Islamic Extremism in India - Rise of home-grown terrorism

Islamic activists demonstrate in Hyderabad, calling for the reconstruction of the Babri mosque, whose destruction by Hindu mobs in 1992 helped to radicalise Indian Muslims

In March, India announced that its prestigious cricket tournament, the Indian Premier League (IPL), would move to South Africa, citing security fears during the country's elections, which also take place in the April - May. Organisers were most concerned about a 'spectacular' like that in Mumbai in 2008, or an attack similar to that on the Sri Lankan cricket team recently in Pakistan. But the move also focused attention on the rise in home-grown Indian jihadi terrorism. Although it long insisted that Islamic extremism had not developed among its Muslim communities, India iss now having to accept that a small section of its 160-million-strong Muslim community - the second largest after Indonesia's and accounting for 14% of the largely Hindu population - has become radicalised. The next government will need to take formal cognisance of this development and embark on reducing the threat.

Author: IISS Startegic Comments

Download Link: Islamic Extremism in India - Rise of home-grown terrorism

Afghanistan - Putting A New Coat on a Failed Strategy

by Ron Jacobs

I turned on the television Friday, March 27, 2009. It was tuned to C-SPAN. Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan was being televised. Listening only to the words of his introductory comments and ignoring the person who was speaking them, I could have been listening to George Bush. The same old catchphrases appeared: 9-11, terrorism, Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, terrorism, 9-11. A few new words were added. Pakistan and diplomacy were two of them. Yet, the idea behind the supposedly new Obama plan was the same. Washington and its NATO cohorts will stay in Afghanistan until the world is safe from Al-Qaeda. Left unsaid by Obama, just like it was unsaid by George Bush, is the reality that foreign troops killing Afghans and Pakistanis has done very little to end the supposed threat from Al-Qaeda. The proof lies in the fact that foreign troops are still in Afghanistan under the impression that destroying Al-Qaeda is why they are there.

The idea that a stateless organization such as Al-Qaeda can be defeated by occupying those regions of the world where it is supposedly headquartered seems foolish. The idea that killing people who live in those regions will further the first idea is equally foolish, of questionable strategic sense, and morally wrong. The predominant argument given by George Bush when US forces attacked Afghanistan in 2001 was that the Taliban government provided a haven to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the entire nation of Afghanistan and its people deserved whatever death Washington rained down on them. This simplistic logic never allowed for the fact that it was quite likely that many Afghans did not support the Taliban. Nor did it acknowledge the obvious question of how bombing villages and cities would cause the capture of the Al-Qaeda leadership. Furthermore, the plan to launch an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by belligerent foreign forces ignored the resentment such an action would bring.

Now, seven and a half years later, the occupying troops and Afghan people live with the results of Washington's response. Occupying troops get killed regularly by villagers, Afghan policemen, Taliban forces, and Afghans aligned with other militias. Afghans face a daily struggle negotiating the ins and outs of life in an occupied country where any element of the armed forces around them-occupying troops, mercenaries, Taliban, members of the US-installed Afghan security forces, or criminals-can make their lives even more miserable. On top of this, the majority of Afghans live in impoverished conditions made worse by years of war. Given these conditions, it is no surprise that Afghan militias opposed to the occupiers are gaining ground. They provide security to ordinary Afghans while appealing to their desire to see the occupying troops leave. It's not that Afghans necessarily accept the fundamentalist doctrines of these militias (Taliban and others) as much as it is that they share a common understanding as Afghans. A somewhat appropriate metaphor regarding Afghans' support of these militias might be found in the situation vis-a-vis Hamas in Gaza. Many Palestinians do not support Hamas' religious agenda, but see them as the only political organization that shares their desire to end the Israeli domination of Palestine and is willing to fight for that end. Obviously, there are great differences between the two sets of circumstances, but I believe the analogy holds up in a very basic way.

Likewise, the people in the so-called tribal regions of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) resent the presence of foreign troops and unmanned rockets in their neighborhood. Consequently, they have opposed their presence, often with armed force. In addition, they have decided to align themselves with the Taliban and others in the region that oppose the foreign presence as well. Unlike Afghanistan, where the Karzai government in Kabul serves at the pleasure of Washington, the government in Islamabad has occasionally been more vocal than Mr. Karzai (who has expressed his own displeasure on occasion) in its opposition to the US forays across its border into the NWFP. This has not prevented Washington from launching its unmanned rockets into the region, but it may have prevented more helicopter and ground forays like the one in fall 2008. It remains safe to assume, however, that the Pakistani government will accede to Obama's plans for the region and allow US forces to operate when and where they want to.

According to Obama, "Washington has a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." Now, Al-Qaeda may or may not be planning to attack targets in the United States, like Mr. Obama claimed in his speech. The fact that this possibility continues to be used as justification for not only occupying Afghanistan, but for escalating the military operation there (and expanding it deeper into Pakistan), proves the fallacy of this strategy, if the true intent is what Obama says it is. No matter how much Mr. Obama and his advisors wish it to be otherwise, continuing the current strategy of occupation and escalation will not cause those Afghans opposed to the presence of US troops to end their opposition. Therefore, it is unlikely to cause the end of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, no matter how badly many of us wish that it would. The likelihood that Washington's strategy will not accomplish the goals elucidated by Mr. Obama (and by George Bush in 2001) points to the possibility that those goals are not the true intention of Washington in the region. Could it be that the goals Mr. Obama explicitly denied (and I quote) - "We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future" - are the true ones? Only then does his escalation of the battle there begin to make sense.

Hindutva And The Upcoming Indian Elections

By Bhupinder

Twenty five years ago, for the first time since Indian independence, a political party came to power at the center by whipping up a mass communal hysteria. That party was the Congress and its leader was Rajiv Gandhi, who commented that the "earth shakes when a big tree falls", as if the anti- Sikh pogrom was the most natural phenomenon. He was soon to backtrack from such a frontal communal posture towards balanced communalism. He let open the locks of the Babri Masjid and simultaneously supported the Muslim Law Bill. In both cases, he provided a shot in the arm to the regressive sections among the Hindus and the Muslims.

The BJP- a relatively minor political entity in the 1984 elections, had been long gestating in various garbs for over six decades. It was quick to learn the technique from the Congress's 1984 performance and catapulted itself to seize power at the center by whipping up a frenzy of mass hysteria leading to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992. Rajiv Gandhi was no longer on the scene by then, and it was left to PV Narasimha Rao to be remembered for the infamy of 6th December 1992. Nowadays, it is also often overlooked that the destruction of the Babri Masjid provided a larger fillip to Muslim fundamentalism in South Asia- in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The 1984 anti- Sikh pogrom was also the last time that the Congress party was able to use its total monopoly of the mass media. From the days of Sanjay Gandhi when he used the Doordarshan to show the popular flick 'Bobby' on the same day as JP was to address a meeting at the Ram Lila grounds in Delhi, the new Congress under Rajiv switched to showing Ramayana and Mahabharta during prime time television. The Congress's flirtation with the age of the color TV was to take a beating with the emergence of the audio and video cassettes that the Hindutva movement initiated and en- cashed.

Fascist movements in Germany and Italy too had proved themselves to be very effective and early adapters of the then modern means of mass communication- the loudspeaker and the radio. Recent advances in technology have made it possible, however, to take on and dent- to whatever limited extent- the monopoly of the few on media. This is borne out in the case of Varun Gandhi's recent speeches that have put him in the dock now.

The contrast between 2004 and 2009 is exacerbated by the accidental infamy that Varun Gandhi has gained in the last few days. It points to the fact that it has been left to a hitherto a very minor leader of the party to articulate what the Sadhvi Ritambaras during 1989- 1992 and then Narendra Modi and the late Pramod Mahajan took up later. The central BJP leadership is no longer using the appeal of hard Hindutva during the national elections.

New media- including the emergence of a new generation of journalists- and the sheer proliferation of new technologies including easy access to video filming (as in case of Varun Gandhi's speeches) and the competition among the television channels makes it more difficult for anyone party or agenda to monopolize. Of course, it was just five years ago that the same media shrilly cried that India was shining. How the media operates and how technology can be harnessed and used as a democratic tool has a reciprocal relation to the kind of government that is in power. A by and large secular government at the center in the last five years is in sharp contrast to the previous six long years of Hindutva.

The credit for this sharp contrast between the run up to the 2004 and 2009 elections goes by and large to the political acumen of Mrs Sonia Gandhi. It needs to be remembered that she took up the reins of the Congress in 1998 when BJP sought to form the government at the center in a 13 party coalition. She was then able to stem the large scale desertion by rank and file from the Congress to the BJP. In 2004, she led the Congress from the front taking up the Hindutva bandwagon almost single handed-ly so much so that in Gujarat it was seen as a contest between Narendra Modi and Mrs Gandhi. In Gujarat, as in much of India, there is little to distinguish between state level leaders of the two parties. A former RSS pracharak Shankarsinh Vaghela could hardly be an ideological antidote to Narendra Modi.

What the UPA has done in the last five years on the question of communalism is not so much to take on Hindutva head on, as to deflect it from the center of political discourse. The end result is very evident- in the absence of communalism- and in some cases like in Karnataka, boomeraging with many of its support base especially among the urban middle classes- it has been practically left without a Unique Selling Proposition. The economic agenda is practically common between the Congress and the BJP (and even the CPM practically endorses it in West Bengal).

Gone are the days when the BJP leaders masqueraded as gods and when Vajpayee anointed Advani as Ram and the late Pramod Mahajan as Lakshman, Advani likened himself to Arjuna and the increasingly sidelined Uma Bharti compared herself to Eklavya !

