Attention readers



Yüklə 269,28 Kb.
səhifə1/5
tarix15.03.2018
ölçüsü269,28 Kb.
#31981
  1   2   3   4   5

ATTENTION READERS

You have been reading Kashmir Sentinel regularly for more than a decade now.It is being published to the best of our efforts by a dedicated group purely on voluntairy basis.The objective is to keep your goodself abreast with the latest in Politics, Culture,Heritage,History et-all. Kashmir Sentinel is doing its best to bring you the factual aspects of each subject and we have every reason to believe that it satisfies the requirement of our esteemed readers.However we do face some short comings which primary include financial support This is our earnest appeal to all our respected readers to kindly donate generously to Kashmir Sentinel.

Please donate in form of DD/Cheque in favour of Kashmir Sentinel to be drawn at Jammu. Thanks --Editor END
EDITORIAL

Can Paksitan change

Can Pakistan change its outlook about
India, is a critical question which very
few experts will answer in affirmative. President Obama's expression that Pakistan should look at India differently not as an enemy appears by and large a noble wish or at the most a political expediency.

The statement does carry an immediate political import. It assuages India's sense of hurt. It is also an assurance to Pakistan that it can divert its forces from its eastern front and use them in its crucial internal battles around Swat and surrounding areas.

However the way President Obama has raised this issue, carries for the first time the signals of an attempt to construct a new thinking on the region. There is a glimpse in this statement that the superpower is perhaps seeing a link between the outlook of the state of Pakistan about India and its transformation into a sanctuary of terrorism and international Jihad.

The statement can have positive portends across India. This is precisely so because public opinion in India has visualised Pakistan as a post war creation of Imperialist forces to have sway and control over the region even after the demise of colonialism. Public opinion in India has not registered that USA supported the movement for independence of India and exerted pressures on the British government to set India free immediately after the war. It is also true that USA supported independence of a United India and was averse to partition of India. Indian leadership at that time swayed more by leftist view of international politics saw USA and Great Britain with the same prism. It never acknowledged publicly the role of USA in the decision of Great Britain to retreat from India. But it is also true that USA in the post. 1947 period adopted a strategic view about Indian subcontinent as was evolved by the British.

Can Obama's statement act as a harbinger of a new thinking about the region? That Pakistan can be stable if it becomes inclusive; it can become truly democratic if it shuns religions precedence and adopts right to equality; it can delegitimise the role of army and non state actors if it ceases to visualise itself as a frontline Islamic state for the export of Islamic sphere of influence towards east. This fundamental change can take place if Pakistan delinks its destiny from Kashmir. This delink is critical to start a process of change in Pakistan. Does Obama have such a perspective in mind, can unfold only in future.

However it is to be said with emphasis that even if Obama wants to bring about a transformation in Pakistan's outlook it cannot be done without the help of India. If the leadership in India accepts across the line the de-facto locus standii of Pakistan to determine and arbitrate the destiny of Muslims of India including the Muslims of Kashmir then the change in Pakistan will never come about even if Americans invest in it and Pakistan leadership wishes so.

It is in this context the silence of Indian leadership on Obama's statement assumes intriguing dimensions. The time has come where Govt. of India and the political establishment seeks a disconnect between the problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan from problems in Kashmir. It is the ripe time to assert unambiguously that any concession to Pakistan in Kashmir will hasten the Islamic upsurge and capture of Pakistan by radical Islamists. To expect Indian leadership to think of solutions which may be claimed as non-territorial but which essentially undermine secular vision of India will eventually strengthen international Jihad in the region and collopse of India as a secular polity. END
LETTERS

Highest Journalistic Etiquette

Sir,


May "Goddess Sharika Bestow you her supreme grace along with your all comrades to achieve the main objective of homeland for our community at the earliest possible moment. "Let there be a miracle".

May I say it is a unique journal of its type with highest journalistic etiquette which you may not find in other journals. It covers the details of the past events, happenings and some personalities in most lucid form which is a very good information of which we can say a 'rare treasure', "The preservant for posterity." It also covers the present political analysis of the events with precise and accurate details, a torch bearer for our intellectuals and those who govern us. It gives correct warning and message to our adversaries, whose mind gets up-set with such a correct and factual statements. "Overall it is a unique journal which must continue to run till eternity with same gusto". I wish our community could understand the value of "this" journal which is our great treasure for the posterity".

I have so far preserved each copy of Kashmir Sentinel for the records in our family in regular order.

May I thank you one and All in the end for being so generous to make it such a valuable thing for the community and the nation as a whole. If they understand what you say, all the problems of the nation regarding Kashmir will be solved.

Thanking you all noble people again and again and see that journal runs smoothly.

--R.N. Naqaib Dwarika, New Delhi.

Who destroyed temples?

Sir,

According to a news item published in a local Hindai daily, Kashmiri Pandit Sangarsh Samiti (KPSS) organised an exhibition of 465 temple photographs, destroyed, disfigured or dissanctified in Kashmir during last 20 years. Shri Sanjay Tikoo, head of the KPSS specially invited extremist and separatist leaders to see the exhibition. Shri Tikoo asked these leaders to explain the responsiblity of the mojority community in saving temples and who indulged in these acts of destroying the valuable monuments and are being done continuously till date. It is said that leaders accepted the truth with their heads low and expressed unhappineess. Their expressions were full of remorse to see their own faces in mirrors of the photographs.



We appreciate the KPSS for organising such exhibition of the temples.

I would like to request you to kindly publish the details of these temples in your paper.



