Profile: All about Abdul Rahman Antulay
CNN-IBN, December 18, 2008
The Government appeared embarrassed on Wednesday after Minority Affairs Minister denied doubting that terrorists killed a senior police officer in Mumbai.
The minister denied making controversial statements on the murder of chief of Maharashtra police's anti-terrorist squad, Hemant Karkare, who was killed during the Mumbai terror attacks on November 26.
He told Parliament that he wanted to know who sent Kakare and two other police officers after terrorists.
The man who gave way to a new debate in the Parliament is Abdul Rahman Antulay. He is the Minority Affairs Minister in the UPA Government.
This 79-year-old minister is a four time Lok Sabha MP and represents the Kulaba Lok Sabha seat of Raigad, Maharashtra.
Antulay was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 1980 to 1982, the only Muslim politician to be the chief minister of the state so far.
He had to quit as chief minister in 1982 following the cement scandal and fought a long court battle to clear his name.
In 2003, Antulay quit as the head of the Congress minority cell and there were even reports that he was all set to walk out of the party.
In July 2006, Antulay created a stir when he cited reports that a mystery blast in district Nanded in Maharashtra in April, 2006 was orchestrated by Hindus posing as Muslims.
Also See:
‘Killing of Indian terrorist squad chief conspiracy’ - Daily Times
Antulay self-goal: sees a Malegaon mystery in Karkare Mumbai murder - Indian Express
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Pakistanis support crackdown on terrorists
Pakistanis Support Tougher Stance on Terrorism
Nearly half of citizens (49%) say their government isn’t doing enough
by Julie Ray
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A recent Gallup Poll of Pakistanis suggests their government has domestic support for a crackdown on Pakistan-based extremists: 60% of Pakistanis interviewed in October said their government should take a tougher approach to rid their country of terrorist activities.
Since the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, last month, Pakistan has been under intense international pressure to take serious action against militants inside its borders. At the same time, attacks have continued on Pakistan's own soil, such as the Dec. 5 bombing in Peshawar that killed 29 and wounded 100. Pakistanis have endured hundreds of terrorism-related incidents this year; one of the worst of which -- a suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in the capital Islamabad -- took place shortly before the October Gallup Poll.
Gallup's survey shows substantial support across Pakistan for a tougher stance against terrorist activities, most visibly in the province of Punjab. In North West Frontier (NWFP) and Baluchistan provinces, where al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militants have been increasingly active, nearly half of residents think the government should take a tougher stance on ridding Pakistan of terrorist activities.
For complete report, click here
No class war in Swat
No class war in Swat
The News, December 18, 2008
Farhat Taj
In his article, "Behind the Crisis in Swat" (The News, Nov 27), Sartaj Khan argues that the current religious militancy raging in Swat is a class war. He writes: 'the militants are targeting the khans regardless of their political affiliations and have given their fight a class dimension."
The fact is that the Islamist militants are targeting those khans who are politically active and influential. These are the khans who can be a hurdle in the way of the savage mediaeval order interpreted as Islam that the local and foreign jihadis want to impose on Swat and other areas of the NWFP and on FATA. Khans who are not politically active, keep their eyes closed to the brutalities of the jihadis and keep their mouths shut about them are not targeted. If it were a class war, every khan, regardless of his political leanings, would have been a "legitimate" target. Moreover, the jihadis are also targeting the poor political workers of political parties, especially the ANP, not because they are khans but because they have nationalistic and secular credentials.
In Swat and other Pakhtun areas the Taliban and Al Qaeda have happily joined hands with those hardened criminals who share the "benefits" of their robbery, murders and kidnappings with Taliban-Al Qaeda gangs. Leaders of a genuine class war would think many times before striking any kind of alliance with criminals.
Schools indiscriminately bombed by the Taliban in Swat include those where the khans were not educating their children, who would go to elite schools in Swat, elsewhere in Pakistan and even in Western countries. The Taliban have bombed small village schools where children of poor people received education. How can this be justified in terms of class war?
For complete article, click here
The News, December 18, 2008
Farhat Taj
In his article, "Behind the Crisis in Swat" (The News, Nov 27), Sartaj Khan argues that the current religious militancy raging in Swat is a class war. He writes: 'the militants are targeting the khans regardless of their political affiliations and have given their fight a class dimension."
The fact is that the Islamist militants are targeting those khans who are politically active and influential. These are the khans who can be a hurdle in the way of the savage mediaeval order interpreted as Islam that the local and foreign jihadis want to impose on Swat and other areas of the NWFP and on FATA. Khans who are not politically active, keep their eyes closed to the brutalities of the jihadis and keep their mouths shut about them are not targeted. If it were a class war, every khan, regardless of his political leanings, would have been a "legitimate" target. Moreover, the jihadis are also targeting the poor political workers of political parties, especially the ANP, not because they are khans but because they have nationalistic and secular credentials.
In Swat and other Pakhtun areas the Taliban and Al Qaeda have happily joined hands with those hardened criminals who share the "benefits" of their robbery, murders and kidnappings with Taliban-Al Qaeda gangs. Leaders of a genuine class war would think many times before striking any kind of alliance with criminals.
Schools indiscriminately bombed by the Taliban in Swat include those where the khans were not educating their children, who would go to elite schools in Swat, elsewhere in Pakistan and even in Western countries. The Taliban have bombed small village schools where children of poor people received education. How can this be justified in terms of class war?
For complete article, click here
Omar Saeed Sheikh's Activities in Prison...
Plot to kill Musharraf unearthed
The News, December 18, 2008
By Amir Mir
LAHORE: In a sensational development, authorities have claimed busting a clandestine terror network set up by jailed killer of Daniel Pearl inside the Hyderabad Jail and the Sindh government has suspended senior police and jail officials after a large number of cell phones, SIMs and other equipment were recovered.
Highly-placed Interior Ministry sources confided to The News on Wednesday the jailed terrorist had also threatened Gen Pervez Musharraf on his personal cell phone in the second week of November and planned to get him eliminated by a suicide bomber.
The caller reportedly told the former president: “I am after you, get ready to die.” Subsequent investigations by the authorities revealed the threatening phone call was made by someone from the Hyderabad Central Jail. Being a suspect, Sheikh Omar was placed under observation before it transpired that he was the one who had threatened the former strongman.
