The Hypcratic Republic of Pakistan: A Profile

Country profile: Pakistan

Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha in Dawn Blogs

History

The state of Pakistan occupies an area which was home to some of the earliest Neanderthal settlements, some of whose decedents can still be found hiding in caves in the mountains of North Pakistan. The only difference is, in the Stone Ages, these Neanderthals were armed with clubs and stones, and today they are armed with guns and bombs. Remarkably though, they remain as furry as they were millions of years ago.

The modern state of Pakistan was born out of the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947 and has faced many regional confrontations, usually brought on by its continuing habit of poking its nose where it doesn’t belong.

Created to meet the demands of Indian Muslims who wanted to have their own boxing ring, Pakistan was originally in two parts: Part 1 was called Maula Jat and Part 2 was called Jat in Dhaka. The east wing - present-day the Flooded Republic of Bangladesh - is on the Bay of Bengal bordering the Bollywood Republic of India and the Miserable Republic of Burma. The west wing - present-day the Not-Quite-Arab Republic of Pakistan - stretches from the Arabian Sea to the Himalayas and - according to famous patriots and military geniuses like Munawar Hussain and Zaid Hamid – the country actually stretches all the way to New Delhi, Kabul, Tashkent and maybe even Beijing (the last needs to be conquered because Chinese eat frogs and frogs are makru, even if some people say that they taste just like chicken).

The break-up of the two wings came in 1971 when the mainly Bengali-speaking and fish-eating east wing seceded with help from the Elders of Zion.

The disputed northern territory of Kashmir has been the flashpoint for two of the three utterly useless India-Pakistan wars - those of 1948 and 1965. There was a further brief but bitter armed conflict after Islamic militants (ironically led by an enlightened-moderated army man, General P. Mush Bonaparte) infiltrated Indian-administered Kashmir in 1999. After the operation ended in a fiasco, he blamed it on the not-very-enlightened-moderated former prime minister, Mian Naraaz Sharif.

Civilian politics in Pakistan in the last few decades has been tarnished by corruption, inefficiency, confrontations, and bad breath between various institutions and/or whatever institutions that are left in the country. Actually, the word political institution is an oxymoron when discussed in the context of Pakistani politics and state.

Alternating periods of civilian and military rule have not helped to establish stability. In fact, instability is the only stable tradition in Pakistan; a tradition that is being passionately upheld by a series of TV talk shows because political stability would mean lack of viewership and advertising revenues for the channels and a drastic drop in popcorn sales that could turn people into boring book readers which is so passé.

Pakistan came under military rule once again in October 1999 after the ousting of a civilian government that had lost a great deal of public support because the public lost its appetite for rich Mughal dishes such as nihari, paye, and biryani which Prime Minister Naraaz Sharif was a great fan of.

He has since become a vegetarian and is usually taunted as becoming a sissy by Brig. (rtd.) Cookie Monster Billa, the architect of the Afghan Jihad and – according to trendy patriot Madam Maria B - the 1857 Indian Mutiny in which the madam also took part as a gallant needle-worker. Her gallantry was praised by the famous poet Mubashir Lucman on the recommendation of Adolf Hitler. Madam Maria B. still has her famous 1857 needles with which she now pokes voodoo dolls of her competitors in Pakistan’s cut-throat fashion world.

Mr Mush eventually relinquished his army post amidst tears in November 2007, but at parliamentary elections in February 2008, his supporters were defeated, also amidst tears.

The Pakistan Khapay Khapay Khapay Party (KKK) formed a coalition government led by Asif Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Zardari and an impeachment process was launched against Mush, who resigned (amidst more tears) in August 2008.

Pakistan’s place on the world stage shifted after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US. It dropped its support for the Neanderthal regime in Afghanistan and was propelled into the front line in the fight against terrorism, becoming a key ally of the Elders of Zion and assorted secret Freemason societies.

However, Pakistani forces have struggled to maintain control over the restive Neanderthal regions along the Afghan border, where Neanderthal militants are firmly entrenched with sophisticated dish antennas hidden in their turbans and bombs strapped around their tummies which they claim is only a weight reducing exercise. But nobody (except maybe the brilliant Lord Imran Khan), believes them.

In the spring of 2009, the government attempted to reduce disaffection in the troubled north-western Swat district by agreeing to the imposition of the Whipping Women Law.

Far from improving security, this move allowed the Neanderthals to tighten their grip on the region, and the agreement broke down after only a few whips. Since then, the government has waged a rolling military campaign to flush the furry Neanderthals out of the tribal areas - an act that many sensitive Pakistanis such as Professional Hajji Aamir Qayamat and the notorious Male Nurse Shahid Masood have criticized.

Tensions with India over Kashmir have resurfaced regularly ever since the partition of the sub-continent, and the two nuclear-armed (but empty bellied) powers have on numerous occasions been on the brink of renewed conflict that promises to be as exciting as a close Twenty20 cricket match on a bouncy pitch. Or, at least, that’s what most Pakistani and Indians think. Idiots.

Asif Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Zardari won the presidential race of September 6, 2008, by a big majority. His election by Pakistan’s legislators came a few weeks after his predecessor General P. Mush Bonaparte resigned amidst tears under threat of impeachment that, however, has now turned into an imbananament!

At his swearing-in ceremony, Mr Zardari said he was accepting the post of president in the name of his assassinated wife, Benazir Bhutto, who was killed by a leading Neanderthal who himself was killed by an American drone attack. Many Pakistanis do not approve of American drone attacks, even if they usually manage to kill the scum of the earth. However, it is likely Pakistanis would have hailed the drone attacks had they come from the Saudis who are our brothers and we their camels.

Media

General P. Mush Bonaparte’s rule ushered in increased freedom for the print media and a liberalisation of broadcasting policies. Television is the dominant medium, and there are around 50,000 private channels all babbling about the same things.

More than 100 private FM radio stations have been licensed. Fake American accents and low IQ levels are firm prerequisites for success. These FM stations are not allowed to broadcast their own news programmes, and thank God for that!

Scores of unlicensed FM stations are said to operate in the tribal areas of North-West Frontier Province. They are usually operated by Neanderthal RJs, of which DJ Fazalullah In Da Caaaaave is the most popular.

The broadcasting regulator can order a halt to the carriage of foreign TV channels via cable. However, the spouting of utter nonsense and hate speeches on local channels is allowed. Keeps popcorn sales from falling.

Pakistan’s press is among the most outspoken in South Asia, although its influence is limited by a literacy level of around 50 per cent. Out of these, perhaps a mere 5 per cent actually make the effort to read a newspaper and those who do read newspapers they read dailies that spout utter nonsense and scribble hate speeches. Nadeem F. Paracha of the Daily Zion is one such iblees.

There are around 18 million internet users in Pakistan. A growing number of bloggers write about politics, and informative, engrossing and intelligent discussions take place on various internet sites. Here is one example:

Superbilla:
What you think you think you are you kafir anti-Islam Pakistan Afghanistan Israeli Hindu dog!

Pakpunk:
Oh, you shut up you deobandi terrorist what you think you are you and I am I am great Muslim and Pakistan jeeay jeeay yea!!

Munchkins:
Oh why you fight you both you fight you both we all Muslim ummah and Pakistani patriots so we should get together and gather and explode atom bum on India!!!!

Superbilla:
Oh you shut up you hypocrite you not real Pakistani but Ahmadi nonsense, oh you bastaaaaaaaa!!!

Munchkins:
Shut up your face you blasphemy man you destroy unity of Muslim ummah and reader of kafir NFP you too bastaaaaaaaa!!!!

Moderator:
Guys please refrain from using bad language. We are Pakistanis and Muslims and this is a respectable forum where tolerance is practiced.

Munchkins:
Oh why you say this to me to me what about superbilla and pakpunk I am tolerant best Muslim in whole wide world like Pakistan best country in whole wide world.

Moderator:
I said exhibit tolerance and respect, okay? That goes for all.

PartabIndia:
Thank you, sir, for the tolerant words. I am from India and …

Moderator:
Oh, you bastaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Read more...

India-Pakistan rivalry

Sunday, July 19, 2009
Dr Farrukh Saleem

India and Pakistan are in a state of active hostility — if not war or at least two proxy wars. At least six of the Pakistan army’s nine corps are on the border with India. Of the six, I Corps and II Corps are heavy armour strike corps. At least seven of the Indian army’s 13 corps are on the border with Pakistan. Of the seven, X Corps and II Corps are powerful strike corps (strike corps is an offensive formation). Additionally, all of India’s holding crops that are directly facing Pakistan also have significant offensive capabilities. In effect, 66 per cent of the Pakistan army’s holding and strike formations are directly facing India. In effect, more than 53 per cent of the Indian army’s holding and strike formations are directly facing Pakistan.

Pakistan maintains — and sustains — critical assets in the northeast that have managed to pin down India’s XV Corps, IX Corps, XVI Corps, XIV Corps, XI Corps, X Corps and II Corps. India’s 4 Armoured Brigade, 340 Mechanised Brigade, 11 and 12 Infantry Divisions, Jaisalmer Air Force Base, Utarlai Air Force Base and Bhuj Air Force Base maintain a threatening-offensive posture. India is actively supporting anti-Pakistan Baloch elements as well as anti-Pakistan Taliban factions. India is bent upon projecting power into Afghanistan thus encircling Pakistan. And, India – post-Operation Parakram — has been investing into a "Cold Start War Doctrine" involving joint operations by the Indian army, air force and navy; eight integrated battle groups with armour, artillery, infantry and combat air support.