--K.D. Tewari

Kanpur-2 END
GUEST COLUMN

Pub culture, Bane Of Indian Society

By J N Raina

Renuka Chowdhury’s
boisterous call for “pub-baro aandholan”, to protest against the so-called “male chauvinism”, is preposterous. It is an attempt to denigrate the nation of one billion people and demean women. The dim-witted Union Minister for Women and Child Development is perhaps oblivious of the fact that pub culture is inimical to the Indian society. Pubs have become a breeding ground for drunkards, criminals, hooligans and rogues. They are responsible for the spread of drug-mafia and sex-mafia in different parts of the country.

The unpleasant rhetoric of the effusive Minister that there should be no bar on girls to throng pubs, is not only egregious, but also at variance with the benign assertion of Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss that “pub culture is against the Indian ethos”.

Well-meaning leaders like Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit and Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot are diametrically opposed to growing roadside pubs, especially in the South. Instead of raising a clamour to save boys and girls from drinking and smoking at pubs, she tries to disorientate the youth from the path of righteousness. On the contrary, the Health Minister has a clear- cut vision against the proliferation of pubs. He has made it clear that the proposed national alcoholic policy would help in curbing the pub culture. About 40 per cent of the road accidents in India are related to alcohol.

It is an agonizing fact that girls have been smoking and drinking in pubs. Some of them were reportedly drugged at the Mangalore pub, raped and later killed. No one had raised an alarm, till the Sri Ram Sena surfaced. The society just blinked. Is it a healthy sign? Ramadoss has rendered a yeoman service to the nation by helping to ban smoking at public places. Pub culture, he says, is not in India’s interest. “ If it goes this way, I do not think India will progress”, he has observed.

According to a study, drinking among youth has increased by 60 per cent during the past six years. Instead of caring for women and children, Renuka Chowdhury wants girls to go to pubs. It is mind-boggling.

No sane person will hesitate from condemning the assault on girls at Amnesia—an unlicensed pub in Mangalore—by Sri Ram Sena. It is insulting to the nation that girls were dragged by the hair, allegedly molested and beaten up. They should have been scolded and threatened. But to suggest that the youth have a democratic right to drink and attend pubs and bars, is immoral. That such an idiotic statement has come from the Union Minister for Child Development is more serious and ludicrous. The countrymen were left aghast while watching her comments on TV sets, rebuking Sena Chief Pramod Mutalik. With ashes in her mouth, Renuka told him: “ You are not married” and hence he was against pubbing by girls. It does not behove a minister of her stature to exhibit vulgarity. What has Mutalik’s marriage to do with pubbing?

Renuka’s own house is in disarray on the issue. The Chairperson of the National Commission for Women, Girija Vyas, had to face wrath from a member of the Commission, Nirmala Venkatesh, who was deputed to inquire into the Mangalore pub incident. But when she found fault with the pub owner on the grounds of security, she was asked to resign. The latter gave a rebuff to Vyas and Renuka . The Commission Member refused to step down.

Sheila Dikshit has abhorred pub culture, saying it has no place in our society. Pubs should not be allowed near educational institutions, she has asserted. Ashok Gehlot has equally criticized the pub culture.

Ordinary folk are totally against the mushroom growth of pubs. People are against smoking and drinking of women and youth. It is against Indian sanskriti. A large number of pubs have come up on roadside in Mangalore, Bangalore, Mysore and Goa, like tea shops during the past two decades. They have become a haven for drug peddlers and sex-mafia.

If smoking has been banned at public places and dance bars have been closed down in Mumbai, what is wrong if the Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa decides to close down pubs in public interest to create a congenial atmosphere in his state. However, there is no justification for violence that was witnessed in Mangalore. He has a right to dismantle the pubs. They are a nuisance to the society. Renuka Chowdhury should have resigned on moral grounds for her exhibition of vulgar behaviour. She has shown no rectitude. An overwhelming majority of the Indians believe pubs encourage smoking and drinking. Girls are forced to dance nude, to the amusement of the onlookers. What must be the lot of their parents, who might suffer in silence, several hundred miles away

The Mangalore incident has been exaggerated to the hilt. The attack on women does not tantamount to Talibanisation. No one was beheaded. India is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. Our Constitution does not give a free license to drink and delve in debauchery. Women have a lot of liberty to attend any club of their choice, but in a dignified way. They are the backbone of modern society and represent a variety of Indian culture. A woman is a nucleus of an Indian family. No one would like to see her hanging in a pub. No one can allow denigration of women, who have the authority to control their home affairs and curb drinking tendencies of their counterparts.

Girls are being robed of their modesty in a pub. They have to bear children and become mothers of tomorrow. If drinking habits are inculcated in them from ab initio, it will affect their children and spoil their lively atmosphere at home. The number of suicide cases are on the increase. If the girls are allowed to drink, the coming generations will emerge as a society of drunkards, scoundrels and rascals. Did Mahatma Gandhi fight for independence or nurturing pub culture?

When the society behaves irresponsibly and just blinks, organizations like the Sri Ram Sena are bound to grow. A few years ago, groups of women in a village in Satara district of Maharashtra took out a series of anti-liquor rallies and against drunkenness of their husbands. Ultimately they succeeded. Today they are a happy lot. When the administration remains a passive spectator to the growth of pubs and the society lacks interest in guarding the youth from drinking and smoking, organizations like the Ram Sena have a right to intervene and correct the situation. If it were not Sena, any other group of intellectuals, or saner elements could emerge and assert their right to stop the misguided youth from indulging in such baneful activities. The youth have to be educated. The standard of life has to be elevated. Education has to be made free and compulsory, if we want to fight against such tendencies. The explanation that Indian girls and women do a lot of things—fly aeroplanes, join defence forces, have climbed Everest et el, but ‘sala’ girls cannot drink in a pub is nonsensical. Such an argument is imponderable. Pubs are a curse on the Indian society. Let there be no doubt about it. END
MEDIA-SCAN

Married to militants and living in hell: Kashmiri girls

By Binoo Joshi

Not all marriages are
made in heaven. Some
are solemnised at the point of a gun - as many women and teenaged girls in Jammu and Kashmir will tell you.