The authorities came to know that a plot had been hatched by Sheikh Omar to eliminate the then-president with the connivance of some Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) militants, with whom he had long been in touch over the phone.
As Omar’s death cell was thoroughly searched, three mobile phones, six batteries, 18 SIMS of almost every cellular company and chargers were seized from his possession. Further scanning of the alleged terror mastermind’s telephone records revealed he had been making calls all over Pakistan to former Jihadi associates as well as relatives in Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Peshawar.
Interestingly, however, his mobile phone records revealed besides having revived his contacts with the outer world, Omar had also been in touch with Attaur Rehman, alias Naeem Bukhari, a key Lashkar-e-Jhangvi operative arrested by the Karachi police on June 5, 2007 in connection with the January 2002 Daniel Pearl murder case.
When the barracks of Naeem Bukhari, being held in the Sukkur Central Jail, were searched, the authorities recovered one mobile phone and three SIMs he had been using to stay in touch with Omar and some other LeJ accomplices in Karachi and Rawalpindi.
During the ensuing interrogations, Naeem Bukhari was learnt to have revealed that the LeJ operatives had already been directed by Sheikh Omar to target Musharraf either in Rawalpindi or in Karachi, preferably by using a suicide car bomber.
The LeJ militants had thus been monitoring Musharraf’s movements to target him while travelling between his Army House residence in Rawalpindi and his Chak Shehzad farmhouse on the 1-A Park Road on the quiet suburbs of Islamabad or to blow up the bridge on Shara-e-Faisal during his next visit to Karachi at the precise moment when his convoy would reach there from the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport.
It was after the unearthing of the assassination plot that Musharraf decided to leave for London on Nov 22, 2008 for a short trip — for the first time since his resignation as president in August 2008. Although, he has already returned home, Musharraf is still occupying the Army House due to grave security concerns.
Following the recovery of mobile phones and SIMs from Sheikh Omar, the Sindh Home Department took serious action and suspended (on Dec 1, 2008) Hyderabad Central Jail Superintendent Abdul Majid Siddiqui, his deputy Gul Mohammad Sheikh and four other jail officials on charges of showing criminal negldigence.
According to the Sindh inspector general prisons, both had been suspended by the Home Department on complaints of corruption and maladministration. The IG prisons said there were complaints of serious nature against them, such as providing cell phones and other banned facilities to prisoners, corruption and maladministration. An inquiry officer has already been appointed to probe the charges.
The most astonishing aspect of the episode is that the scrutiny of Omar Sheikh’s mobile phone records proved he had been even calling Maj-Gen (retd) Amir Faisal Alavi, the former General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the elite Special Services Group (SSG) of the Pakistan Army. He was shot dead in Islamabad on Nov 19, 2008 by unidentified gunmen.
Although, the Interior Ministry officials are not ready to speak on the issue, a recent story filed by Carey Schofield of Sunday Times had quoted Maj-Gen Amir Faisal Alavi as having told her during an Islamabad meeting four days before his murder that he knew he would be killed by his own comrades, as he had threatened to expose the Pakistani generals who had been cutting deals with Taliban insurgents.
Sheikh Omar Saeed has not divulged any information so far as to why he had been calling Alavi. But Musharraf has stated in his book “In the Line of Fire” that Omar was originally recruited by the British intelligence agency MI-6 while studying at the London School of Economics.
Omar was sent to the Balkans by MI-6 to engage in Jihadi operations, according to Musharraf, who went on to opine: “At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent. Sheikh Omar happens to be a British citizen of Pakistani descent, who had first served five years in prison in Delhi in the 90s in connection with the 1994 abduction of three British travellers. But he was released in the first week of 2000 along with Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar and eventually provided a safe passage to Pakistan by the Taliban regime, after India was forced to accept demands of the hijackers of Indian Airliner IC-814.
“Two years later, on Feb 12, 2002, Omar surrendered to Brigadier (retd) Ejaz Hussain Shah, his former handler in the ISI, after being accused of abducting Daniel Pearl. At an initial court appearance in April 2002, Omar had almost confessed to his crime by stating: “I don’t want to defend myself. I did this... Rightly or wrongly, I had my reasons. I think our country shouldn’t be catering to American needs.”
As a matter of fact, it is five-and-a-half years since an anti-terrorism court in Karachi sentenced him to death. Omar, a graduate from the London School of Economics, became a Jihadi for the high-profile Pearl murder.
It was on July 15, 2003 that Omar and his three accomplices were awarded life imprisonment by Justice Ali Ashraf Shah in a heavily fortified makeshift court, set up in a bunker underneath a prison inside the Hyderabad Jail. No journalist was allowed to attend the court proceedings and the venue had to be changed three times because of bombing threats and security concerns.
The trial judge was also changed thrice. Forensic scientists initially refused to attend the exhumation of the court for fear they would be killed. Police personnel who were known to confront all kinds of savage criminals behaved like lambs in front of the terrorist and police officers were intimidated by him in the court of law in front of the judge.
As soon as the July 15, 2003 verdict was announced, Omar, who had already been declared a dangerous prisoner and confined to an isolation death cell, reacted defiantly, saying that he would retaliate against the authorities for arranging the sentence. In a message read out by his lawyer outside the court room, Sheikh Omar said: “We shall see who will die first. Either I or the authorities who have arranged the death sentence for me.” Almost six months later, in December 2003, Gen Musharraf survived two separate assassinations attempts in Rawalpindi. The authorities suspect that Sheikh Omar had links with the two suicide bombers who blew themselves up to assassinate Musharraf and the attempts owed to the death penalty awarded to Omar.
As things stand, the anti-terrorist court’s verdict has not been implemented so far and Sheikh Omar continues to avoid being sent to the gallows due to repeated adjournments of his appeal against conviction, pending in the Sindh High Court for years now. Reports emanating from the Hyderabad Central Jail say the guards stationed outside Omar’s death cell are rotated almost daily because he has the ability to influence anyone he meets.
As a matter of fact, Omar had actually managed to prevail upon the first four police constables deployed outside his cell, with all of them growing beards within days after they were assigned to guard his ward. The jail authorities say if the guards outside his cell are not rotated every day, Omar is fully capable of bringing the entire jail staff round to his view. He is presently reading books on history, particularly on World War-I and II, the Cold War and the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.