The other achievement that Mrs Gandhi needs to be credited is that for the first time in the history of independent India, a non- Brahmin prime minister has completed a full term of five years.

Again, it was Narasimha Rao who re- established the dominance of Brahmins in an increasingly Mandalized polity.

Writing in 2003, veteran journalist Saeed Naqvi asserted :

When Rajiv Gandhi came to power in 1984, in a House of 544 there were 198 upper caste members of Lok Sabha. Of these, 79 were Brahmins. By 1990, mandalisation had so stirred up society that in the 1991 elections,upper castes, particularly Brahmins, fell like nine pins.

P.V.Narasimha Rao took swift rearguard action to keep the Brahmin from political oblivion.

Rao played no mean role in virtually handing the baton to Atal Bihari Vajpayee. And when Vajpayee completes his five year term, he will have sustained a tradition set by Nehru. Every Brahmin prime minister has either completed his full term or exceeded it. Of the 56 years since Independence, the Brahmin has been at the helm in New Delhi for over 50 years.

As a corollory to what Naqvi states above, one needs to point out that in the past, prime ministers who have lasted the full term have only been Brahmins. The Congress itself has given the country a sequence of Brahmin prime minsters- Jawaharlal Nehru, Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and PV Narasimha Rao. The BJP gave the country another Brahmin prime minister- Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The non- Brahmin prime ministers- Charan Singh, VP Singh, Chandrasekar, IK Gujral and Deve Gowda have come from the non- Congress and non- BJP outfits. None of them managed to complete their term. Incidentally, between 1984 and 2004, the number of Brahmins in the Lok sabha has declined from 20% to 9%.

Dr Manmohan Singh is the first non- Brahmin prime minister to complete a full five year term. That he should come from the Congress party is another unique aspect. Ashish Nandy has pointed out somewhere that for the non- Brahmin Mohandas Gandhi, a bania by caste, he needed to take a larger than life persona- that of a Mahatma- to emerge as the leader of the freedom movement. This underscores how difficult and crucial it is to overcome one of the strongest structural fault- lines of Indian society- that of caste. By insisting on Dr Singh's candidature and providing full support to him in the last five years, Mrs Gandhi has also succeeded in winning back the confidence of the Sikhs and other minorities.

By scoring this double whammy, Mrs Gandhi has proved her early detractors wrong and skeptics like Uma Bharati correct. Two years ago, Ms Bharati had warned the BJP that it will be swamped by Mrs Gandhi. Her leading role is also announced in the Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh's candid admission that no secular government is possible at the center without Mrs Sonia Gandhi. What a far cry from the days when she was seen as another 'gungi gudiya' and much worse! That kind of language and personal attacks on Mrs Gandhi are now conspicuously and thankfully absent.

In this process, Mrs Gandhi carried forward not so much the legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru as that of Mahatma Gandhi. This started with her decision not to accept the prime ministership that she so richly deserved as the leader of the leading party.

In a speech two years ago, Mrs Gandhi remarked on a seminar on "Peace, Non-violence and Empowerment, Gandhian Philosophy in the 21st Century":

Ms. Gandhi said the real issue was not the relevance of Mahatma Gandhi but "our preparedness for him and whether we are ready to embrace him once again. It is not a question of going back to Mahatma Gandhi as much as it is of going forward with him. This is not as simple as it sounds. While he fascinates and enchants, we have to admit that it is difficult to emulate him. It is easy to make him an icon. But infinitely more exacting to make him our beacon. He did not provide us with final answers, he wanted us to find our own and make our own experiments with truth," she said.

Historically, among the educated Indian elite, the dislike towards Gandhi is not new. From Sripad Dange's denouement in his defence speech in 1920 later published as Lenin vs. Gandhi (in which Lenin emerged victorious, in case you were wondering), to Golwalkar's A Bunch of Thoughts, Gandhi was not the image in whom some among the Indian upper and middle classes saw themselves. The loin cloth was not exactly their idea of making a fashion statement, whatever those peasants might have thought.

The Hindutva's dislike for Gandhi had bordered on fanaticism, no surprise, therefore, that he was assassinated by a former Hindu Mahasabha member. Later, in an irony of sorts, the political inheritor of Hindutva, the BJP, flirted with Gandhian Socialism when both Gandhi and Socialism were still in vogue in the late seventies. However, it was the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci who best interpreted the political genius of Gandhi's un- theorized strategy. The Hindutva movement has effectively used the same tactics- that Gramsci called 'war of position' and the 'war of movement' to advance its political agenda. Mrs Gandhi, in her own manner, has returned to that strategy. She has extended the possibilties of Gandhism today in context of rabid communal discourse of the sangh parivar.

Given her achievements in the past five years in turning the tide as far as Hindutva as an election platform is concerened, her words need to be taken seriously, and with the respect that she, and her achievements in countering Hindutva, richly deserve.

Tibet in India's Web

By Prem Raj

INTRODUCTION:India portraying itself a secular and peace loving country to the world is a mocking style and a mask drawn to shield her monstrous activities architected by the RAW. Though the foreign companies are pushing the economy of India to bring her in league with the superpowers but its hegemonic nature and imperialistic attitude having disparaging niche towards the South Asia and other neighbouring countries in the surroundings has always become victim to the tautness atmosphere created by her.




India is following the footprints of Israel having militarized adventurism in West Asia, is in consonance with the historic juxtaposition of one and the other to incline towards the U.S. to implement its hegemonic will in South Asia. Bangladesh and Pakistan are mostly at receiving end of India's launching of multi projects on the rivers which flow through her to turn their land in to desert apart from erection of the fences on border of both the countries. Sri Lankan and Tamils both have suffered at the hands of India, experiencing its intriguing imperialism, as when Tamil Tigers were being trained & equipped by RAW, simultaneously the government of India was showing her muscles to Sri Lanka to purchase weapons from not other than India and also while leaving the choice of armament to her. In 1980s dispatch of Indian Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka was a brutal act parallel to the sovereignty and integrity of an independent state.




The small nations like Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan are forced to act in a manner like a servant to the master who is totally disregardful to the rights of people. Indian military presence and ensuing human rights abuses in Kashmir is well known to the world where she is bent upon turning the heaven of Kashmir in to cemetery. Where India's regional hegemony is dressed in conspiring knavery and dual diplomacy, Tibet remains sandwiched in the hypocritical fashion designed by the same. India came off badly when in 1962 picked up a fight and was bitten severely by the Dragon thus accepting the claim of China over Tibet.




KANGAROOING DALAI LAMA




India after having been defeated morally, materially and psychologically by China in 1962 has extended open arms for America to face the dilemma of Tibet to prick the dragon and within her own ability kangarooed Dalai Lama to house in Dharamsala since 1959. The Dalai Lama's flee to India and formulation of "Government-In-Exile" has brought India in the forefront to face the noose of China. India now is home to approximately 120,000 Tibetans, the world's largest community outside of Tibet.




The RAW has since long been trying to crown Dalai Lama as the head of state instead of simply a spiritual leader who remains contended with his sayings. That is very important for China to hold Tibet as its part, if lost then will break the fabrics of nationhood. There is a fear that if Tibet gets independence then Uighurs and Taiwan will want independence, as says the expert on China's affairs, Adam Segal. RAW is exerting its all out efforts to train the rebellion groups of Tibetan refugees to use them against China to heal its wounds of lost war. The training pertains to the small arms fire, physical fitness and the guerilla operations.




The men are given money as an incentive to join the force to prepare them for the future operations to be launched in Tibet, exactly on the lines of Mukti Bahnis used in East Pakistan. The most favourable side is that Tibetan refugees are being motivated & brain washed by the RAW to carry the wrath and venom against China who booted them out of their homeland. Moreover being son of the soil the force of Tibetan refugees can sustain the rigours of worst weather conditions and hostile terrain unlike India which withered away due to the extreme weather conditions and the unfriendly mountains when conducted operations against China in 1962. Kangarooing old Dalai Lama of 75 years age for so many years is a burden being felt by India and now seriously looking forward for his death and searching for the successor who takes the interests of India as supreme.




INDIAN XENOPHOBIA




Since its birth Indian xenophobia within and without its territories is an aiguilles. India has succeeded in attracting the United States and the West to exert pressure on China while keeping Tibetans in exile in front to foment its dual policy. During the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency covertly had funded and armed Tibetan guerilla forces to fight against communist China. But even during this period also Washington never supported Tibet openly thus moving cautiously to avoid jumping in to the ambers ignited by India. In 1971, CIA stopped funding the guerilla forces as the aid was being provided through India which complicated the policy environment.




After seeing the whole affair a flop and the deprivation of monetary benefits from the U.S., India launched a new strategy of pushing the old hag like Dalai Lama to visit and make speeches in the West to fetch some fortune. This strategic initiative went successful due to the addresses made by Dalai Lama before the Human Rights Forums in Washington as well as in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. But India got annoyed when publicly Dalai Lama accepted something less than independence for Tibet. Calling for genuine autonomy for Tibet to rest within the framework of China having the domain of Foreign Affairs and the Defense but the domestic affairs should be dealt by the same old ladder of Dalai Lamas which was called the Middle Way Approach.




Though the middle way approach was applauded by all the spheres even by Hollywood actors like Richard Gere but India could not tolerate this issue be ever resolved that too, for carrying the baby kangaroo of Tibet in its sack for so many years without injuring the Dragon. May it be South Asia, Northeast Asia or even Tibet, Indian xenophobia is a serpent always ready to gobble the peace.




