The Taliban's 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.
Â
Mullah Omar brokered the controversial peace deal
In return for an end to the US-backed government campaign in Waziristan, the tribal leaders - who have harboured Taliban and al-Qaeda units for more than five years - 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 Taliban's promise not to enter Afghanistan to attack coalition troops.
<b>The disclosure that Mullah Omar personally backed the deal will come as a fresh embarrassment to Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, who met President Bush in Washington on Friday to discuss security in the region.</b>
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, Mullah 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<b> Mullah Omar had sent one of his most trusted and feared commanders, Mullah 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.</b>
<b>"Had they been not asked by Mullah Omar, none of them were willing to sign an agreement," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and former national assembly member. "This is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistan's territory."</b>
Waziristan has a 50-mile border with Afghanistan's Paktika province, long a trouble spot for US and Afghan forces in their battle against al-Qaeda and Taliban renegades. It is home to three tiers of Islamists who operate freely. Of greatest security concern is the al-Qaeda element, followed by Afghani Taliban and then local Taliban.
In return for a reduction in the Pakistani army's 80,000-strong presence and the release of about 165 hardcore militants arrested for attacks on Pakistani 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.
<b>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.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US spy agency CIA paid Pakistan for al-Qaeda suspects: Musharraf </b>
LONDON (AFP) - The US
Central Intelligence Agency paid Pakistan millions of dollars for handing over more than 350 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists to the United States, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly said.
The assertions come in the military ruler's upcoming memoir "In the Line of Fire," serialized in The Times newspaper.
<b>Musharraf does not reveal how much Pakistan was paid for the 369 Al-Qaeda suspects he ordered should be handed over to the United States, the newspaper said, noting, however, that such payments are banned by the US government</b>.
The newspaper does not, however, print or quote the excerpts which make the allegations.
In response a US
<b>Department of Justice official was quoted as saying: "We didn't know about this. It should not happen. These bounty payments are for private individuals who help to trace terrorists on the FBI's most wanted list, not foreign governments."</b>
The Pakistani's leader's claims come after he said last week that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan if it did not back the United States in the so-called "war on terror" in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, described by Musharraf as "what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made."
"Our relationships with international leaders is not something we are prepared to talk about," a CIA official told The Times.
Musharraf also writes that he was so angered by American demands in the wake of the September 11 attacks, which he calls "ludicrous," that he "war-gamed the United States as an adversary."
"There would be a violent and angry reaction if we didn't support the United States," an excerpt from his book reads.
"The question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no."
He said that two days after the attacks, the US Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain brought to him a set of seven demands including "blanket overflight and landing rights" and "use of Pakistan's naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders."
Musharraf said Pakistan gave no "blanket permission" for anything.
The military leader also says that he decided to make the revelations to counter claims that Pakistan had not done enough to combat Al-Qaeda in the war on terror. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mush the Tush is a typical Pakistani Leader with the Motto <b>Why tell the Truth When you can Lie instead</b>
The reason for âBeing Bomb Back into the Stone Ageâ was to make the people sit up & notice Mush thus leading to more sales of his Book. In addition the Pakistan People would Sympathize with Mush for being forced to <b>GUBO</b> when Colin Powell made the <b>Are You With Us or Against Us</b> call.
Richard Armitage said no such thing. The Pakistani Ambassador conveyed the meaning to Mush in Urdu which was not an exact translation but a result of the Pakistani Ambassador âColouring his pants with Shizer in every Colour of the Rainbowâ :
<b>WASHINGTON : Richard Armitage, Daily Times can confirm, did not use the words attributed to him by President Pervez Musharraf in a CBS 60 Minutes interview, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>namely that unless Pakistan did American bidding, it will be bombed into the âstone ageâ.</span></b> However, neither the President of Pakistan, nor Richard Armitage, who has denied using such language, nor President Bush who said he was âtaken abackâ when he learnt what had been said, is being untruthful. <b>What actually happened was that after his meeting with Richard Armitage, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed â who now wears a long, white beard and has reportedly gone Tableeghi â called Gen Musharraf from the Pakistan embassy in Washington. The conversation took place in Urdu and when the president asked him what the bottom line of the American message was, Gen Mahmood replied in Urdu that the Americans were intent on the removal of the Taliban regime and would not let Pakistan stand in their way and if Pakistan did not fall in line and cooperate, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>âwo hamari eent se eent baja dey gainâ or words to that effect.</span></b> That being so, President Musharrafâs recollection of the conversation with Gen Mahmood, who was then the director general of the ISI, is accurate, only he translated into English what he had been told in Urdu. It is time for Gen Mahmood to go on record and reproduce exactly the words in which he conveyed the Armitage message to Gen Musharraf on that September day five years ago. <b>khalid hasan</b>
So Mush has made himself a Universal Tush of himself with his Utter Lies and then getting caught.