The News, December 18, 2008
By Amir Mir
LAHORE: In a sensational development, authorities have claimed busting a clandestine terror network set up by jailed killer of Daniel Pearl inside the Hyderabad Jail and the Sindh government has suspended senior police and jail officials after a large number of cell phones, SIMs and other equipment were recovered.
Highly-placed Interior Ministry sources confided to The News on Wednesday the jailed terrorist had also threatened Gen Pervez Musharraf on his personal cell phone in the second week of November and planned to get him eliminated by a suicide bomber.
The caller reportedly told the former president: “I am after you, get ready to die.” Subsequent investigations by the authorities revealed the threatening phone call was made by someone from the Hyderabad Central Jail. Being a suspect, Sheikh Omar was placed under observation before it transpired that he was the one who had threatened the former strongman.
The authorities came to know that a plot had been hatched by Sheikh Omar to eliminate the then-president with the connivance of some Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) militants, with whom he had long been in touch over the phone.
As Omar’s death cell was thoroughly searched, three mobile phones, six batteries, 18 SIMS of almost every cellular company and chargers were seized from his possession. Further scanning of the alleged terror mastermind’s telephone records revealed he had been making calls all over Pakistan to former Jihadi associates as well as relatives in Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Peshawar.
Interestingly, however, his mobile phone records revealed besides having revived his contacts with the outer world, Omar had also been in touch with Attaur Rehman, alias Naeem Bukhari, a key Lashkar-e-Jhangvi operative arrested by the Karachi police on June 5, 2007 in connection with the January 2002 Daniel Pearl murder case.
When the barracks of Naeem Bukhari, being held in the Sukkur Central Jail, were searched, the authorities recovered one mobile phone and three SIMs he had been using to stay in touch with Omar and some other LeJ accomplices in Karachi and Rawalpindi.
During the ensuing interrogations, Naeem Bukhari was learnt to have revealed that the LeJ operatives had already been directed by Sheikh Omar to target Musharraf either in Rawalpindi or in Karachi, preferably by using a suicide car bomber.
The LeJ militants had thus been monitoring Musharraf’s movements to target him while travelling between his Army House residence in Rawalpindi and his Chak Shehzad farmhouse on the 1-A Park Road on the quiet suburbs of Islamabad or to blow up the bridge on Shara-e-Faisal during his next visit to Karachi at the precise moment when his convoy would reach there from the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport.
It was after the unearthing of the assassination plot that Musharraf decided to leave for London on Nov 22, 2008 for a short trip — for the first time since his resignation as president in August 2008. Although, he has already returned home, Musharraf is still occupying the Army House due to grave security concerns.
Following the recovery of mobile phones and SIMs from Sheikh Omar, the Sindh Home Department took serious action and suspended (on Dec 1, 2008) Hyderabad Central Jail Superintendent Abdul Majid Siddiqui, his deputy Gul Mohammad Sheikh and four other jail officials on charges of showing criminal negldigence.
According to the Sindh inspector general prisons, both had been suspended by the Home Department on complaints of corruption and maladministration. The IG prisons said there were complaints of serious nature against them, such as providing cell phones and other banned facilities to prisoners, corruption and maladministration. An inquiry officer has already been appointed to probe the charges.
The most astonishing aspect of the episode is that the scrutiny of Omar Sheikh’s mobile phone records proved he had been even calling Maj-Gen (retd) Amir Faisal Alavi, the former General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the elite Special Services Group (SSG) of the Pakistan Army. He was shot dead in Islamabad on Nov 19, 2008 by unidentified gunmen.
Although, the Interior Ministry officials are not ready to speak on the issue, a recent story filed by Carey Schofield of Sunday Times had quoted Maj-Gen Amir Faisal Alavi as having told her during an Islamabad meeting four days before his murder that he knew he would be killed by his own comrades, as he had threatened to expose the Pakistani generals who had been cutting deals with Taliban insurgents.
Sheikh Omar Saeed has not divulged any information so far as to why he had been calling Alavi. But Musharraf has stated in his book “In the Line of Fire” that Omar was originally recruited by the British intelligence agency MI-6 while studying at the London School of Economics.
Omar was sent to the Balkans by MI-6 to engage in Jihadi operations, according to Musharraf, who went on to opine: “At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent. Sheikh Omar happens to be a British citizen of Pakistani descent, who had first served five years in prison in Delhi in the 90s in connection with the 1994 abduction of three British travellers. But he was released in the first week of 2000 along with Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar and eventually provided a safe passage to Pakistan by the Taliban regime, after India was forced to accept demands of the hijackers of Indian Airliner IC-814.
“Two years later, on Feb 12, 2002, Omar surrendered to Brigadier (retd) Ejaz Hussain Shah, his former handler in the ISI, after being accused of abducting Daniel Pearl. At an initial court appearance in April 2002, Omar had almost confessed to his crime by stating: “I don’t want to defend myself. I did this... Rightly or wrongly, I had my reasons. I think our country shouldn’t be catering to American needs.”
As a matter of fact, it is five-and-a-half years since an anti-terrorism court in Karachi sentenced him to death. Omar, a graduate from the London School of Economics, became a Jihadi for the high-profile Pearl murder.
It was on July 15, 2003 that Omar and his three accomplices were awarded life imprisonment by Justice Ali Ashraf Shah in a heavily fortified makeshift court, set up in a bunker underneath a prison inside the Hyderabad Jail. No journalist was allowed to attend the court proceedings and the venue had to be changed three times because of bombing threats and security concerns.
The trial judge was also changed thrice. Forensic scientists initially refused to attend the exhumation of the court for fear they would be killed. Police personnel who were known to confront all kinds of savage criminals behaved like lambs in front of the terrorist and police officers were intimidated by him in the court of law in front of the judge.
As soon as the July 15, 2003 verdict was announced, Omar, who had already been declared a dangerous prisoner and confined to an isolation death cell, reacted defiantly, saying that he would retaliate against the authorities for arranging the sentence. In a message read out by his lawyer outside the court room, Sheikh Omar said: “We shall see who will die first. Either I or the authorities who have arranged the death sentence for me.” Almost six months later, in December 2003, Gen Musharraf survived two separate assassinations attempts in Rawalpindi. The authorities suspect that Sheikh Omar had links with the two suicide bombers who blew themselves up to assassinate Musharraf and the attempts owed to the death penalty awarded to Omar.