Forced marriage to militants has wrecked their lives in the insurgency-wracked state. Fatima Bi, now 16, who belonged to Chatroo, a mountainous village in Kishtwar district, told IANS over telephone that she was just 12 when she was abducted by militants.

She was studying in Class 7 in a local government school when one day a group of four militants led by Sher Khan, then divisional commander of Harkat-ul-Jehad-e-Islami (HUJI), barged into their house and kidnapped her.

'I was studying at that time when they abducted me,' she said.

'They took me to their hideout in the nearby forest where they beat me and tortured me for eight days. They hit me with rods on my thighs and threatened to kill my family if I did not marry Hashim Ditta,' she said.

She said Ditta was a close friend of Sher Khan and a helper of HUJI.

'She was forced to marry Ditta at gun point,' said a police officer in Kishtwar.

Fatima wanted to study and become a teacher. 'But my dreams were shattered after they abducted and forcibly married me to Ditta,' Fatima said. Ten months after her marriage she gave birth to a son and her 'childhood was snatched away when I delivered this baby'.

A 'happy moment' for Fatima came when Sher Khan along with his two associates surrendered before the security forces last year.

'Except for bearing Ditta's child I never took him as my husband and there never was any such feeling as it was a forced marriage that ruined me,' she said.

Sher Khan was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. Fatima took this as an opportunity and fled Ditta's house along with her infant son.

Ditta's parents, however, lodged a missing person report with police. Fatima went to her relatives in an adjoining village and fell in love with a farmer.

Her second chance at life was however not so easy as the local clerics said even if it was a forced marriage, Fatima would have to live with Ditta until they got legally separated.

Similar is the story of 18-year-old Chana whose nightmare started in early 2007.

A Harkat-ul-Ansar (HUA) militant called Farid fell for her when he saw her grazing cattle in the Chicha area of Kishtwar district. She too was forced to marry at gun point.

'I too had dreams of getting married to a well-to-do person with all the rituals,' said Chana. 'But in forced marriages like ours it is just a couple of militants and a maulvi who form the marriage gathering.'

A few months later, a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant, Khalid, operating in the area, wanted to marry Chana and asked Farid to divorce her. But when Farid declined, the LeT militant shot him dead and also shot Chana in the left leg.

She was forced to marry Khalid and now lives with him along with her and Farid's infant son.


--Courtesy: IANS Service

END
FOCUS



Dousing the Fires of

Jihad in Pakistan

By Dr. Ajay Chrungoo

The new government in
USA lead by President
Obama has claimed to create a new regime of thinking to fight Islamic terrorism. The focus is gradually shifting from Iraq to Pakistan which is being gradually recognised as the epicentre of global terrorism. Adrian Leve and Catherine Scott-Clark in their work 'Deception' have reflected the view now shared by a large corpus of experts on international politics and terrorism when they say, “when politicians in London and Washington describe Musharraf as a key ally in the war on terror, what they really mean is that he is their only Islamic ally in the region. So with the White House and 10 Downing Street unable to countenance an alternative, Musharaff's Pakistan remains at the epicentre of terror, a disingenuous regime with its hands on the nuclear tiller".

The apprehensions in India that Brak Obama links the improvement in situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the solution of Kashmir problem have not died. But US governments categorical advice articulated by Obama himself that India is not a threat to Pakistan and that Pakistan needs to change its views about India creates a space for a new thinking on the region.

For the first time at least from a very optimistic and theoretical point of view one can venture to debate now that the problem of Pakistan is the nature of Pakistan itself. Unless this nature undergoes a transformation the motor which drives the polity in Pakistan to virulent anti-Americanism, compulsive hatred for India and voluntary embracing of Jihad, cannot to turned off. To think that Obama meant this when he urged Pakistan to change its outlook with regard to India is perhaps reading to much between and into the lines.

The release of 1.5 billion dollars of aid to Pakistan at this juncture once again pin points to the fact that USA has not as yet shunned the suicidal expediency with regard to Pakistan which has plagued its outlook to contain the global Islamic stridency and violence. A former advisor to Bush Regime on weapons of Mass Distruction who lead researches tracking Pakistan's nuclear progress from its inception categorically states," Pakistan is top of the list. It is the number one threat to the world at this moment in time. If it all goes off, a nuclear bomb in a US or European city. I am sure we will find ourselves looking in Pakistan's direction."

Without generating a legitimate and vigorous introspection into the vital and important components of the polity in Pakistan, the financial bailout by USA only helps to nourish the vicious cycle of duplicity, deceit and deception which the Pakistani state has practised. To believe that the Pakistan Government and army have shunned ambivalence and duplicity and are rallying round to decisively counter radical Islam and its military might is very premature. To convey that the consent and compliance of Pakistani state in the war against Al Qaeda, Taliban and Muslim international is critical to US lead war on terror is fraught with the same consequences as has been the patronising of the Zia-ul-Haq regime and eventually Pervez Musharraf. How many time did President Bush describe Pervez Musharraf as 'his best friend' and the most important 'ally' in the war against terror. These dictators always thought that the US alliance with Pakistan was more critical than the concerns of USA on nuclear proliferation and the imperatives of global war on terror.