For FY 2009, India’s defence spending will rise by close to 50 per cent to a colossal $32.7 billion (according to Jane’s Information Group). India is planning its biggest-ever arms purchases; $11 billion fighter jets, T-90S tanks, Scorpion submarines, Phalcon airborne warning and control system, multi-barrel rocket-launchers and an aircraft carrier. At $32.7 billion India’s defence spending translates into 2.7 per cent of GDP.

For FY 2009, Pakistan’s official defence spending is set at $4.3 billion while unofficial estimates go as high as $7.8 billion. If Pakistan were to match India’s rise we would have to spend more than five per cent of our GDP on defence. For the record, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Iraq, Somalia and Sudan are all — or have been — in a state of civil war. For the record, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia use to spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Soviet Union is no more. Czechoslovakia is no more.

The US and the Soviet Union fought a 50-year Cold War during which the Soviet Union stockpiled some 13,000 active nuclear warheads. In 1991, the US won without even firing a shot. The Soviet Union raced a race that it couldn’t win. The Soviet Union split into 15.

Over the past century, economic development has been all about intense trading. Pakistan has two population centres; central Punjab and Karachi. Central Punjab is a thousand kilometres from the nearest port. Between Karachi and central Punjab is a desert in the east and on west is an area that does not — and cannot — support population concentrations. To develop economically, we must trade. Trade we must. And, the only population concentration to trade with is on our east.

Time — and money — is on India’s side. Composite dialogue among civilians means little — if anything at all. What is needed is a strategic dialogue. How can India be persuaded to pull back its offensive formations? In return for what? How can we use our America leverage in our longer-term interest? We cannot win an arms’ race with India. We ought to race a race that we can win. We can continue to race a race that we are bound to lose. Or, begin a new race that we may be able to win — or at least not lose. (The News)


The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com
Read more...

How Saudi Arabia has stayed immune from terrorist attacks all this while?

An expat’s question

By Muhammad Ali

Pakistan's dictators have never been as brutal as those in other parts of the world - File photo.

MUNA Khan, a former Dawn hand, now abroad and working for a news agency, emailed the following question to me: ‘One thing that has struck me as odd is how Saudi Arabia has stayed immune from terrorist attacks all this while. What security measures do they have in place that act as deterrents?’

Her question deserves a doctoral thesis, but what is needed is a short and focussed response germane to the question. A cogent remark by a British journalist deserves attention in the context of the war on terror. He said Pakistan was neither a democracy nor a dictatorship. This was said in the summer of 2007 when, during the Musharraf era, two crises were running simultaneously: the Lal Masjid rebellion and the lawyers’ movement.

Pakistan has never been the barbaric dictatorship that Latin America and many parts of Southeast Asia had been and which the Middle East continues to be. Even in Ziaul Haq’s days — when Pakistan came nearest to being a barbaric dictatorship — the military regime had to have regard for basic notions of constitutionalism. He might have said that the constitution was nothing but a piece of paper he could tear up any time, but even Zia had to have his takeover approved by the Supreme Court and to rely on pseudo-constitutional nostrums to perpetuate his tyranny. Even for Bhutto’s ‘judicial murder’ (Dorab Patel’s words) he had to go through the charade of a trial. No such compulsions existed for tyrants in Latin America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

One of Pakistan’s major problems has been lack of continuity of the political system. Even if a dictatorship lasts — notwithstanding the phut that comes later — certain advantages do accrue. Ayub’s decade of development wasn’t all fraud. The foundations of industrialisation were laid, the middle class expanded, and the world, from Beijing to Washington, respected Pakistan. Ziaul Haq’s tyranny was a disaster domestically, but the world knew who was minding the store. As for Musharraf, the US dealt with him as did India because they knew who was in charge. More important, under Musharraf the media was quite free (till the curbs in his final days in office). This had a direct but negative bearing on questions relating to the war on terror.

Let us now note some of the major differences between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the context of the war on terror. One, the desert is not guerilla-friendly. On a moonlit night you can spot a moving object miles away. Two, Saudi Arabia does not have a terrain where three of the world’s mightiest mountain ranges — the Himalayas, Karakoram and Hindukush — meet. For that reason it does not have those valleys and canyons and dry rivers-beds and hundreds of thousands of caves which provide sanctuary to terrorists armed to the teeth.

In Pakistan, arms for terrorists come from the tribesmen’s own improvised arms industry or are bought from the global market with drug money. The Saudi kingdom wouldn’t tolerate a semi-autonomous arms manufacturing industry which would flood Saudi Arabia not with delicious dates but a variety of arms ranging from a ‘toy’ like the Kalashnikov to the rocket launcher.

Three, in Saudi Arabia the government controls the ulema, who are not in a position to bully the officials. A slight deviation from the government-authorised version of the Friday sermon, and the imam is in trouble. In Pakistan, the so-called ulema — most of them semi-literates — bully the government and society and are a source of social anarchy. Well-armed and well-funded, Pakistan’s religious parties and institutions are the biggest hindrance in the war on terror and extremism.

Let us note the difference between how Islamabad handled the Lal Masjid rebellion and how the Saudis tackled the failed bid to take over the Grand Mosque and take the royal family hostage. While the Musharraf government acted late and half-heartedly against the Aziz–Rashid duo, let us see the ease — or, if your prefer, the ruthlessness — with which the Saudi government dispatched the rebels

Three decades after the failed takeover of the Grand Mosque in Makkah in November 1979 we do not know the details of how the mutiny was crushed. The Saudis called in French legionnaires to flush out the dissidents. Most rebels died fighting or were later captured and executed. Even encyclopaedias till today have no clue as to the number of the dead. Some accounts say the Grand Mosque was flooded with water and electric current released.

In our case, what do you do if half a dozen terrorists hide in a Swat or Fata village of 20,000? Do you order the army and air force to take out the village? Can any government in Islamabad do what Israel did in Gaza and Lebanon?

Far from taking out the village, even if Pakistani security forces seal off the village for a fortnight, within no time Pakistan’s human rights’ organisations and the pro-Taliban media would be up in arms, with lurid stories about babies dying for want of milk and pregnant women without healthcare in the biting cold. The government would retreat, and the terrorists would be the gainers. Neither Pakistani liberals nor aid-givers understand this point.

Pakistan has taken every imaginable step possible so far as security measures are concerned for tackling the rebellion in Swat and Fata. But Pakistan doesn’t enjoy the support of the liberals, who live in a world of their own, and seem to forget that their theoretical sermons on constitutional and liberal values may sound fine in Scandinavia, but help the Taliban and their supporters in the media and politics over here.

Friday, 27 Mar, 2009 (Dawn)

Read more...

Hamid Mir: Who broke Pakistan?

The grandson of late Bengali leader Abul Hashim wrote me a letter about my last article on Lahore Resolution published in this newspaper on March 23. Abul Hashim was the Secretary General of Muslim League in United Bengal before the partition of India. I wrote in my article that Abul Hashim and Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi tried to stop the division of Bengal with the help of a Hindu leader Sarat Chandra Bose in 1947 but they were failed and the division of Bengal was a violation of Lahore Resolution. I also wrote that Pakistan was created through a political struggle but after the death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah some military dictators destroyed the democratic institutions in the newly born state and that was why the majority of Bengalis turned against Pakistan.

Mr Ibrahim Khan, grandson of Abul Hashim in a mail sent to me from Dhaka endorsed my position and wrote that "the utter failure of the Pakistani rulers in terms of political knowledge, patriotism and respect for democracy shattered the hopes and aspirations of the new-born nation. Only the Lahore Resolution could have made the Pakistan a state where the Muslims as well as the non-Muslims would enjoy the freedom of their individual national culture and religious practice."

I have received lot of other mails not only from Bangladesh but also from different cities of Pakistan. It was a great surprise that most of the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis now agree that Lahore Resolution was not implemented properly, pro-American military dictators mistreated Bengalis and that was the reason for the division of Pakistan. Only one reader declared me a traitor and I was mentally prepared for that allegation. Many readers want some more information about the efforts for the creation of a United Bengal by some Muslim Leaguers who had support from Jinnah. Some students asked me who was actually responsible for the breakup of Pakistan? They asked me this question because there is no answer in their textbooks.

It is a historical fact that Bengali leaders of Muslim League and some Hindu elders of Congress tried their level best to stop the division of Bengal between March 1947 and June 1947. Congress President Acharia Kripalani was demanding the division of Bengal. It's a historical fact that Bengali leaders of Muslim League and Congress formed a six-member committee to stop the division of their province. This committee included Suharwardi, Abul Hashim and Khawaja Nazimuddin from Muslim League and Sarat Chandra Bose, Kiran Shankar Roy and Satya Ranjan Bakshi from Congress. This committee contacted both Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi and started their efforts after getting the blessing from both of them on May 12, 1947. This six-member committee reached an agreement for the creation of a united Bengal state within one week.