As things stand, the anti-terrorist court’s verdict has not been implemented so far and Sheikh Omar continues to avoid being sent to the gallows due to repeated adjournments of his appeal against conviction, pending in the Sindh High Court for years now. Reports emanating from the Hyderabad Central Jail say the guards stationed outside Omar’s death cell are rotated almost daily because he has the ability to influence anyone he meets.
As a matter of fact, Omar had actually managed to prevail upon the first four police constables deployed outside his cell, with all of them growing beards within days after they were assigned to guard his ward. The jail authorities say if the guards outside his cell are not rotated every day, Omar is fully capable of bringing the entire jail staff round to his view. He is presently reading books on history, particularly on World War-I and II, the Cold War and the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.
India's Greatest Ally: Pakistan By Vivian Salama
India's Greatest Ally: Pakistan
Vivian Salama, Washington Post, Postglobal, December 16, 2008
Several weeks ago, I made the acquaintance of a high-ranking Indian military official who was passing through Abu Dhabi. Our meeting coincided with reports of U.S. air strikes on targets in Pakistan near to the Afghan border. During our candid discussion, the attaché pounded his fist over the desk, insisting that any attack on Pakistan inevitably hurts India. "Target Pakistan and you send shockwaves into India," he said.
India has, for years, found itself in a predicament with regard to its relationship with Pakistan. While it may be in the country's interest to take firmer action against Pakistan whenever it receives credible evidence of a plot, the two countries will accomplish far more in deterring security threats if they work together. While relations have been hot and cold between the two countries over the years, they are ultimately an extension of one another and therefore must recognize that attacks and counterattacks will reverberate across their borders.
India must also realize that Pakistani citizens are just as victimized by the threat of terror as they are. This year alone, some 600 terror-related incidents have been carried out on Pakistani soil, killing nearly 2,000 people - mostly civilians. While these attacks in Pakistan can be viewed as a domestic - and not transnational - problem, it is fair to expect some level of cooperation from the victimized portion of Pakistan's population. India should capitalize on this by positioning itself as a partner for peace. To do so credibly, however, it must demonstrate that it is cracking down on the domestic fundamentalism that has emerged within its borders, leaving many of its own citizens - Muslims especially - feeling vulnerable and victimized.
The deterioration of law and order in some of Pakistan's Northwestern regions has created a near-impossible security situation for Pakistan's intelligence and military but it also puts India between a rock and a hard spot. It is in neither country's best interest to engage in a military confrontation. For India, this is a waste of important resources. For Pakistan, it is a no-win situation as the country has no match for India's mighty military.
Given the tumultuous relationship between the two countries, it is important that they work together to ensure that intelligence is shared on such security matters and that Pakistan in particular is doing what it can to deter radicalism from spilling over its borders. India is a large country with more than a billion residents presenting an utterly impossible security challenge. It cannot expect to ensure its security and protect its borders without the help of its neighbors. In the fight against terrorism, Pakistan is, perhaps ironically, India's greatest ally.
Vivian Salama, Washington Post, Postglobal, December 16, 2008
Several weeks ago, I made the acquaintance of a high-ranking Indian military official who was passing through Abu Dhabi. Our meeting coincided with reports of U.S. air strikes on targets in Pakistan near to the Afghan border. During our candid discussion, the attaché pounded his fist over the desk, insisting that any attack on Pakistan inevitably hurts India. "Target Pakistan and you send shockwaves into India," he said.
India has, for years, found itself in a predicament with regard to its relationship with Pakistan. While it may be in the country's interest to take firmer action against Pakistan whenever it receives credible evidence of a plot, the two countries will accomplish far more in deterring security threats if they work together. While relations have been hot and cold between the two countries over the years, they are ultimately an extension of one another and therefore must recognize that attacks and counterattacks will reverberate across their borders.
India must also realize that Pakistani citizens are just as victimized by the threat of terror as they are. This year alone, some 600 terror-related incidents have been carried out on Pakistani soil, killing nearly 2,000 people - mostly civilians. While these attacks in Pakistan can be viewed as a domestic - and not transnational - problem, it is fair to expect some level of cooperation from the victimized portion of Pakistan's population. India should capitalize on this by positioning itself as a partner for peace. To do so credibly, however, it must demonstrate that it is cracking down on the domestic fundamentalism that has emerged within its borders, leaving many of its own citizens - Muslims especially - feeling vulnerable and victimized.
The deterioration of law and order in some of Pakistan's Northwestern regions has created a near-impossible security situation for Pakistan's intelligence and military but it also puts India between a rock and a hard spot. It is in neither country's best interest to engage in a military confrontation. For India, this is a waste of important resources. For Pakistan, it is a no-win situation as the country has no match for India's mighty military.
Given the tumultuous relationship between the two countries, it is important that they work together to ensure that intelligence is shared on such security matters and that Pakistan in particular is doing what it can to deter radicalism from spilling over its borders. India is a large country with more than a billion residents presenting an utterly impossible security challenge. It cannot expect to ensure its security and protect its borders without the help of its neighbors. In the fight against terrorism, Pakistan is, perhaps ironically, India's greatest ally.
‘Military interventions, violations of constitution led to fall of Dhaka’
‘Military interventions, violations of constitution led to fall of Dhaka’
Staff Report, Daily Times, December 17, 2008
KARACHI: Intellectuals and historians gathered at the Sir Adamjee Institute and Intermediate College for Science and Commerce, Tuesday to mark the 37th anniversary of Saqoot-e-Dhaka.
They pointed out that poor leadership, constant breaches in the constitution and military interventions led to the separation of former East Pakistan in 1971. At the seminar titled “Re-visiting 16 December 1971,” speakers said that the armed forces, the judiciary and the civil society, are to blame and that no single stakeholder could be held responsible alone.
Pakistan Study Centre Director Dr Syed Jaffer Ahmed said that military officials are not capable of understanding the intricacies of the political system simply because they are not trained in that manner. Recalling the political and judicial history of Pakistan, he said that then President Yahya Khan and his subservient lieutenants failed to resolve the issue of former East Pakistan through dialogue. “After the failure of the tripartite dialogue between Yahya Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujeebur Rehman, a military operation was launched that provided India with the opportunity to strike, which was waiting for such a golden chance,” he said.
