Pakistan : Terrorist Wahabi Islamic Rep Pakistan 7

[Guest]

[url="http://visiontoamerica.org/9985/panetta-slams-pakistans-demand-for-5g-per-truck-at-border-crossing/"]Panetta Slams Pakistan’s Demand for $5G Per Truck at Border Crossing[/url]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Sunday that the United States is not about to “get gouged” by Pakistan — which despite having received billions in U.S. aid is demanding $5,000 for every truck that carries supplies into Afghanistan across its border.



The dispute over the border crossing is once again in the spotlight after Pakistan sentenced to 33 years in prison the Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA track down Usama bin Laden.



Panetta on Sunday called that decision “disturbing,” though he said the U.S. government will continue to “work at” its troubled relationship with Pakistan. Yet with Islamabad continuing to try and extract money from the U.S. over the still-closed border crossing, Panetta insisted Sunday that the United States will only pay a “fair price” for that access.



“We’re not about to get gouged in the price. We want a fair price,” Panetta said on ABC’s “This Week.”

[Husky]

AAP via sbs.com.au/news/article/1656807/Patience-with-Pakistan-running-out-US

Patience with Pakistan running out: US

7 Jun 2012, 8:12 pm - Source: AAP



The US is running out of patience with Pakistan over safe havens for insurgents who attack US troops, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta warns.



[...]

And further handwringing.

Seems the American girlfriend is giving her abusive islamaniac Paki lover an ultimatum - again: "Stop this, or or or .... my patience will run out!" <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Tuppence says she'll stay with him still. ("Who's in?")

[Naresh]

.

Letter No. 8



[url="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012/06/10/story_10-6-2012_pg3_6"][size="5"][color="#FF0000"]The reality of dowry in Pakistani Muslims[/color][/size][/url]



Sir The practice of dowry should be abolished from our system. The parents of a girl spend their lifelong earnings on the marriage of their daughter. Many times, they borrow funds to meet the demands of the bridegroom’s family. Unfortunately, the girl is often sent back to her parents’ home due to insufficient or meagre amount of dowry. This existing practice in our society is alien to Islamic tenets. Islam has ordered men to provide dower to women. It is an obligation imposed by the law on the husband as a mark of respect for his wife (Fatwa-i-Alamgiri). The practice of giving dowry by the girl’s parents is inimical to Islam.



ADNAN ARSHAD

Quetta



Cheers [color="#FF0000"] [/color]

[Guest]

Patience with Pakistan running out: US

As Charles Krauthammer suggested last week before Penatta's trip to India, Just send couple of high profile US admin people to India, and offer them weapons and other goodies. That will make Pakis to fall into place. Panetta visit was one of those, we may see lot of DC guys will visit India to tease Pakis.

Since when Pakis started behaving like an Ex.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Pakistan-trashed-Kayani-won-t-meet-US-official/Article1-869403.aspx"]Pakistan 'trashed', Kayani won't meet US official[/url]

[Guest]

[url="http://sarvesamachar.com/click_frameset.php?ref_url=%2Findex.php%3F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.outlookindia.com%2Farticle.aspx%3F281290"]Islamabad Diary[/url]

Unconfirmed reports say some 3,000-4,000 majors and brigadiers have vanished without a trace while in the service of intelligence agencies. Now their families are demonstrating in front of the Senate and have sent pleas to the SC to trace their loved ones. Will they get justice?

Lahore, once a city of temples, does not even have a cremation ground for Hindus; a few years back, a Hindu woman was buried in a Muslim graveyard.

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012/06/17/story_17-6-2012_pg5_6"][center][size="6"][color="#006400"]Dollar likely to devastate rupee by hitting[/color]



[color="#FF0000"]Rs 98 by June 30[/color][/size][/center][/url]



KARACHI: The dollar is likely to make history by hitting the highest level of Rs 98 against the rupee by the end of the current month (June 30, 2012). The reason behind the fall in the rupee’s value is said to be pressure from international currencies and persistent local demand of the dollar.



However, market experts were of the view that this downward trend in the local currency is because of higher interest payment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), weak economy of the country and widening trade gap.



In the last one week, the rupee had soared up to Rs 96.50 verses the dollar, but slowly returned to its position and stood at Rs 95.96 in the open market.



“The dollar is in demand in the open currency market,” a dealer of a local currency exchange said. “General people and dealers’ demand for the dollar has increased.”



In the interbank market, the dollar is being traded at Rs 94.20 for selling and Rs 94 for buying.



