Nuggets from the Urdu press - FT
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Zarqawi was betrayed by Al Qaeda!</b>
Ex-army chief Aslam Beg was quoted in Nawa-e-Waqt as saying that the jihadi forces had themselves betrayed Zarqawi so that the Americans could kill him. Hence it was success for the US as well Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had not agreed with Zarqawiâs violent policies and was not in favour of his killing the Shias in Iraq. He said now the Islamic forces were more able to fight jihad as it should be fought.
<b>Quaid wanted to spend vacations in Bombay</b> <!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Writing in Jang Agha Maud Husain stated that he wanted India and Pakistan to normalise their relations because the Quaid too wanted India and Pakistan to live as friendly neighbours. In fact the Quaid wanted the two states to be so friendly that he could spend his vacations in Bombay.
<b>General Ashraf Qaziâs own culture</b>
Sarerahe in Nawa-e-Waqt stated that education minister General (Retd) Javed Ashraf Qazi had said that Pakistanâs culture did not date back to Muhammad Bin Qasim but to Harappa. Sarerahe thought the Harappa culture could only belong personally to the minister but it did not belong to the people of Pakistan.
<b>Zarqawi was shaheed!</b> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Writing in Jang Abdul Qadir Hasan said that Pakistani TV channels and newspapers erred by not calling Abu Musaâb al Zarqawi a shaheed because the Americans had called him a terrorist. The newspaper also reported that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Umar called Zarqawi a shaheed. Abdul Qadir Hasan said if Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi could declare General Zia a shaheed why could not Zarqawi fighting against forces of evil be declared shaheed?
<b>How Zarqawi was born</b>
Columnist Hamid Mir wrote in Jang that Abu Musab Al Zarqawi listened to Abdullah Azzam and Abdur Rab Rasul Sayyaf in 1988 in a mosque in Jordan and was convinced by Sayyaf to come and fight jihad against the Soviets. Azzam was the philosopher of jihad and had taught at the International Islamic University of Islamabad and then moved to Peshawar to set up what later developed into a fighting machine for Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi went to Peshawar in 1989 and was sent by Sayyaf through Miranshah to Khost where together with Jalaluddin Haqqani he drove the Russians out. The Americans wanted the mujahideen to make peace and Islamabad was anxious to get rid of the Arabs in Peshawar. Zarqawi met Al Maqdasi in Peshawar and made him his spiritual father, but Maqdasi was an extremist on Arab-Israel accords of 1993. That year Zarqawi returned to Jordan and was arrested for opposing the accords and sentenced for life only to be let off in 1999 on the coronation of king Abdullah. He went to Peshawar and was imprisoned there too but influential friends got him out. Haqqani then sent him to Herat to train new warriors. From Herat he went to Kandahar in December 2001 where he was wounded by an American bomb. He them went to Torabora and joined Osama bin Laden, but his route out of Afghanistan was through Iran with Hekmatyarâs help. He was not liked by Osama for his anti-Shia outlook but he soon gave it up and was thereafter owned by Osama.
<b>Religious groups bless Zarqawi</b>
Reported in Jang a religious group said the ghaebana namaz janaza (funeral prayer in absentia) for Abu Musaâb Zarqawi in Lahore and condemned the Foreign Office for saying that death of the Shia-killer in Iraq was an achievement in the war against terrorism. The congregation that blessed Zarqawi kept crying zaar-o-qataar (in great intensity) for the great shaheed. In the National Assembly the MMA demanded fateha for Zarqawi but was denied by the speaker. In Nawa-e-Waqt Jamaat Islami leader Munawwar Hasan said that Pakistan was reluctant to call Zarqawi shaheed as that would offend Washington.Â
<b>Zarqawi was kicked to death</b>
Daily Nawa-e-Waqt reported that according to an eyewitness in Iraq, Zarqawi was not killed by a bomb but was first captured in a wounded state by American troops who then kicked him to death, repeatedly asking him to identify himself. They were scared of him because he was wearing a suicide belt.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like Paki mullah and urdu press are missing Zarqawi
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dishing out religion on TV channels </b>
FTÂ
Khaled Ahmedâs A n a l y s i sÂ
<b>Pakistan began its first Islamisation in 1948 with the Objectives Resolution, which reached its climax in the 1979-1988 interregnum of General Ziaâs military dictatorship when coercion was used in line with the provisions of enforcement contained in Islamic jurisprudence</b>. After General Zia, the state tried to âgo back to normalâ but the governments were never strong enough to roll back the process. In at least two instances when the elected governments were dismissed by the president under Article 58/2/B of the Constitution, one of the charges was that the government had stopped or neglected Islamisation. One unsuccessful military coup in 1995 also made âde-Islamisationâ one of its grounds for staging the coup. After 1998, prime minister Nawaz Sharif used Islamisation under the projected 15th Amendment to Islamise once again but failed.
<b>Musharraf regime and market-driven Islam:</b> Under General Pervez Musharraf the process of de-Islamisation began in real earnest with a measure of âindirectâ international coercion under UN Security Council resolution 1373 under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Normally any order imposed under duress is easily rolled back by bringing the situation to normal: usually the laws remain unchanged but their enforcement by the state is allowed to default. An opposite thesis was proved: if a coercive order aimed at the transformation of society is allowed to reign for some years its effects become embedded in society, and a âpublic demandâ for Islamisation becomes unavoidable. Pakistanâs discourse at least remained as intensely Islamic as it was under General Zia because the public mind had become unfamiliar with secular-pluralist discourse during a decade of dictatorship. When the private TV channels opened in Pakistan the owners were struck by the high public demand for religious programmes.