Renowned historian, Dr Muhammad Reza Kazmi, attributed the Fall of Dhaka to a lack of cultural communication between East and West Pakistan while ruling out the perception that a geographical communication gap was the main reason behind the creation of Bangladesh. “West Pakistanis were arrogant of their cultural traditions which led to an inferiority complex among the Bangladeshi,” he added. The two intellectuals also suggested that the present economic system of the country ought to be revamped in order to avoid similar incidents in the future. Measures should be adopted to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor with a just distribution of wealth, they maintained. “A strong judicial system is also the dire need of the country which is meant to support all instead of just the influential.” Sir Adamjee Institute Principal Cdr (Retd) Najeeb Anjum proposed establishing a Truth Reconciliation Commission on the likes of the one in South Africa. He said it is imperative that people know the truth about the separation of the country.
For Pakistani View, See:
Fall of Dhaka: we must learn from history - The News
Army generals responsible of Dhaka Fall: Nizami - The Nation
For Bangladeshi view, see:
Nation celebrates Victory Day today - The Bangladesh Today
Nizami sings old Jinnah song - Daily Star
Upholding the spirit of Victory Day - The New Nation
Staff Report, Daily Times, December 17, 2008
KARACHI: Intellectuals and historians gathered at the Sir Adamjee Institute and Intermediate College for Science and Commerce, Tuesday to mark the 37th anniversary of Saqoot-e-Dhaka.
They pointed out that poor leadership, constant breaches in the constitution and military interventions led to the separation of former East Pakistan in 1971. At the seminar titled “Re-visiting 16 December 1971,” speakers said that the armed forces, the judiciary and the civil society, are to blame and that no single stakeholder could be held responsible alone.
Pakistan Study Centre Director Dr Syed Jaffer Ahmed said that military officials are not capable of understanding the intricacies of the political system simply because they are not trained in that manner. Recalling the political and judicial history of Pakistan, he said that then President Yahya Khan and his subservient lieutenants failed to resolve the issue of former East Pakistan through dialogue. “After the failure of the tripartite dialogue between Yahya Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujeebur Rehman, a military operation was launched that provided India with the opportunity to strike, which was waiting for such a golden chance,” he said.
Renowned historian, Dr Muhammad Reza Kazmi, attributed the Fall of Dhaka to a lack of cultural communication between East and West Pakistan while ruling out the perception that a geographical communication gap was the main reason behind the creation of Bangladesh. “West Pakistanis were arrogant of their cultural traditions which led to an inferiority complex among the Bangladeshi,” he added. The two intellectuals also suggested that the present economic system of the country ought to be revamped in order to avoid similar incidents in the future. Measures should be adopted to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor with a just distribution of wealth, they maintained. “A strong judicial system is also the dire need of the country which is meant to support all instead of just the influential.” Sir Adamjee Institute Principal Cdr (Retd) Najeeb Anjum proposed establishing a Truth Reconciliation Commission on the likes of the one in South Africa. He said it is imperative that people know the truth about the separation of the country.
For Pakistani View, See:
Fall of Dhaka: we must learn from history - The News
Army generals responsible of Dhaka Fall: Nizami - The Nation
For Bangladeshi view, see:
Nation celebrates Victory Day today - The Bangladesh Today
Nizami sings old Jinnah song - Daily Star
Upholding the spirit of Victory Day - The New Nation
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The US-Pakistan Relations under Obama
The new US outlook
By Shahid Javed Burki, Dawn, December 16, 2008
WHICH way Pakistan will go in the next few years — perhaps in the next decade or two — will be influenced by some developments over which Islamabad has little control. The shape of things to come will be determined by how the administration of president-elect Barack Obama views Pakistan; what kind of stance India adopts towards the country after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai; and what kind of relations develop between the US-led West and the Muslim world of which Pakistan is an important part.
Pakistan, given its unending reliance on external capital flows, has to pay attention to how it is perceived by those who provide the resources the country relies on for running its economy. The most important of these remains the US but the Middle East also matters: Pakistan is now a major recipient of foreign direct investment from that part of the world, and the last thing the oil-producing countries of the Gulf want is a major conflict on their borders. Today I will focus on America’s changing perceptions regarding its interests in South Asia.
As America’s 44th president, Barack Obama has little in common with President George W. Bush whom he succeeds next month. Bush was not a deep thinker. He was not curious about the way the world works. He was also remarkably stubborn about changing the course he had adopted once he had followed it for a while, even when it became clear that disaster awaited. He was proud of the fact that he allowed his instincts and God’s direction to guide him in fashioning public policy.
Obama, on the other hand, is in favour of letting his ideas be shaped by people who are as bright as he is and who have more experience in government affairs. The Washington Post recently published an interesting analysis of the type of people Obama was bringing into his administration. It pointed out that of Obama’s top 35 appointments so far 22 have degrees from an Ivy League school or one of the top British universities.“While Obama’s picks have been lauded for their ethnic and ideological mix, they lag diversity in one regard: they are almost exclusively products of the nation’s elite institutions and generally share a more intellectual outlook than is often the norm,” said the newspaper. The world view of this group will be very different from the people who governed from Washington for eight years under the leadership of President Bush.
One difference between the approach of Obama’s people and that of the people they are succeeding is the strong belief that the world is interconnected, more so than ever before. President Bush and his team were exponents of the point of view that is generally referred to as ‘American exceptionalism’. According to this, America is very different from the rest of the world. It has a unique place in the community of states and has the responsibility of spreading its system of values to other parts of the world.
This reading of America’s history and its world vision prompted the Bush administration to articulate four objectives as a part of the strategy in international affairs. The first was that having defeated the Soviet Union in the conflict over ideologies that marked the Cold War era, America was not prepared to allow any other country to challenge its power.
Second, it was not only the sole surviving superpower, it was an uberpower, with so much economic and military strength concentrated in its hands that no country should dare to challenge it.
Third, it was prepared to launch pre-emptive strikes if it felt that its strategic interests were threatened.
Fourth, it would promote the adoption of what President Bush regarded as universal values. Most important of these was democracy: governments should be run by the will of the people exercised openly and transparently.