A banker said, “Most of the oil companies are demanding the dollar to pay back their debt and new purchase agreement. The rupee may depreciate because of the huge payments of oil companies in the end of June, but now it’s covering its position in the interbank.”



In the last 11 months, the country has received an amount of $12.069 billion under the head of foreign remittances, which is higher by 19.54 percent or $1,972.69 million as compared with $10.096 billion received in the same period last fiscal year.



The monthly average remittances for July to May 2012 period come out to $1.097 billion as compared with $917.86 million during the corresponding period of last fiscal year, registering an increase of 19.54 percent, the State Bank of Pakistan’s (SBP) figures said.



According to the SBP policy statement issued last week, the central bank said, “The problems in the eurozone have increased uncertainty in the global economy and being a safe haven for investors, the dollar has strengthened significantly in the past few weeks against almost all currencies, especially the euro, and rupee.”



The current account deficit was $3.4 billion during the first 10 months of fiscal year 2011-12. After incorporating the estimated deficit for the remaining two months, it is likely to remain around 1.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) for fiscal year 2012, which is not large for a developing country like Pakistan.



The net flows in the capital and financial account, on the other hand, were only $1.4 billion during the same period. Accounting for repayments of the IMF loans during the year, SBP’s net liquid foreign exchange reserves have declined to $11.3 billion by end of May 2012 as against $14.8 billion at end of June 2011.



For fiscal year 2012-13, the size of the external current account deficit as percentage of GDP is projected to be approximately the same as in fiscal year 2011-12. However, due to anticipated rise in debt payments in fiscal year 2012-13, the economy would need substantial external inflows to preserve our foreign exchange reserves, the SBP said in its policy statement.



Appreciation of the dollar in the international market is probably because of the easing crude oil prices from a peak of $130 per barrel (Saudi Arabian Light) on April 3, 2012 to $97 per barrel on June 1, 2012.



Given that almost one third of Pakistan’s total import bill is due to oil payments, this would be a positive development, the SBP said adding, with the current quantum of petroleum products and crude imports at 21 million metric tonnes, a decline of $5 per barrel in international oil prices could save up to $700 million in import payments in fiscal year 2012-13.



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-us-mulls-covert-raids-pakistan-081349547.html"][center][size="6"]AP sources : [color="#006400"]US mulls new covert raids in Pakistan[/size][/color][/center][/url]



WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military and intelligence officials are [color="#FF0000"]so frustrated with Pakistan's failure to stop local militant groups from attacking Americans in neighboring Afghanistan that they have considered launching secret joint U.S.-Afghan commando raids into Pakistan to hunt them down[/color], officials told The Associated Press.



But the idea, which U.S. officials say comes up every couple of months, has been consistently rejected because the White House believes the chance of successfully rooting out the deadly Haqqani network would not be worth the intense diplomatic blowback from Pakistan that inevitably would ensue.



Members of the Haqqani tribe have been targeted by pilotless U.S. drone aircraft, but sending American and Afghan troops into Pakistan would be a serious escalation of the hunt for terrorists and potentially the final straw for Pakistan, already angered over what it sees as U.S. violations of its sovereignty.



The al-Qaida-allied Haqqani tribe runs a mafia-like smuggling operation and occasionally turns to terrorism with the aim of controlling its territory in eastern Afghanistan. The Haqqanis use Pakistani towns to plan, train and arm themselves with guns and explosives, cross into Afghanistan to attack NATO and Afghan forces, then retreat back across the border to safety.



The latest round of debate over whether to launch clandestine special operations raids into Pakistan against the Haqqanis came after the June 1 car bombing of Forward Operating Base Salerno in eastern Afghanistan [color="#FF0000"]that injured up to 100 U.S. and Afghan soldiers,[/color] according to three current and two former U.S. officials who were briefed on the discussions. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the still-evolving debates.



The officials told the AP that recent discussions of clandestine ground attacks have included Gen. John Allen, the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan, as well as top CIA and special operations officials.



Allen's spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Brook DeWalt, said Allen "has not and does not intend to push for a cross-border operation."



The White House and the CIA declined to comment for this story.



Pentagon spokesman George Little said the U.S. was still focused on U.S.-Pakistan cooperation.



"The key is to work together with Pakistan to find ways of fighting terrorists who threaten both the United States and Pakistan, including along the Afghan-Pakistan border, where extremists continue to plot attacks against coalition forces and innocent civilians," he said.



The U.S. relationship with Pakistan is arguably at its lowest point over the continuation of drone strikes to hit terror targets in Pakistan, the successful Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden that was carried out without a heads-up to the country's leaders and the U.S. refusal to apologize for a border skirmish in which the U.S. mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani troops. On Thursday, the State Department's inspector general accused the Pakistani government of harassing U.S. Embassy personnel.



Pakistan has done little in response to repeated U.S. requests for a crackdown on the Haqqanis, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta surprisingly voiced that frustration in a visit to Kabul this month.



[color="#FF0000"]He said the U.S. was "reaching the limits" of its patience with Pakistan's failure to tackle the tribe's safe havens. He added that the U.S. was "extraordinarily dissatisfied with the effect that Pakistan has had on the Haqqanis." He also made fun of Pakistan's ignorance over the bin Laden raid at a speech in India, Pakistan's archrival.[/color]



Pakistan's army has attacked militant strongholds across the tribal areas, except for North Waziristan, where the Haqqanis hold sway and shelter both al-Qaida and Taliban militants. Pakistani officials say that they intend to hit North Waziristan but that their army is too overstretched to move as fast as the U.S. demands.



Pakistani officials have conceded privately, however, that they have been reluctant to take on the powerful tribe for fear of retaliatory strikes.



To make up for Pakistan's inaction, the CIA's covert drone program has targeted Haqqani leaders, safe houses, bomb factories and training camps inside Pakistan, and special operations raids have hit Haqqani targets on the Afghan side of the border, but that has failed to stop Haqqani attacks on U.S. and Afghan troops and civilian targets.



The officials say Allen expressed frustration that militants would attack and then flee across the border in Pakistan, immediately taking shelter in urban areas where attacking them by missile fire could kill civilians.



The officials say options that have been prepared for President Barack Obama's review included raids that could be carried out by U.S. special operations forces together with Afghan commandos, ranging from air assaults that drop raiders deep inside the tribal areas to hit top leaders to shorter dashes only a few miles into Pakistan territory.



The shorter raids would not necessarily be covert, as they could be carried out following the U.S. military principle known as "hot pursuit" that military officials say entitles their forces to pursue a target that attacks them in Afghanistan up to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) inside a neighboring country's territory.



The U.S. has staged two major raids and other minor forays into Pakistan's tribal territory before during the George W. Bush administration; the most contentious was in September 2008 when Navy SEALs raided an al-Qaida compound. The operators killed their target, but the ensuing firefight triggered a diplomatic storm with Pakistan.



Rather than fly in, which U.S. military planners at the time feared would alert the Pakistanis, the SEALs marched across the mountainous border, arriving later than planned because of the harsh terrain and just as the fighters were waking for morning prayers, according to one current and one former U.S. official. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the clandestine operation.



Everyone inside the targeted compound opened fire on the SEALs, including the women, one of whom lightly wounded one of the American operators. The firefight also woke the entire village, which joined in the battle, so the SEALs had to call for strafing runs by Black Hawk helicopters to beat them back.



At least one woman and one child were among the many dead.



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Stop-keeping-poisonous-snakes-in-backyard-US-tells-Pakistan/articleshow/14333680.cms"][center][color="#006400"][size="6"]Stop keeping poisonous snakes in backyard, US tells Pakistan[/size][/color][/center][/url]



WASHINGTON: [color="#FF0000"]In a blunt warning to Pakistan against supporting anti-India and anti-Afghanistan terror groups, secretary of state Hillary Clinton has asked Islamabad to do more about terrorist safe havens in its territory.[/color]



[color="#FF0000"]"What we've said to the Pakistanis is look, if there were ever an argument in the past for your policy of hedging against Afghanistan by supporting the Haqqani Network or the Afghan Taliban or the LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) against India, those days are over,"[/color] she said on a TV talk show.



"Because that's like the guy who keeps poisonous snakes in his backyard convinced they'll only attack his neighbours," Clinton said appearing on the Charlie Rose show with former secretary of state James Baker for "Conversations on Diplomacy".



Noting that US "relationship with Pakistan has been challenging for a long time" she lamented that in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistanis "had embraced a kind of jihadi mentality in part to stimulate fighters both from the outside and within Afghanistan."



"So we are living with a country that has a lot of difficult issues both for themselves and then for us and others."



While it was not in US interests to cut off its relationship with Pakistan, Clinton said: "It is in our interest to try to better direct and manage that relationship, and there are several things that we're asking the Pakistanis to do more of and better."



"Number one, they've got to do more about the safe havens inside their own country, she said.



"I mean, everybody knows that the Taliban's momentum has been reversed, territory has been taken back, the Afghan Security Forces are performing much better, but the extremists have an ace in the hole," Clinton said.



Pakistan "has to be willing to recognize that as we withdraw from Afghanistan, it is in their interest to have a strong, stable Afghan Government," she said.



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://tribune.com.pk/story/397588/us-diplomats-in-pakistan-facing-harassment-state-department/"][center][size="6"][color="#006400"]US diplomats in Pakistan facing harassment: State Department[/color][/size][/center][/url]



WASHINGTON: US diplomats working in Pakistan face increasing harassment amid a sharp deterioration in ties in the wake of last year’s killing of Osama bin Laden, a State Department report said Thursday.



Such harassment and obstruction is described by US embassy staff as [color="#FF0000"]“deliberate, willful and systematic,”[/color] according to the 76-report by the department’s watchdog, the office of inspector general.



“Official Pakistani obstructionism and harassment, an endemic problem in Pakistan, has increased to the point where it is significantly impairing mission operations and program implementations,” the report said.



Harassment included such things as delaying visas for staff, blocking shipments of materials for aid programs and construction work, and surveillance of staff and contractors.



The official report, made available Thursday, comes after a February fact-finding tour of the US diplomatic missions in Islamabad, Karachi, Peshawar and Lahore.



It urged US officials to ensure that the issue of harassment is raised in bilateral talks with the Pakistani government.



Although it was marked “sensitive but unclassified,” sections giving greater detail about the conditions faced by US embassy staff were blacked out along with several recommendations made by the watchdog.



The US commando raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad in May 2011 had been a “double embarrassment” highlighting both the government’s “incompetence” and “its inability to detect or defend against a military intervention.”



Confidence between the United States and Pakistan was further shaken by the attack on the US embassy in Kabul in September, as well as a Nato attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November.



“The impact of these events has been felt across the full spectrum of the bilateral relationship,” the report said.



“The expectation is that the future relationship will be less ambitious, more pragmatic,” it said, adding that the embassy also “struggles with the challenge of programming more than $2 billion in annual funding for development and security assistance programs.”



The report makes 32 formal recommendations for improving the security and working conditions of the embassy staff, including updating its policy on the use of armored vehicles.



Washington-based officials, however, were also criticized for being too intrusive at times amid the intense interest and US commitment in what is happening on the ground in both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan.



“One of the embassy’s greatest challenges is managing Washington’s intense and at times intrusive involvement and voracious appetite for information,” the report said.



From the time of the November border incident to the February review, embassy officials had taken part in 40 video conferences with senior people in Washington, some of them chaired by President Barack Obama.



The report recommended that the number of video conferences between Washington and Islamabad be rationalized.



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-55548-PM-Election:-Live-updates"][center][size="7"][color="#006400"]PM Election: Live updates[/color][/size][/center][/url]





ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly session to elect the country's next prime minister began under the chair of NA Speaker Fehmida Mirza.



Initially, three candidates were in the running for the coveted post including Raja Pervez Ashraf, Sardar Mehtab Abbasi and Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Later, JUI-F's chief withdrew himself from the election.



07:32 pm - PML-N's Sardar Mehtab Abbasi begs 89 votes.



07:30 pm - [color="#FF0000"]PPP's Raja Pervaiz gets 211 votes.[/color]



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/beer.gif"][center][size="7"][color="#006400"]Raja Pervaiz Ashraf elected Prime Minister of Pakistan[/color][/size][/center][/url]



ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People's Party's Raja Pervaiz Ashraf has been elected as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. During the election for the prime minister in the National Assembly Ashraf secured 211 votes, whereas PML-N candidate Mehtab Abbasi received 89.



"Raja Pervez Ashraf is declared to be elected as prime minister of the Islamic republic of Pakistan," speaker Fehmida Mirza announced.



Ashraf will take oath as the 25th prime minister of Pakistan later tonight (Friday) and was congratulated by President Asif Ali Zardari who said that Ashraf’s victory is an indication of the nation’s confidence in democracy.



Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is the fourth prime minister from the PPP succeeding Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani who was disqualified by the Supreme Court.



Earlier on Friday, Ashraf met with leaders of the PPP's coalition partners and secured their support for the election. Speaking to the media alongside PML-Q leader Chaudhry Pervazi Elahi, Ashraf said that his main priority, if elected, would be to deal with and overcome the energy crisis.