Many believe that USA is fully entrenched in Pakistan, has defanged the nuclear smuggling network run by notorious KRL from Kahuta and has taken control of at least that commond centres of the Nuclear Bomb possessed by Pakistan. A few examples will suffice to make us re-examine our premises.

Pakistani military continued its nuclear procurements even after the smashing of the network of Dr Qader Khan. While Musharraf was negotiating AQ Khan's expulsions and eventual house arrest with Bush in New York, Pakistani Military establishment was continuing with the procurement of material related to nuclear proliferation. Asher Karni of Top-Cape Technology, a Captown firm that imported US electronic goods to South Africa, was asked by a Islamabad based firm which was only a front for Pakistani military, to procure thirty-six US manufactured oscilloscopes for Pakistan, costing $1.3 million Bush refused to raise the issue with Musharraf at Camp David on 24 June 2003. Three days later the South African company confirmed Islamabad that they had procured spark gaps in the US at $950 per piece. The first batch of sixty-six spark gaps arrived in South Africa on 8 Oct, 2004. That very day Richard Armitage and General Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad were having a discussion to finalise how to settle the A.Q Khan issue. On October 21,2003 Humayun Khan took the delivery of the first batch of spark gaps in Pakistan. The shipment was useless because customs agents and anti proliferation sleuths had switched the spark gaps for harmless components keeping the whole affair out of Musharraf's knowledge. The entire affair came to court in March 2005 in USA. Intriguingly the US State Department had closed down many requests to travel to Pakistan to interview Humayun Khan, who if extradiled and found guilty could have been jailed. It was openly reported that 'Suddenly the US government was affraid of offending Pakistan, its partner in war on terror," During Zia-ul-Haq's time also the US government had ambushed court cases, sealed them and those accused in smuggling equipment and material related to nuclear proliferation were allowed to leave USA.

General Musharraf took over the Khan's mill manufacturing nuclear components immediately after he had made himself President, restructuring it and transforming it into a world class facility with extraordinary input. In 2005 Lt. General Abdul Qayum Khan, the chairman of the mill said, "It was through Musharraf's daring, honest and visionary leadership that we have seized the moment". What did he mean was explained candidly by General KM Arif who had run the nuclear programme. He said about the nuclear business and the People's Steel Mill created by Dr Qader Khan as, "We have labs and the industry to rival the west. Once we sulked around. Now Pakistan is producing high-frequency invertors. They used to come from the UK and now we are selling them ourselves. Maraging steel too. Once we struggled but now finally we are manufacturing it at People's Steel Mill and exporting it. It is better than you can get outside". Maraging Steel is used in high quality centrifuges used in enrichment of uranium. For Pakistan state to untemalise the view that USA will overlook its national interests to accommodate Pakistan is not a wishful state of mind the ground.

Proliferation experts have almost confirmed that Pakistan has continued to sell nuclear technology even after Musharraf became the best friend of Bush. Nobody has taken notice of the release of Dr Qader Khan from house arrest by the Pakistani courts under the supervision of Zardari government which has been having turbulent times and which cannot survive without the American support. Release of Khan is an affront which USA has swallowed as it has done many times in past to preserve its relation with Pakistan.

During the uncertainty in Pakistan caused by the lawyers long march the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharief said in an interview to an Indian channel that, "I am not worried about happenings in Swat. I am worried about what is happening in Baluchistan." The implications of the statement were ignored. The statement basically reflected the dominant view in Pakistan that does not view Isalmisation and consequent radicalisation as a threat to National Unity and progress but sees the repressed subnational urges as the threat to Pakistan.

To see army operations in certain parts of Pakistan as a corrective applied by the Pakistan state to change itself is erroneous and the new US regime is perhaps committing this error. The army operations against Taliban and non-state actors is in essence a vicious struggle for control of power. In essence Pakistani army is seeking only to tame the non-state actors so that they agree to work within the discipline and parameters created by Pakistani state more specifically the Pakistan Army. The Taliban and other Non State actors on the othre hand are exerting the pressures on Pakistani army to conform to the dictates of Pan Islamic vision and act as its sword arm. If Pakistani Army wins it will seek to play the determining role not only as a frontline Muslim state but also as a nuclear Muslim state to shape the politics which will be none other than Islamic. If Taliban and Al Qaeda win the will of Pakistani army, will be subassumed into their will. Both ways the space for egalitarian and moderate politics is either obliterated or exists only as a mirage. US has been chasing this mirage to its own determinant.

When Brak Obama says Pakistan has to change its outlook with regard to India does it mean a fundamental change in outlook or is it only diplomatic assurance to Pakistan that India has been forewarned of any misadventure while Pakistani Army is grappling with its internal menace.