The process of religious communication on TV in Pakistan was market-driven and it catered to the aggressive fundamentalist as well as to the âaccretiveâ magic-oriented istakhara type of discourse. Since under General Zia Pakistan had only one state-owned TV channel, the religious discourse under General Musharraf - through half a dozen new private TV channels - seemed actually to be several times more extensive in volume and quality than what General Zia was able to achieve.<b> This âstampedeâ for Islam was also aided in no small measure by the earlier proliferation of clergy which had formed its own centres of power in parallel to the state.</b> The organisations banned by a UN committee under resolution 1373 for terrorism remained present on the ground and continued to assert their power in favour of a privatised Islamisation. In fact in 2002 clerics were emboldened enough by General Musharrafâs âsecular ambivalenceâ to announce that they would take over cities and start Islamising them by force.
<b>The phenomenon of âinternalisedâ Islamisation:</b> After 11 September 2001, the Islamic discourse on TV became more intense and aggressive, as spearheaded by a clergy now scared of Musharrafâs âsubservienceâ to the United States which might result in his taking steps to restrict the clerical activity in Pakistan. (This was seen to happen later on when Musharraf tried to ânormaliseâ the seminaries and sanitise the textbooks.) This was further compounded by a pan-Islamic wave of grievance, which was further strengthened by the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. Since this invasion was opposed by all levels of Pakistani society, the TV discourse reflected it through a new supremacy of the clerical speaker. The new TV channels, often initiated outside Pakistan, at times began with a âmission statementâ against the West and Western media and allowed a tilt to their religious discussions which intensified the over-all antagonism and hostility among the social segments in Pakistan seeing one another as either opposed or not sufficiently persuaded of the otherâs worldview. The TV discourse now began to express an unrelated cosmic grief that looked less like a protest against global injustice and more like a regret over Islamâs inability to dominate.
Cable TV added its own commercialism to what was happening by adding âexclusiveâ channels devoted to single clerics, as in the case of Maulana Akram Awan of Chakwal with a significant standing within the armed forces, Dr Israr Ahmad the founder of an organisation in Lahore devoted to the setting up of a caliphate in Pakistan, Indian orator Zakir Naek with a global âconverterâ outreach like late Ahmad Deedat of South Africa, Ms Farhat Hashmi of Al Huda with a following among the born-again rich ladies, and Allama Tahirul Qadiri the Barelvi leader of a religious party of Lahore with a European outreach. (The last two are rumoured to have quit Pakistan for Canada and Europe respectively where they have lucrative preaching and proselytising connections. Both still retain chains of institutions devoted to their cause back in Pakistan.) Recorded competitions with missionaries from other religions were shown in which the Muslim cleric was shown to win. Dr Israr was exploited by one TV channel to spread the message over many serial programmes about the imminent rise of Imam Mehdi against the forces of evil for a final Armageddon ending in a victory for Islam. As an astounding proof of how the mass media may affect the mind of society, imposters claiming to be Imam Mehdi began to emerge from the various cities of Pakistan and had to be arrested.
<b>TV channels and their new wave of Islamisation:</b> Because of the private TV channels, the era of General Musharraf was in effect more of an Islamic era than the one presided over by General Zia. The tone of the Islamic discourse was aggressive, if not paranoid, and freedom accorded to secular and moderate voices to come and compete with the orthodox clergy simply led to more acrimony as youthful audiences inclined to defending the hardline positions taken by the clerical discussants. The moderate discussants were tentative and apologetic because of their inability to quote from the Quran and hadith in Arabic, and could clearly see the stage set against their point of view. The audiences were motivated by a number of external influences which in turn could have been induced by the TV channels themselves. The rise of collective namaz in mosques had been witnessed under General Zia and the period following his death, but the real dominance of the mosque was seen under Musharraf and his liberal policy vis-Ã -vis the media. Now the born-again feeling was felt to be genuine and those who became hardline in their thinking thought that they had arrived at their conversion in an environment of freedom. The âfree-thinkingâ secularists on the other hand seemed to represent alien values and therefore appeared apologetic.
A midwifeâs role was played by the TV hosts. Almost all hosts adopted an extremely obsequious attitude towards the ulema and allowed their aggressive discourse to go on unchecked. In most cases the hosts were not knowledgeable about the topics they were discussing. This âignoranceâ could actually be a useful attribute were the hosts to use it to treat the ulema and the secularist-moderates with equal objectivity. Most discussions demonstrated that the hosts did not intervene when the secularist or moderate discussant was being unfairly treated by the cleric and the audience. <b>There was a certain satisfaction drawn from the fact that Islam was seen to win while the secularist moderate was made to admit defeat. </b>The audiences selected for listening to the guests and ask questions invariably became partisan. (This could have been intended, given the dominant point of view in society and the youthâs pride in being seen to be opposing the government.) Where the religious programmes were âmarketingâ faith-healing, the clergy was treated with deference amounting to apotheosis, especially in programmes like Alim on Line and Istakhara .