As the National Assembly session began, JUI-F chief and PM candidate Maulana Fazlur Rehman appealed to the Speaker to adjourn the proceedings due to the demise of MNAs Fauzia Wahab and Zayed Khan. PPP leader Naveed Qamar rejected the suggestion saying this was not an ordinary session.



The Speaker, then decided to continue with the session.



Following this exchange, Fazlur Rehman announced to withdraw from the election adding that his party shall abstain from the process.



Raja Pervaiz Ashraf Profile



Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, born on December 26, 1950 in Sanghar is serving as Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarian’s Secretary General. Ashraf is an agriculturist and businessman by profession. He obtained his undergraduate degree from University of Sindh and did his diploma from United Kingdom in Industrial Management.



Right after his graduation, Ashraf continued his profession in the agricultural sector until he joined center-left PPP. After being affiliated with largest political party of the country, Ashraf made Gujar Khan his new home. He has being elected twice as member of National Assembly from his Gujjar Khan. Furthermore, Ashraf served as the chairman of Social Action Program from 1994 to 1996.



Ashraf started his political drive in 1988 and participated in 1989 bye-elections. Ashraf made his appearance in the elections of 1990, 1993 and 1997. In national elections of 2002, Ashraf defeated PML (N)’s candidate Chaudhary Zaman by a huge margin. In 2008 elections, Ashraf defeated PML (Q)’s candidate Qasim Javed.



After PPP’s victory in 2008 elections, [color="#FF0000"]Raja Pervaiz Ashraf took the office as Minister of Water and Power.[/color] However, Ashraf was found accused in rental power corruption scam, on which he was reshuffled to the Ministry of Information and Technology. Court’s proceedings regarding the case are still in progress.



[size="7"][/size]

[Naresh]

.

Self Deleted - Double Post



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20120622&page=8"][center][size="7"][color="#006400"]Troubled waters[/color][/size][/center][/url]



During a recent India-Pakistan Track II Dialogue held in Islamabad, a number of issues relating to water came up for discussion. This article will try to put those matters in proper perspective in a question and answer format.



I. Baglihar and Kishenganga



(1) Does the invocation of the Arbitration Clause in the Baglihar and Kishenganga cases indicate a failure of the Treaty or a major change in the Treaty dynamics, as argued by some?



The answer is a clear 'No'. The Treaty provides for arbitration, and there is no reason why that article should not be used. That is also action under the Treaty. Arbitration within the four corners of the Treaty cannot change the Treaty dynamics.



(2) Why is Pakistan unhappy with the Neutral Expert's findings in the Baglihar case?



Perhaps Pakistan had hoped that the NE's findings would uphold its contention that there were serious deviations from the Treaty in the Baglihar case. That did not happen. The NE recommended only a few minor changes. Pakistan was disappointed with that outcome.



However, the major Pakistani criticism of the NE's report is that he re-interpreted the Treaty and weakened some of the protection that the Treaty gave to Pakistan. When Pakistan talks about 'reinterpretation' it has three things in mind: (i) the NE's view that the 1960 Treaty did not bind India to 1960 technology and that India could use state-of-the-art technology; (ii) the equal importance given by the NE to the restrictive conditions specified in the Treaty and to the positive proviso of techno-economic soundness and satisfactory operation; and (iii) his stressing the importance of periodical flushing of the reservoir to get rid of sediment. Points (i) and (ii) seem self-evident and cannot reasonably be objected to. Moreover, the Treaty itself repeatedly qualifies its restrictive conditions by the proviso "consistent with sound and economical design and satisfactory construction and operation"; ignoring that proviso and insisting on the restrictive provisions in an unqualified manner would amount to a rewriting of the Treaty.



It is the third point about drawdown flushing that has caused the greatest anxiety to Pakistan because it seemed to weaken the protection against possible flooding. There is no need to discuss this here, as the issue has been raised by Pakistan before the Court of Arbitration in the Kishenganga case, and we must wait for the Court's decision.



(3) Was there a serious deviation from the Treaty by India at the time of the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir?



No. During the initial filling of a reservoir on the Chenab, the Treaty requires (aa) the filling to be done between 21 June and 31 August (the monsoon period); and (bb) a minimum flow of 55,000 cusec to be maintained above Merala in Pakistan. There was no deviation in respect of the first condition; the filling was completed by 28 August 2008. As for the minimum flow condition, it is impossible to say whether there was any non-compliance, because the Treaty prescribes no compliance-monitoring mechanism. There is no joint observation of flows at Merala. A lapse from the Treaty cannot be unilaterally determined by one party.



There is in fact a conundrum in this regard in the Treaty. When the filling of the reservoir begins, there is bound to be a brief interruption of flows (ie, zero flows) to the other side until the waters rising against the dam wall reach the outlets, ie, the spillway gates. (If, as desired by Pakistan, the gates had been placed higher, the water would have taken still longer to reach them.) However, the Treaty requires a minimum flow to be maintained during the initial filling. How can this be done? Please note that the minimum flow stipulation is for flows above Merala in Pakistan and not for releases from Baglihar. Apart from flows through Baglihar, there are other stream flows beyond the dam. Based on its own calculations of those flows, India has to satisfy itself that the flow above Merala is likely to be 55,000 cusec or more, even if the flow from Baglihar is zero. It is clear that there can be no certainty in such calculations. If, during the initial filling, the flows from other streams beyond the Baglihar dam do not add up to 55,000 cusec, there is nothing that India can do - unless it is to stop the filling, reopen the closed diversion outlets and let the water flow through, in which case the reservoir cannot be filled at all. That is areductio ad absurdum. It follows that the two conditions laid down by the Treaty collapse into one, ie, that the reservoir should be filled in the period of high flow (21 June to 31 August) in the expectation that this wouldipso facto ensure good flows at Merala; but there can be only high probability but no guarantee in this regard. (This is further complicated by the fact that the Treaty does not enable India to observe firsthand the flows at Merala.) This is a basic defect in the Treaty itself.



(4) Assuming that there was indeed a shortfall at Merala with reference to the prescribed flow, what was the extent of the shortfall and for how long?



On the basis of its own calculations, India felt that the shortfall reported by Pakistan was highly exaggerated. (The Indian estimation was that the flow above Merala during the period of initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir could not have been less than 40000 cusec, but Pakistan reported a much lower figure.) Besides, as mentioned earlier, there is no way of ascertaining the precise shortfall, if any, in the absence of joint monitoring. Further, this kind of one-time shortfall at the time of initial filling - for less than a day- might indeed have caused some difficulty but can hardly be described as a disaster or as a major deviation from the Treaty.



(5) Was the shortfall, if any, deliberately timed by India to cause maximum distress to Pakistan?



This is a complete myth. India did not 'time' the filling; it complied with the timing prescribed in the Treaty, and completed the filling by 28 August 2008. Where then is the deviation? The intended implication could be that the filling could have been done a bit earlier, say, in July; but when the Treaty clearly specifies a period, what is the basis for suggesting that within that period the filling should have been done in the earlier part? Why then did the Treaty allow filling up to 31 August? On 21 June the project works were still going on. The filling was done as soon as it was possible to do so, and within the period prescribed by the Treaty.



(6) If so, why did Pakistan decide to raise a huge controversy over a relatively minor matter?



A speculative answer could be that nursing a disappointment over the NE's report, Pakistan jumped at the opportunity presented by a seemingly real deviation from the Treaty provisions, however brief and minor, and decided to put India in the dock.



In any case, this is now a closed issue. At the 105th meeting of the Indus Commission, Pakistan is reported to have said that it would not pursue the Baglihar filling issue any further, and India is reported to have said that it would evolve a proper consultation procedure to obviate such controversies in the future.



(7) What are the issues in the Kishenganga case? Why did Pakistan insist on referring the case to a Court of Arbitration?



The main 'dispute' referred to the Court of Arbitration in this case is on the issue of whether the diversion of waters from one tributary of Jhelum to another is permissible under the Treaty. Pakistan and India hold different views on this question, each basing itself on particular provisions of the Treaty. The Court will have to pronounce on this issue.



Assuming that diversion from the Kishenganga to another tributary is found permissible, there is a condition of protection of existing uses attached to this. There are differences between India and Pakistan on the nature and quantum of existing uses that must be protected, and here again we must await the decision of the court.



A second issue that Pakistan has referred to the Court of Arbitration is the legitimacy of drawdown flushing of the reservoir for sediment-control. As mentioned earlier, Pakistan was unhappy with the NE's recommendation on this matter in the Baglihar case. It has now raised this issue before the Court of Arbitration. This must in fact have been the main reason for Pakistan's decision to invoke a court of arbitration.



II. Water in General



(1) Turning from the specifics to the general, is there a water issue between India and Pakistan?



Water-sharing on the Indus system stands settled by the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. Given the growing pressure on a finite resource, water is indeed a major issue for Pakistan today, and an equally major issue for India, but it is not an issue between Pakistan and India.



(2) If so, why has water been put forward by Pakistan as a major issue and elevated to a very high rank?