If Brak Obama means a fundamental change then we will see restructuring and recasting of international debate in Pakistan. Pakistan in such a scenario will have to cease to be a Muslim pocket created in post War period as a twin brother of Israel to contain or divide Asia. To help Pakistan to recast its outlook means changing its character. Pakistan has to emerge as a country where pluralism takes roots on a principal of equality which cannot happen so far political Islam takes precedence in its National Vision. Pakistan even if it wishes to emerge as a polity on the principal of equality, cannot do so unless it delinks comprehensively from Kashmir. Kashmir is the cardinal expression of Pakistan being a frontline Muslim state for the expansion of Muslims power towards east. So Kashmir acts as a motor to drives the mills of Jihad. Any solution to Kashmir which palacates Jihad will never help in dousing its fires.It well only act as its fuel for expanding to new frontiers. END
COMMENTARY

Pakistani Politics Post-Musharraf: Challenges Ahead

By Sumita Kumar

That Asif Ali Zardari
would bag the
presidency, and with such an overwhelming majority, was a remote possibility back in October 2007, at the time when Benazir Bhutto made her comeback to Pakistan. With a turn of political fortune, a windfall has come Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP’s) way, occupying as it does two of the three centres of power (troika) in Pakistan. The third member of the ‘troika’, the army chief, backed in any case the candidature of Zardari, and restoration of democracy which would in turn help restore the credibility of the army. Yet, even with this seeming position of strength, there are innumerable challenges for the fledgling democratic government. These range from the sheer survival and stability of the coalition government and its dynamics to having a benign working relationship with the opposition, most notably Nawaz Sharif. The success of many crucial decisions will also largely depend on how PPP’s equations with the establishment unfold. It is going to face stark choices in confronting the problem of terrorism both within and across the border in Afghanistan. Correspondingly, the political leadership is going to have to adroitly manage its foreign policy agenda without compromising its strategic interests. It has to deal with the range of complexities arising from the US presence within the country which has led to discordant voices and opinions. Pakistan’s relations with its neighbours like Afghanistan and India are a cause and effect of its counter-terrorism policies. Also, it would hope to buttress old friendships with other important powers in the region, like China.

The consolidation of the PPP would be challenged by some very pressing problems like the economic slowdown, rising inflation, food shortage, and the energy crisis. That apart, long-pending demands for some semblance of provincial autonomy would need to be looked at with a fresh perspective. Progress on such issues will also depend on whether the opposition decides to play a responsible and constructive role. Nawaz Sharif s support to the PPP-led Democratic Government will depend to a large extent on whether Zardari will reopen corruption cases against Nawaz even as he himself seeks protection behind the National Reconciliation Ordinance. It will also be a difficult decision for Zardari to let go of all the powers amassed by him under the presidency, and pave the way for a parliamentary form of government. As the power to dissolve the elected government rests with the president, it provides a safety valve for the PPP Government for the time being at least.

At the moment the government’s attention is diverted by the hold that the radical religious forces have within the country. The most recent manifestation of the dangers posed is the assassination attempt on Prime Minister Gilani, for which the Tehrik-e-Taliban claimed responsibility. Gilani was blamed for the heightened offensive against the militants since early August 2008. The military operations in Bajaur [Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)] and Swat [North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)] in the last one and a half months or so, have relied more on air power compared to ground troops. These operations have been considered to be very successful given the numbers of Taliban casualties. The Tehrik-e-Taliban, perhaps feeling pressurized, offered a ceasefire to the government which was rejected. The government in fact imposed a ban on it after the attack on the Pakistan Ordnance Factory at Wah. Events over the last few weeks have shown that the government has shifted its strategy from negotiations to use of force. The United States in any case has been unhappy with the peace negotiations between the Pakistani Government and the militants. The peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban headed by Baitullah Mehsud have come to a standstill, as also the negotiations with the militants in Swat. The military operation in Bajaur tribal agency, which was halted during Ramzan, has been resumed. For a coherent counter-terrorism policy to evolve and be effective, all the players involved must have similar interests. For the time being, the military operations did not prevent Maulana Fazlur Rehman from offering the support of his party for the candidature of Zardari as president. Yet, it remains to be seen how the government is going to be able to balance demands made in the future by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazlur (JUI-F) with respect to its policy on terrorism.

The Inter-Services Intelligence’s (ISI) links to the Taliban in the past have been well established. Even today, its sympathies for various militant entities like Mangal Bagh of the Lashkar-i-Islam are documented in Pakistani publications. He is reportedly supported by the ISI, with an inflow of both money and arms, so that the supply of oil and other products to the NATO forces in Afghanistan is held up.1 This brings to the fore the continuing divergence in the policies being pursued at different levels in the Pakistani establishment. In fact, the recent ill-fated attempt by the government to place the ISI under the interior ministry has been attributed in part to US pressure and revelations by the CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen, in the middle of July 2008, about links of ISI officials with the militants. This was augmented by evidence given by the CIA head, Michael V. Hayden during Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s visit to Washington in late July 2008. Zardari, as president, currently heads two important institutions in Pakistan, i.e. the National Security Council and the National Command Authority. His decision to tamper with the ISI was not received kindly, given the retraction of the decision. This poses questions about the future comfort levels between the president and the ISI.

The army’s continued involvement in devising strategies for combating the escalating violence on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is apparent. Army Chief Kayani not only participated in a meeting of the Tripartite Commission in Afghanistan one day after Musharraf s resignation, but was also part of a high-level conference held on board an American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Indian Ocean, which included, amongst others, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (United States). The challenge for the Pakistan Government is going to be in convincing its citizens that the crackdown on militancy is in Pakistan’s interest and not just an agenda superimposed by the United States. While intrusions into Pakistani airspace by predators and drones has happened on earlier occasions, the incident of a ground attack in early September 2008, in which more than two dozen members of the US Navy Seals took part, is indicative of a stepped up offensive on the part of the United States. The Pakistan Government has made pro forma protests on such occasions, but is continuing to support the United States crackdown against militants. The Pakistani parliament has strongly condemned the recent attack by Western coalition troops in South Waziristan, as a gross violation of sovereignty. The Army chief emphasized that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country would be defended at all costs and no external force would be allowed to conduct operations within the country. It is crucial that the army places its non-concurrence with the recently revealed US plans for limited ground assaults in Pakistan on record. Yet, it is not sure to what extent the Pakistani army will be able to follow a policy independent of US dictates. Whichever US party comes to power in the United States, it seems that the overall United States emphasis on direct military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas will remain. While this is sure to shore up the already prevalent anti-US sentiment within Pakistan, it would also have an impact on the acceptability of the new president and the credibility of the army led by Kayani, with both being perceived to be pro-US.