<b>Extremism of the expatriate Pakistani:</b> Since the major private TV channels were also based abroad they were able to represent and reflect the attitudes of expatriate Pakistanis too. The radicalisation of the expatriate Pakistani Muslim has not been studied properly, except for some partial insights available about the Pakistanis living in the United Kingdom from studies done by some scholars. The TV channels helped to bring this radicalisation closer to the audiences in Pakistan. There was a kind of Islamic bravado in the UK-based Pakistani that was unfamiliar to the domestic audiences, but which emphasised the grief over the âunjustâ order abroad. Because of his âfree-wheelingâ condemnatory style, learned from such aggressive non-Pakistani Arab clerics as Abu Hamza al Masari in the UK, the expatriate Pakistani was able to incline the Pakistani Muslims to an extremism unknown before. One such channel opened âofficiallyâ by the government competed in a negative fashion with the private TV channels and only enlarged the space for extremism among the UK-based Pakistani community and among the audiences back home. The hosts in London studios felt that there was no onus on them to be non-partisan while discussing the plight of the Muslims living in the UK, or discussing such issues as the war in Iraq, or the blaspheming cartoons crisis in Europe. Shown in Pakistan, these discussions tended to discourage any efforts at moderating the religious attitudes in the country.
The channels sought people who could hold discussions on Islam and found that looking for discussants other than the clergy was not easy. The Pakistani intellectual was fast disappearing from the scene in the aftermath of the âcoerciveâ Zia era and the market-driven and in many ways more scary post-9/11 era of General Musharraf. Soon the exaggeration of the extremist point of view became apparent to the networks. Moderate Justice (Retd) Javid Iqbal suffered from many disabilities when confronted by the hardline clergy, including his limited gift of communication. Former PPP law minister and human rights activist Iqbal Haider was effective but always outnumbered by the more extreme discussants. Aga Khan Universityâs Dr Hussain Jaâafri could not be a proper counter-weight because of his Shia background and his inability to match the aggression of the orthodox cleric.
Dr Mubarak Ali was recruited to balance the one-sided discourse but his early brusqueness and rejectionism had the opposite effect. He later learned the ropes and became quite suave. Prof Mehdi Hassan gave battle to the orthodox manfully and continues to do his job. Prof Manzur Ahmad has offered to TV discussions a more rational view of Islam, but unlike his clerical antagonists, lacks the intensity of the extremist. It was in Javed Ahmad Ghamidi that the TV channels finally found the balancing factor. Eclipsed by the earlier militant phase of the 1990s because of his refusal to accept jihad as a non-state function, Ghamidi made good use of the Musharrafâs âpermissiveâ rule to take on the aggressive orthodoxy. He did not suffer from the one disadvantage that all other moderates suffered: the inability to press into service reference to chapter and verse of the Quran to spread the opposite point of view. A growing number of viewers awoke to a possible variant point of view to hardline Islam justifying violence. Ghamidiâs appearance on many channels has been an effort to offset the disadvantage of being a solitary advocate of moderation.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Stoking the fires of terrorism </b>
FTÂ Â
Najam Sethi's E d i t o r i a lÂ
Israel has over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners whose freedom is a key Hizbollah-Hamas goal. In the past, as in 2004, it swapped prisoners: one Israeli for over 400 Palestinians. Why then did Israel now decide not to exchange prisoners but to try and decimate Hizbollah, brutalize Lebanon and kill thousands of civilians in retaliation against the kidnapping of three Israelis soldiers by Hizbollah and Hamas?
Condoleeza Rice has provided an answer. The US prohibited the EU, UN Security Council and G8 from affecting an immediate cease-fire so that its pre-planned mission of âredrawing the map of a new Middle-Eastâ could be accomplished by Israel. The US didnât stop Israel from unleashing death and destruction because it wanted it to hammer a spike in the heart of the Iran-Syria-Hizbollah-Hamas axis. This axis poses the greatest threat to US and Israeli interests because it has successfully cut across sectarian Islam, won the Muslim mosque, galvanized the Arab street and isolated pro-US puppet-dictators in the Muslim world. In the bargain, the Israeli army is also seeking to settle scores with Hizbollah which ended Israelâs 22 year occupation of south Lebanon in 2000 and thereby proved its mettle to Arabs and Palestinians alike. Meanwhile, the neo-con dominated Bush administration is desperate for a âsuccessâ story after debilitating failures in Afghanistan and Iraq and a frustrating stand-off with defiant Iran overthe nuclear issue. Unfortunately, too, the US and Israel were emboldened by the quiescence of Sunni Arab oil producers like Saudi Arabia and the Sheikhdoms of the Gulf who are afraid of rising Shiâism under the umbrella of Iran.
But this US-Israeli strategy is bound to fail in the short term and its long-term blowback could fuel greater violence on the world stage.
The US went into Afghanistan ostensibly to smash the Taliban and build a stable nation-state. Instead, it has reaped a drug-infested anarchy, revived Talibanism and dragged NATO into the quagmire. The US went into Iraq to dethrone Saddam Hussain and build secular democracy. Instead, it has so far lost 2,567 American lives, spent US$300 billion (US$3 trillion) and unleashed a civil war. The beneficiary of both failures is Al Qaeda which is not a terrorist territorial army but a terrorizing global sentiment. Similarly, this new adventure will surely cost America strategically. Pro-American dictators in the Muslim world are quaking in their shoes at the wave of radical Islamic anti-Americanism that is threatening to swamp them. Israel can also forget about better relations with some of them, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to win a degree of diplomatic legitimacy for itself.
More critically, despite the ongoing destruction of Lebanon, Israel will not be able to eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas by force just as it has not been able to uproot Al Qaeda by force. Hamas is a democratically-inspired, popular and hardline successor to the PLO because Israel refused to strike a just peace with the PLO and weakened it in the eyes of the Palestinians. Similarly, Hezbollah has now come to represent the popular aspirations of not just the Shias of Lebanon and Iran but also of non-Shia Lebanese for liberating parts of Lebanon from Israeli occupation and of the Sunni Hamas, other non-Muslim Palestinians and all sects of Islamic opinion in the world. It is not just a military or guerilla organisation that can be defeated by a superior military force. It is a complex phenomenon that has taken root in Lebanonâs security, social services and democratic political system nationally and locally. Thanks to Al Jazeera and Al-Manar, this popular springboard is reinforced every day by graphic images of Palestinian and Muslim martyrdom.