Sarat Chandra Bose informed Gandhi about this agreement by a letter written to him on May 23, 1947, but surprisingly Gandhi changed his position. He responded back to Bose in a letter on June 8, 1947, that Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel are opposing your scheme. In retaliation Sarat Chandra Bose tried to win the support of other Congress leaders by saying that only Brahmins were supporting the division of Bengal not low caste Hindus. He reminded the mistreatment given to his late elder brother Subhash Chandra Bose by Brahmin leaders of Congress, who was thrown out of the Congress. Abul Hashim successfully won the support of Communist Party for United Bengal. Jinnah continued also his support for the United Bengal because he also wanted to stop the division of Punjab. Ultimately all these efforts to stop the division of Bengal failed because Lord Mountbatten was on Nehru's side.

Division of Bengal was a big blow to the Bengalis. They were 56 percent of Pakistan even after the division of Bengal. They would have been more than 65 percent of Pakistan in case of a United Bengal. Developed and industrial cities like Calcutta became part of India and most of the areas in eastern part of Bengal were poor and under-developed. It was easy for military dictators like General Ayub Khan to exploit both East and West Pakistan by using military power. Media was very weak at that time and common man in the West Pakistan was not aware about the feelings of East Pakistan. If anybody today wants to know the historical truth about the disintegration of Pakistan he must read the book of a retired chief justice of Pakistan, Muhammad Munir From Jinnah to Zia. Justice Munir was the law minister of Ayub Khan.

He wrote on page 92 of his bookL "When I joined Ayub's cabinet in 1962 I found that no constructive work was being done by the Assembly. Everyday was spent in listening the long speeches of Bengali members about exploitation and about the step-motherly attitude of West Pakistan. Ayub used to listen to these speeches and was bored. I spoke to Ayub and suggested that there could be no fusion or common goal between the two provinces and asked him whether it would not be better that instead of putting up with nonsense, we must ask East Pakistan to take their affairs in their own hands. He suggested to me that I should talk about it to some influential Bengali leader. One day I spoke to a Bengali minister from East Pakistan, Ramizuddin. He asked me whether I was suggesting secession. I said yes or something like it as confederation or more autonomy. He said we are the majority province and it is for the minority province to secede because we are Pakistan."

This book was published in 1979 in Pakistan but General Zia-ul-Haq banned the book. I still have a copy of this banned book. This book is evidence that a military dictator actually tried to break Pakistan in 1962 through his law minister but Bengalis refused to break Pakistan. Bengalis were forced to take up arms against Pakistan when another military dictator General Yahya Khan tried to silence their voice by tanks and guns in 1971. Military dictators, their crony judges like Justice Munir and some corrupt politicians of West Pakistan broke Pakistan, not Bengalis. We must learn lesson from history. March 26 is the independence day of Bangladesh. Military takeovers were always bad for Pakistan as well as for Bangladesh. May Allah save these two nations from the military dictators forever in the future.

The writer works for Geo TV. Email: hamid.mir@geo.tv

Thursday, March 26, 2009 (The News)


Read more...

Holbrooke’s entry will lead to India-Pakistan dialogue on Kashmir

Holbrooke’s entry will lead to dialogue

Sunday, February 01, 2009
by Aakar Patel

India must engage Pakistan on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir before it is forced to. It must settle on a solutions process that is approved by both democracies, and by the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.

Last week, India averted Barack Obama’s focus on the issue by using its muscle. America’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke was initially meant to also deal with ‘related matters’. This was apparently a euphemism for Jammu and Kashmir. However, according to the Washington Post, India forced President Obama to delete the words ‘related matters’ from Holbrooke’s brief before the official announcement.

This showed India’s clout extending seamlessly from a Republican administration to a Democratic one. But it also showed how alarmed India is at the prospect that someone would inspect a problem that is clearly worrying the world. A week before that, India sulked at Britain’s foreign minister David Miliband, who wrote in an article that Jammu and Kashmir needed to be resolved because it gave jihadis an excuse for terror. The Hindu reported that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee were upset by the tone Miliband used in a meeting he had with them, where he was forthright. As the younger man, they expected him to show deference.

India rejects the argument that terrorism against India is fuelled by the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. To an extent this is true. There are groups in Pakistan that seek more than the liberation of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar-e-Taiba says it wants to conquer the Red Fort. There are also Muslim groups in India that are doing terrorism for other reasons, like the killings in Gujarat. And there are groups in Pakistan, and Lashkar is one of them, that are part of the global jihad that has Caliphate aims that are not based on specific grievances.

But what the world is concerned with is that extremism in Pakistan has surged, in part because of India’s reluctance to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. This must be addressed by India sooner or later, because extremism in Pakistan is no longer just its internal matter. Having just held an election that India sees as very successful, this might be seen as the right time.

India has two fears on Jammu and Kashmir. The first is the fear of loss of territory. The second is the fear of the unravelling of its secular structure, where the two-nation theory is eternally in application, and never ‘settled’. India has a complicated view of the issue, and its legal and constitutional positions on Jammu and Kashmir are separate from its most powerful argument.

India’s legal view: the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir Hari Singh acceded to India on October 26, 1947. This accession is legal and Prime Minister Nehru’s subsequent moving of the United Nations Security Council to vacate Pakistani intrusion does not supersede it. India also points out that action under the resolutions of the Security Council was sequential. The UN had sought Pakistan’s retreat from the disputed territory first, something that Pakistan had not done.

India’s constitutional position: India’s constitution came into force in 1950, by when it was acknowledged that Jammu and Kashmir would need special status. This was given to it through Article 370 a couple of years later. Through this India agreed that except for defence, communications and foreign affairs, all central legislation would require the assent of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. There was also mention that the head of the Jammu state would be referred to as the Sadr-e-Riyasat.

Temporary in nature, this law was greatly eroded over the years, as India tried to absorb the state into its democracy. Compromises that India made with the National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah did not penetrate into the state’s population, however, and the simmer remained. Instead of autonomy, India ruled with a heavy fist. Sheikh Abdullah was jailed and the chief ministers of the state came to be seen as nominees of New Delhi.

After the eruption of the Azadi movement in the late 80s, India unleashed its army, first on the separatists and then, as Pakistan got involved, on the jihadis. After a few years, in the mid-90s, New Delhi again brought up the self-rule solution, saying the “sky was the limit” on autonomy.

Only in the last decade has India stopped fiddling with the elections in Jammu and Kashmir. The army was used to boost turnout in neither of the last two elections, according to independent observers. India’s most powerful argument, though it has not articulated it clearly, has been that it offered the people of Jammu and Kashmir democracy under a first-rate constitution.

That Kashmiris, if they voted, would have the government of their choice ruling them. That if azadi was sought by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, it would have to be defined in light of this reality. This could, of course, only apply if India did hold elections that were widely participative. The Indian state believes it did this with last year’s elections, which damaged the claim of the Hurriyat that it was sole representative of the Muslims of the state.

Even if the issue of azadi was separated from dal-roti issues through the last elections, India believes there has been trust built between the Jammu and Kashmir electorate and India through the vote.

Pakistan’s fear on Jammu and Kashmir is that its nationhood is unresolved, both through geography and the existence of a Muslim-majority state in the Indian union. It needs Jammu and Kashmir, or even just the valley, to ‘complete’ the national project. There is also a secular fear that Pakistan cannot let its water resources be under India’s control even if the Indus Waters Treaty appears to have held so far.

Pakistan’s legal position is that the United Nations Security Council asked for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir and that it should be enforced. Gen Musharraf gave India an ‘out’ from this, by saying he would discuss the issue outside of the ambit of the plebiscite. Pakistan’s worry, not without merit, is that in the absence of an interlocutor, India just does not get serious in talking solutions. That is why the Pakistani media is keen on Holbrooke playing referee even though America is not seen as being on Pakistan’s side.

Pakistan’s problem has been convincing the world what it will do with Jammu and Kashmir’s non-Muslims, against whom its constitution is discriminating. Jammu and Kashmir’s problem is that it is not really a homogenous state. Few states in India are, but Jammu and Kashmir in particular is not. The Hindus of Jammu are very different in their inclination from the Muslims of the Valley. The Shias do not have the same enthusiasm for azadi after their experience in the Northern Areas.

The Buddhists of Ladakh are also removed from the movement. The Hurriyat did its cause a great disservice by making their movement Islamic. The Hurriyat’s leadership comes out of Mirwaiz Omar Farooq and the Jamaat-e-Islami’s Syed Geelani. Their support to jihad and the kicking-out of Pandits from the Valley undermined their cause globally.

If the separatists had been able to articulate their demand as universal rather than Islamic, they would have had much more sympathy from Indians, and from around the world.

But the separatists have a trump card: their right to demand freedom, and they have the history of the Indian state’s brutality to point at in justification of this demand. No solution between India and Pakistan on the matter can really result in a full settlement of the issue till this matter is resolved. In that sense, the problem can actually be seen as between India and the Muslims of the Kashmir valley.

Once Holbrooke understands the motivation of the Pakistani military leadership, and the limitations of its civilian leadership, he will be led inevitably to thinking about Jammu and Kashmir.

America will not intervene directly because India will not let it. However, there is no doubt that Holbrooke will encourage India to take the matter up bilaterally. India should do this before it is pressured into doing it.

The problem of Kashmir may well be insoluble. But the dialogue on it should be open and free, and incidents of terror should not be used to shut it down. (The News)

The writer is a former newspaper editor who lives in Bombay. Email: aakar. patel@gmail.com
Read more...