Afghanistan has been an important element of Pakistan’s security as it provides strategic depth against India. Also Afghanistan’s strategic location provides for Pakistan a gateway to Central Asia. Clearly, Afghanistan’s relevance to Pakistan remains potent, as is evident by Pakistan’s continued strategy of destabilizing the Karzai Government, a regime which is considered to be closer to New Delhi than to Islamabad. The Karzai Government has on a number of occasions expressed its anger and frustration with the Pakistan Government, criticizing it for its complicity in providing safe havens to the Taliban. It condemned and implicated the ISI in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in early July 2008. President Karzai was the guest of honour at Zardari’s swearing-in ceremony and portrayed hope that the two countries could perhaps tackle the scourge of terrorism. Whether this belief is sustained will depend not only on the moves made by Zardari to control the Taliban activities across the border, but whether this will coincide with the desires of the IS! and the army which have always been suspected of supporting anti-Afghanistan operations of the Taliban.

Pakistan’s relations with India are in a state of suspended animation since the terrorist attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in July 2008. Despite Pakistan’s denial of any ISI involvement, India continues to believe that the ISI does play a role in abetting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India, as well as infiltration across the Line of Control (LoC). Consequently, the fifth round of composite dialogue between the two foreign secretaries has been stalled despite attempts to clear the mist on the sidelines of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in Colombo. Pakistan has not endeared itself to Indian policy-makers by making unwarranted accusations of use of excessive force during recent agitations in Kashmir, on the question of land transfer to Amarnath shrine boards. Even though attempts are being made on both sides to carry forward the Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), for example cross-LoC trade, no major breakthrough on the Sir Creek, Siachen, or Kashmir seems possible in the foreseeable future. The new Pakistani leadership has made some positive noises, like Zardari’s remarks that there would soon be ‘good news’ on Kashmir, and General Kayani’s mention of a ‘national consensus’ already existing on Kashmir. However, the Pakistani establishment’s basic intentions towards India remain suspect, given the string of blasts in Delhi in September, 2008 and Indian suspicions about its continued support to terror modules operating in India.

Of particular interest would be Zardari’s approach towards China. While Pakistan’s relations with China in the last four decades have been limited to cooperation in the defence and nuclear fields, a new emphasis on economic and energy cooperation has clearly emerged. Pakistan has enjoyed considerable diplomatic support from China, and Zardari would like to further strengthen it. China will remain a top priority for Zardari. China would be critical in the backdrop of the severe energy crisis being faced by Pakistan, and the recent Indo-US deal which perhaps gives hope to Pakistan that China may use the deal as leverage to assist Pakistan in the development of nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

All in all, President Zardari is going to have to tread carefully in setting a domestic and foreign policy agenda which is realistic and can eventually contribute to giving elected civilian governments in Pakistan the respect and credibility that they crave.
--Courtesy: Strategic Analysis END
MEDIA-ARCHIVES

Shastri stood like a rock’



We below reproduce a conversation between Lt. Sh. T.N. Kaul former Foreign Secretary and twice Ambassador to USSR and Sh. Atul Aneja Senior Correspondent of the Hindu. The conversation was published in the special volume of the Hindu "INDIA" on

Aug 15th, 1997 to Commemorate 50th Anniversary of Indian Independence. --Editor

By Atul Aneja

THE presence of Soviet
submarines in the Indian
waters and China’s decision of nonintervention dissuaded the United States from directly intervening in the India-Pakistan war of 19 71, says the former Foreign Secretary and twice Ambassador to the USSR, T. N. Kaul, in an interview.

The material and political support from the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the Sino-Indian war of 1962, along with the Tashkent declaration, had prepared the ground for friendly ties between New Delhi and Moscow. But the Soviet disillusionment with Pakistan, growing from 1966 to 1969, removed the last hurdle in the way of establishing special ties with India.

“We had signed an agreement for the MiG-21 fighters with the Soviet Union prior to 1962. In 1963, some tanks were provided according to schedule at reasonable terms. But sections of the Soviet establishment were dragging their feet. I went to President Khrushchev to ask for his intervention. He said India was a friend but China was a brother. That was not very encouraging. I met Khrushchev again a fortnight later and he was much more cooperative then. He told me that the Cuban missile crisis was at its height when we had met last and that the Soviet Union was in combat readiness against the United States then. At that time they (the Soviets) did not want to provoke China by promising India more arms. But now, he said, we can assure you that we can give all the equipment you have asked for and more. The whole problem was resolved by December 1962 itself.”

The Soviet offer of mediation at Tashkent was almost rejected by India but bold diplomacy put the Soviet-sponsored dialogue back on track. “India’s first reaction to the Soviet offer was rather negative. When I got the signal to convey the decision to the Soviet Union, I took the risk of sending back a telegram on the pros and cons. I pointed out that the Soviet Union was offering its good offices to two Asian countries on Asian soil. The good offices of the Western countries had not helped us... Secondly, I said that if we accept the Soviet offer, we should make it clear to the Soviets that we cannot give up our stand on Kashmir. If they give this assurance, we should accept it... The Cabinet met again and agreed to this proposal.”