All this constituted a remarkable change from the realism of policymakers such as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft who were big influences on the previous Republican administrations. They took the world as it was; it was not America’s business to reshape it. Its only concern was to properly read the world and to ensure that within what existed America would be able to protect its strategic interests.
The Bush doctrine turned out difficult to pursue. The rest of the world was not prepared to accept that America could proceed unchecked, accomplishing the mission it had defined for itself without consulting its allies.
Even when democracy was tried as a way of organising the affairs of governments, it turned out that elections produced results the Americans did not like. This happened in Gaza and Lebanon where the citizens elected Hamas and Hizbollah respectively. The notion that America could do it on its own began to be challenged by several European countries and by China. The latter was rapidly gaining on America in the field of economics.
When Obama campaigned he promised change. It was clear that the Americans also wanted to proceed on a different course. He has been elected and there is no doubt that change will come. This is why Islamabad has to take serious note of the rapidly changing perceptions in Washington as a new administration takes shape.
The government headed by Barack Obama will bring an entirely new style of governance and thinking about international affairs. One thing is already clear: Obama and his talented and experienced team will bring a holistic approach in dealing with the various problems in the world the US must confront. Unlike President Bush, President Obama will look at the world from more angles than only that of terrorism. And even where terrorism is concerned he is likely to go deeper to determine its cause than to use the bring-’em-on approach President Bush followed.
In a remarkably lucid 45-minute interview with journalist Tom Brokaw on the popular news programme, Meet the Press, president-elect Obama covered a number of areas where his administration would get deeply involved the moment it was sworn into office. South Asia is one of them. President Bush looked at the countries of this region from the perspective of two of his concerns. His preoccupation with terrorism had him focus on Pakistan. And his concern about rising China was the main reason for his efforts to develop a close relationship with India. Obama promises a different kind of engagement with South Asia. Islamabad would do well to prepare itself for the new dialogue with Washington.
By Shahid Javed Burki, Dawn, December 16, 2008
WHICH way Pakistan will go in the next few years — perhaps in the next decade or two — will be influenced by some developments over which Islamabad has little control. The shape of things to come will be determined by how the administration of president-elect Barack Obama views Pakistan; what kind of stance India adopts towards the country after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai; and what kind of relations develop between the US-led West and the Muslim world of which Pakistan is an important part.
Pakistan, given its unending reliance on external capital flows, has to pay attention to how it is perceived by those who provide the resources the country relies on for running its economy. The most important of these remains the US but the Middle East also matters: Pakistan is now a major recipient of foreign direct investment from that part of the world, and the last thing the oil-producing countries of the Gulf want is a major conflict on their borders. Today I will focus on America’s changing perceptions regarding its interests in South Asia.
As America’s 44th president, Barack Obama has little in common with President George W. Bush whom he succeeds next month. Bush was not a deep thinker. He was not curious about the way the world works. He was also remarkably stubborn about changing the course he had adopted once he had followed it for a while, even when it became clear that disaster awaited. He was proud of the fact that he allowed his instincts and God’s direction to guide him in fashioning public policy.
Obama, on the other hand, is in favour of letting his ideas be shaped by people who are as bright as he is and who have more experience in government affairs. The Washington Post recently published an interesting analysis of the type of people Obama was bringing into his administration. It pointed out that of Obama’s top 35 appointments so far 22 have degrees from an Ivy League school or one of the top British universities.“While Obama’s picks have been lauded for their ethnic and ideological mix, they lag diversity in one regard: they are almost exclusively products of the nation’s elite institutions and generally share a more intellectual outlook than is often the norm,” said the newspaper. The world view of this group will be very different from the people who governed from Washington for eight years under the leadership of President Bush.
One difference between the approach of Obama’s people and that of the people they are succeeding is the strong belief that the world is interconnected, more so than ever before. President Bush and his team were exponents of the point of view that is generally referred to as ‘American exceptionalism’. According to this, America is very different from the rest of the world. It has a unique place in the community of states and has the responsibility of spreading its system of values to other parts of the world.
This reading of America’s history and its world vision prompted the Bush administration to articulate four objectives as a part of the strategy in international affairs. The first was that having defeated the Soviet Union in the conflict over ideologies that marked the Cold War era, America was not prepared to allow any other country to challenge its power.
Second, it was not only the sole surviving superpower, it was an uberpower, with so much economic and military strength concentrated in its hands that no country should dare to challenge it.
Third, it was prepared to launch pre-emptive strikes if it felt that its strategic interests were threatened.
Fourth, it would promote the adoption of what President Bush regarded as universal values. Most important of these was democracy: governments should be run by the will of the people exercised openly and transparently.
All this constituted a remarkable change from the realism of policymakers such as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft who were big influences on the previous Republican administrations. They took the world as it was; it was not America’s business to reshape it. Its only concern was to properly read the world and to ensure that within what existed America would be able to protect its strategic interests.
The Bush doctrine turned out difficult to pursue. The rest of the world was not prepared to accept that America could proceed unchecked, accomplishing the mission it had defined for itself without consulting its allies.
Even when democracy was tried as a way of organising the affairs of governments, it turned out that elections produced results the Americans did not like. This happened in Gaza and Lebanon where the citizens elected Hamas and Hizbollah respectively. The notion that America could do it on its own began to be challenged by several European countries and by China. The latter was rapidly gaining on America in the field of economics.
When Obama campaigned he promised change. It was clear that the Americans also wanted to proceed on a different course. He has been elected and there is no doubt that change will come. This is why Islamabad has to take serious note of the rapidly changing perceptions in Washington as a new administration takes shape.
The government headed by Barack Obama will bring an entirely new style of governance and thinking about international affairs. One thing is already clear: Obama and his talented and experienced team will bring a holistic approach in dealing with the various problems in the world the US must confront. Unlike President Bush, President Obama will look at the world from more angles than only that of terrorism. And even where terrorism is concerned he is likely to go deeper to determine its cause than to use the bring-’em-on approach President Bush followed.
In a remarkably lucid 45-minute interview with journalist Tom Brokaw on the popular news programme, Meet the Press, president-elect Obama covered a number of areas where his administration would get deeply involved the moment it was sworn into office. South Asia is one of them. President Bush looked at the countries of this region from the perspective of two of his concerns. His preoccupation with terrorism had him focus on Pakistan. And his concern about rising China was the main reason for his efforts to develop a close relationship with India. Obama promises a different kind of engagement with South Asia. Islamabad would do well to prepare itself for the new dialogue with Washington.