[center]<b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Our Indian Prime Minister has put his faith in the Universal Liar!</span></b>[/center]
I will post transcript from Today's Show interview where Mushy said, War against Taliban is not a right approach. He refered "War on Terrorism" as Game, and he claimed he understand this game. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Pakistani graduate raped because of caste</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Charges probably won't be filed against high-caste Pakistani men who allegedly raped and beat a low-caste woman because she earned a degree, a report says.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Army rubbishes claims on strength of Pak army used during Kargil</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Army today rubbished claims by Pakistan President Pervez Musharaf that only five battalions (more than 5,000) of regular Pakistani troops were deployed in Kargil incursions in 1999 saying facts belied this.
Documents like identity cards, pay books and other identification papers revealed that as many as seven Northern Light Infantry battalions (more than 7,000 troops) of Pakistan had been involved in Kargil operations", top army officials here said adding they were supported by Pakistani auxiliary troops.
These included 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 11th and 12th battalions of the Northern Light infantry", they said.
Besdies, army officials said arms recovered by Indian troops during the battle included four anti-aircraft guns, a stinger missile unit, 46 heavy machine guns, 12 high calibre mortars 19 rocket launchers, 3 light howitzers and 19 rocket launchers, which was an arsenal normally deployed by division-plus (more than 15,000) strength of troops.
"Indian army had recovered 249 bodies of which only five were accepted by Pakistan and the total Pakistani casualties of 725 killed included 45 officers and 68 Special Service Group personnel", the officials said.......................<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->âwo hamari eent se eent baja dey gainâ or words to that effect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can't stone back to stoneage someone who's already stoned high on purest Paki export.
From my perspective in the u.s.a. I have only one question ; what is the name of the former Muslim head of the Mumbai Mafia; as last reported in the western press he fled to Peshawar Pakistan. I don't think he left India without perhaps some foreign currency in a Swiss Bank Account, (The swiss have the reputation for this kind of thing in the west). This puts Mushy ,in an even worse position, with Bejing , and Washington, beating an economic path to the powers that be in New Dehli. Without the cold war with Russia, Islamabad's leverage with both the U.S. and China, has virtually evaporated. Mushy's Bomb , is now , his greatest liability!
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 26 2006, 01:57 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 26 2006, 01:57 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->âwo hamari eent se eent baja dey gainâ or words to that effect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can't stone back to stoneage someone who's already stoned high on purest Paki export.
[right][snapback]57947[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They could always export their extra virgins , to the Saudis! Why just heroin and terrorists for foreign exchange?
09-26-2006, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 09-26-2006, 07:16 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
Mudy I think the Kargil casualties on the Paki side were much higher than that, Nawaz Sharif later (after he got exiled) claimed that Musharaf masterminded the whole thing and that the Pakis lost as many as 4000 dead and this seems to be the case since NLI is recruited mainly from Baltistan and Pakistan has no problem using up these Shia heretics as cannon fodder. Here is what Sharif said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif
By B. Muralidhar Reddy
ISLAMABAD Aug. 16 . The former Pakistan Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, claimed that more than 4,000 Pakistani troops and officials were killed in the Kargil conflict.
While Mr. Sharif accused the Pakistan military in general and the then Army Chief, Pervez Musharraf, of undertaking the Kargil operations without the knowledge of his government, it is for the first time he has come out with concrete figures of the casualty on the Pakistani side.