Talks at Tashkent saw Lal Bahadur Shastri locking horns with the Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin. when the latter came up with a proposal for a final settlement of Kashmir. “I can recall that Shastri looked at the Soviet Prime Minister in the eye and said:’ Prime Minister, you will have to find another Indian Prime Minister to agree to this.’ To this, Kosygin said the proposal was not really his but that of President Ayub Khan of Pakistan.’ Shastri really stood like a rock at Tashkent.”

Kaul continues: “The Pakistani Foreign Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was against an agreement on non-use of force, though his President Ayub Khan had accepted the proposal. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko, came and told me that Bhutto was being difficult. I said if he felt so, why did he not pick up the phone which was lying on the table and give Bhutto a piece of his mind. To my utter surprise, Gromyko actually picked up the phone and in my presence scolded Bhutto, saying that he was acting against the wishes of his President and that he had no business to do so. He then put the phone down. Finally, Ayub signed the commitment in his own hand.”

It took India three years to convince the Soviets not to cultivate the Pakistanis soon after the Tashkent agreement.

“When Mrs. Gandhi visited Moscow in September 1966, there was a banquet in the St. George’s hall in the Kremlin. There was Mrs. Gandhi, then Kosygen, Brezhnev and myself among others... Soon after the banquet had begun, I deliberately asked my hosts in a very loud voice whether they really believed they could wean Pakistan away from China and the U.S. I said, if they supplied weapons to Pakistan, they will weaken friendly relations with us. Please take this as a friendly warning from us. Everybody looked up at me. I remember Brezhnev cocking his head towards me inquisitively. Mrs. Gandhi did not disapprove of what I said. In fact, she had a wry smile on her face. The Soviets did take note of what I had said. In 1969, Kosygin came to India and said that the Soviet efforts to cultivate Pakistan had failed. The Indo-Soviet friendship was now really on solid ground.

“The Indo-Soviet treaty took two years to be drafted from 1969 onwards and was directed at deterring third-party intervention, including China and the United States, in case war was thrust upon India... The timing of the Indo-Soviet treaty was partly the imminence of the Bangladesh war and Pakistan mounting its sabotage acts, particularly in the eastern sector.

“Mrs. Gandhi had a very accurate sense of timing and she chose the timing. In fact, the Soviets were a little surprised when we said that we were ready to sign. In any case, it had become clear by March, 1971 when Bhutto visited Dhaka and there was that massacre of 50 intellectuals that the war had become inevitable.

‘An unprecedented personal rapport between Rajiv Gandhi and the Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, raised the Indo-Soviet friendship to a new high in the Eighties.” END
NEWS

Stop backing terror in India: US to Pak

A US bill seeking to triple non-military aid to Pakistan to a
massive $1.5 billion annually has asked Islamabad to stop supporting terror groups active in India, recognising that certain elements in its establishment, specially ISI, have aided and trained such organisations over the past few decades.

The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act, carrying bi-partisan support, has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Howard L Berman, Chairman of powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. An identical bill is scheduled to be tabled in Senate soon.

The bill aimed at trippling the aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion per annum for the next five years is part of the new Af-Pak policy of US President Barack Obama.

Unlike the Bush Administration wherein there was no accountability of the $10 billion given to Pakistan post 9/11 attacks, the new bill not only tends to make Islamabad accountable for the every penny spent, but also lists out do’s and don’ts for the Islamabad government.

Noting that certain elements in Pakistani establishment, specially ISI, have supported, aided and trained organisations to carry out terrorist activities in India over the past few decades, the PEACE bill imposes condition on Pakistan not to “support any person or group that conducts violence, sabotage or other activities meant to instill fear or terror in India.”

Courtesy: PTI END


VIEW POINT

India, Pakistan and Terrorism

By Dr. M.K. Teng

International terrorism
has ravaged India for more
than two decades. None, except the Indians themselves, have harboured any illusions about the objectives the terrorist violence, carried out almost everywhere in the country, is intended to achieve. To be fair to the Jehadi war groups they have spelt out the objectives they sought to achieve, in unambiguous terms.

Within the broad framework of the Islamic Revolution, the Jehadi wars have their objectives (a) the liberation of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian occupation and the unification of the state with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, (b) the enforcement of their extra-territorial right to protect the interests of the Muslims in the Hindu India; and (c) integrate the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir and the Muslims of India into the Muslim movement for the unification of the Muslim Umah into a Muslim International.



Containment of India

Pakistan has been an epicentre of the struggle for the unification of the Muslim Umah and its consolidation into a Muslim International. It has sponsored the Islamic Revolution and supported the fundamentalisation of the Muslim Umah. In fact, Pakistan was conceived by its founders as Muslim commonwealth committed to Islamic order of the society. The foundations of Pakistan were ideological. Not only Sir Mohammed Iqbal but also Quad-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the ideologue of the Muslim League, Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan, consciously owned the “historic responsibility” of forging a state which was Muslim in composition and Muslim in outlook.

After its foundation, the first task Pakistani state undertook was to Balkanise the Indian princely states and establish a foothold in the heart of the Indian mainland, to divide it further. Pakistan secured the accession of the princely state of Junagarh on one hand and on the other hand prompted the Nawab of Hyderabad to remain out of India. It embarked upon an invasion for the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir barely two and a half months after its establishment to extend its territories eastwards into the north of India. Pakistan failed to swallow Junagarh and help the ruler of Hyderabad to remain out of India. In both the states, military action united them with India. In Jammu and Kashmir the invading army entreched itself in the Muslim majority districts of the state bordering Pakistan and conspired to break away the whole of Jammu and Kashmir state from India, but failed in its efforts.