On one front President Bush wants to browbeat Shia Iran with Israeli âshock and aweâ tactics. On the other front, he wants to pressurize Syria (which is the conduit for Iranian weapons to Lebanon and Hezbollah) through the good offices of Washingtonâs core-group allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to help install an international force in south Lebanon that will assist the secular Lebanese army to disarm the Shia Hezbollah after Israel has been forced into a cease-fire. In other words, Dr Riceâs task is to get the unpopular pro-American Sunni Arab dictatorships to become a buffer between Shia Hezbollah and the secular Lebanese government, Israel and the US.
The developing scenario reflects two distinct trends. On the one hand, there is a surge of radical political Islamism which is global and which transcends Shia-Sunni sectarianism in the face of neo-con imperialism. This fits into the clash of civilization thesis. On the other hand, the neo-cons will try to deepen divisions in the Arab and Muslim world by supporting unpopular pro-West dictatorships and nurturing sectarianism, a recipe for clashes within the Islamic civilization. The cynical plan for the division of Iraq and Afghanistan along sectarian or ethnic lines followed by an attempt to redraw a new Middle-East is cast in such a mould. It wonât succeed because injustice cannot endure. But it could stoke the fires of anarchy and terrorism if Israel and the US remain arrogant, unjust and unaccountable.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Lotastaanis on a âThrowing in the Towelâ Spreeâ</b> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sir: I am writing with reference to the editorial âOption of âhot pursuitâ doesnât existâ (Daily Times, July26). Pakistanâs military would be well advised to take a step back and review the actions of Israel in Lebanon and Gaza. We must realise that in modern warfare the âhot-pursuitâ option doesnât have to exist as it can easily be âmanufacturedâ. We must also realise that fundamentalist militant organisations tend to copy military tactics from each other. For example, the sort of suicide bombings that originated in Palestine later became a regular occurrence in Pakistan. Therefore, if a militant organisation is âinspiredâ to conduct the kidnapping of a couple of Indian soldiers, regardless of the source of the inspiration, such an action can have potentially grave and disastrous consequences for the region.
<b>In the post-Mumbai blasts scenario, we should realise that such actions, and any corresponding and disproportionate punitive response from India, are bound to resonate with the western world and may be considered understandable or even acceptable. We can rest assured that it will garner strong unequivocal support from Israel, the US and other Jewish lobbies within the US, thereby delaying and hindering any meaningful response or reaction from either the US or the UN. Pakistan would be well advised never to discount any option when ground realities are as chaotic as they currently are.
THIS is with reference to the news item âDefence being made invincible: Musharrafâ (July 4). I would like to ask some questions.
Will the invincibility of our defence ensure that every citizen is able to get a meal three times a day? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that prices of essential commodities will not increase at regular intervals? Will the invincibility of the defence expedite the judicial process in the country? Will the invincibility of the defence eliminate corruption prevalent in society?
Will the invincibility of the defence ensure the release of thousands of bonded labour all over the country? Will the invincibility of the defence eliminate the jirga system? Will the invincibility of the defence eradicate the evil of honour killing, rape and domestic violence? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that discriminatory laws such as the Hudood Ordinance will be repealed?
Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that there will be no street crimes? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that no patient will die on his way to hospital because of traffic jams caused by VIP movement?
Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that there will be no loadshedding in the country? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that the citizens of Pakistan will get free medical facilities?
Will the invincibility of the defence bring down the value of real estate so that a common can built a house on it? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that people are not tortured in jails? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that there will be no religious intolerance in the country?
Will the invincibility of the defence ensure equal distribution of wealth in the country? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that stock market is not manipulated by a few investors? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that public institutions are not sold in the name of privatization at throwaway prices?
Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that no trees will be cut down in the name of development? Will the invincibility of the defence eliminate illiteracy in the country? Will the invincibility of the defence bring in foreign investment? Will the invincibility of the defence boost industrial and agricultural sectors in the country?
Will the invincibility of the defence remove the discontent amongst the provinces? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure that no military leader will throw out a democratic government and dictate his whims? Will the invincibility of the defence ensure free and fair elections? Will the invincibility of the defence help project the image of this country as a moderate, enlightened and civilised country?
<b>If the answer to the above questions is in the negative, we have no need of such invincibility.
ANIL KHAN LUNI
Lahore</b> <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I want to ensure MUHAMMAD KAMAL, India lost its guts after Oct 31 1984, it regained for some during May 1998,but it lasted for months. But now, not only guts are dead, even spine and brain is in drain.
<b>Pakistani armyman killed during infiltration bid</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Pakistan Army officer was among three persons killed when troops recently foiled an infiltration bid along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, a defence spokesman said on Friday.
<b>Mohammad Hyder Turkey alias Abu Bilal, a serving Major in Nine Baloch Battalion of the Pakistan Army, was killed with two Pakistani terrorists on July 25 in Nanital forest in Gurez sector, Lt Col VK Batra said in Srinagar</b>.
He said Turkey was a resident of Gujranwala in Pakistan and the incident has clearly established the Pakistan Army's involvement in infiltration.
<b>"The killing of the officer in the infiltration bid is clear evidence that the Pakistan Army is actively involved in pushing terrorists into the Kashmir valley from across the Line of Control,"</b> Batra said.