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's Legacy to Pakistan - A lecture by Stanley Wolpert

Jinnah of Pakistan

The old forget - The young don't know



"I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minorities communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community.will vanish. Indeed, if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago.You are free, you are free to go to your tamples, You are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste on creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state.We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another.We are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.all members of the Nation.and you will find than in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslim would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world." Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Lecture by Prof. Stanley Wolpert

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's Legacy to Pakistan
A lecture by Stanley Wolpert, Professor of History, University of California, Los Angeles. Delivered at a seminar organized by the Institute of Regional Studies on March 22, 1998

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was South Asia's most brilliant Barrister, and an honest man, who also emerged as British India's most remarkable political leader proving mire than a match for all of his Congress opponents. including Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. by virtue of his total integrity. legal acuity and unwavering commitment to the Muslim League's suit which he pressed through the last arduous decade of his devoted life, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah sired the independent Nation-state of Pakistan.

Never tempted by bribery or the lures of Imperial 'honours' (he was, as Liaquat Ali Khan put it "unpurchaseable"). Mr. Jinnah was hailed after 1937 by Muslim League followers as Quaid-e-Azam and he has rightly remained Pakistan's 'Greatest leader since death 50 years ago. "I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any.prejudice on ill-will, "he assured your first Constituent assembly on August 11, 1947. "My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality".

Lincoln's Inn Barrister M.A.Jinnah entered politics as a member of India's National Congress (before joining the League), and soon emerged as its best Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, drafting the Lucknow Pact of 1916, adopted both by the Indian National congress and Muslim League as their united platform demand to the British Raj. Four years later, however, when Mahatma Gandhi revolutionized the congress at Nagpur, after the end of World War one in the Wake of Jallianwala Bagh, Mr.Jinnah tried to caution him against embarking upon a program designed, as your Quaid rightly predicted, to trigger violence and cause chaos throughout British Raj. Gandhi and his followers ignored Jinnah's warnings and ridiculed his rational voice, impelling him to leave Congress's pandal, never to return. He remained a member of the Muslim league but for some time Barrister Jinnah opted to live and work in London, until after 1935, when he was lured back to accept the permanent Presidency of Muslim league by Liaquat Ali and Begum shah Nawaz, among others.

In 1937, following elections held under the new government of India Act in which Congress won a commanding majority of Provincial Seats and after Nehru arrogantly insisted that there were only two parties left in India, the congress and the British, and all others must "line up, line up!" Jinnah replied " There is a third party - the Muslims ". And that October he transformed his appearance on the eve of the Muslim League meeting in Mahmudabad's Garden in Lucknow, donning his black sherwani and Persian lamb cap, that has come to be known the Jinnah cap, abandoning his Barrister grab to emerge as Quaid-e-Azam of Muslim India's inchoate Nation. " The .Leadership of the Congress, especially during the last 10 years, has been responsible for alienating the Musalmans of India.pursuing a policy which is exclusively Hindu, "Jinnah thundered " They have by their words, deeds and programmes shown, more and more, that the Muslmans cannot expect nay justice or fair play at their hands. Wherever they were in a majority.wherever it suited them, they refused to co-operate with the Muslim League.To Musalmans every province. I say.. Organize yourselves; establish your solidarity and complete unity. Equip yourselves, as trained as disciplined soldiers.Work loyally, honestly as far to cause of your people and your country. No individual or people can achieve anything without industry, suffering and sacrifice. There are forces which may bully you, tyrannize over you and intimidate you.But it is by going through this crucible of the fire up persecution which may be leveled against you.the threats are intimidation that may unnerve you.by resisting, by overcoming, by facing these.. Hardships. and maintaining your true convictions and loyalty, that a nation will emerge, worthy of its past glory and history, and work live to make its future history greater and more glorious.Eighty millions of Musalaman in India have nothing to fear, they have their destiny in their hands, and as a well-knit solid organized, united force can face any danger, and withstand any opposition.Take your vital decisions.they may be grave and momentous and far-reaching in their consequences. Think a hundred time before you take any decision, but once a decision is taken, stand by it as one man."
For the next years, Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah worked vigorously to consolidate his incubating Muslim Nation. "We must stand on our own inherent strength build up our own power, "he reiterated in Karachi. "It is in use blaming others. If the Musalmans are going to be defeated in their national goal and aspirations it will only be by the betrayal of the Musalmans among us as it has happened in the past".
And at the League's session in Patana, the Quaid told his cheering audience: " The Congress has now..Killed every hope of Hindu-Muslim settlement in the right royal fashion of Fascism.I want to make it plain to all concerned that we Muslims want no gifts .no concessions. We Muslims of India have made up our mind to secure full rights, but we shall have them as rights.the Congress in nothing but a Hindu body.Today the Hindu mentality, the Hindu outlook, is being carefully nurtured, and Muslims are being forced to accept these new conditions and to submit." The Quaid cautioned that from them on they could look for help only to their own "Muslim nation" and to "God".

In 1939, shortly after viceroy Linlithgow proclaimed British India at War with Germany, Nehru called upon the viceroy to issue an immediate promise of "absolute freedom to India after the war and the right of India to draft her own constitution, " as the price if Congress's support. We also called for general elections. No British officer had either the time or inclination to bargain with Congress over India's future, while Britain's own future was in jeopardy. Jinnah alone among India's political leaders understood great Britain's position, and said nothing negative, called upon all Muslims to help the Raj by "honourable co-operation at this " critical and difficult juncture. "He met with the Viceroy to plead for " more protection" for Muslims, and full recognition of the League as the "only organization that can speak on behalf of Muslims of India."

While Congress thus alienated the British in those administrative support and Viceregal backing. Nehru and Ghandi grossly underestimated British and Allied power in 1939, deluded into believing that without India congress support the Raj would collapse. Jinnah knew better. His assessment of British power was unclouded by sentiment or wishful thinking, Nehru tried to goad Jinnah in make an anti-British public statement in October of 1939. "The Indian people are asking for a constitution to be drafted and adopted by our selves, "Jinnah never responded to so gross a challenge, waiting quite for congress to resign the provincial power it had enjoyed since 1937. Nehru impetuously obliged by doing just that in early November, and then Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah announced that Friday, December22, 1939 was to be celebrated as a "day of Deliverance and thanks giving .that the Congress regime has at last ceased to function." He urged Muslims everywhere to hold public meetings and offer prayers of thanks for the demise of that "Hindu Raj" under which Muslims had for two and a half years been crushed by yokes of "tyranny, oppression and injustice." Those prayers proved a portent of the Muslim League's decision to opt for separate statehood.

In January of 1940 Jinnah wrote a piece of London's Time and Tide, in which he quoted the 1935 Report of the joint Committee on Indian constitutional reforms, stating that India was inhabited by "many races.often as distinct from one another in origin, tradition and manner of life as are nations of Europe. Two-thirds.profess Hinduism.over seventy-seven millions are followers of Islam; and the difference between the two is not only of religion.but also of law and culture. They may be said indeed to represent two distinct separate civilizations, "though irreversibly afflicted by this time with tuberculosis, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah arrived on the morning of March 22, 1940 in Lahore, where he was to preside over his Muslim League's most important session, entering the crowded pandal erected on the maiden of Minto (now Iqbal) Part at 2:25 p.m.

Why does not Mr. Gandhi honestly now acknowledge that the Congress is a Hindu Congress, that he does not represent any body except the solid body of a Hindu people? President Jinnah asked in the capital of Punjab, which would remain the cultural capital of Pakistan despite political pride of place given to Karachi and Islamabad. "I think even a blind man must have been convinced by now, that the Muslim League has the solid backing of the Musalmans of India. Whey then all this camouflage?" asked the Quaid of Mr. Gandhi, addressing him over the heads of more tan 60,000 Muslims gathered within earshot of his amplified voice in Lahore. "Why not come as a Hindu Leaders proudly representing your people and let me meet your proudly representing the Musalmans?"

So though Fazul Haq and Shrawardy were predisposed to a separate Bangladesh, the Quaid insisted that Pakistan must be a single Nation, for he understood the official British mind much better than any of his colleagues, or any Congress leader. Nehru was closed to British liberal and Labour intellectuals, of course, but most official British minds resonated to Mr. Jinnah's thinking. He knew it would be much easier to get the British to agree to a single partition of India, rather than to its further Balkanization, opening a Pandora's box of separates demands by Sikhs, Untouchables, Dravids - all clamouring for 'nation as' of their own - not to remain the princes! The Quaid knew how difficult it would be to begin Pakistan how complex the task of seeking to identify and divide the assets and liabilities of an Empire the size of British India was to become. He also appreciated more than any other leader of the era that time was his enemy, and any change would require monumental labour.
"I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us, Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah told his followers in Lahore 58 years ago. "Do you realise how big and stupendous it is? Do you realize that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments?" He realized that he might not live to witness the birth of Pakistan and hoped to inspire enough healthier young followers with his brilliant vision. "We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people, "President Jinnah told them. "We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own idea and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demand and vital interest of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find and honourable and peaceful solution which would be just and fair to all. we cannot be moved or diverted.