The Road to Maximum Terror By Praveen Swami
The Road to Maximum Terror
The JuD is arguably the best-organised political force in Punjab. Dismantling its infrastructure will prove a formidable challenge to Pakistan, even if the State does, indeed, decide it wishes to take that course. Failure to compel Pakistan to act, however, could have incalculable consequences.
Praveen Swami, Outlook India, December 15, 2008
The only language India understands", the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s (LeT) supreme amir (chief) told top functionaries of his organisation on October 19, 2008, "is that of force, and that is the language in which it must be talked to".
Less than six weeks later, around 9:00 pm on the night of November 26, a woman in the koliwada — or fishing village — off south Mumbai’s upmarket Budhwar Park area saw an inflatable dinghy nudge up against the beach. She, and a few fishermen who were drinking near the beach, watched as ten men got off the boat, and made their way towards the road behind the slum. "Don’t bother us", growled one of the men, in response to a friendly query. The villagers, wisely, kept their peace.
Much of what we know about what happened next comes from the testimony of the dark young man who, dressed in a knock-off Versace T-shirt and grey cargo pants, was caught on closed-circuit camera just minutes before he opened fire at commuters at Mumbai’s crowded Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) railway station.
Mohammad Ajmal Amir has told the Mumbai Police he was part of group of ten men who spent months training in guerrilla warfare, marine commando techniques and navigation skills at Lashkar camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab.
Lashkar military commander Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, Amir has told investigators, showed the group Google Earth maps of South Mumbai, and films of the targets each of the five two-man units had been tasked to hit. Iman, along with his partner ‘Abu Umar’ — whose name, he learned, was in fact Mohammad Ismail Khan — were tasked with attacking the CST. Once they had reached their destinations, the men were told to kill, take hostages, and then — holed out on the roofs of their targets — phone Indian television stations. Once the inevitable rescue operation began, the men were to slaughter the hostages.
For complete article, click here
The JuD is arguably the best-organised political force in Punjab. Dismantling its infrastructure will prove a formidable challenge to Pakistan, even if the State does, indeed, decide it wishes to take that course. Failure to compel Pakistan to act, however, could have incalculable consequences.
Praveen Swami, Outlook India, December 15, 2008
The only language India understands", the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s (LeT) supreme amir (chief) told top functionaries of his organisation on October 19, 2008, "is that of force, and that is the language in which it must be talked to".
Less than six weeks later, around 9:00 pm on the night of November 26, a woman in the koliwada — or fishing village — off south Mumbai’s upmarket Budhwar Park area saw an inflatable dinghy nudge up against the beach. She, and a few fishermen who were drinking near the beach, watched as ten men got off the boat, and made their way towards the road behind the slum. "Don’t bother us", growled one of the men, in response to a friendly query. The villagers, wisely, kept their peace.
Much of what we know about what happened next comes from the testimony of the dark young man who, dressed in a knock-off Versace T-shirt and grey cargo pants, was caught on closed-circuit camera just minutes before he opened fire at commuters at Mumbai’s crowded Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) railway station.
Mohammad Ajmal Amir has told the Mumbai Police he was part of group of ten men who spent months training in guerrilla warfare, marine commando techniques and navigation skills at Lashkar camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab.
Lashkar military commander Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, Amir has told investigators, showed the group Google Earth maps of South Mumbai, and films of the targets each of the five two-man units had been tasked to hit. Iman, along with his partner ‘Abu Umar’ — whose name, he learned, was in fact Mohammad Ismail Khan — were tasked with attacking the CST. Once they had reached their destinations, the men were told to kill, take hostages, and then — holed out on the roofs of their targets — phone Indian television stations. Once the inevitable rescue operation began, the men were to slaughter the hostages.
For complete article, click here
Monday, December 15, 2008
Cross-border terrorist hunt illegal: India’s CJ
Cross-border terrorist hunt illegal: India’s CJ
By Jawed Naqvi, Dawn, December 16, 2008
NEW DELHI, Dec 14: The Chief Justice of India has counselled restraint in the concept of hot pursuit in cross-border hunt for terrorists, advocating instead a new legal definition for terrorism that could boost international cooperation, instead of violating sovereignty of maligned nations.
“From our recent experience, we have learnt that terrorist attacks against innocent and unsuspecting civilians threaten the preservation of rule of law as well as human rights and terrorism can broadly be identified with the use of violent methods in place of the ordinary tools of civic engagement and political participation,” Justice K.G. Balakrishnan told an international conference on human rights on Saturday.
He said that while the conduct and consequences of armed conflicts between nations — such as wars and border-skirmishes — were regulated by international criminal law and humanitarian law, the occurrence of internal disturbances within a nation were largely considered to be the subject-matter of that particular nation’s domestic criminal justice system and constitutional principles.
“In the absence of bilateral treaties for extradition or assistance in investigation, there is no clear legal basis for international cooperation in investigating terrorist attacks — which are usually classified as internal disturbances in the nation where they took place. Since there are no clear and consistent norms to guide collaboration between nations in acting against terrorists, countries like the United States have invented their own doctrines such as ‘pre-emptive action’ to justify counter-terrorism operations in foreign nations,” Justice Balakrishnan told the meeting, which was attended also by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
However, he added, “the pursuit of terrorists alone cannot be a justification for arbitrarily breaching another nation’s sovereignty.
In this scenario, one strategy that has been suggested is that of recognising terrorist attacks as coming within a new ‘hybrid’ category of armed conflict, wherein obligations can be placed on different countries to collaborate in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks that have taken place in a particular country. This calls for a blurring of the distinction between the international and domestic nature of armed conflict when it comes to terrorist strikes.”
A practical constraint that has been brought to the fore with the Mumbai attacks has been the question of holding governments responsible for the actions of non-state actors.
“While one can say that there is a moral duty on all governments to prevent and restrain the activities of militant groups on their soil, the same is easier said than done,” the head of India’s Supreme Court said. For example, he said, several terrorist groups are able to organise financial support and procure weapons even in Western nations where it is perceived that policing and criminal justice systems are relatively stronger than the Subcontinent.