He identified the other <b>two terrorists killed in the operation as Mohammad Qasim Khan alias Abu Usman and Mohammad Ayub Khan alias Islam, both residents of Pakistan's Punjab province</b>.
Three AK assault rifles, 11 hand-grenades, 13 magazines, two under barrel grenade launchers, two wireless sets and three improvised explosive devices were recovered from the site of the gunbattle
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nareshji,
Yeh kya ho raha hai.
Senior officer leaving Pakistan or something else. Rarely, we see Pakistani officer doing real work so-called fighting on border.
Need lot of thinking , what is going on?
Options Against Pakistan
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If our own Prime Minister fights shy of calling a spade a spade, how can we expect the international community to do so?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least one killed during shooting at Seattle Jewish federation
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At least five people were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man a witness said was upset about "what was going on in Israel."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should Israeli politics affect some on in Seattle?
Pakistani major killed, claims India<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Amir Wasim adds from Islamabad: Military spokesman Maj-Gen Shaukat Sultan on Friday brushed aside the Indian claim of killing a serving major of Pakistan Army in held Kashmir and termed it a âfabricated and falseâ story.
âIt is totally fabricated, false, ridiculous and concocted story and there is absolutely no truth in it,â said the director- general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) when contacted to seek his comments.
Mr Sultan said that India kept on giving such stories to provide cover to inhuman practices of killing innocent civilians and gross human rights violations by the Indian Army in Kashmir. âIf this propaganda continues from the Indian side, the peace process would certainly be affected and if it happens, it will be most unfortunate for both the countries,â <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paki wants peace process and they are denying this incidence.
Seems like India really killed Major.
The government claims that the Gwadar project will change the face of the earth and the fate of Balochistan; that it will turn the area into a special economic zone where banks will open their branches, five star hotels will be built, offshore banking will begin, factories, warehouses and storage will be set up, and the tourism industry will be promoted in the area. An export processing zone will be set up making Gwadar a regional hub of trade and investment activities, a very attractive place for direct foreign investment. Most important of all, it is regarded as a panacea for the social, economic and political problems of Balochistan, although the people of the province have realised the fallacious nature of these claims. It is also considered of strategic importance, an alternative to Persian Gulf ports, and a gateway to Central Asia. A new addition to the potentials of the project is that it will be an energy corridor for China.
There are no facts and figures to support these claims or to indicate how the benefits will be realised. The ground realities are different from the official claims. The facts are briefly as follows.
The Gwadar port is already a failed project. A mini-port was built in 1988-92 at a cost of Rs1,623 million including the foreign exchange component of Belgian Franks of 1,427 million, equivalent to Rs749 million, arranged by the contractor. The port facilities included 3 berths of 3.5 meter depth capable of accommodating ships of up to 1000 DWT, one 80 ton crane, two 25 ton cranes each, a dredger and support equipment. No ship worth the name ever called the port. No investigations were carried out to identify the causes of the failure of the port which still hold good.
The viability of a port depends on its hinterland. Gwadar has none. The area behind the coast for a 600 km depth is barren, and comprises a desert and hilly terrain. It does not generate or attract a single ton of sea worthy traffic. Hence all exports or imports will come from and go to other areas of the country.
So far, Gwadar is linked with Karachi only by a 653-km-long coastal highway which takes off from N-25 between Sonmiani and Uthal and goes 80 km west of Gwadar up to the Iran border. The correct distance between Karachi and Gwadar is not known. It varies from source to source. A most favourable figure of 650 km is used for evaluation. Other links are under construction. All traffic to and from Gwadar will have to pass through Karachi and incur an additional cost of carrying goods for another 650 km by road. No sane person will by-pass Karachi just to avail port facilities at Gwadar 650 km away. The other two links, namely, Gwadar-Ratodero motorway and Gwadar-Turbat-Hoshab-Panjgur-Surab road, are under construction and will take years to complete.
Even after completion of under-construction road links and proposed rail links, all areas proposed to be served by Gwadar port will remain closer to Karachi. The nearest point of transit trade of Afghanistan and Central Asian States is Chaman. Its distance from Gwadar by the shortest route (Gwadar-Panjgur-Surab-Quetta-Chaman) will be 1,066 km as compared to 816 km from Karachi to Chaman, 250 km longer than from Karachi. The nearest point where Gwadar is proposed to be linked with the rest of the country is Ratodero on N-55 (Indus Highway). Its distance from Gwadar is 892 km as compared to 494 km from Karachi, a difference of 398 km.
In the case of a rail link, the distance of 515 km between Gwadar and Dalbandin via Panjgur is an underestimation. The direct distance by road from Gwadar to Panjgur is 411 km. From Panjgur to Dalbandin, the air route distance on the map is 212 km. Thus the distance from Gwadar to Dalbandin will be more than 623 km. Quetta is another 343 km from Dalbandin and Chaman is 142 km from Quetta. If the distance between Gwadar and Dalbandin is taken as 515 km, the distance of Chaman from Gwadar by rail will be 1,000 km as compared to 1,003 km from Karachi via Rohri, a difference of only three kilometres which will be more than offset by higher speeds on the main line. If the distance from Gwadar to Dalbandin is taken as 623 km, which is more likely to be the case, the distance to Chaman will be 105 km longer.
It may be noted that Karachi and Chaman are located on the same longitude and Karachi and Gwadar on the same latitude. As such, Karachi Chaman and Karachi Gwadar make two sides of a right angle triangle. Gwadar-Chaman is the hypotenuse of the triangle which will be longer than any of the two sides. This means that the distance between Gwadar and Chaman will remain longer no matter how direct and straight a route is followed.