A year later, (April 1941) in Madras, Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah elaborated the sort of programme he envisaged, explaining how his followers must dedicate their lives and labour to help transform the Lahore Resolution calling for creation of a sovereign "Land of the Pure" for South Asia's Muslims, into political reality.
"Our goal is Pakistan.Now what next? No people can ever succeed in anything..unless they work for it and work hard. what is required now is that you should think. we must now think and devise the programme o a five-years plan, and part of its would be how. best the departments of the national life of Muslim India may be built up. What are those departments?. They are the four main pillars (1) Let us devise a definite well-considered educational plan. It is knowledge, information and enlightenment that make a people great. (2) Next, you know the Muslim are left behind both economically and in the social life of the people of this great land. there is this great province of Madras. May I know what stature the Muslims have in the economic life of this province ?. (3) The next important thing is political training. We must have political soldiers.. (to help us) live. on lines of security, justice and fair play. We believe in action, we believe in statesmanship, and believe in practical politics. The next thing .. (4) I want to tell you is what the ideology of the League is. the ideology of this League is based on the fundamental principle that Muslim of India are an independent nationality, and any attempt to get them to merge their national and political identity and unity will not only be resisted, but. it will be futile. The next thing. is our policy - internal, external and international. Our policy of the All-India Muslim League is to endeavour to promote goodwill and harmony with the other peoples on the base of equality, fair play and reciprocity. with the objective of collective security and orderly development. among free states as members of a community pledged to respect each other's rights."

That was (the outline of your Quaid's enlightened policy upon which he elaborated on the very eve of Pakistan's birth, six years later, to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi:

"I sincerely hope that . we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The first and. foremost thing that I would..emphasize is this - remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have to all the powers. It therefore places on you the greatest responsibility as to how you take your decision. You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.

"The second thing that occurs to me is this "One of to biggest curses from which India is suffering.. is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and.Black-marketing is another curse.Now you have to tackle this monster which.is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food.

"Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely consent on the well being of the people, especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation forgetting the past, burying the hatchet you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste creed, is first, second and last citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.

"I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minorities communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community.will vanish. Indeed, if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago.You are free, you are free to go to your tamples, You are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste on creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state.We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another.We are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.all members of the Nation.and you will find than in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslim would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world".
Such was the great dream and legacy of your Nation's Father. No wonder you continue to revere him as your Quaid-e-Azam, and to enshrine him in your hearts as well as in noble monuments of marble. But the greatest tribute to any man of such genius and inspired leadership, remember, is the do what he asked of you not simple to pay lip-service to his memory, but to activate his legacy by transforming yourselves, and daily labours and nation wide support and co-operation to help turn his Pakistan and yours into one of the greater Nation of the world!

Quaid-e-Azam Zindabad! [Long Live Quaid-e-Azam!]
Pakistan Zindabad! [Long Live Pakistan!]
Read more...

How can I shoot my brother in India? Remembering Shaikh Ayaz...

Shaikh Ayaz (1923-1997) was one of the major Sindhi poets of Pakistan. He was one of very few brave writers who wrote against the tyrannical rulers of Pakistan and the wars they waged against their own people.

In one of his early poems, he writes of the two deities from classical India: Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge and music sitting together with Kali, the wanton goddess of blood and violence, the two of them sipping nectar in a moon-lit temple. "How have the two come together?" the poem contemplates and then comes up with the answer: Perhaps a great poet has been born. Ayaz's poetry must have been born in such an instant since it represents the coming together of diverse elements --- beauty and the shadow of death.

During the Indo-Pak war of 1965, he wrote a poem about another progressive Sindhi poet, Suragwasi Narain Shayam, who had migrated to India after independence. It goes like this:

He sangram!
samhoon Aa
Narayan Shayam!
hina ja munhinja
Qola bi saGya
Boola bi saGya
hoo kavita jo kaaka-dharni, para
munhinja ranga-ratola bi saGya
DHatu bi saGyo
DHolu bi saGyo
hanou bi saGyo
hola bi saGya
huna tay keean bandooka KhaRNa maan!
hina Khay golee keean haRNa maan!
keean haRNa maan!
keean haRNa maan!
keean haRNa maan!

Translation:

This sangram!
in front is
Narain Shayam!
His and mine
tales are the same
promises are the same
He is the king of poetry, but
my colorful ways are also same
land also same
beloved also same
heart also same
horrors also same
How can I point a gun to him!
How can I shoot him!
How can I shoot!
How can I shoot!
How can I shoot!
Read more...

The Mumbai Attacks: Pakistan-India ties: time to tread carefully; time to jointly confront extremism and terrorism in the region...

Pak-India ties: time to tread carefully

The Mumbai standoff with the terrorists went into its third day on Friday with remnants of the attackers ensconced in the buildings they had occupied along with hostages, including symbolically the Nariman House Jewish centre. The death tally had gone up to 125 with 9 foreigners killed too. India is jolted and commentators are calling it India’s 9/11, the same way Pakistan called the attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad Pakistan’s 9/11. In the middle of this the Indian prime minister, in a nation-wide address, said that “neighbouring nations would have to face a cost if they allowed their territory to be used to launch attacks on India”, a thinly veiled reference to Pakistan. This shows the domestic pressure he has to face, especially from the BJP and other rightwing groups who have already accused his government of being soft on the Muslims. But the statement does threaten to throw a spanner in the works of the normalisation process. For its part Pakistan has already condemned the attacks and warned that “jumping to a conclusion” won’t help either side.

It is clear that Pakistan has not “allowed” its territory to be used by Al Qaeda. In fact, it is under attack from Al Qaeda and its many affiliate groups. The last time Al Qaeda attacked inside Pakistan was when an Arab suicide-bomber blew up the Danish embassy in June this year. In September, another suicide attack destroyed the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad amid comment that it could have also targeted the Americans staying there. In Pakistan speculation was widespread about the involvement of “foreign” elements, but finally the case was cracked when on November 22, 2008 an arrested Pakistani confessed in a court that the plan to attack the Marriott had been hatched inside Afghanistan in a province used earlier by Al Qaeda for the Danish embassy blast.

The Indian prime minister’s phrase “allowed their territory to be used” brings India into the category where the US leads by holding Pakistan accountable for its lack of sovereign hold over its own territory. Pakistan’s territory was used for the 9/11 action, and today the main bone of contention are the cross-border raids being carried out from Pakistani territory against the NATO forces in Afghanistan. But India should be careful about joining this club as it would take away the option of “cooperating” with the present government in Islamabad on the rising tide of terror in the two countries.

Very thin evidence linking speed boats — and at least two “captured” Pakistani cargo ships going to Karachi off the coast of Indian Gujarat — to the terrorists positioned in the hotels in Mumbai threatens to produce a new bilateral crisis. Pakistan has issued statements from the president and the prime minister in a tone that clearly indicates sympathy and collaboration. President Zardari who took the risk of crossing the traditional nuclear “red line” by offering not to exercise its “first use” option will be put on the backfoot if hostile rhetoric now rising in India takes over. As Indian commentators speculated about Lashkar-e-Tayba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, Karachi in Pakistan was experiencing a deadly standoff between the police and what is known as Afghani Gang in Sohrab Goth, the latter liberally using hand grenades. There are reports of Talibanisation in Karachi that have divided instead of uniting the political forces there.

Pakistan faces the spread of Taliban and Al Qaeda elements southwards into the settled areas as CIA drones operate in the Tribal Areas. There is insurgency in Balochistan which is steadily killing persons suspected of being against Baloch nationalism. Equally there is the calamity of an earthquake in the province which Pakistan is finding it difficult to tackle. Relations with the US are tense over the drone attacks and Pakistan needs cooperation with its regional neighbours to avoid becoming isolated while its economy needs to be helped out of its current trough of depression. Above all, it needs understanding from India while it stands ready to share intelligence with it on the latest Mumbai bombing.

Recent events have not helped. India has been accusing Pakistan’s intelligence of having attacked the Indian embassy in Kabul with a suicide-bomber while Pakistan has alleged Indian hand in the Balochistan insurgency and even terrorism emanating from the Tribal Areas. This has been a blind continuation of allegations that began in 2001 when the Indian parliament was attacked, triggering Indian troop deployment along the border with Pakistan. This kind of “jurisprudence” is being pulled out again to explain the latest attack. “Analysis” emanating from the West about the Mumbai attack having the signature of Al Qaeda in combination with some Pakistani Islamic group has not helped either.

Pakistan needs to activate friendly diplomacy instead of “replying” to the allegations being made by upset Indians over the media. The past may have been problematic but the present clearly shows both countries afflicted by the same disease. Both need to cooperate and must stop their “proxy” war in Afghanistan. The cue for this must come from the friendly statements made earlier by President Zardari, expressing Pakistan’s willingness to move rapidly on a course of normalisation with India. (Daily Times, 29 Nov 2008)
Read more...

Benefits of Pakistan-India frienship. Nawaz Sharif must support Zardari's friendly approach to India. By Asadullah Ghalib

Read more...

Aligning regional security policies - By Khalid Aziz

Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Khalid Aziz

What was projected to occur within the next few weeks in my last article has come to pass already; the drones for the first time attacked a target inside the district of Bannu and there are reports of more flights now over Kohat. Soon Robocop (as I call the drones) will be seen over Jamrud in Khyber Agency and Peshawar. The war is entering the Pakistani mainland with bewildering speed. The Pakistani leadership has been so deluged with constant bad news that it has become somnolent, instead of dealing with the situation with alertness.