The Pakistan Government had consistently denied charges of its involvement in the Kargil War and claimed it to be an operation conducted entirely by the Mujahideen (holy warriors). Several months later it indirectly acknowledged its participation by decorating some of its soldiers who died in the conflict.
In recent times, Mr. Sharif has been harping on Kargil as an example of failure of the military leadership of Gen. Musharraf.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mudy I think the Kargil casualties on the Paki side were much higher than that, <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, its over 5000. Mushy is as usual lives in his own la-la land.
<b>Pakistan Prez appears on 'Daily Show' </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To conclude the interview, Stewart put Musharraf on the "Seat of Heat," a new feature for the program in which red lights flash around the studio and the guest is asked a final question.
<b>"George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden â be truthful â who would win a popular vote in Pakistan?" </b>asked Stewart.
<b>"I think they'll both lose miserably," replied Musharraf</b>, an answer met with raucous laughter by the "Daily Show" audience
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Op-Ed in Pioneer, 27 Sept. 2006Â
<b>Script for a PTV docudrama </b>
Wilson John
<b>There are several missing chapters in Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's memoir, In the Line of Fire</b>. Although it will not be possible to list out the missing portions in toto, it is reasonable to believe that Gen Musharraf has revealed far less than he has chosen to hide. And <b>what he reveals about Kargil, AQ Khan, 9/11 and various other incidents from his colourful life is carefully selected, cleverly embellished with fiction and packaged to generate media hype with the objective of, besides selling the book, creating a smokescreen on his real persona and actions</b>. His memoir is, at best, a script for a PTV docudrama.
Before we get into the details, it is important to understand Musharraf the Man, to make sense of his quicksilver swings. <b>He is a mohajir from Delhi, who down in Gujranwala in Punjab</b>, Pakistan. He was commissioned in the Pakistan Army in 1964 and was just one of the scores of officers who waited for their promotion boards till Gen Zia-ul Haq spotted him. Gen Zia never hid his liking for devout officers and in Gen Musharraf he found a pious Deobandi. Leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, a fundamentalist political party, made it known to the General that they too preferred him. Gen Musharraf proved to be a right choice for both of them.
<b>The first task he was assigned by Gen Zia was to train mujahideen recruited by various religious organisations to fight the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. It was during those days that Gen Musharraf first met a Saudi civil engineer who was keen to help the cause of jihad with money and muscle. The CIA had brought this contractor to construct bunkers for the mujahideen. The contractor, with whom Gen Musharraf had a close working relationship, is today known as Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world. It was at this juncture that Gen Musharraf developed two other key links that would later stand him in good stead-the CIA and the mullahs</b>.
Of the missing chapters, the critical one is his alliance and association with the fundamentalist and extremist forces. This chapter begins from the early months of Gen Musharraf's tenure as the Chief Executive. Though the mullahs made noise about the military takeover, he left no trick in the book - threat, money and power - to court them to stabilise his hold over Islamabad. He allowed them to open offices in respectable commercial and residential complexes; letting them recruit men for terrorist training, arming them with modern weapons to kill civilians and security personnel in Jammu & Kashmir.
<b>Barely a few months after the September 11 attacks in New York, he managed to lull the Americans and the Western world into believing in his anti-terrorism charade, while he allowed the vanquished Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terror groups to recoup and regroup, and create another invisible network of terror in Karachi, Muzaffarabad, Peshawar, and Waziristan</b>.
Ironically, on the very day when the Musharraf regime was promising the global community of a crackdown on terrorist organisations, Jamaat-e-Islami Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Hizbul Mujahidin supreme commander Syed Salahuddin were visiting a terrorist camp, Maskar-e-Rahil, in Kotlui, Pakistan occupied Kashmir. They addressed the militants undergoing training at the camp and talked to HM commanders in Poonch and Rajouri sectors through wireless.
Other extremist and terrorist outfits like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT), al Badr, Harkut-ul-Ansar held conferences, seminars and meetings with as much ease even as President Musharraf told the world (through CNN and PTV mainly) projected himself as a liberal bulwark against religious extremism taking over Pakistan. It is not that the General was merely tolerating the fringe elements; he is deeply involved with them, with their agenda.
