islam, it was they who attacked us.

âWe must face up to an Islam that is ambitious, that is radical and that influences the Muslim world, a fundamentalist Islam that we must confront because we donât have any choice.

âWe are constantly under attack and we must defend ourselves,â he said.

âI support Ferdinand and Isabella,â he proclaimed, in reference to the medieval Catholic monarchs who drove Muslims out of Spain in 1492.

The pope sparked outrage across the Muslim world with a speech in his native Germany on Sept 12, in which he quoted a medieval Christian emperor as saying that the Islamic concept of jihad was âevil and inhumanâ. âAFP

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

Naresh · 09-24-2006, 02:36 PM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 24 2006, 11:35 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE50 per cent of Indian respondents find Pakistan âunfavourableâ 
It should be 100%
[right][snapback]57825[/snapback][/right]</div>

Mudy Ji :

A clear cut case of Impotence Permeating from the Indian Leadership to the People of India. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />

The Indian Leadership must take a Leaf from Jose Maria Aznarâs Book.

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

09-24-2006, 11:14 PM

QUOTEMuslims must apologise for conquest : 
I second, They should apologise Hindus.

Nareshji,

Mushy is now a laughing stock of US. He had made fool of himself.
I am not sure whether he will be able to sell book, his publisher is owned by CBS group (CBS News).

09-24-2006, 11:40 PM

QUOTEBluff and bluster 
The Pioneer Edit Desk
It can't carry Musharraf too far
Is too much being read into Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's belligerent posturing prior to his meeting with US President George W Bush in Washington, DC on Friday? While his claim that then US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had threatened Pakistan with dire consequences in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks - "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age" - unless he joined the war against terrorism triggered reams of analysis, it is entirely possible that the comments were nothing more than a publicity gimmick for his book, In the Line of Fire, due for release on Monday. It is true that media reports of Gen Musharraf's claim, made to CBS, followed Mr Bush's interview to CNN during which he indicated that he would not hesitate to send American troops into Pakistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But it is not clear when CBS recorded its interview of Gen Musharraf; what is, however, known is that the publishers of In the Line of Fire arranged for the interview with an eye to promoting the book. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Mr Bush's meeting with Gen Musharraf took place against the backdrop of both trying to browbeat the other, only to appear in public after their chat as members of a mutual admiration club. Yes, diplomacy demands civility during a joint press conference addressed by two heads of state. But what was witnessed on Friday bordered more on back-slapping bonhomie than civility and stood out in sharp contrast to the chill that marked Mr Bush's visit to Pakistan earlier this year. It also runs contrary to the mounting concern in the American, European and Afghan capitals about Islamabad's wavering commitment to crush Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants now operating out of Waziristan.

For quite some time now, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has been complaining to the US about Pakistan's unwillingness to contain, leave alone eliminate, Taliban and Al Qaeda activists who had taken refuge in Waziristan after being driven out of Afghanistan by the US-led multinational forces. With every passing day, Osama bin Laden's loyalists have been striking deeper into Afghan territory with increasing impunity and deadly effect. American commanders based in Afghanistan have endorsed Mr Karzai's assessment on more than one occasion. What has set alarm bells ringing is the Pakistan Government's recent deal with tribal leaders in Waziristan that virtually marks the end of Gen Musharraf's participation in the US-led war against terrorism. The Pakistan Army chief has denied a sellout, but there are not many takers for his glib talk. Mr Bush cannot but be aware of the rapidly changing perception about his blue-eyed boy in Islamabad and it would not be incorrect to assume that the one-on-one meeting between them that preceded the joint press conference was dominated by a fair amount of tough-talking. When Mr Karzai meets Mr Bush on Tuesday, he is bound to repeat his litany of charges against Gen Musharraf that remain unaddressed. The West's 'steadfast ally' in the war against terrorism is bound to repeat his pledge of allegiance and reiterate his commitment. But unless he begins to deliver, he will sooner than later run out of time: Bluff and bluster are useful tactics but they can never qualify as strategy.

09-24-2006, 11:48 PM

QUOTE<!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> Mushy is now a laughing stock of US. He had made fool of himself.
I am not sure whether he will be able to sell book, his publisher is owned by CBS group (CBS News).
[right][snapback]57847[/snapback][/right]

Mushy could not care less whether book sells or not as he has already pocketed advance to write the book which is neat sum of some million $$. Moreover, his regime has been labelled as more corrupt than Benazir Sharif put together; where is all the money going!

Naresh · (This post was last modified: 09-25-2006, 02:18 AM by Naresh.)

QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Sep 24 2006, 11:48 PM)1. Mushy could not care less whether book sells or not as he has already pocketed advance to write the book which is neat sum of some million $$. Moreover, his regime has been labelled as more corrupt than Benazir Sharif put together; 2. where is all the money going![right][snapback]57850[/snapback][/right]

Capt Manmohan Kumar Ji :

1. Mush the Tush did not repeat did not not write the book.

It is Ghost written by Humayun Gobar.

Humayun Gobarâs father was the Ghost writer for Ayub Khan's âFriends not Mastersâ

2. All the Money is mostly going to the Jernail with the leftovers to the Air Marshals and Admirals.

Mush the Tush allocated Land + Import Licenses to his Son's Father in Law + Bank Guarantees worth Hundreds of Millions of US Dollars for the MAGLEV Train System.

The Maglev System is now âOut of Considerationâ but neither the land has been returned, nor the Import Licences (will possibly be used for Import of âMoney Makingâ Consumer Goods) nor the Bank Guarantees which will be used for further Commercial and Industrial Uses in the Consumer-Food Imports Sectors.

[center]Long Live the Pakistani Armed Forces - May they Grow to a Personnel Strength of 1,000,000 from the present Strength of 650,000[/center]

Cheers

09-25-2006, 02:43 AM

Peace with Pak, on what terms?
By M.V.Kamath

http://www.samachar.com/features/200906-features.html

Naresh · 09-25-2006, 03:04 AM

[center]Cry, beloved Pakistan - Roedad Khan <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /> [/center]

In these harsh and difficult political times, the question of leadership is at the center of our national concerns. The times cry out for leadership. At the heart of leadership is the leader's character. Pakistan is a nation of teahouse politicians, midgets with no commitment to principles and no values; nothing to die for and nothing to live for. Here we have pocketbook liberals, pseudo democrats and orthodox religious leaders concerned only with short - term profits and only too eager to do business with the military. A chasm separates them from the people who see them as a predatory group, self-enriching and engaged in perpetual intrigue while the country collapses. And when the winds blow and the rain descends and the house is about to collapse, they all vanish in a night.

When the history of our benighted times comes to be written, Tuesday, December 30, 2003, will be remembered as a day of infamy. On that day, elected representatives of the people of Pakistan had to make a fateful choice: they could either collaborate with the military regime, thereby losing all their credibility or insist that the Generals call it a day, restore parliamentary democracy and go back to the barracks.
Regrettably, MMA sacrificed principle for expediency, broke rank with the opposition and joined hands with the government party to subvert the constitution. The parliament passed an extraordinary constitutional amendment bill, jointly sponsored by the government party and MMA, which added a new clause (8) to article 41 of the constitution, providing for a "one-time vote of confidence for a further affirmation of General Musharraf's presidency"!

Two days later, on January 1, 2004, in an unprecedented move made in a carefully orchestrated process, General Musharraf obtained a "vote of confidence" from the parliament and four provincial assemblies and was declared "elected" as President by the Chief Election Commissioner! How could MMA, for many Pakistanis the voice of authentic opposition, enter upon the path of collaboration? How could members of the National Assembly, sworn to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, participate in this charade? How could they perpetrate this fraud which has made a mockery of the entire constitutional process? How can a dubious "vote of confidence" be a substitute for election, of the President of Pakistan, as provided for in the constitution? How can it confer legitimacy? More disgusted than dejected, I still can't fathom this ugly turn in our political history.

Barring a few blissful exceptions, can anyone among our leaders say, in all honesty, that he is in jail or in exile because of his ideals; because of what he stood for; because of what he thought or because of his conscience? Can anyone of them face the court like Nelson Mandela and say, "whatever sentence your Worship sees fit to impose upon me, may it rest assured that when my sentence has been completed, I will still be moved, as men are always moved, by their consciences. And when I come out from serving my sentence, I will take up again, as best I can, the struggle for the rights of my people". Can anyone of our leaders face a judge and declare that he always cherished the ideal of a democratic, corruption - free Pakistan - an ideal which he hoped to live for and to achieve. And like Mandela, "if needs be, it is an ideal for which he is prepared to die".

Nobody expects our leaders to die in the service of Pakistan or suffer the crushing effects of prison life, even for a good cause, as Mandela did on Robbin island - clean his toilet bucket in sinks at the far end of a long corridor at 6:35 AM every day, sit cross - legged for hours forbidden to talk, bash away with a 5 - pound hammer at piles of stone in front of him, crushing them into gravel, receive only one visitor in every six months, write and receive only one letter in the same period, work in the lime quarries for about 27 long years on Robbin island with the cold and fierce Atlantic winds sweeping across the island, numbed to the bone hardly able to raise his pick. Mandela suffered all this and more not because he was charged with corruption or that he had looted or plundered the state treasury or that he had betrayed national interest. He suffered because he refused to accept the injustice and inhumanity of a cruel system which a fascist white minority government had imposed on his people. He didn't flinch. He did not waver. He did not run away. He made no deal. He stood his ground and won. That is the stuff that leaders are made of.

It gives me no pleasure to say that Pakistan no longer exists, by that I mean the country of our dreams, our hopes, our pride. The Bonapartists have robbed us of everything - our past, our present, our future. Today a moral crisis is writ large on the entire political scene in Pakistan. The Pakistan dream has morphed into the Pakistan nightmare. The country is under army rule for the fourth time and in deep, deep trouble. This is the darkest era in the history of Pakistan since 1971. The independence of Pakistan is a myth. Pakistan is no longer a free country. It is no longer a democratic country. American military personnel cross and re-cross our border without let or hindrance. They violate our air space with impunity and kill innocent men, women and children. Everyday I ask myself the same question: How can this be happening in Pakistan? How can people like these be in charge of our country? If I didn't see it with my own eyes, I'd think I was having a hallucination.

At a time when leadership is desperately needed to cope with matters of vital importance and put the country back on the democratic path, Pakistan is ruled by a regime which lacks both legitimacy and credibility and seems oblivious to the realities and is interested only in perpetuating itself. It doesn't seem to share the feeling of national shame. The nation is breaking down. It has become ungovernable and would remain so as long as the present set-up continues.

God save Pakistan. I have never prayed, "God save Pakistan", with more heartfelt fervour. You can feel the deep apprehension brooding over all. The proverbial little cloud no longer than a man's hand has already formed over the Pakistani scene. The country is in the grip of a grave political and constitutional crisis. General Musharraf is leading the country to a perilous place. Thanks to our political leaders, an authoritarian rule is fast acquiring the mantle of legitimacy and permanence. There is no one to restrain him. It is unnerving to realize that General Musharraf is going to be with us for an indefinite period of time. Grinding our teeth, we have been reduced to the role of spectators.

A pall has descended on the nation and we are fast approaching Arthur Koestlers' Darkness at Noon. At this time, all those, in the country or abroad, who see the perils of the future must draw together and take resolute measures to secure our country. The tragedy is that each man feels what is wrong, and knows what is required to be done, but none has the will or the courage or the energy needed to speak up and say Enough is Enough. All have lofty ideals, hopes, aspirations, desires, which produce no visible or durable results, like old men's passions ending in impotence.

Today, there is only one measure by which people appraise their leaders in these troubled times: the degree to which they stand up to despotism. Many questions rush to mind. Why can't the opposition unite around one single irrevocable purpose: end of military rule before free, fair, impartial elections can be held, a neutral interim government, restoration of the un-amended 1973 Constitution? Why can't they make a solemn commitment never to parley, never to negotiate with any usurper, and never to allow anything to cause the slightest divergence of aim or slackening of effort in their ranks? Why can't they form a grand alliance against the military dictator? Why don't they resign en bloc end this charade? Why are they sticking to their seats in a rubberstamp parliament? Why? The answer is simple. To such as these leaders, talk of resisting despotism is as embarrassing as finding yourself in the wrong clothes at the wrong party, as tactless as a challenge to run to a legless man, as out of place as a bugle call in a mortuary. Why is tyranny retreating elsewhere and not in Pakistan? The reason is that, unlike Pakistan, they had leaders who loved liberty more than they feared persecution. They did not dread persecution.

One thing is clear. Tyranny is not abandoned as long as it is served by a modicum of those two enormous and dreadful powers: the apathy of the people and organized troops. It is going to be an uphill task. There is no doubt about that. The lesson of history is that you almost never succeed in bringing freedom back in a country that has lost it. If you do succeed, it is almost always the result of a war - it seldom happens that a nation oppressed by dictatorship finds a way to liberate itself without a war. This is true, but history always has new developments up its sleeve and sometimes satisfying ones. A single voice - a voice that has credibility as the voice of the anger of the people and its will to resist, can break through the conspiracy of silence, the atmosphere of fear, and the solitude of feeling politically impotent.

"Do you think that history is changed because one individual comes along instead of another", Oriana Fallaci asked Willy Brandt. "I think that individuals play a definite role in history", Willy Brandt replied, "But I also think that its' situation that makes one talent emerge instead of another. A talent that already existed.If the individual and situation meet, then the mechanism is set off by which history takes one direction instead of another". Today Pakistan is ripe for profound changes. When a nation is in crisis, it needs a man to match the crisis. Cometh the hour, cometh the men. The voice of history beckons Benazir and Nawaz Sharif to play their historic role. Blessed are those who return to lead the people to victory. If they fail to respond, the hour will find the man. Website: www.roedadkhan.com

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

Naresh · 09-25-2006, 03:54 AM

Can Pakistan manage its burgeoning trade imbalance? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' />

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

Naresh · 09-25-2006, 04:29 AM

[center]Did Musharraf âcave inâ to Taliban?: <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /> [/center]

[center]Waziristan deal with Mulla Omar[/center]

LAHORE : The fugitive Taliban commander Mulla Omar has emerged as the key player behind the movementâs controversial peace deal with Pakistan, British newspaper The Telegraph reported on Sunday.

The Talibanâs one-eyed spiritual leader, who has a $10 million price on his head for refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks, signed a letter explicitly endorsing the truce announced this month. The deal between the Pakistani authorities and pro-Taliban militants in the tribal provinces bordering Afghanistan was designed to end five years of bloodshed in the area.

In return for an end to the US-backed government campaign in Waziristan, the tribal leaders agreed to halt attacks on Pakistani troops, more than 500 of whom have been killed. The deal has been widely criticised as over-generous, with no way to enforce the Talibanâs promise not to enter Afghanistan to attack coalition troops.

According to The Telegraph, the disclosure that Mulla Omar personally backed the deal will come as a fresh embarrassment to President Pervez Musharraf. While officially a US ally in the war on terror, Pakistan has been repeatedly accused by Afghanistan of not doing enough to clear Taliban militants out of its border regions, allegations it denies. However, Mulla Omar clearly felt that the deal benefited the Taliban, adding force to criticisms that it was in effect a cave-in. Tribal elders in south Waziristan said that Mulla Omar had sent one of his most trusted and feared commanders, Mulla Dadullah, to ask local militants to sign the truce. Dadullah, a one-legged fighter known for his fondness for beheading his enemies, is believed to be the man leading the campaign in southern Afghanistan in which 18 British troops have been killed. âHad they been not asked by Mulla Omar, none of them were willing to sign an agreement,â said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and former national assembly member. âThis is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistanâs territory.â

In return for a reduction in the armyâs 80,000-strong presence and the release of about 165 hardcore militants arrested for attacks on the armed forces, local Taliban agreed to stop supporting the foreign militants in their midst, and promised not to set up their own fundamentalist administrations. The government also agreed to compensate tribal leaders for the loss of life and property, and to return all weapons and vehicles seized during army operations. Critics say the deal is a dangerous climb-down by Gen Musharraf, who is under huge pressure from religious conservatives in his own country to curb his US-backed fight against militant Islam.

[center]LONG LIVE THE ISLAMIC EMIRATE OF WAZIRISTAN[/center]

09-25-2006, 05:21 AM

We knew Pakistani army as the only one of it's kind which has won all it's victories against it's own people. In that sense, it's indeed historic.
QUOTEThis is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistanâs territory

09-25-2006, 06:40 AM

<!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> QUOTE
Coup rumours sweep Pakistan
Reuters
Posted online: Monday, September 25, 2006 at 0323 hours IST
Updated: Monday, September 25, 2006 at 0337 hours IST

Islamabad, September 25: Pakistan on Sunday denied rumours of a coup attempt against President Pervez Musharraf while he is visiting the United States. Newspaper offices and journalists were inundated with telephone calls and text messages inquiring about the rumours, which coincided with a widespread power cut.

But television programmes did not allude to them until Geo Television ran a ticker headline saying Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani had accused "rumour mongers" of exploiting the power cut.

Reuters made checks with senior government as well as military officials, and journalists saw nothing unusual in the capital or the neighbouring garrison city of Rawalpindi.Â

Â Durrani, who is travelling with Musharraf, told Reuters from New York: "These rumours were sparked by the power breakdown. These are baseless. These rumours spread because televisions were off and telephones were on."

A military official who declined to be named added: "It's totally rubbish."

Last week Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted as Thai prime minister while attending the United Nations General Assembly in New York -- which Musharraf also attended.

MEDICAL CHECK

Durrani also said Musharraf had had a routine medical check-up in Texas with a Pakistani-American doctor.

"He is absolutely all right," he said.

Musharraf, who came to power in a bloodless military coup seven years ago and has controversially held onto his role as chief of army staff, is due to launch his autobiography, entitled "In the Line of Fire", in New York on Monday.

He also has a second meeting with President George W. Bush, along with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and is due back in Pakistan by the end of the week.

Power cuts are not unusual in Pakistan but Sunday's outage, which blacked out large parts of the country including Islamabad, Rawalpindi and the eastern city of Lahore for several hours, was unusually extensive.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said maintenance work on a transmission line in northern Pakistan had caused the breakdown, and officials at the state-run power utility ruled out sabotage.

Musharraf has survived several assassination attempts since withdrawing Pakistan's support for the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan in 2001, after the Islamist militia refused to surrender its guest, Osama bin Laden, in the wake of al Qaeda's Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

While fears of assassination remain, speculation about Musharraf's grip on power is seldom heard, as there is no overt political challenge to him.

Leaders of the mainstream opposition parties are living in exile, and while some Islamist leaders talk of toppling the president, most diplomats and analysts reckon Musharraf could only be ousted by a coup from within the military.

09-25-2006, 09:33 AM

QUOTECoup rumours sweep Pakistan
No chance of real Coup.

09-25-2006, 09:37 AM

QUOTEMusharrafistan 
MANSOOR IJAZ
Gen. Pervez Musharraf will speak tomorrow at the Clinton Global Initiative's plenary session on "Urgent Issues and Innovative Solutions" -- an apt title for a talk by the Pakistani ruler given the urgency and array of problems he faces at home. Pakistan needs not just innovative solutions for its difficulties, but a leader with ideas to frame them and the guts to implement them. Increasingly, Gen. Musharraf does not appear to be that man.

His Pakistan has become a sad story of contradictions. Islamabad is propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars to be the frontline ally in America's war against extremists, yet Gen. Musharraf has repeatedly appeased radicals for political gain while al Qaeda leaders actively use his soil to plan attacks around the world. The British transatlantic jumbo-jet terror plot last month was a case in point -- Pakistan's arrests of militants in Karachi, Lahore and along the Afghan border may have helped expose the plan, but British nationals of Pakistani origin visited the country to meet al Qaeda co-conspirators and allegedly issued the "Go" instruction from Pakistani soil.

Another example emerged in late August, when the Musharraf regime signed a peace treaty with restless tribal chieftains in the northern frontiers along the border with Afghanistan that effectively ended the hunt for Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man. The northern tribal areas are now left unattended to become a state within the state that offers haven to the civilized world's worst enemies. The irony could not be more complete -- America's staunchest ally presides over the breeding grounds of the very people who seek to kill as many Americans as they can, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

There are other disturbing hypocrisies. Gen. Musharraf's regime manages to pour billions into plutonium processing plants and, soon, into Chinese nuclear reactors, but cannot find enough money to feed or educate Pakistan's children -- many of whom are growing up to be tomorrow's extremists. Rogue elements inside Islamabad's nuclear program are permitted to arm dangerously unstable governments with nuclear technology and know-how in pursuit of ill-gotten gains -- and some misguided notion of an Islamist panacea. But science and math are off the curriculum at the nation's radicalized, Saudi-funded madrassahs. And Pakistan's economic potential remains locked in a feudal past, where land and labor are the bane of corrupt barons who pander to an army that no longer acts as guardian of the state, but as if it is the state.
[Musharraf]

Neighborly relations are equally dismal despite recent attempts to shore them up. Gen. Musharraf continues to court Tehran's mullahs, raising Washington's ire, in hopes of building an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could fund a revival of the Kashmiris' militant insurgency against India, and keep his restive Inter-Services Intelligence minders happy. His peace overtures to New Delhi, including his recent commitment to restart stalled peace talks at a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Cuba, ring hollow after evidence seems to prove time and again that Pakistani soil -- and resources made available from Pakistan -- are being used to back terrorist attacks against India.

Gen. Musharraf's recent trip to Kabul, made under heavy pressure from Washington, was little more than an exercise in damage control. A resurgent Taliban has successfully used its northern Pakistani sanctuary to launch attacks on Hamid Karzai's government while bringing down U.S. helicopters with shoulder-fired missiles. Anywhere else, such actions would be sufficient to disqualify a head of state from remaining in government.

Pakistan has lost its identity. It is a client state for sale to the highest bidder for the purpose that suits the moment: to the U.S. after 9/11 as the staging grounds for hunting down terrorists; to Saudi Arabia since the Iranian revolution so that Wahhabist Islam could flourish next door to Shiite Iran; and to China as a strategic counterbalance to India's growing power. While this short-sighted strategy may help ward off complete state failure, it does not provide fertile ground for imaginative plans to realize the country's potential. Gen. Musharraf must stop being all things to all people, and gather the resolve to tackle what is wrong with Pakistan -- or step down from power. He, or his successor, needs to do the following, and fast:

End the hypocritical alliance with jihadist parties and Islamist activists. Pakistan in the 1970s tolerated student-protest movements, trade unions and serf cooperatives. Political thinking thrived. But Gen. Musharraf's power grab in October 1999 resulted in the death of Pakistan's political class and the institutions that sustain democratic rule. Political necessity and the realities of a post-9/11 world forced him to make a devil's bargain with religious zealots that destroyed what was left of Pakistan's polity. Islamists, however, want the "one man, one vote, one time" version of democracy, not constitutionally assured electoral continuity.

Pakistan's next leader needs to rebuild the foundations of self-rule by bringing back debate, permitting protest and reviving analytical thinking as the cornerstones of a functioning polity. Democratic institutions and protections are rights and privileges no single man has the authority to deprive a nation of.

Change the direction of the nuclear program. Pakistan's next leader needs to radically rethink its nuclear policy. The army has enough bombs in storage to blow up the world, so why build expensive plutonium plants that only churn out less detectable, easily transportable bomb-making material that will force the world to spend excessive resources in policing an indeterminate threat? Why not make the nuclear program transparent -- and remote from fanatics -- by inviting international teams to man its nuclear facilities? That way, Pakistan could soon serve as a global processing center to handle nuclear materials for a wide array of countries under a new non-proliferation regime. That is the path India is likely to choose when its reactors are refurbished under the new U.S.-India nuclear pact. Safe, civilian nuclear energy available to Pakistan's citizenry and one day, to the rest of the world, is the best use of Pakistan's nuclear talents.

Build a real economy that integrates Pakistan into the world. Pakistanis are a most industrious and intelligent workforce; expatriate income is a cornerstone of Pakistan's economy. Just witness Dubai's construction-boom riches flowing into the country unabated. Yet Pakistan's feudal class has stifled domestic growth and crippled the economy at home by manipulating industrial output, failing to reinvest in business and indulging corruption on the grandest of scales.

The next leader needs to formulate an imaginative proposal to wean the country off the dependencies that define feudal politics, and give the landowning class a stake in a modern, industrial economy. Land barons can profit from letting land to large, agrarian multinational businesses with modern technology that improves productivity, as opposed to taxing their serfs into oblivion.

Construct real peace, not mirages that mask tension. Pakistan's neighbors no longer have cause to want to destabilize it, and, in fact, would prefer a strong and stable country on their borders. India is busy building a world-class economy; making peace with Pakistan over disputed Kashmir is an important priority in that effort. Meetings and dialogue between the leaders of both countries are important, but it's time to end the talk and walk the walk. Jihadists are not the solution for Kashmir, a fact that Pakistan's next leader must recognize from the outset. Wresting Kashmir from India by force is not possible, and militarily not prudent. Furthermore, a Pakistan at peace with India would no longer require "strategic depth" by controlling or manipulating affairs in Afghanistan.

The leader of Pakistan will speak tomorrow about innovative solutions for urgent issues. Indeed, Pakistan needs imaginative leaders to formulate creative solutions for its many problems. The world needs a strong Pakistan that puts its brilliant minds to good use for the betterment of its people so the country can fulfill its promise. It's time for Pervez Musharraf to either deliver on that promise -- or step aside, and let those who can take on the job.

Mr. Ijaz is a New York financier of Pakistani ancestry.

09-25-2006, 09:40 AM

Move for U.N. ban on Jamaat fails QUOTEISLAMABAD: An attempt by the U.S. to get the Jamaat-ud-daawa included in the United Nations list of proscribed organisations failed after China blocked it for "technical" reasons, it has been reported. 

The JuD describes itself a charitable organisation and won praise from the Pakistan Government and international aid agencies for its work during the 2005 earthquake. But the U.S. banned it in April as a front of Lashkar-e-Toiba.

Islamabad has put the group on its "watch list," and its founder Hafeez Saeed was jailed last month, with the Government saying he was a threat to public order. The report said the U.S. wanted the group included in the list of individuals or entities belonging to or associated with the Al-Qaeda and Taliban. But China felt that the demand must originate from the country in whose territory the group exists, the report said. China wanted more proof of the group's linkage to the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to consider the U.S. demand.

Leader in detention
The report said China intervened on behalf of Pakistan.

09-25-2006, 09:43 AM

Pak Army inducts first Hindu cadet:

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/24pak...&file=.htm

Login




Remember me Lost Password?