We can only guess. Whatever the explanation, the raising of water as an issue seems to have worked. It seems to be a widely held view in Pakistan - and held by all classes and categories of people - that if Pakistan faces a present or imminent water crisis, India is an important factor in that development. That is not true, but unfortunately the 'cause' has been picked up by the jihadists. This could have a serious impact on India-Pakistan relations even at the people-to-people level. One must hope that steps to correct such misapprehensions will be taken by the Pakistani authorities, as also by the intelligentsia.



(3) If water is not an issue, then why are there intractable and interminable wrangles between the two countries in the Indus Commission?



The Treaty permits Indian Projects on the western rivers, but imposes stringent restrictions on their design, engineering and operation. That careful balancing act between permissive and restrictive provisions was perhaps easy enough to write into the Treaty, but is enormously difficult to operate in practice. The result is that there is a permanent tug of war in the Indus Commission, with Pakistan objecting to every Indian project as deviating from the Treaty, and India accusing Pakistan of blocking all projects. Thus, while the Treaty settled the water-sharing, it unwittingly created an adversarial situation between the two countries through the combination of permissive and restrictive provisions. Only a constructive, cooperative spirit on both sides can make the Treaty work; and that depends on the state of political relations between the two countries at any given time.



(4) Isn't lower riparian anxiety understandable?



Lower riparian anxiety is indeed a common phenomenon and very understandable, but under the Indus Waters Treaty Pakistan has a degree of protection which few other lower riparians enjoy.



(5) Isn't there an article VII on cooperation in the Treaty?



Despite the presence of article VII, the Treaty is essentially a partitioning Treaty. The land was partitioned in 1947, and the waters were partitioned in 1960. However, given goodwill, there is nothing to prevent the two countries from conducting themselves as if they were operating a Treaty of cooperation.



(6) Why is there a sense of grievance in J&K?



The people in Jammu & Kashmir believe that the Treaty ignores their interests. This writer believes that the grievance is not well-founded, but it exists and must be taken note of by the two Governments.



(7) Leaving aside popular misconceptions in Pakistan, what are the concerns of the thoughtful, well-informed members of Pakistani civil society and academia?



(i) Reduced flows in the western rivers:



Popular perceptions or misperceptions of diversions of waters by India seem to receive unwitting corroboration in reported findings by Pakistani scholars of a trend of reduction in the flows in the western rivers. The only answer to this is to institute a joint study by experts of both countries to determine whether in fact there is a trend of reduced flows in the western rivers, and if so, to identify the factors responsible.



(ii) Is the Treaty being stretched by India?



The popular belief that in undertaking several major projects on the western rivers India is stretching the Treaty unduly, arises from a misreading of the Treaty. The Treaty clearly envisages major Indian projects on the western rivers; how else can one explain the massive Annexures D and E? So long as India conforms to the stringent restrictive provisions of the Treaty, it cannot be charged with stretching the Treaty.



(iii) What would be the cumulative impact of a large number of projects?



India might argue that if each project conforms to the Treaty, there can be no such thing as the 'cumulative impact' of a large number of projects. However, the Pakistani apprehensions on this score cannot be lightly dismissed. The issue needs to be carefully considered. Here again, a joint study by experts of both countries seems desirable.



(8) Finally, what should or can we do about new and emerging concerns that go beyond the Indus Treaty?



Pleas are being made for a holistic, integrated management of the entire system, joint watershed management, etc. These are unexceptionable ideas, but it was because this kind of approach was not found possible that the system was partitioned into two in 1960. Even today, it cannot be said that the ideal approach has become possible. A completely different 'holistic' Treaty will have to wait for better times. For the present, what one can ask for is the operation of the existing Treaty in a constructive, cooperative spirit.



However, newer concerns not envisaged in 1960, such as environmental impacts, minimum or ecological flows, etc, are as applicable to the Indus system as to other systems, and need to be taken on board. In particular, climate change and its impact on water are matters of vital concern, and the two countries must begin immediately to work together on these. There is already a measure of cooperation between them in the international negotiations, but this must go beyond the limited issue of emission reductions. This cannot be brought within the ambit of the Treaty but must be a separate exercise.



Cheers

[Guest]

One corrupt PM is replaced by another.

Not sure, what is Paki Army next plan of action , they had put themselves in box.

[Meluhhan]

[quote name='Naresh' date='22 June 2012 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1340378399' post='115129']

.

[url="http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/beer.gif"][center][size="7"][color="#006400"]Raja Pervaiz Ashraf elected Prime Minister of Pakistan[/color][/size][/center][/url]

[/quote]



Can anyone explain to me how he got a first name like "Raja"?

[Naresh]

[quote name='Meluhhan' date='02 July 2012 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1341181494' post='115148']

Can anyone explain to me how he got a first name like "Raja"?

[/quote]



Meluhhan Ji :



Am not Privy to the Pakistani Prime Ministers personal life and so deeply regret my inability to answer your query.



Cheers

[Guest]

[quote name='Meluhhan' date='02 July 2012 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1341181494' post='115148']

Can anyone explain to me how he got a first name like "Raja"?

[/quote]

In Punjab region, Raja also refer as "good" Raja Beta means good boy.

Ashraf refers to someone claiming descent from Muhammad by way of his daughter Fatimah.



Conclusion - They are notorious Zamidar who may have converted to Islam to keep their land and during that process added Ashraf tag, either by marriage/rape etc. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Pakistan is a complex land.

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/six-held-over-suspected-terror-plot-203721399.html"][center][size="6"][color="#006400"]Six Held Over Suspected Terror Plot[/color][/size][/center][/url]



Six people including three living just over a mile from the Olympic site and a former police community support officer have been arrested over a suspected terror plot.



The alleged plan involved Islamist extremists with potential targets in the UK, but was not linked to the Olympics , it is understood.



The arrests were part of a pre-planned intelligence-led operation by the Metropolitan Police counter-terror command along with armed officers, but the threat was not thought to be imminent.



Five men and a woman were arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and were being held at a south-east London police station, police said.



Three of the men, believed to be members of the same Bangladeshi family, were arrested in a raid on a house in Stratford, east London.



One, aged 24, was Tasered during his arrest but did not require hospital treatment, the Met spokesman added.



The others were aged 18 and 26.



Neighbours said the occupants had been there for more than a year and there were frequently people coming and going from the property.



They spoke of seeing men in Muslim-style robes and a woman in a burka.



Trainee taxi driver Stephen Maguire, 23, said he heard the police from his bedroom in Eastbourne Road, which overlooks the front of the house.



"I heard the biggest bang ever and I saw a massive cloud of smoke and torches going up at the windows," he said.



"It sounded like they were gunshots but they weren't."



In Ealing, west London, a 29-year-old man was arrested in the street, and a 21-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman were held at separate residential premises.



Some of those held are understood to be British nationals, and one is a former police community support officer.



A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard said: "One of the men arrested by the Counter Terror Command today served as a PCSO for the MPS from May 2007 to September 2009 when he resigned.



"He was not deployed in any specialist or sensitive roles."



The force said that eight residential premises in east, west and north London and one business premises in east London were being searched.



The arrests come after Jonathan Evans, the director-general of the Security Service, warned last month that Britain had experienced a "credible terrorist attack plot about once a year since 9/11".



"In back rooms and in cars and on the streets of this country there is no shortage of individuals talking about wanting to mount terrorist attacks here," he added.



The threat to the UK from international terrorism is currently rated substantial - the third highest of five levels.



The rating is set by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (Jtac), based at MI5's headquarters at Thames House in central London, but is independent of the service.



:: Meanwhile, Lancashire police have charged a 20-year-old man from Burnley with six terrorism offences following his arrest in another pre-planned operation.



Niall Florence was arrested at his home during the operation on December 9 last year. He has been released on bail until July 20.



Cheers

[Naresh]

.

[url="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012/07/07/story_7-7-2012_pg1_5"][center]Seven British-Pakistanis held on terror suspicion[/center][/url]



LONDON: The British police and secret service MI5, in a joint operation, have arrested seven people believed to be of the Pakistani origin on suspicion of terror offences after firearms and other weapons were found in a car. One man is from West Yorkshire and six from Birmingham, West Midlands. They are being questioned on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism following a series of arrests this week, police said on Friday. News of the arrests came a day after six people, including a white Muslim convert, were detained over an alleged plan to carry out a major terrorist attack, possibly during the Olympics. Items found in the vehicle were undergoing forensic analysis, and searches were carried out at the addresses of those in custody. A West Midlands police spokesman said that officers found material including firearms following a routine stop on the M1 in South Yorkshire last weekend. He said, “The arrests followed a routine stop of a vehicle by police on the M1 motorway in South Yorkshire on Saturday.” The car was impounded on suspicion of having no insurance. A sources in the West Midlands police told Daily Times that the youngsters arrested in the terror raids were of Pakistani origin. asif mehmood



Cheers