Having failed to use the princely states to Balkanise India, Pakistan followed a three-pronged policy to contain it. First it assumed the role of leading the movement of the unification of the Muslim Umah into a Muslim International. Secondly, it adopted a policy of international alignments to encircle India. Thirdly it put itself on the course of military armament aimed to achieve a military parity with India.

The consolidation of the Muslim Umah into a Muslim International and the participation in the alliance systems achieved the objective of the containment of India to a considerable extent. The effect of the containment of India was visible in the India-China conflict of 1962. The Chinese pushed across the Mc Mabon Line a hundred miles to its south, virtually without any opposition from Indian army.

Pakistan, to consolidate its ideological basis, proclaimed itself as an Islamic Republic and in the years that followed went through the Islamic Revolution. The Islamic Revolution underlined the fundamentalisation of the Muslim society to provide an ideological basis for the consolidation of the Muslim Umah into a Muslim International. The powers of the western alliance saw the consolidation of the Muslim Umah into a Muslim International as the most effective instrument in the ideological conflict of the Cold War, and the containment of Communism including India.



The Jehad:

Pakistan put itself in the forefront of the Muslim Jehad in Afghanistan against the Soviet intervention. While the Jehad against the Soviet power continued, Pakistan embarked upon the militarisation of the pan-Islamic fundamentalism which it claimed



(From Page 4)

was aimed at the liberation of the Muslims living under the subjection of the heathen all over the world. In 1989-90, Pakistan launched the Jehad in Jammu and Kashmir to liberate the state from India. After the disintegration of the Soviet power, Pakistan continued to Jehad in the Aghanistan and built the Taliban. While the Taliban established their hold on Afghanistan, the Jehadi war groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir extended their operations to the other parts of India.

Talibanisation of the Islamic Revolution is a revolutionary movement which provides a military thrust to the Muslim struggle for the unification of the Muslim Umah and its consolidation into a world power.

A logical continuity pervaded the various phases of the Jehad-the religious war waged. The spread of Jehadi war groups in India is an inseparable part of the Islamic Revolution which Pakistan spearheads. Whereas the Jehadi war groups in Jammu and Kashmir are committed to the liberation of Kashmir and its unification with the Muslim homeland of Pakistan, the Jehadi war groups in India have committed themselves to the liberation of the Muslims from their subjection from the Hindus in India. Ideologically the Jehad claims an extra-territorial right, over and above all international obligations recognised by the international community, to protect the Muslims in India against the dominence of the Hindus.

The bipolar balance of power provided enough space for the Islamic Jehad to wage the religious war, it envisaged, for the consolidation of the Muslim Umah into a Muslim International. However, the end of the bipolar balance of power with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of a new unipolar world order, suddenly dissolved all the space, which the Islamic Jehad had occupied in the bipolar world. The Islamic Jehad drove straight to a head on collision with the unipolar world order. Al Qaeda struck the first blow when it attacked the United States.

Dangers Ahead

The political and military campaign Pakistan has carried on in Jammu and Kashmir during the last six decades of the Indian freedom is aimed to open the way for the expansion of its power eastwards, into the warm Himalayan rugged countryside. This area stretching in between the river Sind and the river Ravi, formed the part of the Sikh State of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who had after a long military endeavour fortified it into the northern frontier of India.

The expansion of Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir will demolish the Northern Frontier of India and lead to (a) the de-Sanskritisation of the Himalayas strategically the most important factor in their security (b) exclusion of India from any balance of power in Asia and (c) expose the north-Indian States of the Himachal, the Punjab and Haryana to invasion and foreign intervention.

Pakistan is an integral part of the Anglo-Saxon-Muslim alliance. The western powers have built it, to protect their military and political interests in the Middle East, the Far East and South-East Asia and the security of their maritime interests, in the Indian ocean and the Malacca Straights, the water way opening into the Pacific. Perhaps, India is the only country in Asia, which has exhibited scant interests in the security of the Indian Ocean. Had it not been so, perhaps, the Indian Government would have guarded the Ram Settu more closely rather than have clamoured for its demolition.

India has, out of sheer inability to muster courage to stand up to the threat the Pakistan-China. Axis poses to its security and its interests. For India, the Indian ocean and the straight on Malacca, should have been the first concern of any strategic plans, as the Himalayas should have been. Any foothold Pakistan gets in Jammu and Kashmir will open the way for the expansion of the Taliban in the north of India. The China-Pakistan Axis, is aimed to close India into a pincer hold in the north as well as the south. Intriguingly, India has never questioned the silence America has maintained on the implications of the China-Pakistan Axis, for the security of South-Asia .

The Indian belief that Pakistan could be brought round to settle down to accept a state of peaceful coexistence with India if it was assured of its security and its ideological commitment to Islam was recognised, is highly misplaced. The Indian attempt to seek a compromise on Jammu and Kashmir, to satisfy the ideological commitments of Pakistan to the unification of the Muslim Umah will only strengthen the China-Pakistan Axis further.

India has to realise that Pakistan has in recent years, embarked on a war of subversion in India with the aim of bringing about the fundamentalisation of the Muslim social organisation in India. India continues to be a largely un-integrated political culture and more exposed to subversion. The spread of terrorism to rest of India which Bombay attack underlined can be ignored by India at its own peril. END
PERSPECTIVE


Yüklə 269,28 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə