In brief, Talibans kidnapped an Indian who was deployed in Afghanistan by BRO an Indian paramilitary group. His body was found with his throat slit. This brave Indian was Maniappan Raman Kutty.
I want to offer my condolences to his family for such a loss. It was not only the loss of Kutty family but it was loss of entire nation. I admire this man's courage, which enabled him to discharge his duties for his nation under extreme danger.
I offer a moment of silence to honor this brave Indian. May he rest in peace!
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Nov 25 2005, 02:07 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 25 2005, 02:07 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Its sad episode, his main purpose was to support his family and build house for them. Once again it reminds us of barbaric ritual of Islamist.
Once again Indian Gov, reaction was timid.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May he rest in peace!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he is hindu.
[right][snapback]41957[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why he was target?
according to B.Raman
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->but it is a message from Pakistan through the Taliban not to get unduly involved in Afghanistan---particularly in the southern parts of the country bordering the Pakistani province of Balochistan, where the independence movement shows no signs of petering out despite the brutal measures of suppression taken by the Government of Gen.Pervez Musharraf<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Link
Indian Govt. failure
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->7. In my view, only two persons could have effectively intervened with the Taliban and saved the life of Kutty----Musharraf and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the Amir of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI) Pakistan, who is very close to the Taliban Amir.Some of the Indian Deobandi leaders might have been able to seek the intervention of the Maulana, who would have been only too glad to try to be of assistance. If it had not occurred to the Government of India to try these approaches, it shows how out of touch with the ground realities our policy makers have been<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Kumar+Nov 25 2005, 02:14 AM-->QUOTE(Kumar @ Nov 25 2005, 02:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->May he re-incarnate as Indian again. Great Man!
[right][snapback]41958[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Forward thinking </b>
<i>To save our interests, we have to get pro-active in Afghanistan.</i><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->24 November 2005: We have been ambivalent about our role in Afghanistan, showing the other cheek to be slapped, so to say, and this is not policy, but cowardice. The Taliban have been our enemy in Jammu and Kashmir, sending trained cadres for terrorism, in league with the ISI and Pakistan army when they were in power, and they were hand in glove in the murder of one hostage in the December 1999 hijack of an Indian Airlines plane, and in the safe passage afforded to the hijackers and the terrorist leaders released from Indian prison, including
..............
In Afghanistan, our role is more complicated. The Kautilya principle (the so-called Mandala theory of foreign policy) is that countries you donât share borders with are friendlier, and we had friendly relations with Afghanistan till the Soviet occupation and their puppet regime collapsed. These were more than government-to-government relations, the Afghans share a deep cultural and emotional bond with India, the Afghans have always been more attracted to India as this great melting pot of ideas, creativity and culture than Pakistan, which was incidentally loathed throughout the Taliban years and after they were driven out post 9/ 11.
...........
<b>The Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, Rakesh Sood, has not been helpful, saying to the effect that such things happen in the violent Afghan countryside to other nationals as well. We could do without Soodâs fatalism, in case he has been correctly quoted in the press</b>
<b>But Afghanistan needs pro-active Indian participation, beyond a point, the Americans wonât do our fighting, nobody would. The destruction of the Taliban in their hideouts in the FATA areas of Pakistan should be an Indian agenda as well. The Taliban thinks India will not react, but we have to prove them wrong.</b>
<b>Ultimately, we are a non-power if we cannot protect those who are instruments of our forward policy. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What else we can expect from FOIL member sitting in US? Here they are against US.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->FOIL (Shalini Gera) justifies ,Taliban Killing of KUTTY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Chatter received from our source indicaate , FOIL is in no more in
condemning TALIBAN , rather they want to justify . Also they didn't liked "Hindu
Aikya Vedi " Protest , because this is communalizing . 1. They didn't condemned
and don't want others to condemn . This attitude is telling about the attitude
of FOIL members and Commies . WHY THEY ARE LIVING IN US , they hate US so much ,
Bring this incident to FBI .