Justice Balakrishnan voiced concern at the controversial media coverage of the Mumbai terror attack.
“The symbolic impact of terrorist attacks on the minds of ordinary citizens has also been considerably amplified by the role of pervasive media coverage. One of the ill-effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses,” he said.
He warned that the trauma resulting from the terrorist attacks may be used as a justification for undue curtailment of individual rights and liberties.
“Instead of offering a considered response to the growth of terrorism, a country may resort to questionable methods such as permitting indefinite detention of terror suspects, the use of coercive interrogation techniques and the denial of the right to fair trial.”
For complete article, click here
By Jawed Naqvi, Dawn, December 16, 2008
NEW DELHI, Dec 14: The Chief Justice of India has counselled restraint in the concept of hot pursuit in cross-border hunt for terrorists, advocating instead a new legal definition for terrorism that could boost international cooperation, instead of violating sovereignty of maligned nations.
“From our recent experience, we have learnt that terrorist attacks against innocent and unsuspecting civilians threaten the preservation of rule of law as well as human rights and terrorism can broadly be identified with the use of violent methods in place of the ordinary tools of civic engagement and political participation,” Justice K.G. Balakrishnan told an international conference on human rights on Saturday.
He said that while the conduct and consequences of armed conflicts between nations — such as wars and border-skirmishes — were regulated by international criminal law and humanitarian law, the occurrence of internal disturbances within a nation were largely considered to be the subject-matter of that particular nation’s domestic criminal justice system and constitutional principles.
“In the absence of bilateral treaties for extradition or assistance in investigation, there is no clear legal basis for international cooperation in investigating terrorist attacks — which are usually classified as internal disturbances in the nation where they took place. Since there are no clear and consistent norms to guide collaboration between nations in acting against terrorists, countries like the United States have invented their own doctrines such as ‘pre-emptive action’ to justify counter-terrorism operations in foreign nations,” Justice Balakrishnan told the meeting, which was attended also by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
However, he added, “the pursuit of terrorists alone cannot be a justification for arbitrarily breaching another nation’s sovereignty.
In this scenario, one strategy that has been suggested is that of recognising terrorist attacks as coming within a new ‘hybrid’ category of armed conflict, wherein obligations can be placed on different countries to collaborate in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks that have taken place in a particular country. This calls for a blurring of the distinction between the international and domestic nature of armed conflict when it comes to terrorist strikes.”
A practical constraint that has been brought to the fore with the Mumbai attacks has been the question of holding governments responsible for the actions of non-state actors.
“While one can say that there is a moral duty on all governments to prevent and restrain the activities of militant groups on their soil, the same is easier said than done,” the head of India’s Supreme Court said. For example, he said, several terrorist groups are able to organise financial support and procure weapons even in Western nations where it is perceived that policing and criminal justice systems are relatively stronger than the Subcontinent.
Justice Balakrishnan voiced concern at the controversial media coverage of the Mumbai terror attack.
“The symbolic impact of terrorist attacks on the minds of ordinary citizens has also been considerably amplified by the role of pervasive media coverage. One of the ill-effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses,” he said.
He warned that the trauma resulting from the terrorist attacks may be used as a justification for undue curtailment of individual rights and liberties.
“Instead of offering a considered response to the growth of terrorism, a country may resort to questionable methods such as permitting indefinite detention of terror suspects, the use of coercive interrogation techniques and the denial of the right to fair trial.”
For complete article, click here
A New Tack in Kashmir: Peaceful Protest Gains in Separatist Fight
A New Tack in Kashmir
Peaceful Protest Gains in Separatist Fight
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV, Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2008
SRINAGAR, India -- Lashkar-e-Taiba, the presumed perpetrator of last month's Mumbai attacks, sprang up from the bloody insurgency against Indian rule in predominantly Muslim Kashmir. While the plight of Kashmir has galvanized Islamic radicalism across South Asia, the decades-long armed struggle is waning in the disputed region itself.
India now largely faces a different, and potentially more challenging foe here: peaceful campaigners for self-determination, who borrow from Mahatma Gandhi's rule book of non-violent resistance.
"India is not scared of the guns here in Kashmir -- it has a thousand times more guns. What it is scared of is people coming out in the streets, people seeing the power of nonviolent struggle," says the Muslim Kashmiris' spiritual leader, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a key organizer of the civil disobedience campaign that began earlier this year. The number of armed attacks in the valley, meanwhile, has dropped to its lowest since the insurgency began in 1989, Indian officials say.
The former princely state known as Jammu and Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan since 1947, and has been claimed in its entirety by both ever since. It has long been the main axis of discord between the two neighbors, now both nuclear-armed.
Since the early 1990s, Pakistan's intelligence services trained and financed Kashmiri militant groups such as Lashkar, helping fuel a conflict that has cost 60,000 lives. Mr. Farooq's father was gunned down by suspected jihadi militants in 1990 for seeming too accommodating to India.
For complete article, click here
Peaceful Protest Gains in Separatist Fight
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV, Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2008
SRINAGAR, India -- Lashkar-e-Taiba, the presumed perpetrator of last month's Mumbai attacks, sprang up from the bloody insurgency against Indian rule in predominantly Muslim Kashmir. While the plight of Kashmir has galvanized Islamic radicalism across South Asia, the decades-long armed struggle is waning in the disputed region itself.
India now largely faces a different, and potentially more challenging foe here: peaceful campaigners for self-determination, who borrow from Mahatma Gandhi's rule book of non-violent resistance.
"India is not scared of the guns here in Kashmir -- it has a thousand times more guns. What it is scared of is people coming out in the streets, people seeing the power of nonviolent struggle," says the Muslim Kashmiris' spiritual leader, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a key organizer of the civil disobedience campaign that began earlier this year. The number of armed attacks in the valley, meanwhile, has dropped to its lowest since the insurgency began in 1989, Indian officials say.
The former princely state known as Jammu and Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan since 1947, and has been claimed in its entirety by both ever since. It has long been the main axis of discord between the two neighbors, now both nuclear-armed.
Since the early 1990s, Pakistan's intelligence services trained and financed Kashmiri militant groups such as Lashkar, helping fuel a conflict that has cost 60,000 lives. Mr. Farooq's father was gunned down by suspected jihadi militants in 1990 for seeming too accommodating to India.
For complete article, click here
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)