FRACAS WITH CHINA




The first Tibetan uprising of 1959 resulted in the flight of the Dalai Lama and about 80,000 Tibetans. In 1978, when Deng Xioping came in to power in China, he came up with a new idea of resolving the issue of Tibet. Besides reaching out to Dalai Lama in exile in India, the Chinese authorities also initiated a more conciliatory ethnic and economic development policy. Tibetans were encouraged to revitalize their culture and religion. Infrastructure was developed to help Tibet grow. But India always stood against all these measures whenever these were put to practice by the Chinese authorities while playing the card of Tibetan refugees.




To beat back the Indian propaganda and Tibetan shield, a programme of rapid economic development was adopted which included induction of non-Tibetans, mostly Han Chinese, in to Tibet. This Beijing hopes, will form a new generation which will be sound enough to face the religious and ethnic exploitation spread by India generally painting a ghostly picture of Tibet to the world. Tibetan refugees, mostly the youth are indulging in the business of narcotics, drug trafficking and arms selling. They were purposely kept illiterate, so to write on the clean slate of their mental canvass as wished by the RAW to make them robots to take the revenge of Indian defeat. But this fracas with China has now brought India on the brim of a ditch and ready to make her fall in to it when Tibetan refugees force will turn the direction of their guns provided by the RAW.




POLITICAL CATHARSIS




The political catharsis prevails in Tibet. The question of political status is imbedded in an atmosphere of uncertainty. The name Tibet is acceptable to China only to satisfy the Western block and Central areas, the area which now is called Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). This area was directly ruled by the Lhasa government when China occupied in 1950. But Tibetan exiles on behest of India are demanding a Greater Tibet which includes political Tibet in modern era and also an ethnic Tibetan areas east of TAR, most of which Tibet had lost in the eighteenth century. These areas, earlier known as Amdo and Kham, are now spread among parts of Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan and Gansu. In March 2008, anti-government protests which had started in Lhasa soon spread among the ethnic Tibetan provinces. The Chinese are fully aware that Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China occupied Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They claim the latest unrest in Tibet was on the instigation of RAW fully supported and funded by the government of India.




CONCLUSION




India is in the process of performing ablution with the blood of Tibetan refugees which are being trained by the RAW to move them in to the altar. But who knows the flames of hate go in which direction! The region counts on 30 major insurgent outfits coupled with the numerous smaller ones. This has resulted in the longstanding, massive and extremely oppressive presence of the Indian military indulging in the large scale human rights abuses. The history of India is replete with the atrocities and brutal activities which has always created turbulence in the aura of peace. China is going to hold Tibet at any cost and the card of Tibetan refugees to be used by India will remain stuck in the fingers of RAW as in the index of its monogram.

Planning for Failure in Afghanistan

Col. Sam Gardiner, USAF (ret.) and Erik Leaver

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

It's official. President Barack Obama now fully owns the war in Afghanistan. Standing alongside his military advisors and in front of the Washington press corps, he outlined a plan with "a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." While the goal and the five objectives to meet this goal are clear, they're also unattainable and will likely result in the U.S. (and NATO) being trapped in the region for decades to come.

Searching for a solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in 2007, the National Security Council Principals Committee reexamined and reset U.S. objectives for Afghanistan. These essentially boiled down to establishing a democracy and a working capitalist state in which women were well-treated. With the military set to take the lead or a main support role to achieve these objectives, there was no way they could be achieved and, more importantly, there was no indication of when such a mission would be finished.

No less than eight strategy reviews have been conducted in the last several months. They've all concluded that the primary objective should be more limited, essentially calling for action to stop Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. The problem with even this more limited objective is that there is no way in which the United States or NATO could achieve it without staying forever. As long as the United States and NATO forces are there in great numbers, it won't be a safe haven. But when forces leave, the opportunity would exist for it to roll back.

Obama's plan, along with all eight strategy reviews, have missed the seven-plus years of our experience there. Red flags should have been raised as Obama outlined his five core objectives:

Security

Since the invasion began the Afghans haven't shown any propensity to take care of their own security. Even those military forces who have been trained by the United States and NATO freely allow Taliban to pass through their territory if they pay. The Afghan tradition of corruption is overwhelming. With the drug trade flourishing, there is little hope that these military forces could ever be paid enough to bring a stop to the temptations of corruption.

In a late March BBC interview, Afghan finance minister (and presidential candidate) Anwarulhaq Ahadisaid said the United States allowed corruption to come into the Afghanistan government. As with President Hamid Karzai, we see the pattern of denying any responsibility for corruption.

As Obama noted, 2008 was the deadliest for U.S. soldiers on the ground. It was also the deadliest for Afghans. In 2008, civilian casualties climbed 40%, topping 2,100. Public awareness of those casualties brought heightened anger at and opposition to the U.S. military presence, even beyond opposition to the specific attacks. Challenges grew around U.S. supply lines, and war objectives were increasingly recognized as unclear. As in Iraq, the use of roadside bombs and suicide bombers significantly increased. The increase in casualties corresponds directly with the increase in U.S. and NATO troop strength. More importantly, the "surge" of 17,000 troops further undermines the democratic principles needed for Afghanistan to stand up over time.

Rule of Law

The United States is responsible for a good portion of the lack of legitimacy for the Afghan government. The U.S.-managed presidential elections in 2004 were organized without meaningful input from the Afghan people. U.S. officials actively pressured a number of prominent candidates to drop out of the race to help ensure Karzai's election. And while often unspoken, the occupation itself is the largest contributor to undermining the legitimacy of the Afghan government. It certainly didn't help that once in power, Karzai gave senior police posts to former warlords and human rights abusers. Without a legitimate government, there is little hope for the rule of law to take effect.

Drug Trade

Clearly, the drug trade is harmful for Afghanistan. It fuels corruption in the Afghan government, contributes to the violence in the country, and presents a global health crisis. Yet Afghanistan is overwhelmingly dependent on the drug trade for its economy. The dependency on military solutions from the United States, NATO, and the UN fails to offer a credible alternative to the drug economy. Moreover, the militarization of drug control has failed to win "hearts and minds," driving poor peasant farmers into the hands of the Taliban and the insurgency. Shifting away from dependency on the drug trade requires not only an economic transition plan for farmers but also a political plan for the elites who have gained power through the profitable trade. Obama's plan fails to deal directly with these central challenges.

Development

Heading into battle, the Bush administration promised to rebuild Afghanistan, transform its economy, and liberate its women from the oppression of the Taliban. These promises turned out to be hollow. In a country of 32 million, Afghanistan's social indices rank it 174th out of 178 nations in the UNDP Human Development Index. Infant mortality rate is one of the highest in the world - one child out of every four does not survive his or her fifth birthday. Two million primary school-aged children (60%) are out of school, an estimated 1.3 million of whom are girls. Only 23% of the entire population has access to safe drinking water and a mere 12% have access to sanitation facilities.

As in Iraq, reconstruction efforts have largely been U.S.-led and have been very unsuccessful. If we build something, the Afghans don't have the skill to maintain it, and there are only two Afghan construction firms (the owners of which live in Dubai) capable of large-scale projects. Smaller scale projects have seen far greater success, in part because of their lack of association with the occupation. Furthermore, the scale of funding proposed by Obama is so small it's unlikely to have the impact needed. He proposed only $5 billion over five years, hardly enough to build a nation and a functioning economy.

We often hear the argument that a nation can't have development without security. There's a profound connection that goes the other direction. It's hard to imagine the United States being able to create an Afghan economy that will support a security force of over 200,000 (Obama's objective). That means the security forces only exist as long as we pay, and the only way the Afghan government could continue to exist would be on our dollar.

Defeat al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dangerous actors, must be recognized for what they really are: a band of 2,000-3,000 fighters and the remnants of a failed government that wasn't very popular until it claimed the mantle of opposing occupation.

A Better Way Forward

An alternative, and much more achievable objective than those outlined in Obama's plan would be to give the Afghans one more chance to take control of the situation and turn things around.

As the U.S. has done in Iraq, we should set a timetable for withdrawal. At the end of 12-18 months, the U.S. and NATO should withdraw. This should be conditioned, however. If Afghanistan were to become a safe haven once again for terrorist networks, the United States would retain the right to take action.

Americans have often let a "can-do" attitude get in the way of "shouldn't-do." Obama's plan follows this sentiment. With the United States now being led down the pathway known as the "graveyard of empires," Congress and the U.S. public should demand clear reporting on Obama's objectives. And given the experience of the past seven years, our leaders should be ready to acknowledge that if Obama's objectives aren't being met, the only alternative is a timeline for withdrawal.

Why this soreness?

At this point in time when sinister is being played around Pakistan, some pseudo-intellectuals and so-called analysts are trying to prove that Pakistan is a failed state, and that Pakistan army is either incapable of reining in militants or some elements in Pakistan's premier agency have links with the Taliban and militants. In a recent article captioned 'Battle for Pakistan', the author - a columnist and a member of the National Assembly tried to create doubts about Pakistan Army's ability to win the battle from Taliban and extremists. He wrote: "The Pakistan army was always meant for wars against India. It hasn't a clue about fighting Taliban in Swat and Waziristan….It is a war between two world views and unless the world view Pakistan stands for is more powerful and makes more sense, Taliban will win and Pakistan state will lose". He however fails to understand the simple fact that like any other country Pakistan's army has been raised to deal with any threat to its external or internal security. It was not India-specific but unfortunately due to hegemonic designs of the hostile neighbour Pakistan had three wars with India. Will it be wrong to conclude that it is a veiled invitation to the US and the West that they should move in to control them? One does not understand soreness on the part of persons whom Pakistan has given respect, status and everything under the sun? The columnist's perception of 'world views' of Pakistani state and Taliban is high-sounding rhetoric because in the first instance Pakistan is not a super power that needs a world view to run the world according to its whim and fancy. As regards world view of the Taliban especially in Afghanistan, he failed to elaborate their world view. The Taliban in Afghanistan have every right to fight the occupiers but they should not kill their Muslim brothers, which is not allowed in Islam. In late 1990s, desire to export their version of Islam to China, Russia and elsewhere the Taliban had evoked worldwide protest, and international community had turned against them. What the author is aiming at when he writes: "The Taliban have empowered the poor, the dispossessed and the out-of-work in both Swat and Waziristan. If they are killed, their families are looked after". He then concludes by raising the question that if "they choose to serve under the banner of Taliban would management gurus dub it an irrational choice"? The author should have ventured to find out the sources of funds of militants, and furthermore as to who supplies them sophisticated arms and ammunition? It has to be mentioned that the author of the article is a retired Captain from the army; he joined Foreign Service, thanks to late ZA Bhutto who was friend of his father the then MNA of the PPP, but while in Russia the angry young man created problem for Pakistan diplomats and was reportedly asked to resign. During the second stint of PML-N, he was MNA and was not given the importance, place and status he thought he deserved; hence he had resigned from the NA seat. There is a perception that it was due to the elements at the social pyramid, the educated class, pseudo-intellectuals, or intelligentsia both Mandarins and Resistantes who have not performed their rightful duty of providing adequate leads to the overwhelming illiterate and immensely religious hoi polloi. Such analysts in print and electronic media often badmouth the military wholesale despite the fact that military dictators, elected governments and civilian dictators are responsible in equal measure for bringing the country to the present pass. There are patriotic elements in this community who are aware of their national responsibility yet there are others who have become chivalrous as a result of the newfound media freedom. In the recent past, whenever there was any terrorist attack they often accused the ISI. They have been accusing the premier agency and the army for having armed the militants in FATA and Swat. This is downright perfidious and nonsense, as no law enforcing agency or army would arm the terrorists or militants to kill their own personnel and comrade-in-arms. Pseudo-intellectuals and so-called analysts abound who continue to spread despondency and support the enemies of Pakistan who say Pakistan is going to collapse within six months. But their dream will never come true.

Dangerous Policies

Ever since the Cold War ended and the US gained primacy in what still is a uni-polar world the US has been struggling to find a way to use its primacy. This search led the US into Afghanistan and then into Iraq. A leader is judged by the legacy he leaves behind. George Bush's legacy is the thousands of dead and maimed Americans and their grieving kin and of course the quagmire that Iraq and Afghanistan have become and the economic recession. For 25 years the folly of Viet-Nam was accepted because of the Cold War but what is the excuse for the strategic blunder of a war without end in two countries that cannot possibly threaten the primary military power in the world today and its NATO allies.

President Obama's arrival was to herald a change as he moved to tackle the recession and the joblessness that it had brought to America. He was expected to get into meaningful talks with North Korea and Iran. He was supposed to extricate out of Iraq and create the environment for an eventual exit from Afghanistan. None of these events are in sight. Iraq may drift into civil war and violence as the US leaves and the forces struggling to free Afghanistan are getting ready to welcome the troop surge that the US/NATO are planning. The US/NATO operations in Afghanistan are fuelling the expansion of terror into Pakistan.

The AF-PAK strategy will do nothing to resolve conflict. Pakistan has lost, and is losing, far more than it is getting. The promised 1.5 billion dollars will not shore up Pakistan's shattered economy and the regulatory conditions have alienated Pakistanis. Why could not the US set up a partnership with the private sector in Pakistan to develop projects that will create jobs, step up production and create an economy that could be a bulwark against terror and extremism?

Pakistanis are also asking that if Pakistan is an ally and if there is a strategic dialogue with Pakistan then why the Pentagon is making public statements against the military and the ISI---statements that may be music for Afghans and Indians but hurt Pakistanis deeply. Why is it that the US only listens to those who have made careers out of saying what the US wants to hear? Surely the US knows that this will undermine those who are its real allies and well wishers in Pakistan. Supporting a civilian government should not be at the cost of alienating the military and its intelligence apparatus---that would be counter-productive.

If the US is to succeed in Afghanistan then it must get rid of those in the Afghan government with past baggage. The Afghan government must be made representative by giving the majority Pashtuns of Southern Afghanistan enough space. The drug economy must be destroyed and the smuggling routes strangled. Financial inflows must be checked and sources for weapons dried up. The Afghan people must be provided security. Talks with moderate Pashtuns must be started. These actions must take priority---nation and capacity building in Afghanistan can continue over a longer period but the environment must change now. The US presence in Afghanistan should change from a destabilizing to a stabilizing influence in the interest of regional harmony.

If there is a struggle within extremists and moderates within Islam the US should not take sides. Islam is within the US, the UK, Europe, India and other countries. By taking sides the US is creating a bigger problem for the world. Islam can resolve any conflicts within it without outside interference. Those who did 9/11 must be amazed at the success that they have achieved.

Fighting a common enemy

N N Khan Khattak




The 69-page Indian Dossier titled "Mumbai Terrorist Attacks (November 26-29, 2009)" posted to Pakistan as evidences on alleged involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) linking with "official agencies of Pakistan" in Mumbai attacks that killed 164 people, was very sketchy and inconclusive to bring the perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice. Pakistan has acknowledged that some part of the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistan by non-state actors, acting upon their own wish.




Nevertheless, if non-state perpetrators of Mumbai carnage having Pakistani nationality are involved, then the culprits should be dealt according to the law of the country. Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is probing the Mumbai terror attacks in a manner an investigating agency should proceed and has a number of queries. Within hours after the attacks, Pakistan raided militant organizations and arrested Zakiur Rehman Lakhavi and Hafiz Saeed (founder of the LeT and head of JuD) along with 124 activists throughout Pakistan. Pakistan has started criminal proceedings against eight suspects over the attacks.




However, the "Mumbai Terrorist Attacks (November 26-29, 2009)" dossier itself was not enough as it lacked credible evidence to stand in a court of law. After carefully examining the significant elements of evidences delineated in the dossier, a strong requirement to pug the loose ends was felt. In order to facilitate the legal proceedings, Pakistan had requested the Government of India to answers 30+2 questions raised from the dossier. Soon after handing over the document on Mumbai carnage, the Indian high echelons including Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, started building pressure by insisting Pakistan to take prompt action against the perpetrators.




India's 400-page document provided by India containing replies to Pakistan's queries, was handed over to the Government of Pakistan after a month on March 13, 2009. After thoroughly scrutinizing the dossier, it revealed that the inputs were very scanty, obscure and evasive to be included in the criminal proceedings of eight suspects arrested in the Mumbai Blasts. The reply dossier had some glaring unexplained and uncorroborated gaps of information such as: (1) Answer on two additional questions have not be replied, such as: (a) The eyewitness account of a policeman Jugdev who was the sole survivor of a terrorist attack on a vehicle that killed Anti-Terrorist Squad chief Hemant Karkare accompanied by two other senior police officers in the same vehicle namely Mr Salasker and Mr Kamteis. (b) Linkages between diamond merchant firm Surat, Gujrat and some Hindus in Pakistan need to be clarified as the diamond merchant was alleged to sponsor Malegoen blasts through Col Purohit. (2) The dossier does not provide the DNA test reports of two attackers named Abu Umar and Abdur Rehman. (3) Indian response also did not include an authenticated confessional statement given to court by Kasab. (4) The authenticated copies of some depositions and exhibits filed by prosecutors are missing from the Indian response.




There are many lacunas and discrepancies in the so-called evidences provided in the Indian reply dossier on 30+2 queries. The 400-paged voluminous dossier did not amount to evidence rather it was based on some information without any credible proof. The Indian dossier includes documentary evidence like CCTV images of the attackers, CDs, detailed transcripts of conversation between the attackers and their handlers, forensic analysis reports of the accused and GPS data. India had failed to prove the involvement of any of Pakistanis in the Mumbai attacks. India's demand of extraditing the perpetrators (Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah) blamed for masterminding the Mumbai attacks is completely uncalled for.




In an in-depth analysis on Mumbai attackers, Ms Christine Fair - a political scientist at the Rand Corporation analyzed that the attacks though attributed largely to Pakistan LeT, doesn't mean that India's internal challenges are less dire. However, after the lapse of four months, a change has been observed in the Indian claim - from 100% complicity of Pakistan-based LeT to the possible assistance of local facilitators.




Until recently, India has generally dismissed the importance of home-grown Islamist militant groups and has focused instead upon the Pakistan-based groups. Many Western experts feel that such precision planning and execution in the Mumbai attacks would not have been possible without the involvement of some local dissatisfied and underprivileged community. Therefore, persistent social inequity for Muslims and other groups remains an important issue for the Indian state.




They face large-scale violence. India must improve social justice and provide better policing and law enforcement. In addition to this, Hindu extremist organizations are proliferating hatred propaganda against Islamic state of Pakistan. A radical serving Indian Lt Col Purohit has accepted the responsibility of blasting Samjhota Express that took the toll of 300 innocent Pakistani lives. Pakistan has the right to demand for handing over of Lt Col Purohit involved in the blast of Samjhota Express so as to bring the perpetrators to justice and arrive at a logical end to the Mumbai inquiry.