It may also be noted that three roads linking Gwadar with the road network of the country join N-25 (Karachi-Kalat-Quetta-Chaman) at Uthal, Khuzdar and Surab and km 120, 385 and 477 from Karachi respectively. In comparison to the coastal highway, the 650 km Gwadar Khuzdar road will save the 148 km distance to Quetta whereas the Gwadar-Panjgur-Surab route (727 km) will save only 15 km over the Gwadar Khuzdar road. The relative costs and benefits of competitive road facilities do not seem to have been considered at all.
Besides the increase in the cost of transport because of longer distances, unit rates would also be higher for movements to and from Gwadar as compared to Karachi. The latter is a big industrial and commercial city and generates a large volume of passenger and goods traffic. A large number of goods' vehicles are always available and return loads are often available to and from upcountry. Therefore, charges are competitive and minimal. In the case of Gwadar, imports and exports, if any, would not be so synchronised as to provide return loads to all trucks visiting the town. Transporters would cover round trip costs from one direction. As such, unit rates could be 50 to 100 per cent higher than for Karachi.
<b>Although roads have their own utility and are the sole means of transport for upcountry movements, water transport, is more than 10 times cheaper than road transport. Where both land and water transport are available, water transport would have a far greater cost advantage over land transport. Movement of many bulky commodities which cannot bear the cost of land transport would become feasible by sea. Existing berths in Gwadar can handle ships of 1000 DWT.
Therefore, goods to and from Gwadar can be carried by sea to Karachi and distributed to inland and foreign destinations, <!--emo&tupid--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/pakee.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pakee.gif' /><!--endemo--> at far less cost than the coastal highway.<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>*</span> If one is to indulge in such absurdities as to import goods at Gwadar and carry them to Karachi for onward distribution, it should be done at a lower cost by using coastal shipping rather than road transport.</b>
To be concluded
The writer is a transport economist and served as chief of the National Transport Research Centre in Islamabad. Email: abdul.majeed@dsl.net.pk
1. It is finally proved that Gwadar is a scam for the Generals, Admirals and Air Marshal along with the Feudals as well as the Lotastaani Land Mafia in their get rich âIMMIDIATELYâ Scheme.
2. <b><span style='color:red'>*</span></b> : Only a Lotastaani will initially bring the Goods to Gwadar and then transport it by sea to Karachi thereby entailing triple tranfer time expenses i.e. First Unload the Goods at Gwadar, Store it in Warehouses, then load on Ship and again unload in Karachi i.e. pay for three operations â Two in Gwadar and One in Karachi â rather than pay for one Operation in Karachi.
With the western world embracing anything and everything that has even the slightest hint of Indian-ness to it, deeming it exotic and traditional, it is no wonder that âdesiâ has become the latest buzzword internationally. Ironically, it took the gora fascination with our culture to wake us up to its many wonderful faces and take pride in our ancient roots that carry within them many an antidote to modern dilemmas, be it be of the sartorial, culinary, psychological or
physiological kind.</b>
For a number of years now, the west has been combating the latter two (i.e. physical and mental ailments) by the ancient art of ayurveda, which some define as âthe medical system of the Gods handed down to man in ancient Indiaâ. <b>In our part of the world, a mere mortal by the name of Ayesha Omar has taken it upon herself to popularize this ancient holistic wisdom, so that we too can see what everyone, from Hollywood celebrities to British royalty, is raving about.</b>
Ayeshaâs approach to well-being combines the philosophy of ayurveda with the concept of aromatherapy. According to ayurveda, good health comes from physiological balance. All of us are made up of the same fundamental elements that the universe is made up of â kapha (water), pitta (fire) and vata (air). Each of us is born with a unique composition of vata, pitta and kapha and maintaining that original unique balance is vital for ongoing good health. Aromatherapy (the use of essential oils) aids in maintaining and restoring this balance.
There are those who dismiss alternative medicine as being mumbo-jumbo, but according to Ayesha, that is a result of a lack of knowledge about the science of ayurveda. With two courses in ayurvedic aromatherapy from Thailand under her belt, Ayesha has extensive knowledge not only of plant oils and herbs, but also of anatomy and physiology. Moreover, unlike most allopathic doctors who study a patient and pronounce a diagnosis immediately, Ayesha has prolonged consultations with her clients, some lasting up to three hours, in an effort to dig deep into the system and discover the cause of the ailment. âAllopathic medicine gained popularity only because it became increasingly difficult to get hold of herbs, either because they were extinct or too expensive. Basically, therefore, allopathic medicine is a synthetic substitute for alternative healing,â she explains.
Her initial lot of clients used to come to her mainly for beauty-related problems but as her popularity increased, so did the seriousness of cases she received, so that now she is dealing with many patients with serious physiological ailments. Her products, which include different kinds of oil and lotions, are custom-made to suit the individual needs of each patient and are blended using imported essential oils from Thailand. Ayesha also offers a range of massages such as shirobasti and shirodahra as well as reflexology. A limited range of her products will be coming out in the market soon and will be available at Madeehaâs salon (which is where you can book an appointment with Ayesha). So next time you feel like pampering yourself, you know where to head.
<b>The truth about Gwadar - Abdul Majeed</b> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Part II</b>
The Afghan transit traffic passing through Karachi makes up hardly 5-10 per cent of Pakistanâs exports and imports. No ship would call on Gwadar port for transit cargo and Karachi for Pakistani cargo. If Afghan transit cargo is forced to shift to Gwadar, the advantage of distance which Pakistan has over Iranian ports will be lost and Afghanistan would prefer to use Iranian ports of Bunder Abbas and Chah Bahar where transportation links are far better than Pakistan.
There will be no saving in shipping costs by using Gwadar. Shipping charges are more often than not the same for a region and a group of ports. For a ship coming out of the Suez Canal, there is little difference in distance to the ports at Karachi, Bombay or Madras. For calling at Gwadar port, the ship may have to turn back a little. The time and distance would not be less than Karachi.
The only saving in distance will be to and from the Persian Gulf ports. Since there is no consumption or production in Gwadar, all cargo would have to be carried to Karachi and further inland. In this case, movement by sea will be substituted by road transport which is 10 times more expensive.
The point about the Gwadar port providing an outlet to China is misleading. Karachi ports are nearer and can provide better facilities if there is any traffic to and from China. China is linked with Pakistan by the Karakorum highway, across the Khunjrab pass which is 17,000 feet above sea level and is snow covered most of the year. The border is open for 3-4 months in a year. If China had any need for a port in Pakistan, she could have used the Karachi port. The fact of the matter is that the south-west of China is as barren, sparsely populated, and under-developed as the north-east of Pakistan adjoining China. There is little economic activity for more than 1,000 km on either side of the border. Most of the trade with China takes place by sea. Another port in Pakistan, with a more difficult approach, would be of little help to China.
Handling of transit trade of the Central Asian States is another faux-pas. In the first instance, the Central Asian States are double landlocked. Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan can be approached through China while Tajikistan and Uzbekistan can be approached through Afghanistan. The use of Pakistani ports by these countries would have to make transit arrangements not only with Pakistan but also with China and Afghanistan. Goods through China would have to pass through the Khunjerab pass which is open for three to four months in a year. Trade through Afghanistan will pass through Quetta and Peshawar which are already connected with Karachi which is closer than Gwadar, with well established means of transport and communications. Had there been any potential of transit trade by these countries, they would have used Karachi port.
The economies of the Central Asian States are quite small. Their population is nearly half the size of Pakistan and the GDP is about 60 per cent of Pakistan. However, their exports and imports are of the same size as of Pakistan, but most of their foreign trade is among CIS states. They are also linked by rail with Moscow, and East and West Europe. There is thus little potential of transit trade through Pakistan.
The wish list of the authorities includes shipping related industries, oil storage, refinery and petrochemicals, export processing and industrial zones. Since there is no local market, anything produced here would require additional transhipment costs for movement to other places. Not worthwhile.
For location of industry, one or more factors of production should be available at a cost lower than at other places or there should be savings in distribution costs by way of proximity to the market. Gwadar does not have any factor of production, nor is there any market. Even basic necessities of life like water, power, and communication facilities are not available. There is no raw material of any kind, no skilled or unskilled labour, not even population. Existence of barren land and harsh climate are not sufficient to attract any kind of industry to such a location. It is not possible to import everything from outside and export products. No industrialist is going to risk his capital at such a barren place. If any industry is established with government incentives, it would be uncompetitive and suffer losses.
<b>(i)</b> On the basis of economic and operational considerations, the Gwadar port project is a non-starter. No commercial ship is ever likely to call the port, no matter what level of facilities are provided. Handling of transit trade of Afghanistan, the Central Asian States and China is out of the question. The location of industry is a pipedream.
<b>(ii)</b> When the port is not operational, all other projects, plans and programmes, based on busy port activity, will fall to the ground like a house of cards. Money being spent haphazardly on public sponsored projects is going to be wasted. At the end of the day, there will be nothing but disappointment.
<b>(iii)</b> If, to justify the actions of the authorities, operation of the port is forced artificially by tax exemptions, duty rebates or requiring government controlled imports and exports to be made through Gwadar, the port can become a dumping ground of foreign goods and a smugglers den. There will be loss of revenue to the government and damage to the local industry and the economy as a whole. If this is the objective, it can be achieved at any nearby place without any investment.
<b>(iv)</b> The reason why poor countries are not developing in spite of huge grants and loans from international institutions and developed countries is because it is a waste of money on useless projects. Investment is made to generate income and create employment. If we invest Rs100 and earn Rs110, it is development. If we earn Rs90 only, we are getting poorer. This is the case with most of the public sector projects and Gwadar port is no exception.
<b>(v)</b> Development of a place or an area is not an objective in itself. It is improvement of the lives of the people that matters. Therefore, the best course would be to improve the capabilities of the people of Gwadar. Their supplies and products can be carried to and from Karachi in small ships, with no extra capital cost and very low operating costs.
<b>(vi)</b> Transport is not a thing of personal use like a palatial house or a fancy dress of which one can feel proud. It is an intermediate good, a cost item in the process of production, which should be minimised. There is no use in investing money to do something which can be done at nominal cost without any investment. This is not development.
<b>(vii)</b> The investment on port and related projects is exceeding Rs100 billion. Its interest cost at 10 per cent will be Rs10 billion per year at least. To earn Rs10 billion, there will have to be a turnover of Rs100 billion or more. Would facilities at Gwadar create that much activity? Not possible by any means. The chances are that after investing Rs100 billion, the government will have to spend Rs10 billion per year on the maintenance of those facilities. Today the biggest drain on national resources are so-called development projects like Gwadar port.
<b>(viii) Then why there is so much enthusiasm? Fools rush where angels dare not tread. There are vested interests, consultants and contractors. There is money for everyone in the implementation of projects. It is none of their concern if such projects are viable or not. The authorities, who are presenting the project at international forums and to rulers of Middle East countries, must have something at stake.</b>
Concluded
The writer is a transport economist and served as chief of the National Transport Research Centre in Islamabad. Email: abdul.majeed@dsl.net.pk
Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpai is in Pakistan these days to attend SAARC meeting. Guesses are being hazarded about the improvement of relation between both countries. The attention of the entire world is focussed on India and Pakistan.
Attempts to promote peace between India and Pakistan is like a dream at the moment.Talks between both countries are not likely to become the foundation for peace . There cannot be any understanding between both countries on Kashmir issue and there will also be international interference. USA can conspire with Pakistan and the disruptionists forces can break Pakistan as happened in 1971.
Can India and Pakistan can walk on the path of peace? Attention of top leadership of both countries is riveted on this issue but even laymen have their own guesses. however tolerant India may be Pakistan can never forsake the path of religious fundamentalism.
Rao says that India got her freedom on the midnight of 14/15 August midnight. Pakistan has split up once when Bangladesh was formed. And in future too, those forces of disruption will fragment the country again. Religious fundamentalists of Pakistan are angry with Musharraf. <span style='color:red'>Therefore from now to 2007 the fear of fragmentation is lurking. It is during such a period that the fundamentalists will be active there and Pakistan will fall prey to its evil designs as a result of which Pakistan will conspire. </span>Attempts to promote peace between India and Pakistan will fail. Pakistan can never give up fundamentalism and become a tolerant country. The Indian will have constant problems with neighbouring countries be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or China.
As to Kashmir, the problem will remain unsolved. It must be remembered since the time of the merger of Kashmir on 26 October 1947 with India, Kashmir has been cause of dispute and wars between India and Pakistan.From there is no chance of this being solved for many years still. There will always been internationalization of the Kashmir problem. The conclusion flowing from it is that India and Pakistan may not go to a war over this issue but this issue will always be a heated one.
These can create only obstacles. Therefore, the bus service started between India and Pakistan or any other measure to establish peace will be an unsuccessful attempt only.<span style='color:red'>
To what extent will USA influence the Indo Pak peace efforts ? In the relation between Indian and USA it shows hostility. On the other hand between Pakistan and USA it is the sign of friends.</span>
USA will be involved in conspiracies and wars on foreign lands.
India should be careful in its friendliness with USA.
2006
Till 2009 It is a very disturbing period of international relations for India
It will be seen that India is again hovering on a war like situation and border clashes many times during this period.
PAKISTAN
Between 2000 and from 2007, Pakistan will have entered phase of war. Musharraf has to fight elections in 2007 and he cannot win without the help of fundamentalist forces who will prevent the rise or re-rise of Nawab Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Therefore, Musharraf must allow the jehadists to indulge in whatever terrorist activities they want to carry on in India outside Jammu and Kashmir also. Musharraf has no choice.
The Congress party and the partiies of two Yadavs , Mulayam in UP and Lalu in Bihar have to win over Indian Muslims, particularly SIMI the Muslim organization whose involvement in terrorist activities in India is now accepted as a matter of fact needing no more proof and investigation. Both Indian politicians and Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf need jehadists to win their elections.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>
USA
In the aggressive pursuit of its national interests, USA can make unscrupulous use of any nation and dump it anytime when the need is over. It has done it so many times already in the last six years.
Osama bin Laden has already declared after the visit of Bush to India, to quote B.
Raman
"Since the visit, Al Qaeda has been talking of a Crusader-Jewish- Hindu conspiracy against Islam. Osama bin Laden has focussed on this theme in his message of April 23, 2006.
INDIA SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR WORSE SITUATION AND COMMUNAL TENSION.</span>
Assessment is overall to the point. Pakistan as some say is 52nd state of US. And US policy is still very much continuation of cold-war. It is not clear whether US policy now with Pakistan is a compulsion or continuation of cold war.
As some say, US support of Israel in Middle East is to keep check on Arab. They support Pakis to keep Indians in check.
Current Iran's covert support to Balouch freedom struggle and now world Commies are openly supporting Balouch struggle, definitely reminds 1972. It seems like repetition of those old good days. But which part of Pakistan will separate this time. I think NWFP or Gilgit.
Jihadi support for survival for Mushy is dangerous bet. As it will make rest of world insecure and especially India will go into deep crisis.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Blast in POF: No major harm done
ISLAMABAD: An explosion in Pakistanâs major arms manufacturing factory has caused partial damage to some buildings, but no one was hurt, a spokesman for the factory said Monday.
Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF), located at the town of Wah, some 25 km northwest of Islamabad, are the premier defense industries in the country, producing a wide range of conventional defensive munitions to international standards.
"An explosion occurred in one of the explosive magazine of filling section of Pakistan Ordnance Factories at about 1:30 am on Monday. By the grace of Almighty Allah, there was not human loss or damage to plant and machinery, only some buildings have been partially damaged," the factory spokesman said in a statement.
Chairman of POF Board has constituted a high-level committee to ascertain the reasons of the explosion, the statement said.
Meanwhile, ISPR Director General Major General Shaukat Sultan told a private TV channel that the explosion seems to be an accident and investigation has been ordered.
According to the POF website, the factory is producing a wide range of munitions systems for ground, air and naval forces. In addition to meeting the domestic demand of the defense forces, POF products are in service with over 30 countries. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--><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--> at far less cost than the coastal highway.<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>*</span> If one is to indulge in such absurdities as to import goods at Gwadar and carry them to Karachi for onward distribution, it should be done at a lower cost by using coastal shipping rather than road transport.</b>