ALL THEIR CHATTERS ARE SENT PROMPTLY TO FBI
SHALINI GERA
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 Shalini Gera wrote :
Yesterday, the Taliban had announced that it had executed a worker with the
Indian company Border Roads Organization (BRO), since the BROhad not obeyed its
diktat to stop work on the Zaranj-Delaram road project. Today, the body of
Ramankutty aniappan was discovered.
Apparently 300 Indian workers are currently working in Afghanistan, and given
India's close ties with the Karzai government, they are all sitting ducks for
the Taliban. Back in India, the Sangh has lost no time in communalizing this
tragedy. Hindu Aikya Vedi has called for a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the town where
the family lives.
Am curious to know what the Indian Left's take on India's relationship with
Karzai is. Surely, this enthusiastic support of a US satellite state poses
problems, even though we all want a resurgent Afghanistan?
--sg
------------------------------
FROM : CK Vishwanath ck_vishwanath@...
( This Moron lacks guts to condemn TALIBAN , criticises Indian Government)
A third world worker condition is just like.And also a fate of malayali
worker.the political economy of kerala is a peculiar one.They have to work very
far off area in a butual conditions.their dreams,aspirations are always outside
kerala.But,indian goverment has failed to deliver justice to these
people.today,a hartalin karthikapaali taluk in alappey district
'
-----------------
FROM : Amal Nathan amalj@...
Dont know the official stand of various left parties but do we really have a
choice?
-----------------
FROM : Shalini Gera
Not quite sure I understand you... Why is NOT awarding a Peace Prize to Hamid
Karzai not a choice?
In terms of infrastructure projects, yes, I think India needs to do its bit.
Especially if it leads to more cooperation with Iran and reduces the US
influence in the area. But one can also hold one's nose and do the work, rather
than go out of the way to legitimize a puppet government.
-Shalini
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'India sought Pak's help in rescuing Kutty'
Monday, 28 November , 2005, 15:32
New Delhi: India had sought Pakistan's help in rescuing Border Road Organisation (BRO) employee Maniappan Raman Kutty, who was abducted and killed by the Taliban. Discuss: Govt did very little to ensure Kutty's safety
But, Islamabad told India that it has ceased to have any contacts with the Afghan militia, the Lok Sabha was informed on Monday. Read: Pakistan denies involvement in Maniappan killing
Pakistani authorities expressed their inability to assist on the ground that they no longer had any contacts with the Taliban, Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee said, after making a suo motu statement on the Kutty incident.
He denied that the Government has pointed any accusing finger at Pakistan for Kutty's killing in western Afghanistan after four days in captivity.
The clarification came from Mukherjee, who is also the Defence Minister, when Leader of the Opposition L K Advani drew Government's attention to reports quoting National Security Advisor (NSA) M K Narayanan that Pakistan was involved in the dastardly act. Advani said it was a serious matter and wanted Government to take Parliament into confidence.
Mukherjee said he had spoken to Narayanan, who told him that he was "misquoted" in news reports. Narayanan conveyed to him that he had not stated that Pakistan was responsible for the incident.
The NSA said he had spoken about Pakistan's hand in the past when that country had ties with the Taliban, Mukherjee said.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>300 Indian commandos to be deployed in Kandahar[/B Islamabad, Feb. 8, IRNA
Pakistan-India
India is urgently dispatching 300 commandos to Afghanistan, apparently in a bid to provide security to Indian workers present in the war-ravaged country.
According to "The News" on Wednesday, the Indian commandos would be deployed in south of [B]Afghanistan between Kandahar and Iranian border adjacent to restive Pakistan's province, Balochistan.</b>
In his recent speech to the nation, President General Pervez Musharraf alleged that some neighbouring countries were involved in Balochistan situation.