Both Ahmed Rashid and Barnett R Rubin think that the US is trying to pressure Pakistan to change its policies. Is the new pattern of drone attacks yet another move to shift Pakistan's policy into some other direction? Secondly, experts on counter-insurgency claim that without legitimacy the war against the militancy cannot be won. In this context the drone attacks by the US challenge Pakistan's authority to deal with its own people and thus damages its image. Thirdly, and more seriously, the drone attacks shift the tactical centre of gravity of security operations into the districts. Once this happens it will attract the insurgents into the districts and open new fronts; the military will have to be pulled back from FATA to deal with the problem. In a very Dr Strangelove sense it will lead to the withdrawal of troops from the tribal areas, confirming the statement by Ahmed Rashid and Rubin that "Many in Pakistan believe that (Washington) has deceived (Islamabad) into conniving with it to bring about (Pakistan's) own destruction…" However, to my mind this is not the case; there is a simpler explanation.

The Bush administration has never reviewed its goals in Pakistan and Afghanistan since the November 2001 operations in Afghanistan. Thus, it has been following separate policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there is a lack of policy convergence. Furthermore, I think that the US policy as seen in Pakistan shows that it is based more on anti-terrorism than a counter-insurgency approach. Anti-terrorism places reliance upon military action and depends on force, while counter-insurgency provides a larger framework and is aimed at winning the population though different means. The drones are the foremost weapon in the arsenal of anti-terrorism and thus cannot help win an insurgency war.

However, as pointed out earlier, the US wants a shift in Pakistan's policy which is to stop it from helping the Taliban in Balochistan, an accusation which appears with frequent regularity in the literature printed by US think tanks. This is a difficult shift and one which is linked to finding a regional solution for addressing Pakistan's security concerns with India. As long as Pakistan continues to fear an Indian encirclement through Afghanistan, it will continue to maintain some form of links to the Taliban. In a manner, Pakistan is buying insurance. Thus, it will not be possible to achieve peace and stabilisation in Afghanistan unless the Pakistan-India dispute on Kashmir is out of the way. Furthermore, the growing friendship between the US and India creates further suspicion against the real US design in Pakistan.

Every four years the Asia Foundation, an independent international think tank, publishes a set of recommendations for the incoming US administration. In its 2008 publication regarding "America's Role in Asia," it has offered some thoughtful recommendations, many of which deserve consideration by policymakers in the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I discuss here one of these.

According to it, if the US wishes to solve the problems facing it, it must engage the Pushtun people who number about 42 million. There are about 27 million living in Pakistan and about 15 million in Afghanistan. Without cooperation of the Pushtun tribes, it concludes, the US will not have peace. Secondly, most US anti-terrorism operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are in Pushtun areas. The drone attacks create more Pushtun enemies because of the collateral deaths. Unless the US wins the friendship of these people there will never be complete peace. Furthermore, the Pushtuns have integrated into the trans-national Al Qaeda network and have thus become a formidable mass of warriors who follow a religious flag of convenience.

Many Pushtun intellectuals believe, wrongly, I think, that the Pushtun has been a peaceful rustic who has been transformed into a fighting machine by the Afghan jihad. They fail to understand the basic cultural and religious drivers within Pushtun society. The US has no problems with the Tajik or Uzbek or other ethnic groups inside Afghanistan. However, with the Pushtuns the US faces a unique cultural difficulty. The problem is that the Pushtun is prone to religious extremism and readily accepts membership into millenarian movements to resist reform of a centralising state which externalises Pushtun governance and politics; he cannot live with the transfer of his management to a larger entity like a modernising state. This is because he fears that his social conduct, "Pushtunwali," will be endangered and he will lose his identity. For a Pushtun, whether he is supporting Mulla Umar in Afghanistan, Fazalullah in Swat, Maulvi Faqir in Bajaur or Baithullah in Waziristan – he is fighting a war to preserve his identity.

On the other hand, the US believes deeply in civic values of freedom and democracy almost like religion; to the US, Pushtun resistance doesn't make sense! However, this Gordian knot of social misunderstanding between America and the Pushtun cannot be cut by drone attacks or "kinetic operations" alone. A fundamental shift of approach is needed which is based on befriending the Pushtun. The killing of Pashtuns must stop. If one examines history there have been many Pushtun revolts in the past and they have arisen when the Pushtun felt that his identity was under attack – and whenever that happened he has looked for a religious leader to lead him because his own social setup is so affected by jealousies that he would not follow a secular leader who might rule him tomorrow.

Therefore, the US must forge a policy which focuses on strengthening the Pushtun social structure. However, while doing so the US must realise how deeply the Pushtun issue divides both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In an effort to prevent Pushtun ethnic nationalism from undermining the Pakistani state, US leaders have promoted religious radicalism in the tribal areas. On the other hand, US interest lies in reducing the support of the Pushtuns for religious extremism reflected in the presence of Al Qaeda safe havens in FATA. It is thus clear that the interests of the US and Pakistan will not converge without a solution of the Durand Line issue with Afghanistan.

Three recommendations arise out of this discussion. Firstly, the US must adopt a counter-insurgency approach based on winning the friendship of the Pushtuns. Secondly, it must assist in the solution of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan and, thirdly, it should help in resolving the Durand Line dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research. Email: azizkhalid@gmail.com (The News)
Read more...

International conspiracies against Pakistan - an eye opener for conspiracy theorists

Capital suggestion
Conspiracies against us

Sunday, November 23, 2008
by Dr Farrukh Saleem

It's a Jewish conspiracy. Medinat Yisra'el or the State of Israel has appointed Yuli Tamir, a PhD from the Oxford University, as their minister of education. Just look at the fact: this has happened when Pakistan didn't even have a minister of education (and then the Islamic Republic appointed Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani). Consider this: Zubaida Jalal Khan, our one-time minister of education, is being investigated by a Senate committee for her role in the Rs3.6 billion Tawana Pakistan Project scam. Just look at this other fact: exactly when Zubaida Jalal was running Tawana Pakistan, Yuli Tamir was a research fellow first at Princeton and then at Harvard. How cunning indeed, the ministry of education in Israel gets to spend $1,500 every year on each Israeli citizen while the ministry of education in Pakistan has a mere $20 per year for every Pakistani man, woman and child.

Imagine; Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other country on the face of the planet -- 109 per 10,000 people. Pakistan produces one per cent of Israel's productivity. Israel spends $110 on scientific research per year per person; Pakistan spends $2.

This one must be an American conspiracy. The Yanks have somehow duped us into buying $35 billion worth of mobile phones, luxury limousines, wheat, tea, raw cotton, plastic materials, petroleum products and edible oil when the Yanks know full well that 170 million Pakistanis cannot export goods worth more than $20 billion. It has to be the Yanks causing this depletion of our hard-earned foreign exchange reserves. It has to be the Yanks forcing us to fall for the IMF bait. It has to be our bomb that they hate.

Finally, the Indian conspiracy against us. Now, even Prime Minister Singh is going to help Pakistan get into the IMF trap. Then there are a billion penny-pinchers, a mere 177 miles east of Islamabad, using Aishwarya Rai to hypnotise each and every one of our 55 federal ministers into spending a colossal Rs600 billion per year more than the entire government of Pakistan earns every year. How wicked, insidious and vicious are the Indians; opting for the moon for their own country and wanting to make an international beggar out of us.

What's wrong with Saudi Arabia? They make $700 million per day by selling oil at $70 a barrel. Do they also have a hidden agenda against us? Why can't King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, throw our way a few billions? What's wrong with China; our friendship higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the Indian Ocean? After all, Hu Jintao is sitting on $1.9 trillion dollars worth of foreign exchange reserves. Why can't he throw a few billions our way? Is China also conspiring to bring us down to our knees?

Look at Lockheed, the world's largest defence contractor, conspiring to deplete our foreign exchange reserves. The fact is that no one is buying F-16s anymore and the Forth Worth aircraft assembly plant is laying off workers. Why is Lockheed then shoving down at least 18 F-16 C/D Block 50/52, worth a colossal $1.43 billion, down our poor, hungry throats? Lockheed knows full well that three out of four Pakistanis make less than $2 a day. Raytheon, the world's largest producer of guided missiles, has now forced us to buy 500 of its advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles in return for our hard-earned $629 million.

When the whole wide world is conspiring against us the IMF must have been feeling lonely. The fact is that the IMF had been left clientless. Out of the blues, the IMF allured us into fabricating this massive balance of payment crisis so that the IMF could stroll right into Pakistan, lend us billions and in return ruin us and destroy us (if we are destroyed who would pay back the IMF its billions?). In short, our current fiscal and monetary emergency is not our own creation. Only if the three -- Israel, India and the US -- were to be swallowed up by the devil himself we could make a heaven out of the 778,720 sq km of land area we call Jamhuryat Islami Pakistan.

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com (The News)

Also read:

Munir Attaullah: Conspiracy. Will anyone tell me who these terrorists are?

"RAW Totay": The conspiracy theory parrots. The supporters of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Taliban remember Lal Masjid and shed crocodile tears....

Asinine and anodyne in '09?: The industry of conspiracy theory in Pakistan

Everyone at fault, except us. Why is it that everything that goes against us becomes a conspiracy?

Read more...

Seven years in Afghanistan — Article by Hamid Karzai

If we can all work together — Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the United States, and our allies — I see a possibility of moving beyond the days when a government thinks it needs extremism as an instrument of policy. When all governments in the region reject extremism, there will be no place for extremists, and terrorism will wither away

We began a journey in Afghanistan seven years ago with the war that ousted the Taliban from power. Much has been accomplished along the way, for Afghanistan and for the world.

In less than 45 days in 2001, we Afghans were freed from the menace of terrorism and the Taliban. Back then, Afghanistan’s people held great hopes for an immediately wonderful future.