It is concluded by foreign experts in counter-insurgency that lack of conclusive evidence has shown that "official agencies" have not orchestrated the Mumbai terrorist attack. It is wrong to think of Pakistan as a perpetrator of terrorism. So, justice demands that Pakistan be defended, more so because Pakistan is a country that has remained frontline state in GWOT since 2001.




Pakistan is fighting the global war on terrorism for its own national interest and wants to curb the spills over of Talibanisation into the settled areas. Therefore, there is a growing need that India & Pakistan should work together to bring the Mumbai attackers to justice by adopting a proactive, well-coordinated and coherent regional approach.

Redrawn map of South Asia?

Mohammad Jamil




In November 2008, Pulitzer Prize winning writer Nicholas Kristoff said in an article published in the New York Times: "There is an increasing belief among Pakistanis including members of the armed forces, that what the US really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms". But such an idea is fraught with dangers beyond the comprehension of the big powers, and could make the world a very dangerous place to live in. At the Brussels Forum conference, US representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Hollbrooke said: "The heart of the problem for the West is in Pakistan. The militants are operating out of bases in Pakistan, where a fragile government has recently taken over and the army is focused more on fighting India than insurgents in lawless tribal areas".




Holbrooke has to understand the simple logic and fact that every country takes measures to defend its borders with a view to safeguarding its integrity and stability. If the US can conduct operations thousands of miles away from its borders for the safety and security of America and its citizens, Pakistan is well within its right to defend its borders from the next-door hostile neighbour. To make Pakistan's security perilous, India's RAW has covertly been supporting centrifugal forces in Balochistan. Killing and kidnapping of Chinese, a and also made inroads in militants' organizations in Pakistan.




Take the case of terror attack on Sri Lankan cricket team, the rocket launcher and other arms and ammunition were the same as used by Indian army. The objective is to prove that Pakistan has failed to rein in terrorists. India and the US are also opposing any peace agreement in FATA or Swat with tribal elders, so that impression can be created that Pakistan army is either incapable or is not willing to crush militants and terrorists. To cover up the real designs, President Barack Obama has said US objective is to ensure that Afghanistan is no more a safe haven for Al Qaeda operatives, and attacks against the American homeland or American interests do not take place. But to tarnish Pakistan's image, a top adviser to the US Central Command, David Kilcullen who advises CENTCOM commander General David H Petraeus on the war on terror said that Pakistani state could collapse within six months if immediate steps are not taken to remedy the situation. In an interview to The Washington Post published on Sunday, he warned that if things spin out of control in Pakistan it would 'dwarf' all the crises in the world today.




Asked to explain why he thought Pakistan was so important, Kilcullen said: "Pakistan has 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the US Army, and Al Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn't control". The same day, Indian Home Minister Chidambaram in an interview to Karan Thapar on 'India Tonight' said: "Pakistan is pretty dysfunctional and perilously close to becoming a failed state". UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown also joined the chorus with Americans and Indians. Writing in The Observer he said: "There is an Al Qaeda core in northern Pakistan trying to organize attacks on Britain, as we know there are a number of networks here". The outgoing US ambassador to Kabul William Wood told the UK's Sunday Observer that America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or put up even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts to end the increasingly intractable conflict. Other ideas being discussed include changing the Afghan constitution as part of potential negotiations, taking senior Taliban figures off UN blacklists to establish dialogue and possible prisoner releases. Recently, there was a meeting between Afghan government and representatives of Gulbadin Hikmatyar to explore the option of bringing Pushtun on board. And of course this is the right way of doing it because by ignoring the majority, there can never be peace in Afghanistan or for that matter in the region. It has to be mentioned that America could explore other options but they are blaming Pakistan of great sin if it negotiates with the tribal elders or militants.




It would be appropriate to look into the circumstances in which Pakistan had been sucked in the big-power game. First World War had provided an opportunity to Communist Party of Russia for completing the socialist revolution. After the end of World War II, socialists of Eastern European countries were facilitated by the Soviet forces that were present in those countries to form socialist governments. On the other hand, the US had influence over the western European countries to form a capitalistic bloc. Thus Cold War era started whereby the world was divided in two camps - Western and Socialist. In 1950s, British-trained bureaucracy convinced the then Pakistani leadership that the US could help build Pakistan's army and also other infrastructure therefore they decided to go with the West and become its camp-follower. The government did not pay heed to Quaid-i-Azam's advice that Pakistan should maintain good relations with all the countries of the world, and joined military pacts with the US and the West. Some call it an error of judgment while others call it inaptness of the bureaucracy.




During 1965 war with India, people of Pakistan understood the meaninglessness of the defence pacts because nobody came to Pakistan's rescue. In fact, Pakistan's so-called allies stopped all military and economic aid. In 1971, our so-called allies played the role of silent spectators when Pakistan was disintegrated. There was a perception that had Pakistan not become camp-follower of the West, it would not have been disintegrated as a result of international intrigue. Evidence suggests that Soviet Union had used its Veto in United Nations General Assembly only after American spy plane U-2 had taken off from Budh Ber near Peshawar in 1958. Soviet Russia had not vetoed the resolution bestowing the right on Kashmiris to decide through a plebiscite if they wish to join India or Pakistan.




In 1979, when Soviet forces occupied Afghanistan, the US and the West started propaganda blitz against Soviet Union and persuaded Pakistan to organize a proxy war to push Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. But for Pakistan this proved to a recipe for disaster. After 9/11 when the US coerced Pakistan into joining war on terror it was due to the fact that US was the only super power after disintegration of the Soviet Union and it was mainly due to Pakistan's cooperation that the US enjoyed the status of the only super power. Since the US and the West are reviewing their strategy and policy, Pakistan should also reviews its foreign policy, which in fact should have been done in 1971.

BD rifles mutiny, an Indian conspiracy

Sultan M Hali




As soon as Awami League (AL) came to occupy the seat of government in Dhaka, a macabre plot was hatched with Indian complicity to teach the BD Army a lesson. The gruesome event of mutiny in Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) killing their Commanding General and many others including officers' families and children came as a rude shock. As per media reports the dreadful event took place on differences over pay and perk between Army and Bangladesh Rifles. The Jawans of BDR also complained about corruption of Army Officers who come to BDR for a short tenure and indulge in corrupt practices. The question is that causes as reported through media are not commensurate with the magnitude of the criminal activity that took place in the BDR. The saner elements of the society are skeptical about the real causes leading to mass scale mutiny in a disciplined force of BDR. Across the board investigation to unearth the facts is imperative to punish those responsible for such a gory drama and to avert such future happening in the BD Armed Forces.




Although the government of Bangladesh is investigating the whole episode yet there is a need for the government of BD to see through the designs of their real enemy India who want the newly elected AL government to accept their demands including transit route facilities and joint task force etc. The fact of the matter is that India wants to plunder Bangladesh's wealth at any cost. While AL of Sheikh Hasina Wajid is pro-Indian political party of Bangladesh, Indian spy masters want to inflict maximum damage on the Armed Forces of Bangladesh creating fear in the minds of officers to understand Indian messages while guarding their national interests. It appears to be a deliberate Indian scheme to sponsor the mutiny and killing of BDR officers while cleverly insinuating against ISI of Pakistan as a cover story. The unfortunate saga which unfolded in Dhaka sounds out of place that a group of soldiers could reach the threshold of frustration over pecuniary matters resulting in savage butchery of officers, women and innocent children. Reports have surfaced now about mutineer's communications with across the border further cementing the speculations that this was too well planned an operation to be handled by junior cadre alone. Bangladesh has paid a heavy price to resist the Indian hegemonic designs in the region. The secrets about the recent conspiratorial mutiny are gradually being unfolded. Many links have already been unearthed and after joining them together the conspiracy theory is now being believed by almost everyone as a reality. The most horrifying aspect is that all links leads to the Government involvement the PM in particular along with some of Sheikh Hasina's confidants. It is now largely believed that the revolt was not a spontaneous one among the ranks and files but a small group of 20/25 individuals were carefully organized over a period of time to spearhead the sad episode taking the advantage of some petty grudges of the ranks and files.




The group had been organized under direct supervision of PM's Defense Advisor General Tareq Siddiqui (Retd), the brother in law of Sheikh Hasina, who after retirement has been picked up as Defense Advisor to the PM with the status of a full minister. Under him the following persons worked to organize the group of the agent provocateurs. 1. Sahara Khatun the Home Minister 2. Mirza Azam presently whip of the ruling party 3. Jahangir Kabir Nanak ex- President of Jubo League now State Minister of Local Govt. He is a ruthless person who was charged for corruption, extortion, arson and cold-blooded murders by the last army-backed interim Govt. of Fakhruddin. 4. MD. Tawheed (a long time close friend of Nanak) appointed as the Deputy Assistant Director in BDR along with three other persons in different posts by the Home Ministry. 5. ADV. Quamrullslam 6. Sheikh Fazle Nur Taposh(son of Sheikh Fazlul Haq Moni, nephew of Mujib killed in encounter on 15th Aug revolution 1975) 7. Hasan Mohamed DG RAB 8. Nasim khan appointed by the present Govt. as DMP Commissioner. 9. Nur Mohammad newly appointed IGP.




The mutiny commenced at 10 am and surprisingly by 12 noon Hasina sent Nanak to BDR HQ at Pilkhana as her emissary where the Home Minister joined with Nanak to bring a delegation of the mutineers headed by MD. Tawheed for a negotiated settlement of the crisis refusing permission to the armed forces to act at the very onset of the mutiny. The delegation arrived at PM's residence escorted by Nanak, Sahara Khatun, IGP and DMP Commissioner like VIPs and just handed over their hand scribbled demands to Hassina and returned triumphantly with a general amnesty from her. Nanak, Sahara Khatun escorted back the delegation to BDR HQ. Within a few minutes Sahara khatun's car left the HQ with three covered faced co passengers mysteriously for unknown destination. After the departure of Sahara Khatun the Home Minister Nanak also left the place in a hurry. There after IGP was ordered to send police inside to collect the dead bodies littering all over the compound. Injured were sent to hospitals. On the 2nd of March Hasina visited the Army Headquarters to address about 2000 officers who came from all over the country to pay homage to the martyrs and take part in the burial ceremony.




There she could feel the heat of anger and quickly left the place cutting short her address. She was terribly nervous and scared to face the angry young officers. The message that she carried back was that she could no longer trust BD armed forces nether she could earn respect from them. Under such situation before it is too late she decided to hasten the hidden agenda to allow foreign forces to come in to tame and establish full control over the BD armed forces, intelligence agencies and all other law enforcing forces under the pretext of restructuring, modernization etc.




Accordingly just after her visit to the Dhaka Cantt she convened an urgent session of Parliament to discuss the present crisis facing the nation. In her speech she openly sought all out help and assistance from America, Britain, UN and other agencies to come in to restructure and reorganize the untrustworthy armed forces and all other law enforcing forces of Bangladesh including intelligence agencies fighting against terror. However, the fact remains that such a national betrayal is just to secure herself and her Govt in power being dependent on the forces of the foreign masters. A wishful thinking indeed! It is simply another classical proof of that golden saying "we read history but not learn anything from it and thus history repeats itself."

Forced demands on Pakistan

Sajjad Shaukat




Setting aside the ground realties that Pakistan, itself, is the major victim of terrorism, which has been bearing multiple losses in combating this menace since 9/11, Indian blame game against Islamabad, continues in during exchange of information between the two neighbouring countries regarding Mumbai mayhem of November 26, 2008. Rejecting Pakistan's stand that its government or any official agency is not involved in the Mumbai attacks, presenting one after another list of bogus evidence, New Delhi wants to make Islamabad accept all other Indian demands since our rulers admitted on February 12 this year that Ajmal Kasab is Pakistani national and Mumbai terror-attacks were "partially planned in Pakistan." Pakistan's government not only submitted its report to India after lodging FIR against the nine suspects but also took six accused persons into custody. In fact, Islamabad's admission which has emboldened New Delhi was forced by the US-led some western countries which have been continuously insisting upon our government to "do more" against the militancy in the tribal areas by ignoring internal backlash and sacrifices of our security forces during war on terror, while paying no attention to the Lahore-terror attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team.




Although being a responsible state actor, Pakistan's leadership did not accuse Indian secret agency RAW of planning Lahore mayhem which had similarity with that of Mumbai, yet India backed both these tragedies to achieve some secret goals against Pakistan. In this context, India wanted to avail this opportunity in increasing further pressure on Pakistan with the help of America and some other European states in order to force Islamabad to confess that all the terrorists responsible for Mumbai attacks came from Pakistan. While Pakistan has not yet completed investigation in connection with the terror-attack on the Sri Lanka's cricket team, Indian Minister of External Affairs, Pranab Mukerjee, repeating his old rhetoric of baseless allegations against Islamabad stated that Lahore incident and Mumbai catastrophe "are part of Pakistan's terror-infrastructure" and it should dismantle terrorist training camps. It is mentionable that US former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and British Foreign Secretary who had visited New Delhi and Islamabad in the aftermath of Mumbai catastrophe stressed upon us to take actions against the banned Jamaatud Dawa and the already banned Lashkar-i-Tayba. Speaking Indian tune, they also said that the terrorists involved in the Mumbai events came from Pakistan.




Notably, America and the Great Britain had played a key role last year in getting passed a resolution through the UN Security Council which added Pakistan-based Jamaatud Dawa and four of its leaders to the list of Al Qaeda-related terrorists. Without any doubt, this similar approach by the US and India show that these states are in collusion to destabilize and 'denuclearise' Pakistan through coercive diplomacy. So demands on Pakistan to take action against the Jamaatud Dawa and its related welfare organistions including admission regarding the departure of the Mumbai culprits from our soil were forced. And Islamabad accepted these false allegations as our country is facing serious internal and external challenges of grave nature. In the recent past, IMF decided to sanction loan to Pakistan after American green signal. Past experience proves that economic dependence on foreign countries always brings political dependence in its wake. While, at this critical juncture, our country has been facing precarious financial problem, US and its western allies compelled Pakistan to accept some Indian false demands.




Hollowness of New Delhi's allegations and forced admission of Islamabad of February 12 could be gauged from the fact that on February 27, while addressing a press conference, Pakistan's Naval Chief of Staff Admiral Nuaman Bashir remarked that he had no proof that Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman of the Mumbai attacks used Pakistani waters to reach India. He further explained, "I do not have any proof…the Indian navy is much larger than ours, and if Ajmal Kasab had gone from here, then what were their coastguards doing, and why they did not stop the terrorists?" The statement of our naval chief coupled with western duress makes it quite clear that Mumbai mayhem was pre-planned by the Indian intelligence agency, RAW to further distort the image of Pakistan in the comity of nations as well as to manipulate the world phenomena of terrorism with the help of US-led Europe in declaring our country a terrorism-sponsored state. Another aim of New Delhi was to convince the sole superpower to continue drone strikes on Pakistan's tribal regions which are already considered by Washington and some other western capitals as safehavens from where Al Qaeda-related militants could plan a terror attack inside American homeland and Europe. Nevertheless, all this is part of Indo-Israeli and western lobbies to weaken Pakistan in on way or the other as our nuclear assets irk their eyes.




On the other hand, west's silence over a number of developments such as assassination of Indian Anti-Terrorism Squad Chief Hemant Karkare in Mumbai during terror attacks, involvement of Hindu extremists in the Malegaon bombings, confession of Indian serving Lt. Col. Purohit in relation to the bombing of Samjhota express which brunt alive 69 Pakistanis, demolition of Babri Masjid, massacre of Muslims in Gujrat, recent genocide of Muslims in Assam and assaults on Christians from time to time clearly show double standard of the US-led international community. In this context, anti-Muslim approach of India was also witnessed during the present election campaign when grandson of the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and candidate of the BJP, Varun Gandhi, with the pledge of Gita, warned that he would "cut off the hands of Muslims."




Inaction of the west over Hindu terrorism and such duplicity undoubtedly indicates that America and major European states have their common interest in India. Hence, they blindly support New Delhi's shrewd diplomacy against Islamabad. These major countries only tolerate Pakistan owing to its role as a frontline state against terrorism, otherwise, they leave no stone unturned in tarnishing the image of our country so as to harm our interests. In this respect, forced demands on Pakistan regarding Mumbai mayhem entailing accusation of cross-border terrorism either in Afghanistan or the Indian-held Kashmir are also part of this double game.




As a matter of fact, we are living in an unequal world order. The prevalent global system tends to give a greater political and economic leverage to the affluent developed nations who could safeguard their interests at the cost of the weaker countries. Whenever, any controversy arises on the issues, the UN Security Council enforces the doctrine of collective security against the small states, while the five big powers protect their interests by using veto. This shows discrimination between the powerful and the weaker. In this context, it is notable that in 2001, UN had permitted the United States to attack Afghanistan under the cover of right of self-defence. Consequently, NATO forces invaded and occupied Afghanistan. In case of the Sub-continental Kashmir, the issue still remains unresolved as UN resolutions in relation to the plebiscite were never implemented because Washington and some western powers support the illegitimate stand of India due to their collective interests by ignoring the legitimate rights of the liberation of Kashmiris.




There is no doubt that it is the General Assembly where the Muslim states of the Third World constitute majority, but they are helpless in implementing their decisions. In economic context, the world order reflects greater disparities as the flow of capital and credit system is also dominated by the United States and other developed countries-the consequent result is an increase in the activities of the Multinationals which shattered the economies of the poor developing states. Besides, international financial institutions like I.M.F and World Bank are under the control of the US and its partners who protect their interests by blackmailing the governments of the small states through financial pressure.




Nonetheless, the principle of might is right which was order of the day during the period of nature is being implemented in the modern era, but in its refined form. Major powers can change falsehood in truthfulness by legitimating it through Security Council. It was due to this master-client relationship that Pakistan was forced to accept Indian self-created demands which were baseless, but still the US and other western countries had been backing the same in connection with Mumbai catastrophe. In wake of a continued debate abroad and rising tension between the two South Asian nuclear states in relation to the culprits of Mumbai tragedy, the fact remains that Pakistan and its land have played no role, but was forced to accept Indian concocted evidence as the country depends upon the sole superpower and other foreign donor agencies because of rising financial crisis and political instability which have been created by external secret agencies, especially RAW.




Like Hitler, Indian leadership is increasing its demands as recently it sent some more evidence in reply to Islamabad's report regarding Mumbai tragedy. Our government needs caution as New Delhi, with the support of west could entangle Pakistan in vicious circle of terrorism with the sole aim to isolate our country diplomatically.

Pakistan's ISI rendered many sacrifices in terror war

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan Army on Saturday rejected as baseless and mala fide the allegations by top American military officials about support being extended to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants by some elements in the ISI.




An ISPR spokesman said, "The allegations levelled in a section of international media about ISI are totally baseless and mala fide." According to media reports, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Army General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command said the United States had indications that elements of ISI, Pakistan's military intelligence agency, provide support to Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants.The top US military officials also said reportedly that the agency must end such activities.




However, the ISPR spokesman in a statement said the commitment of Pakistan in fighting terrorism could be judged from the sacrifices rendered by its security forces including the intelligence organisations.


He said, "Such unauthenticated reports are part of a malicious campaign to discredit and bring disrepute to our security organisations. We, therefore, reject the allegations levelled against our security organisations."

Also see:

Allegations of ISI-Qaeda nexus baseless: Pak ISPR

Islamabad, Mar 29 : Allegations levelled against Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in a section of international media are "baseless and malafide," said the Inter-Services Public Relations spokesman.

"The commitment of Pakistan in fighting terrorism can be judged from the sacrifices rendered by its security forces, including intelligence organisations," he said in a statement.

"Such unauthenticated reports are part of a malicious campaign to discredit and bring disrepute to our security organisations," the Daily Times quoted him, as saying.

"We, therefore, reject the allegations levelled against our security organisations," he added.

Earlier, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen had confirmed media reports that the ISI has close links with al-Qaeda and the Taliban network, and is offering logistical support to them.

"There are certainly indications that's the case," The Dawn quoted Admiral Mullen, as saying.

Talking to media persons right after President Barack Obama announced a revamped strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said that the nefarious network must be severed to thwart the extremist's upsurge in the region.

"Fundamentally that's one of the things that have to change," Mullen added.

He said Islamabad has also expressed concern over the increasing influence of the outlawed terror groups and was working to curb the menace, but more sincere efforts were needed to tackle the issue. (ANI)

1.

2. ISPR rejects allegations against ISI - Pakistan News

Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Saturday rejected the allegations levelled against the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) saying that sacrifices rendered by Pakistani forces and intelligence agencies are ample proof of commitment of Pakistan to war on terror. The allegations levelled in international media against the ISI are totally baseless and mala fide, said a spokesman.

"The commitment of Pakistan in fighting terrorism can be judged from the sacrifices rendered by its security forces including intelligence organisations," the spokesman said. He said that such unauthenticated reports are part of a malicious campaign to discredit and bring disrepute to our security organisations. "We, therefore, reject the allegations levelled against our security organisations," the spokesman added.

War rhetoric in terror ridden Nuclear South Asia

Nargis Zahra

Terror and terrorism have not only become buzzwords but also have gradually replaced the words and now concepts of war and battlefield. In this regard one can take example of Asia and specifically India and Pakistan. The unique feature of this war in South Asia is traditional security paradigm followed by both nuclear neighbours. This is evident not only from Lahore attacks on Sri Lankan players and subsequent blame game between India and Pakistan but Mumbai attacks were also followed by the same rhetoric. For instance the External Affairs Minister of India, Yashwant Sinha, in an interview to BBC London dismissed suggestions that it was under US pressure to resume talks with Pakistan. He said: "Was it a sign of soft State that we deployed our Army on the border and achieved what we wanted,'' he further said "nothing can be achieved by talks in the present circumstances" and "it is not important what the US says, or the EU says. It is our battle and we would win it. Support from different parts of the world is a welcome step, but the fight is ours.''

On the other hand when US Senator McCain talked to Pakistani authorities they were cautious in their response. Pakistani Premier Gillani on the one hand gave vent to desire of cordial relations while on the other he assured that Pakistan can make India pay in the same coin if put into a war situation. South Asian neighbours are every now and then going through a phase of diplomatic tension. Aggressive statements are exchanged, media on both sides plays nationalist role and war hysteria is ever present in the form of war phobia. Albeit Lahore and Mumbai attacks were well planned and organised but not the first or unique example in strategic history of nuclear South Asia. These kind of attacks and diplomatic tensions sometimes lead to border ambushes and wars. Not to one's surprise such tensions have become routine for the public on both sides of the border. This factor is especially prevalent in the wake of region's role in international war against terror combined with the now and then surfacing tensions between India and Pakistan. Following antagonistic history and nuclearisation of twin states in 1998, there has been a profound and persistent belief in the minds of Western policy makers and thinkers that the region may be at risk of a nuclear war. This view is reemphasized by the spokesmen of India and Pakistan who get support of nuclear deterrence and threat of war prior to considering any other option as a bargaining tactic. While nuclearisation could have brought drastic changes to South Asian security thinking, the twin elements of Indo-US nuclear deal and Pak-US joint anti terrorist ventures have added new dimensions to the traditional security thinking in the region.

Despite the world over paradigm shift from traditional to non-traditional security, for South Asia the traditional sphere remains paramount. This notion is based upon the factor of unequal military force structures existing between India and Pakistan compounded with the historical legacy of tensions and a long contiguous border. Although there are strong arguments to affirm or negate the probability of a nuclear war as an ultimate policy option for security, the point to be pondered about is that now the capacity of an absolute destructive weapon does exist on both sides of the border. Moreover they use nuclear deterrence most frequently to resolve their mutual disputes at any level. The nuclear neighbours of South Asia are classic example of most distrustful coexisting states with refreshing willingness to tempt war. Overt or covert, clear or unclear but both states do have a nuclear policy and doctrine. These doctrines are of utmost importance to understand the relevance and characteristics of current traditional security paradigm in South Asia. The nuclearisation of India and Pakistan has transformed the Asian region into a unique part of the world having four nuclear states namely China, North Korea, India and Pakistan. The impacts of the emergence of such regional structure are bound to be multi-dimensional and long-term in this most populated area of the world. South Asia is a region showing contradictory parallel signs of development and poverty among its population. The security structure of the region (South Asia) is predominantly bipolar, where two out of seven states are nuclearised having history of inter- and intra-state conflicts, fundamentalist and westernized elite, absolute poverty of more than 40% and two antagonistic, neighbours with nukes.

Though one may not term the region as war prone but it has history of prolonged inter-state conflicts and wars? National security is still the only definition of "security" in this region. Although socio-economic and humanitarian factors have paved a way into the discussions of theoreticians, the practitioners and policy makers are persistently humming the tones of state security to ensure peace in the region. This is evident from the following statement of former president Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan Times (July 2007): "Despite a paradigm shift in security world over, for South Asia the traditional sphere of security would remain paramount till the resolution of all disputes, mainly Kashmir." Whether it is life of Bombay civilians or of Sri Lankans in Pakistan, it is taken in terms of state security .It is to be noted that such attacks are harsh ground realities faced by the citizens, giving a touch of uncertainty to their daily life routines. These have to be tackled in ways other than passing the blames and exchanging aggressive statements.

The leaders on both sides of the border would have to realise that individual is inevitable building block of a nation and individual security should be foremost priority to be assured. Instead having overlapped security pacts and arms deals is not going to help counter threats to civilian security. Albeit the fact India has always been expediently seeking for defence pacts across the globe specifically to counter China and not forgetting to mention Pakistan. India has reached a most comprehensive and far reaching military agreement with USA, named the 123 Agreement. Under the agreement, US will enlist India as the chief agency that helps it "embed" itself strategically in Asia to ensure Washington's dominance in this increasingly important region in the face of a rising challenge from China. In return, India is likely to be given the firm offer of some 1970s-generation weapons platforms like F-16 warplanes, and a new version of the Patriot anti-missile system, as well as co-production of US-developed weapon. It conforms to the stated US goals of containing China; stabilising Afghanistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, countering and curbing terrorism in the tribal belt of Pakistan and dissuading Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

India's global aspirations are compelling it to get involved in military exercises with different countries. This strategic picture does not present a wishful optimistic outcome or at least strategic culture in future of South Asia. Whosoever is behind Mumbai attacks? The riddle is not to be resolved the way it is being? Such nuclear rhetoric from Pakistani political elite and war hysteria from Indian side may escalate into war. It is alarming for the security equation of South Asia in traditional terms that India not having formal obligations of alliance agreements at large, at one hand, is incurring development of forces on the other. It had first joint Naval exercise named Malabar with US in 1992.Since then it has held joint exercises with Japan, Singapore, United Kingdom and some countries of West Asia. Not to mention the notion of insecurity is deeply inculcated in the psychology of Pakistani strategists, which may lead to another episode of arms race. Once proudly non-aligned India is now involved in a global-cum-regional arms race and development. It is evident from the fact that Indian DRDO and nine defence production undertakings of public sector are running profitably. India is keeping all the doors for military cooperation open in turn making Pakistan insecure who is seeking its security through utilising the current major non NATO ally status (MNNAS) enduring drone attacks on its mainland and looking forward to the Obama's policy towards South Asia. As India is strategic ally of US and Pakistan that of China, the fact could have served Pakistan's security dilemma in the region.

But the realities of traditional security paradigm in South Asia are more complicated than seem to a man in the street. China has gone through another round of joint military exercises on Indian land at the end of last year, the previous exercises took place on Chinese land. India also had exercises with three other states including USA, Japan and Singapore in 2007 in the Bay of Bengal which raised concerns among Chinese leadership. Indian broader aspirations and Pakistani regional security concerns lead to contradicting security objectives of both states. This is the fault line of mutual cooperation where long-term, persistent reconciliation seems difficult to be approached. Once again, however, the emergence of transnational threats from Islamist extremists, and continuing internal ethnic, sectarian, and tribal tensions dominate the security problems in this region. Conventionally India is maintaining third largest forces (Army, Navy, Air Force put together) in the world. In segregation, it possesses third largest army, fourth largest navy and fifth largest air force. India is spending 8.5 bn $ per annum under head of defence budget. On the other, Pakistan, in an effort to follow the suite is spending more than Rs 4 bn $ a year on its forces development and maintenance. As far as manpower is concerned Pakistan armed forces are 6,000, 000, while Indians are one million.

It is to be noted that Pakistan is spending more on its defence in terms of per capita income. One may conclude that though nuclear security is a form of traditional security but it has not served the purpose of irrelevance of conventional forces in South Asia. Both states collectively share 80% of the regional military spending. Considering the case of India and Pakistan one can easily relate the 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999 wars, and the crisis of 2002 then 2003 and now 2008-09, with the concept of war or threat of war as an instrument of policy. Keeping in mind the love for military expenditures on both sides of the border one can recall the recurrent hostility in history. In 1948 both India and Pakistan tried to capture princely state Kashmir. In 1965 war broke out in escalation from Rann of Kutch episode, following the revelation of a Russian scientist that the area is rich in oil resources. In the spring of 1965, both the states stepped up patrolling activity in that area and soon serious clashes occurred, where Pakistani forces quickly out-manoeuvred Indian troops, winning an easy victory.

The Rann of Kutch encounter left Pakistani forces dangerously over-confident and the Indians frustrated. Pakistan's over-confidence that it would be able to capture the remaining part of Kashmir brought the two nations to war. Similarly in 1971 India exploited the opportunity of internal dissention in East Pakistan, intervened militarily which led to a war and then the dismemberment of Pakistan. Following that, the occupation of Siachen by India in 1984, Brass-tacks event of 1987, and Kargil strategic miscalculation of 1999, strained diplomatic relations in 2001 and 2002, and last but literally not least the recent Mumbai attacks and following war threats, all are examples of either use or probability of use of military instrument to achieve political objectives. With the nuclearization of South Asia it is observed that both India and Pakistan have started to become more self-reliant. Though many analysts may take it as confidence but talking in war terms every now and then may lead to serious consequences anytime. It was such kind of confidence in self-reliance on part of William Kaiser of Germany and Nicholas of Russia which led to the 1st World War. Not only this, similar thinking patterns led to a miscalculated war against terror which in turn became a major cause for current economic crunch in international market. In case of South Asia Pakistan has an Indian centric security strategy and following the Indian suit it has also entered into a strategic partnership but with China and has already gone through a round of the military exercises with Saudi navy on Pakistani coastal area.

Though tacitly but an arms and development race is under way in South Asia on conventional front. One can conclude that whether the animosity is historical or religious, traditional paradigm of security calculation is never irrelevant for both South Asian states. With the induction of nuclear weapons in South Asia, war that was a win-lose game became the lose-lose game. That is why both the nuclear states of South Asia refrained from all-out war. If we analyze the history of Indo-Pak relationship, we find a number of low-intensity conflicts along with major wars. The most crucial example is that of Kargil, which took place soon after the nuclearisation and here we see that both the states tried their best to refrain from using the nuclear weapons and let the conflict escalate into a full-scale war. They knew that if the situation gets out of control it would not only be threatening to them but also to the entire region. Keeping the historical practices in view, it could be said that in future there will only be low-intensity conflicts between India and Pakistan, mainly because of contentious issues like of Kashmir, terrorism and extremism as both the states have urged for more CBMs before proceeding ahead to resolve Kashmir issue.

But the fact of coming to negotiating table is an obvious outcome of the nuclear status enjoyed by both state. Conclusion of a nuclear arms deal between India and USA has left many question marks for other powers in the Asian region specifically Pakistan. In addition to it the presence of United States in the region on permanent basis, Indian economic and defence relations with US, Pak-China strategic partnership, extremist elements and probable evaporation of state writ in Pakistan, all present a complex alarming picture to predict future. It might be concluded that the nature of war has changed. Now rationale for fighting a war is more ideology based in form of frustrated cultural deprivations. For a long time the world remained indifferent towards the fate of South Asia. Major Powers, particularly the United States, neglected it. Now the nuclear bangs of the two countries have suddenly alerted everybody that South Asia exists and it has enormous problems and potential for initiating a nuclear conflict at the regional and global levels, which the world so desperately wants to avoid. Thus, South Asian states face multi-dimensional challenges to security. They face the threat of war in the absence of mechanism that prevent conflicts and promote peaceful solutions to outstanding problems. They run the risk of being drawn into a ruinous arms race as in case of India and Pakistan, or into an ever-increasing defence burden because of internal strife.

They are to face, contain and curb the extremist elements in their politics and societies. Both South Asian nuclear antagonists need to re-think their security paradigms in more comprehensive and cooperative terms. It should not only include probable threat of war against each other but also existing war against extremism. Its future paradigm must not rest on security against but security with the all neighbouring South Asian states. The nature of threats to security is so complex and varied that the mere size and resources of the larger states provide little protection against them; in fact, lager the state, more numerous are the vulnerabilities of over-stretched and over-taxed administrative systems. A radical new view of cooperative security can have a decisive multiplier effect on the capacities of South Asian states to counteract the manifold threats that they face on the eve of a new millennium. The political pundits of India and Pakistan should feel more responsible towards their military buildups. They should not exchange threats at every blast by the terrorists. They need to give rise to more mature a strategic culture which leaves least chances for any war or crossfire. It will serve the people better than the nukes they stockpile or are pride of. People are ultimate unit to be secured, the very logic for existence of state. Terrorism is an outcome of ignorance of non-traditional security concerns and can be successfully addressed by the same. It should be over with traditional security in South Asia as war is major tool for traditional security and nukes with both states have left no room for any other war.

Fictions and facts

Whether as a build-up to President Barack Obama's upcoming new strategy in Afghanistan or whether for creating conducive environment for its announcement, the American media has launched a massive campaign to malign Pakistan, its army and the ISI. Not that there is anything new about this vilification campaign of the American media as also to the country's think tanks, lobbies and pressure groups inveterately hostile to Pakistan. But lately there has been great spurt in their motivated campaign, irrefutably inspired by the American officialdom.

The latest is a leading American daily's longish report, based on interviews with unidentified American officials, though it also quotes some Pakistani officials, without identifying them too, leaving one in serious doubt if this isn't mere concoction for the sort of statements attributed to them. The report's crux is that an ISI's full-fledged wing comprising mid-level officers is working with Afghan Taliban, secretly, independently, even without their bosses' knowledge. We leave it to our esteemed readers' credulity to believe it or not. But what is of concern to us is its patent speciousness and sinister design.

It says this ISI's wing is supporting the Afghan Taliban with money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance. But do they stand in need of money when, according to American and NATO commanders' and diplomats' own admissions, the flourishing goldmine of Afghanistan's poppy and drugs trafficking is putting mounds of cash in the Taliban's hands to buy recruits and guns? And why should they be requiring military supplies from anybody else when they can press into service international drugs mafia to procure all they need through world gun-runners and when, according to America's own accounting hounds, some 200,000 weapons, including deadly guns, rocket-launchers and night-vision goggles, have intriguingly disappeared from coalition forces' armouries and Afghan Defence Ministry's stores? And why should they need any strategic guidance from foreigners when being the sons of soil they know their land's topography and terrain like the backs of their hands and have imbibed by inheritance skills and trades of guerrilla warfare with which the Afghans have throughout their history humbled alien conquerors and trounced invading armies? And surely it isn't Pakistani agencies playing a double game, as surmises the report.

It is the aliens who are playing a double game on Pakistan. Who is giving deadly weapons and cash to Baitullahs, Fazlullahs and the likes? Certainly, it can't be Pakistani agencies to kill and maim our own people. These thugs are running no mint mills and arms factories of their own. So who is arming and bankrolling them, if not the CIA and its collusion with Indian RAW, Israeli Mossad and Afghan intelligence, all inimically disposed to Pakistan? Isn't it America propping up its Jundullah proxy in our mineral-rich and strategically-located Balochistan province, drawing us so much ire of our brotherly Iranians for this outfit's subversive activities in their Sistan-Balochistan region? And who masterminded the killing and injuring of Chinese engineers while constructing our crucially-placed Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea? And who is funding and arming the terrorist outfit operating clandestinely from our tribal region to spread terrorism in Xingjian province of our all-weather friend, China? Who else could so infest this region that sits critically on China's neck, if not someone intolerant of this global economic giant emerging as a rival superpower to America as well?

The American officialdom's puerile posturing of righteousness indeed stinks unbearably. Their new viceroy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke blares if another 9/11 happens to America or another Madrid terrorism to Spain or another London mayhem to Britain, it will originate from our tribal region. His very premise is deceptively fallacious. 9/11 was planned not even in Afghanistan, leave aside our tribal areas; it was planned in Europe. Its perpetrators were not even Taliban or madrassas' pupils; they were graduates of western universities and American aviation academies. And they were no Afghans or Pakistanis; they were Saudis, Egyptians and other Arabs. And if our tribal region has become international terrorism's haven, as surmises Holbrooke, then why has there been no another 9/11 or Madrid or London while not a day goes by without Pakistan suffering a lethal suicide bombing, bomb blast or a terrorist strike? Then who is bolstering and buttressing this terrorist haven, and for it? It has to be somebody else; it can't be us. Why then is our establishment keeping its mouth shut, and not speaking out home truths? Is it waiting for a storm to erupt and blow us away for no sin or crime of ours?