Pakistan has said that the law-enforcement agencies were engaged in flushing out miscreants, attacking the state-owned assets.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Abdullahâs ouster internal affair: FO</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This latest move by Karzai, a sign that he is becoming more confident, especially after the recent visit of President Bush, is third in the series of easing out hardline members of the Northern Alliance. It has been no secret that Karzai has been quite uncomfortable with the presence of Abdullah Abdullah.
Earlier Karzai had eased out General Fahim and Qanuni. For Pakistan it makes really no difference because if it was Abdullah who, for reasons known best to him, was continuously hitting out at what he said were the failures of Pakistan to combat terrorism, Rangeen Dadfar Spanta is not any different and in fact a bigger hawk on Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something is wrong here. Why all NA members are out?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Is India checkmating us in Kabul? </b>
<i>Khaled Ahmedâs A n a l y s i s </i> - TFT
President Bushâs visit to Pakistan in March was a great disappointment in the eyes of most Pakistanis. One unhappy corollary of this visit was Kabulâs complaint made to him that Pakistan was involved in infiltrating the Taliban into Afghanistan from its training camps. President Karzai had given President Musharraf a list of men wanted by Kabul and the âgeo-coordinatesâ of the camps where the men were staying. Then President Karzai made the list public, which angered the Pakistani president who too went public with his own reprimand. He told President Bush that the Northern Alliance part of the government in Kabul was getting together with the Indians to poison Pak-Afghan relations through manipulating President Karzai.
GEO TV (8 March 2006) had its host Nasir Beg Chughtai discuss the issue with PML leader Mushahid Hussain Syed, former ambassador Mr Tariq Fatemi, former ambassador to Kabul Mr Rustam Shah, Brigadier (Retd) Rasheed Malik and Prof Mansur Akbar Kundi. Brigadier Malik said that Karzai was put to it by his minister Abdullah Abdullah of the Northern Alliance which dominated defence and interior ministries and the intelligence agencies in Kabul. He said that before this the American president Zalmay Khalilzad too had levelled similar charges against Pakistan. The Northern Alliance people had old links with India and had stayed for long years in New Delhi when there was trouble in Afghanistan.
<b>Powerless Karzai but âstrongerâ Afghanistan:</b> Brigadier Malik also explored an interesting angle: that India wanted Pakistanâs troops to be posted to the western border so that the army is divided and is not able to ensure proper security on the Indian border. (This was one of the aims of Pakistanâs low-intensity jihad in Kashmir vis-Ã -vis the Indian army in the 1990s.) When Pakistan had the Taliban ruling Afghanistan it could afford to place its entire army on the border with India as it felt no fear from the direction of the Durand Line. He said Karzai was powerless; he could not even visit Kandahar once after becoming president in Kabul because of lack of security. He said America had come to the region to control the resource of oil, but Pakistan had its own policy which should not be tangled with that of India.
Ambassador Fatemi said that Kabul was acting predictably given the nature of the dominant elements there, but he advised a less aggressive response to prevent the bilateral spat from getting out of hand. To keep things cool Pakistan should talk to the Americans because on ground theirs was the strongest presence with 19,000 troops. He also recommended using special envoys to Kabul instead of the media in imitation of what Kabul had done. He was particularly concerned about the start of a cold war between Afghanistan and Pakistan as that would redound to the advantage of India.
<b>Pakistanâs economic penetration of Afghanistan:</b> Talat Hussain (AAJ TV, 8 March 2006) talked to former secretary general of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Akram Zaki, Mushahid Hussain Syed, PPP leader Abdullah Riaar and Mr Zahid Saeed, about the Afghan plaint. Mr Saeed thought that Iran could be involved in the affair because of its old links with Northern Alliance. He recommended that Pakistan announce clearly that the bases in Pakistan being used at present by ISAF forces would not be used by the Americans when they attack Iran. Mr Riaar said he knew Ambassador Khalilzad personally and thought his complaints about the Taliban living freely in Balochistan and the FATA areas were genuine. He suspected that those who did not capture the Taliban leaders from Balochistan might be thinking of a Taliban comeback in Afghanistan, affording Pakistan the strategic depth it once sought.
Ambassador Rustam Shah agreed that Pakistan should have played cool on Afghan complaints. He said Pakistan had given $250 million to Afghanistan as aid and 60,000 Pakistanis were working in Afghanistan with Pakistanâs exports climbing to $1.2 billion (up from $25 million), second only to its exports to the United States. He emphasised that despite Karzaiâs latest statements he was Pakistanâs man in Kabul because he became president with votes facilitated by Pakistan among the 2.5 million refugees still living inside Pakistan. He did not think that Iran was involved in the latest controversy. He thought Northern Alliance was no monolith but had a variety of components with whom Pakistan could interact cautiously. Afghanistanâs relations with India had always been good; in fact better than with Pakistan, except for the Taliban phase.
Is India interfering in Balochistan? Ambassador Rustam Shah also reminded the discussants that India was a big power and was working in Afghanistan on the strong basis of its past relations. The people who ruled Afghanistan today had gone and lived in India for long years, but still India was not alone as the big influential power in Afghanistan. In his view Central Asia and Turkey had stronger influence. He advised Pakistan not to become too obsessed with India in Afghanistan because ultimately Pakistanâs proximity and strategic position will dominate.
The latest position was that Pakistan had given to President Bush conclusive proof of Indiaâs interference and Northern Allianceâs conspiracy to undermine Pakistan in Kabul. But before the American presidentâs visit, when the TV channels in Pakistan were abuzz with talk of Indian interference in Balochistan in the shape of monetary and material assistance to terrorists there, the government had no concrete proof against India. Appearing on <b>AAJ TV (21 February 2006) Federal interior minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao had told host Talat Hussain that during the last meeting between President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Musharraf, Pakistan had not offered any proof of the involvement of India in the supply of weapons to Balochistan through Afghan territory. He said the subject was only mentioned as Pakistan had no proof of Indian involvement.</b>.Â
<b>A âcoolâ response to a traditionally hostile neighbour:</b> The above discussions yielded useful insights into how the âexpertsâ think. Ambassadors Fatemi and Rustam Shah came across as the most balanced commentators in an environment of a rather stilted âbig-powerâ anger at âsmall-powerâ Afghanistan. Contrary to popular thinking, it is the big power which has to exercise restraint. The very idea of restraint presumes possession of power; if you donât have power you tend to make a lot of noise without anyone taking note. The noise Kabul makes is not likely to affect Pakistan, nor is it likely to thwart Pakistanâs silent counter-measures. The lesser party verbalises more than the status quo power. Note the fact that President Musharraf verbalises far more on Kashmir than India does without any risk to its status quo dominance.
Afghanistanâs revisionist nationalism has always been intense vis-Ã -vis Pakistan. Kabul whether under the Pushtuns or non-Pushtuns has always been anti-Pakistan. India has always been Kabulâs friend in the subcontinent. Nehru rejected the old Afghan claim of Pushtunistan but he didnât mind egging the Afghans on to chide Pakistan on the issue to lessen Pakistanâs own irredentism vis-Ã -vis Kashmir. Afghanistan was the only state that cast a negative vote when the UN General Assembly was admitting Pakistan as a new member in 1947. Pakistan could not develop a pro-Pakistan lobby in Afghanistan, partly because the Pushtuns of Pakistan regarded Afghanistan as their hinterland of pure pushtunwali as they developed a hostile sub-nationalism in the face of Punjabâs domination. The non-Pushtuns now assembled in Northern Alliance never really mattered.
<b>Pakistanâs strength vis-Ã -vis Afghanistan:</b> Pakistan was always a strong power as far as Afghanistan was concerned. It never felt threatened by Afghanistan despite Indiaâs political and cultural dominance there. On the other hand, Kabul damaged itself by pursuing an irredentist claim on Pakistanâs territory over long years without any result, the same way Pakistan damaged its own potential for growth as a nation by pursuing the cause of Kashmir against India. (Afghanistan had a weaker legal claim on Pakistani territory than Pakistan on Kashmir.) But there was annoyance in Islamabad that resulted in covert preventive mischief across the border. The mujahideen and the Taliban were finally supposed to correct the imbalance and establish Pakistan as a permanent dominant influence in Afghanistan. That of course did not happen because no one in the neighbourhood would allow Pakistan to become dominant in Afghanistan.
Because of its internal composition and its territorial interface with its neighbours, Afghanistan remains a Hobbesian state liable to export disorder rather than importing order from any of its neighbours. Uzbekistan holds sway in the north with Mazar-e-Sharif feeding culturally and economically more into Central Asia than southwards. Taliban (with Pakistani help) tried to take it twice but failed. Pakistan had ousted the Indian embassy from Kabul in 1996 in retaliation for Ahmad shah Massoudâs destruction of its own embassy in 1995, and thought it could extend the Taliban rule to the North too. Earlier Najibullah had violated Pakistanâs area of influence in Jalalabad by defeating the ISI in 1989 but could not hold it for long. Pakistanâs reluctant effort to let the Taliban oust Iran from Herat also came quickly to grief. This is how the neighbourhood has interpenetrated Afghanistan economically and culturally and prevented it from becoming a normal state.
<b>Pursuing regional trade instead of security:</b> After 2001, Afghanistan is âstrongerâ than Pakistan because of the ISAF forces and the United States. Pakistan may be tempted to keep the weapon of future dominance by retaining the âTaliban optionâ, but it will be of no use at all. Afghanistan as always will be closed to single-power domination. The only thing going for Pakistan is the big trade spin-off from being an ally of the US. This is the paradigm that is more realistic and is bound to make better progress in a Hobbesian state. Let Pakistan pursue trade in Afghanistan and lessen its military competition with Afghanistanâs other neighbours to export its goods further than it has so far succeeded in doing. The competition with India should also be eschewed. A more cooperative strategy would yield better dividends.
<b>Pakistan should seriously consider giving India a land corridor to reach the Central Asian markets where it has always been a favoured party</b>. It is known that President Musharraf has considered this trade route but has chosen instead to link Kashmir to the general question of trade. For the sake of Pakistanâs future and his own security he should think out of the box, ditch his last remnants of <b>Indiacentricism, applying the same logic he did to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline which was accepted without the precondition of Kashmir.</b>
Pakistan as a transit state has been posited as a dream but it has not been fleshed out through practical steps in the realm of foreign policy. The earlier paradigm of military competition has failed. Internal self-correction has failed. The only thing that has succeeded despite much cribbing about Kashmir is normalisation with India. Pakistan has fewer military options in Afghanistan today.<b> The âIslamic griefâ in Pakistan </b>is directed against President Musharraf but much of it is cosmic, not related to reality.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>All Indians must leave within 24 hoursâ</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kandahar, April 29: Taliban militants will kill an Indian engineer being held hostage in southern Afghanistan if all Indians don't leave Afghanistan within 24 hours, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group said Saturday.
Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, who releases regular statements on behalf of outlawed Taliban fighters, accused the Indian contractor, who was abducted Friday in the southern Zabul province, of being an 'American spy'.
"We warn all Indians working here to leave Afghanistan within 24 hours starting 6 pm (1330GMT) Saturday otherwise we will kill him," Ahmadi said after contacting The Associated Press by telephone.
India's Ambassador to Kabul, Rakesh Sood, said the threat was "not a very positive development."
.....................
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>India outraged over Suryanarayana's killing</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a strong message to "the Taliban and its sponsors", New Delhi made it clear that it will leave no stone unturned in bringing perpetrators of such "dastardly acts of terror" to justice and continue to extend assistance for the reconstruction of the war-torn country.
"The government and people of India will never bow to such acts of terrorism and will continue their fraternal assistance to the people of Afghanistan in their endeavours to bring peace, stability and economic recovery to their country ravaged by years of conflict," Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters here.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why they are not blaming Karzai Government? Clearly, Karazai rule is upto his Palace. Pakistan is still in control.
Well after every atrocity the gov't comes out and expresses some phony "outrage" and then its back to business, they do nothing to actually bring the criminals to book.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Apr 30 2006, 07:46 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 30 2006, 07:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why they are not blaming Karzai Government? Clearly, Karazai rule is upto his Palace. Pakistan is still in control.
[right][snapback]50486[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this karzai owned an afghani restaurant in the US before he was dropped in as an american stooge.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Apr 30 2006, 07:16 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 30 2006, 07:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>India outraged over Suryanarayana's killing</b><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a strong message to "the Taliban and its sponsors", New Delhi made it clear that it will leave no stone unturned in bringing perpetrators of such "dastardly acts of terror" to justice and continue to extend assistance for the reconstruction of the war-torn country.
"The government and people of India will never bow to such acts of terrorism and will continue their fraternal assistance to the people of Afghanistan in their endeavours to bring peace, stability and economic recovery to their country ravaged by years of conflict," Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters here.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give me a effing break ! Does this statement from GoI carry any credibility ? What exactly has it done to avenge tonnes of blood that has been spilled by these vermin ? Why should the Taliban take this threat seriously ? Disgusting.. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
More from this stupid 'warning'..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saran, however, was cautious about pointing any finger at Pakistan for the kidnapping despite the fact that Islamabad is widely considered as the progenitor of the Taliban.
....
"There is zero tolerance for terror. This underscores the need for the international community, including India and Pakistan, to join hands and defeat terror," he said.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>E. Ahmed goofed up Suryanarayana kidnap</b>
5/2/2006 3:51:58 AM HK Correspondent
NEW DELHI: Intelligence and security experts all over the national capital blame E Ahmed, Minister of state for External Affairs, for the murder of Suryanarayana, an Indian engineer who was working in Afghanistan. <b>âFor Ahmed there are two kinds of citizens in this country. He considers Muslims as more important than others,â a security expert with three decades of professional experience told Haindava Keralam. The security expert blasted Ahmed, who is considered thoroughly corrupt even by leaders belonging to the UPA.</b>
âAt the time of the kidnapping of three Indians by Iraqi militants in 2005, it was Ahmed who held court with the media for the entire duration of the episode. We were under the impression that the then cabinet minister Natwar Singh was playing second fiddle to this nincompoop from Kerala,â said the security expert on condition of anonymity.
<b>But B Raman, former Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat was quite blunt in pointing out the faux pas committed by Ahmed. âImmediately after the news was broadcast all over, the government of India should have initiated efforts top contact the Taliban terrorists,â says B Raman. </b>Commenting on the steps adopted by the Indian government Raman says that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs should have got in touch with the Pashtun leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan to get the release of Suryanarayana. âThe Taliban terrorists do not see eye to eye with the moderate and sensible leaders in Pakistan. They also shun Hamid Karzai, whose writ run only in Kabul,â Raman said.
<b>But the foreign affairs minister Ahmed went missing this time around and that too at the critical juncture. âDuring the Iraqi tension, Ahmed used to wake up journalists belonging to various print and visual media at midnight with requests for news coverage. âStrangely enough, Ahmed just vanished from New Delhi during the days of turmoil in Suryanaraynaâs residence,â </b>said on of the Malayali scribes based in New Delhi.
<b>Ahmed, whose only agenda is the Islamisation of India, was not present at the Delhi airport to show his mark of respect to the dead body of Suryanarayana. âSince Surya happens to be an âinfidelâ, Ahmed thought it better to avoid the airport,â said another security expert who has been studying the complicated personality of Ahmed for the last three decades. It is certain that Ahmed will go down in history as the most inefficient and corrupt minister the country has ever seen.</b>
haindavakeralam.org/PageM...963&SKIN=B <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