Before coming to India to talk peace with then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at Agra in July 2001, the General first confabulated with leaders from Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (parent body of LeT and now operating as Jamaat-ud Dawa) and other similar organisations and sought their blessings. This is of course missing from his reference to the Agra summit in his book.
He also doesn't mention how he handled terrorist groups, beginning January 12, 2002, when he made that high-sounding speech of his, announcing a crackdown on fundamentalist and terrorist elements in Pakistan with much gusto and accompanying headlines across the world. Several key leaders were rounded up and housed in well-appointed state guesthouses. Inspired stories in the media talked of a thousand and more arrests of jihadis of all ilk. Not one terrorist leader (Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar or Fazlur Rehman Khalil) has been arrested and tried despite five years of "war on terrorism".
Of the several well-documented (again missing from the book) incidents that expose Gen Musharraf's claim on terrorism, the brutal killing of American journalist Daniel Pearl needs to be mentioned. The ISI was deeply involved in the murder that was carried out with the help of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. One incident that is not well known is that Sheikh Omar was picked up for questioning a week after Pearl went missing but was released without any charges.
Intelligence officials then approached Jaish-e-Mohammad leader Masood Azhar, supposedly under house arrest, to facilitate an early release of the American journalist. It was only after Azhar refused to cooperate, even after Gen Musharraf sent word, that security agencies arrested his key aide, Sheikh Omar, and made him the main accused.
<b>The missing post script is his truce with the new coalition of Taliban and al Qaeda in Waziristan that will pose a grave threat to the Western world that seems to be toasting the smooth-talking General who has cleverly diverted global attention from the urgent need for restoring democracy in Pakistan. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Punjab University hires British music professor</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LAHORE: Punjab University has hired a British professor, Cambridge-graduate William Keith Timmney, and other international musicians to teach at the Department of Musicology despite threats by conservative elements, officials told Daily Times<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Music in Islamic country? Whats going on, it is un-islamic?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I<b>slamic group threatens to "physically resist" music classes at Punjab University</b>Instrumental music is automatically an issue under sharia law due to the dictates of Muhammad. For example:
Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari:
that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection." (Bukhari 007.069.494v)
In addition, if the subject of Western music is to arise at all at Punjab University, its early history is inextricably linked to the Catholic liturgy and clergy, including at the time of the Crusades. Not to mention the time spent on Lutheran chorales in the instruction of music theory. Clearly, this could pose a problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Pakistan fount of terror </b>
Pioneer.com
Pranab Mukherjee
Islamabad may have helped Washington but has done little to end cross-border terrorism
Several developments in the 20th century, with their roots in imperial history, have affected India's traditional relationships with its neighbourhood. Perhaps the most fateful was the partition of India. Viewed from this perspective, it can be argued that the first half of 20th century was an aberration in the evolution of India's historical and traditional relationship with the outside world.
The historical experience of the British East India Company, and imperialism in general, left India suspicious of foreign trade. Following India's independence, this led to efforts to build a self-reliant and autarkic economy, wary of deeper engagement with the world economy.
The model stood us in good stead for a while. It helped set up a robust technical and industrial base. Self-reliance gave us self-confidence. This provided the base for the accelerated growth and increasing globalisation of the Indian economy since the early 90s when sweeping reforms were adopted by the then Congress Government.
While the growing economic strength of India has attracted worldwide attention, this endeavour is still a work in process. India's major priority today is economic growth, which is inclusive and benefits all sections of society. For most of its history, India has been an open society and an open economy.
This is the path it wishes to pursue in the future. India's aspiration for continuing economic growth would depend on a secure and stable environment and its own ability to integrate with the global economy. In the broad context of this nation-building endeavour, let me touch upon some of our principal security challenges.
The first is the challenge of terrorism. India has suffered the most gruesome and repeated acts of terror since the late 1970s - first in Punjab, then in J&K and many other parts of our country. The Bombay blasts of 1993 were the original act of mass terrorism.
India's places of worship, symbols of its rapid economic growth, its prestigious centres of learning, popular shopping complexes and symbols of its vibrant democracy have all been systematically targeted. While in most places terrorism is perpetrated by non-state actors, in India it is sponsored and supported by state agencies from a hostile neighbourhood.
Second, since its independence, India has had to fight three wars on its western borders and one in the north. It continues to face a proxy war from across its western border. Its unresolved territorial and boundary issues with neighbours persist.
Third, India has been placed in an arc of proliferation activity running from east to west, which has had an adverse impact on our security situation. The possibility of linkages between proliferation of WMDs and terrorism, which has emerged in recent years, is of great concern for us.
Fourth, the fragile political fabric of states in India's neighbourhood is a source of continuing anxiety. Pakistan remains a nursery of global terrorism. Post-9/11, Pakistan has reportedly helped the United States to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. But it has done precious little to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its eastern border with India.
Many terrorists roam freely in Pakistan. India has repeatedly stated that, in order to proceed with the peace-process between the two countries, Pakistan must implement the solemn assurances it has given to stop all cross-border terrorism. This has not yet happened.
On India's northern border, Nepal has been ravaged by Maoist insurgency for many years. Mounting religious extremism in Bangladesh, coupled with illegal migrations, is a source of considerable concern for India. In Sri Lanka, the ethnic strife has grave political, economic and humanitarian ramifications for India.
Thus, developments in these states may pose risks to India and undermine the stable and peaceful environment that India seeks for its own economic growth.
Fifth, India sits astride the Indian Ocean. The security of the entire region from East Africa to South-East Asia is increasingly challenged by the rising incidence of violent conflict, growing fundamentalism and terrorism. It is also affected by trafficking in arms, drugs, human beings and piracy. 60,000 ships carry merchandise and energy from the Gulf to East Asia, through Straits of Malacca, every year. Maritime security is thus a major preoccupation for India.
Sixth, with the Indian economy set on a higher growth trajectory, its demand for energy is increasing rapidly. In this context, energy security and security of sea-lanes of communication, on which India's trade is dependent, assume significance.
To meet these challenges, India has been focusing on inclusive economic development, strengthening of its defence to deter aggression; ensuring peace in the region; developing friendly and mutually beneficial ties in its extended neighbourhood.
India's vision of South Asia is of a peaceful and prosperous region where its neighbours see it as an economic opportunity and a partner in progress.
<i>- (Excerpted from the Union Defence Minister's lecture at Harvard University on September 25, 2006) </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHEN an army general, who seized power through a coup to become the head of state, goes on to write a book â wearing all three hats at the same time â what does he produce? A book that brings him in the line of fire of friends and foes alike.
President Pervez Musharraf, whose memoir In the Line of Fire was launched with great fanfare in New York on Monday, may now find that the principle of academia, âpublish or perishâ, does not really hold true for a sitting president.
If anything, for a person holding high office to write a say-it-all (but selectively) autobiography can prove to be quite indiscreet given the sensitive nature of his position. After all he has several options available for letting the world know what he wants to say â the media, the diplomatic channel, public meetings, his spokesperson and direct interpersonal communication. These are better options as they do not have the air of finality about them as a book has. They also allow a leader to retract his words without loss of face. So why write a book with all the hazards that the act of putting pen to paper incurs <b>(even if the services of the best ghostwriter, in this case Humayun Gauhar, have been enlisted)? <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The printed word seems to be so irrevocable.</span></b>
President Musharrafâs rationale, as he records it, is not too convincing. âI decided to write my autobiography after Pakistan took centre stage in the worldâs conflicts, including the war on terror. There has been intense curiosity about me and the country I lead. I want the world to learn the truth.â
But in telling the âtruthâ the author has many readers questioning the veracity of what he writes. He spills many beans that should not have been spilled at this stage when he is still in a position of power and his words can create foreign policy problems for his government in an ongoing phase of our contemporary history. The controversy has already begun. The by now famous quote from the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, in the wake of 9/11 warning Pakistan to be âprepared to be bombed back to the stone ageâ has evoked denial from several American quarters. According to the author âour director general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about the meeting with {Mr Armitage}.â The author terms it the âmost undiplomatic statement ever madeâ.
Now we have Mr Armitage denying having said that. âI had a very strong conversation with the intelligence chief. I told him that for Americans this was a black or white issue. Pakistan was either with us or against us. I have no doubt that the intelligence chief was quite inflammatory in the language he used with President Musharraf,â he told Reuters. President Bush has already said he first learnt about this from newspapers reporting the CBS interview with President Musharraf in which he had brought up the matter first and then referred to the book for more information. Who is to be believed? This has come down to pure semantics which cannot be ignored in an age when body language is supposed to decide the destinies of nations.
There is also the question of the language used by the various people involved. Obviously Mr Armitage spoke in English but did Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, the ISI DG, report his conversation in idiomatic Urdu? All this has created a needless stir and the author might be wasting more time explaining the finer points, as he is now being accused of caving in to a rude threat.
<b>The world also knows that Pakistanâs policy in Afghanistan has been an ambiguous one of âplaying both sides of the fence, saying one thing but doing another, closing militant training camps in one area and reopening them in anotherâ to use Kathy Gannonâs words (in I is for Infidel). She also reports how <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>the hawkish, pan-Islamic chief of the ISI, General Mahmood, who was sent to Kandahar after 9/11, urged Mullah Omar to resist the US and thus ensure its own annihilation.</span></b>
A report in Karachiâs monthly Newsline (Feb 2003) confirmed that the ISI chief âhad met with the Taliban leader without any aide for several hours and later informed the President that he was hopeful that Mullah Omar would cooperateâ. It also stated how General Mahmood âwho had earlier, in Washington, signed on the dotted line [when summoned by Armitage on Sept 12, 2001], showed reservations on the decision to pull out support for the Taliban regimeâ.
<b>It adds, âSome highly placed sources believe that General Mahmood may have been playing a double game. President Musharraf was also not very happy with Mahmoodâs arrogant style, and for not consulting him before agreeing to Armitageâs seven-point demand. President Musharraf acted swiftly and replaced the hard-line General Mahmood.â What is one to make of these accounts made more confusing by General Musharrafâs disclosure?
Then there is the case of Pakistanâs Kargil adventure about which our army is so sensitive. The president presents a sanitised version of what happened in May-July 1999. <!--emo&:liar liar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/liar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='liar.gif' /><!--endemo--> The author glosses over the Pakistan Armyâs role in skilfully using the âfreedom fightersâ as a proxy which has been brought on record by Indiaâs ex-foreign minister, <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Jaswant Singh, in his book A Call to Honour. He cites verbatim the taped conversation between General Musharraf and General Aziz in which it clearly emerges that the freedom fighters were controlled by the Pakistan Army.</span>
In this context, our authorâs claim that âwhatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflictâ could be damaging to the India-Pakistan dialogue that has moved by fits and starts since it started in 2004. <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Small wonder the author has shown deep interest in the Hindi translation of the Kargil chapter. There is much room for misunderstanding.</span></b>
We have already heard quite a lot about the 1999 events from Bruce Riedel, special assistant to President Clinton, who has written an insiderâs account of the summit in Blair House between Mr Nawaz Sharif and the American president. Mr Riedel doe not project Pakistan as an innocent party in Kargil as Musharraf does.
Given the sensitivities involved in a head of state/government writing a book while in office, one can understand why President Ayub Khan was one of those rare exceptions who became an author while governing the country. He did not have the patience to wait for his twilight years to pen his life experiences that are recorded in his Friends Not Masters. Besides, being an army man he did not expect to be questioned on what he wrote. General Musharraf probably feels the same way. Since he is not a leader who feels his hands are tied by the constraints of a democratic system, he does not have to worry about the repercussions of his words.
Other world leaders who have written best-sellers either did them before they entered the august office that brought them fame or after they were out of it. Nelson Mandelaâs Long Road to Freedom was published after he was released from Robben Island prison and before he was elected to the presidency. Margaret Thatcherâs Path to Power and Bill Clintonâs My Life kept them busy after they had left 10 Downing Street and the White House respectively. <b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>One may well ask : what was the hurry Mr Musharraf?</span></b>
<b>Mudy Ji :</b> I believe India is keeping <b>A DIGNIFIED SILENCE</b> as the Pakistanis are taking Mush the Tush to Task
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
tupid--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/pakee.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pakee.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/center]