Some of those hopes were fulfilled. Our children are back in school. Roughly 85 percent of Afghans now have access to some health care, up from 9 percent before 2001. Child mortality — among the worst in the world in 2001 — has dropped by 25 percent. Democracy, a free press, economic gains, and better livelihoods — all of that is there.

But, sadly, we are still fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What is it that we have not done right that makes us — and the rest of the world — less secure?

After the liberation in 2001, the international community concentrated on Afghanistan alone as the place to fight extremism and terrorism, while we Afghans argued that our country is not the right place to fight. The war on terrorism cannot be fought in Afghan villages. Instead, a regional approach was and is needed. It must be concentrated on the sanctuaries of those who train, equip, and motivate the extremists and send them out to hurt us all.

But we were not heard. Regardless of whether that was the result of a lack of knowledge or a lack of will, events have proven us right. Unfortunately, for the past two years, Pakistan has been suffering as much or perhaps more than Afghanistan has suffered. Almost the entire tribal belt along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border is suffering.

Just as schools were burned in Afghanistan from 2004 onwards, for the past year schools — especially for girls — have been burned there, leaving 80,000 children without facilities. Bridges have been blown up, soldiers and police killed. Bombs have exploded from Karachi to Lahore to Islamabad. The violence has spread to India as well, with bombings in Gujarat, Bangalore, and Delhi.

So the problem is regional, and it concerns institutional support for extremism that incites terrorism. Unless we collectively address the roots of the problem by ending that support, as well as financial support for radicalism in all forms, we will not defeat terrorism.

This has not been properly understood in the West, which has been fighting the symptoms of terrorism, but has failed to attack its underlying causes. Fortunately, today I see signs of recognition of this malaise. And the democratic change in Pakistan is good news for the Afghans, the Pakistani people, and, by extension, many others around the world.

Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, has suffered from terrorism as we have suffered. His wife, Benazir Bhutto, was killed by terrorists. I visited Pakistan for President Zardari’s inauguration, and for the first time I saw a dim ray of hope. If we can all work together — Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the United States, and our allies — I see a possibility of moving beyond the days when a government thinks it needs extremism as an instrument of policy. When all governments in the region reject extremism, there will be no place for extremists, and terrorism will wither away.

But this also requires helping those people who out of desperation have fallen prey to extremist forces. Last year, I pardoned a 14 year-old boy from the Pakistan tribal area in Waziristan who had come to Afghanistan to blow himself up as a suicide bomber. Only utter hopelessness can drive so young a man to such an act. We must rescue these people by giving them a better future, which only more education and new opportunities can bring.

Desperation and poverty are the tools used by evil forces to raise their terrorist cadres. But that environment will not change if political will is lacking, and if there is no action by the US and the governments of the region to get our economies to create jobs that offer hope.

Moreover, in order to deny terrorists institutional support, we must bring institutional strength to Afghanistan. We must enable Afghans to look after themselves and defend their country, to have a future in Afghanistan, to have hope of raising their children in Afghanistan.

Recently, I spoke to an Afghan man very close to me. He has a son who works in the Afghan Foreign Office. That young man was born in the US but returned to Afghanistan four years ago. The father asked, “Do you think I should take my son back to the US?” I said, “Why? Let him live here, let him work here, let him be an Afghan.” He said, “Yes, but will he have a future?”

A viable future means security as well as bread. We have started to bring hope by educating young Afghans, but we have not yet succeeded in bringing them a secure life, free from the danger of bombs and aerial bombardment. Only when that happens will Afghanistan be secure. And if the two other conditions are fulfilled — removal of political backing for radicalism and help for the desperate — we will have a safer life not only in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, India, and the rest of the world. —DT-PS

Hamid Karzai is the President of Afghanistan (Daily Times)
Read more...

Drone Attacks on Pakistan, Syria shows the way to Pakistan - by Rahimullah Yusufzai

Saturday, November 08, 2008

The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar

The way the Syrian government and people reacted to a recent US military raid on a village in Syria near the Iraqi border forced one to reflect on the Pakistani reaction to similar American incursions into its territory. Obviously, the Syrians were angry and protests broke out in Damascus and elsewhere in the country. But a lot more instructive was the strong reaction of President Bashar al-Assad's government, which described the killing of eight Syrians in the attack as a "cold-blooded war crime", demanded an apology and warned of consequences.

In comparison, governments in Pakistan whether run by the soldiers or civilians are forever trying to find some justification for such cross-border raids. This is useful to escape the blame for being unable to protect citizens from raids by other powers and defend the country's borders despite spending so much on the armed forces. The reaction by Pakistani governments is belated and mild and no real effort is made to provide facts and figures to the people about the human and material losses resulting from the US ground and missile strikes. The government of President General Pervez Musharraf never demanded an apology from the US for its numerous attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border and it even failed to ask for monetary compensation for the families of those killed and wounded in the frequent American assaults.

The democratically elected government headed by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani has adopted the same policy even though it was expected to forcefully plead Pakistan's case in keeping with the aspirations of the nation. In fact, the first major ground offensive by helicopter-borne US forces took place on Pakistan's soil in South Waziristan during the PPP-led government's rule in early September but its reaction was meek and rhetorical, packing a lot of hot air and signifying nothing. The situation has come to such a pass that now the US is 'requested' not to launch missile strikes in Pakistani territory and countries ranging from the United Kingdom to Turkey is asked to intercede on Islamabad's behalf for convincing the US to respect Pakistan's sovereignty. Though it is true that states such as Pakistan with weak economy and weaker political will cannot hope to safeguard their sovereignty from arrogant superpowers such as the US, most Pakistanis still expect their rulers and armies to make a real effort toward this end instead of making hollow claims and raising false hopes. With such low credibility, the ruling elite cannot hoodwink the people, who shouldn't be taken for granted as they are able to fully grasp the situation and arrive at intelligent decisions whenever granted an opportunity.

With regard to the reaction by Syria to the US military raid on Syrian border village Abu Kamal, Damascus wasted no time in taking the issue to the UN Security Council. While protesting to the UN Security Council, it branded the US raid as barbaric. It demanded the closure of the US cultural centre and American school in Damascus. The official Syrian press and government officials termed the US attack, in which eight civilians including children were killed, as a war crime. The Syrian government sought an explanation not only from the US but also Iraq because the American troops used Iraqi soil to launch the raid on the Abu Kamal village in Syria. Huge protests were staged in Syria and protestors addressed the Americans as "colonialists" and their attack on Syria as "American terrorism." They also defined American democracy as the one that justified killing of civilians at Abu Kamal village.

Due to the unusually strong Syrian reaction, a number of foreign governments also started condemning the US raid. Friendly governments such as the one in Iran were obviously vociferous in their condemnation of the US but other countries joined the chorus and blamed Washington for fuelling hostilities in one of the most unstable regions in the world.

The US unofficially tried to justify the raid with one of its unnamed officials arguing that the military operation in Syria targetted a top militant who smuggled arms and fighters into Iraq. In keeping with the US practice of not taking responsibility for all such secret military operations whether the target is Pakistan or Syria, the Pentagon and the State Department declined to comment on the issue. Being vague enabled the US to avoid complications, though there was no doubt that the cross-border raid put to rest any hopes of improving relations between the US and Syria. For long, the two countries have had a rocky relationship and in 2004 the US imposed sanctions against Syria after accusing it of helping insurgents in Iraq and the Hezbullah group in Lebanon.

The furious Syrian reaction to violation of its sovereignty by the US wasn't unexpected. Given their state of hostile relations, it was natural for Syria to consider the US raid as an act of aggression and react in the strongest possible manner. It was the first time the US launched such an attack and a meek Syrian response would have emboldened Washington to organize more raids. The Syrians have said they reserved the right to take further retaliatory steps, but one shouldn't expect Damascus to declare war on the US or target its troops based in Iraq. Being a small country under economic sanctions and located in a region dominated by the US, Israel and their Arab allies, Syria cannot embark on an adventurous path. However, the Syrians have showed how even a militarily and economically weak country can respond in an honourable way to protect its sovereignty and defend its borders and citizens.

Pakistan failed to vigorously protest the first time its borders were violated by the US in early 2004 when the CIA-operated drones fired missiles into a village near Wana in South Waziristan to kill Pakistani Taliban commander Nek Mohammad and several of his men only weeks after he signed a peace accord with the Pakistan Army and paved the way for a peaceful political solution of the conflict in its early stages. Instead, the government and military started claiming responsibility for missile attacks that were launched by the US drones. This gave the US an opportunity and justification to organize cross-border attacks as a matter of routine and avoid any condemnation even if it killed Pakistani citizens and destroyed properties.

Unlike Syria which asked for Iraqi explanation for the US raid launched from Iraq's soil, Pakistan never held the Afghan government responsible for any US cross-border attacks originating from Afghanistan. In fact, there are so many similarities in the situation between the Iraq-Syria and Pak-Afghan border that it is difficult to differentiate the kind of cross-border infiltration of fighters that allegedly takes place from Syria to Iraq and Pakistan to Afghanistan. The US and its allies have all along been alleging that militants based in Syria enter Iraq to attack American and allied forces and destabilize the Iraqi government. In case of Pakistan, the allegation is that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters use sanctuaries in the tribal areas to infiltrate Afghanistan and attack US-led coalition forces and destabilize the Afghan government. It is partly true in both cases but the fact remains that this is just part of the problem as fighters inimical to the US-led forces are also based inside Afghanistan and Iraq and are able to operate freely in areas beyond the control of the Afghan and Iraqi governments. It is almost impossible to stop the flow of Islamic fighters determined to expel western forces occupying Muslim countries and this has been proved beyond doubt despite the efforts of the mighty armies of the US and its NATO allies and Pakistan.

As a close US ally, Pakistan has contributed immensely in men and material to America's "war on terror" and in the process rendered itself unstable. It is also the conduit for critical supplies, 80 per cent or so, that NATO forces in Afghanistan need to sustain their war effort. However, Pakistan hasn't been rewarded properly for its efforts or given the respect that it deserved as an ally. The Americans may be at fault for violating Pakistan's sovereignty and killing Pakistani citizens but major powers such as the US seldom concede mistakes or seek apologies. Our governments failed to act boldly and responsibly to earn respect for the country. Syria has done much better and it isn't surprising that that it merits honourable mention in the comity of nations in spite of being a much smaller country than nuclear-armed Pakistan. (The News)


Email: rahimyusufzai @yahoo.com
Read more...

The election of Obama and the future of US-Muslim relations - an interesting debate between a right-wing Pakistani and a left-wing Pakistani

we_are_nuts Says:
November 6th, 2008

It is amazing that nut jobs remain nut jobs be it from the East or the West. The problem with Pakistan as i have been professing on this site since pre-Zardaro era is not USA/West/Israel/India but Pakistan itself. I had a huge long debate about Taliban/Pakistan/USA/Israel with some jerk called --- on this forum. The question i asked was what if everybody leaves Afghanistan and its back to square one (which it might be soon) then what happens? Does that take care of the sectarian problem in Para Chinar? Does that heal the rift created by the religious nut jobs from Saudia Arabia and Iran between Shia and Sunnis?

The US election is as much a slap in the face of the religious nut jobs/conspiracy theorists in Pakistan (or Pakistani jerks living outside Pakistan spewing hate even though they live in foreign lands) than the religious nut jobs in the US.

A simple question:If a man by the name of Alexander Omar Bradley was somehow able to run for the post of Prime Minister in Pakistan, how many Pakistanis would vote for him?

I stick to my premise that Pakistan has to change from within and not without.

And its amazing that the debate is steered back towards Muslims, Jews, and Christians by jerks like you. The debate is Central Asian Republics, Oil, and Money. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSLIMS…RELIGIONS ARE USED BY ALL SIDES TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE BE IT WEST OR EAST. The Catholic Pope lives in a palatial residence in the middle of Italy without paying any taxes and dresses in gold and silver while claiming to represent a relgion of a carpenter whose main job was to feed and heal the poor. The Muslim Imams live in a palaces right outside Mecca while jerks in Iran live with little boys in their hujras..

...

You crazy jerks amaze the heck out of normal people. Let’s see, if we are believe the same sources that you quote about Rahm (about Israel, Mossad Blah, Blah…)then i come to the conclusion:

A ‘manchurian’ President-Elect of the Unites States of America named Barack Hussien Obama II, who is a closeted muslim and studied in Indonesian Madrassahs learning to hate Christians and Jews now pretending to be a member of the United Church of Christ, has hired a Mossad double agent as his Cheif of Staff who has more loyalty to Israel then to Barak?…

---- why don’t you write novels?

Rahm is from Chicago and so is Barack. He is hard noosed guy who has made his way up by trempling on jerks like you and maybe some nice people. You are using the Republican talking points against a Democratic White House Chief of Staff while all the while cursing the Republican President of the Unites States of America named George Bush for causing havoc around the world. I think Bush/Republicans/Bohner couldn’t find a better ally in the world than you……

I just want to point out that the American people are not stupid. There was a choice in front of them which said that we either chose the ‘tougher on world’ guy or ‘lighter on world’ guy. Either way, no world power or people will ever give their power up volunatarily, i.e., if anybody wants it, they would have to fight for it (like the Chinese, not Al-Qaeda). The American people simply realized that without the economic power, the country will not have the influence in the world that it has today. Economy trumps everything and thus the people gave their verdict.

Lately, its been actually a very simple calculus in the US for winning elections, either you scare the people with terrorists or you scare them to death with the economy. Unfortunately, the economy was out of Pappy Bush’s control this time…

Barack had a little bit harder task, you know :) , with his name being Barack Hussein Obama II, Kenyan father, Indonesian step father, a blazing seperatist black church pastor named Wright shouting ‘God Damn America’ or ‘US of KKK A’ and a 70’s erra local rebel (we shall call him a rebel not terrorist) named Bill Ayers. As i said, American people are not stupid, they knew all about this stuff as this information was peddeled from coast to coast but 63 million Americans still voted for him. Either they are really stupid, or they see something in him…

..........

Taimur Says:
November 6th, 2008

Think again buds, with your brain now.
You think we have created all the miseries aka terrorism. Lets go back to 911, Bush missiled pentagon, destroyed twin towers and killed his own people and then blamed on ‘terrorists’ OBLaden. If you don’t believe me, search on youtube. CIA/Government funded these same terrorist groups in the past to get things done. Also our own beloved ISI was involved in this dirty act. Now all they/and us are doing is SWEEPING them and including innocent people. If you still hail OBAMA, then think again buds!

.........

we_are_nuts Says:
November 7th, 2008

@Taimur
“Obama will be no better than Bush who started all this, well maybe a minute difference but nothing to get excited about”… “Think again buds, with your brain now.”

I should say i get pleasure in putting poeple like you down…

The only thing that doesn’t need to get excited is you little d**k so you don’t go out and reproduce more babies with walnut size brains like yours. However, i wouldn’t be that confident in your ability to reproduce let alone get excited!

CIA/Mossad are not capable of pulling something like 9/11 off. Got it? If it were true, it cost USA and Israel billions and billions of $$$ in actual money as well as trillions of $$$ in opportunity costs. They didn’t need 9/11 to invade Iraq, that was ginned up by other means that were avaialble to them already. The only culprit left is ISI whose abilities are in front of you as they are grappling with the fact that they might just lose a quarter of Pakistan. ISI is more show than game. Rose glasses are off and people see ISI for what it is, a f**ked up agency which has ended up eating Pakistan.

Now, has the US used 9/11 as an excuse to mess around in the world? Yes, but ofcourse. But why don’t you blame the Saudis, the Pakistanis(ISI), the Iraqi exiles, the Afghani warlords that are helping the US play this game. The game cannot be played just by the US. It takes two to tango, and as long as Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Jerks like you are hell bent on participating, the dance goes on.

So if you are a Pakistani, you are a half nut job, and if you are Muslim Pakistani, you are a complete nut job.

.........

Taimur Says:
November 7th, 2008

@we_are_nuts
Actually YOU ARE NUTS, here’s why.
Are you sure that U.S. wasn’t behind 911, well see if your mind can recall the so called plane crashing into Pentagon. First a plane cannot fly at that altitude, it’s virtually impossible, second how the hell weren’t there any parts of a Boeing 747, third why did FBI extract all the video evidences (there’s one on youtube that was released and it shows nose of a missile)…think buddy think…use your pea sized brain. I’ll help you, it was nothing but a missile.

Then you talk about MONEY. You know how much US is spending in wars right now??? Trillions! Money is no problem for them, even in this recent banking crisis they have enough to bail banks out so don’t talk about money. If you are talking about damages (twin towers, pentagon), it wasn’t much, I don’t know the exact figure though, you can do a research on that.

I agree with one thing that Saudi, Israel and Pakistan were all involved in this. I’m not blaming US for everything but I’m saying that they directed this.

.........

we_are_nuts Says:
November 7th, 2008

@Taimur
Its exactly this stubborness from people like you who refuse to believe that there are muslims out there who can pull off something like 9/11. I never had any doubt that there are religious nut jobs out there who are hell bent on killing innocent people (on both sides). Who are these people in Al-Qaeda? Granted, they were created initially via the Afghan jihad and left to the dogs afterwards. To some how insinuate that these so called muslims (Al-Qaeda) are completely innocent in this blood bath is beyound crazy, its finatic, which is exactly what organizations like Al-Qaeda are looking for. Finatics like you, who are just ignorant about the real world and how it operates, much like the Governor of Alaska.

Your understanding of economics is not even marginal at best. I was actually not talking about the buildings of twin towers or pentagon, which i think you picked up on….Anyways, who is them? Money is not a problem for US? LOL. Let’s work on ECON 101. The US runs huge trade deficits with the world. Reason, US consumes a lot more from the world than it produces (willing to produce, which goes into the concept of economies of scale, comparative advantage, Adam Smith and so forth). Lately its been running huge fiscal (budget) deficits as well because of the spending in Iraq as well as huge tax cuts. The US can print all the $$ in the world, which will however start inflating everything as well. The point, “they” tend to only pick fights they can win and which usually makes them more money and tries to keep the other side at bay. Now, seems like both Iraq and Afghanistan have gone haywire due to foot on the enemies throat stratgy, which has created a lot of collateral damage along the way as well.

Your fantasy that US some how wants to keep killing muslims for just the heck of it is obtuse and stupid. Why aren’t they killing the Chinese? The only people that are suffering and will suffer are poor, downtrodden, hopeless, and jobless muslims around the world, including in Pakistan.
Read more...