Zardari: How long will he last as President?

Zardari

A year has passed since Asif Ali Zardari was sworn in as President of Pakistan

on 9^th September 2008.

How long will Zardari a Baluch from Sind and a Shia to boot survive in the badlands of Pakistan Politics dominated by the Army and Punjabis?

A Quirk of fate got Zardari who was apparently leading a happy go lucky life as a young man married  Benazir Bhutto ( 18 Dec 1987), the then leader of the PPP. Life has since then been a roller coaster ride,  reaching up to dizzying  heights and plumbing depths all in a short span of a little over two decades.

He and his family were hounded by successive governments in Pakistan. He himself was jailed from 1997 to 2004, tortured, and almost given up for being as good as dead by his opponents. He was supposed to have been suffering from memory impairments as a result of his continuous incarceration for seven long years.  Knowing the prison systems in Pakistan and the animosity of successive governments against Benazir Bhutto this is not surprising. The fact that he has managed to survive against great odds, and come out on top to become the president of Pakistan is no mean achievement.

Asif Ali Zardari became a minister for the first time in 1988. When Benazir lost the elections in 1990, charges were laid against him but nothing was proved. When Bhutto was returned to office in 1993 he became a minister once again. In 1996 when Benazir vacated her office he was again targeted and imprisoned from 1997 to 2004.

He was a pawn in the board of Pakistan Politics. The real target was Benazir Bhutto.

Things really looked bleak for Zardari family during those bad years. That he maintained his sanity and the family kept bonded over the difficult years of Benazir’s self imposed exile and his incarceration is a telling example of his determination and strength of character.

Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan, or rather stormed back into Pakistan politics in 2007 in the wake of National Reconciliation Ordinance which granted amnesty to politicians in office from 1986 to 1999.

The tragic death of Benazir Bhutto in Dec 2007 at the hands of assasins catapulted him to become the Co Chairman of PPP, along with his son, Bilawal.

He steered PPP through a difficult period preceding and during the elections. His PPP teamed up with Nawaz Sharief’s PML and won the elections. President Musharraf’s PML (Q) was unseated. Musharraf himself had to quit his dual posts as president of Pakistan and the army chief.

What was striking was his audacity to openly challenge the then all powerful Musharraf to step down or face impeachment. Considering that the Army was and is the most powerful entity in Pakistan this was no mean feat.

He was nominated by his party for the post of President and was elected to the highest office in the country. Zardari secured 281 votes out of the 426 valid votes polled in the parliament. He secured  62 of the 65 electoral votes in Sind,  in North West Frontier Province  got 56 votes out of  62, in Baluchistan he polled 59 votes. However, Zardari did not win the majority in the nation’s biggest province, Punjab, where the PML-N’s Siddiqui got a clear majority.[1]

Clearly the Punjabis of Pakistan preferred  one of their own, another Punjabi.

Asif Ali Zardari was sworn in as President of Pakistan on 9^th September 2008.

Zardari’s weaknesses

He is not a Punjabi. Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis, who have a strangle hold on all apparatus of state. Liaquat Ali Khan fell to the bullets of an assassin. Zulfikar Bhutto, a Sindhi was hanged. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated.

Zardari is a Shia Muslim. In a Sunni dominated country Shias are in a minority. The Wahabis who are threatening to inundate and brainwash the Sunnis do not have any love lost for Shias.

Pakistan Army is the prime entity in Pakistan. It has ruled Pakistan for most of its history since 1947. It has managed to entrench itself and corner all major resources and centers of power. A parasite, living off the resources of   Pakistan, it is a law unto itself. It has spawned the ISI another lawless institution answerable to none except the Chief of the Army. It has fostered terrorists as a part of state policy. The army does not accept civilian supremacy in the government. Periods when democratic governments came into office are few and far between.

It has managed to short circuit any action taken by Zardari to flex the civilian muscles. He tried to rein in the ISI and the army stepped in. He tried to extend a friendly hand towards India and was stumped.

His bold acknowledgements of Pakistan state in fomenting terrorism and advice to check them have been stymied. At every step any positive initiative taken by Zardari to reduce tensions with India, check the terrorists and their resources, extend civilian control on resources have been sabotaged by the army.

The latest in the list is the manner in which the army has managed to thwart any check or control through the Kerry Lugar Bill,  of  funds ( 7.5 billion over the next 5 years) to  be  received from US for fighting terror.  The ambassador to US  Hussain Haqqani, “is reportedly being recalled under pressure from the country’s military junta, which   feels he played a dubious role in a US aid bill that seeks to establish civilian control over the military…. His predecessor, Mahmood Ali Durrani, who was recalled to Islamabad as National Security Adviser, was fired from that post for admitting that jihadis behind Mumbai’s 26/11 attacks were from Pakistan”

Straight forward and Outspoken

Zardari is a Baluch. They are known for outspokenness.

Zardari himself has been very clear and forthright in his comments about Pakistan State agencies aiding, and sustaining terrorist organizations. “Militants and extremists emerged on the national scene and challenged the state not because the civil bureaucracy was weakened and demoralized but because they were deliberately created and nurtured as a policy to achieve short-term tactical objectives. Let’s be truthful and make a candid admission of the reality,” he said at a gathering of civil servants in Islamabad.[2]

He has been equally critical of self centered American Policies. “The West stood by as a democratically elected (Pakistani) government was toppled by a military dictatorship in the late ’70s. Because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the West used my nation as a blunt instrument of the Cold War. It empowered a Gen. Zia dictatorship that brutalized its people, decimated our political parties, murdered the prime minister who had founded Pakistan’s largest political party, and destroyed the press and civil society,” Zardari wrote in the Washington Post.[3]

“Sadly, what we are witnessing today is the outcome of that policy of the 80’s and even earlier. The policy of using religious extremism as an instrument of war.

He did not mince words when he said in his address at IISS , International Institute of Strategic Studies,London, on September 18, 2009 . “We in Pakistan have paid a very heavy price for this policy. 2.5 million drug addicts and Slow economic growth. Pakistan has suffered more than others, for decades we had to host and continue to host millions of Afghan refugees. The situation was further compounded by the support of international community to dictatorships in Pakistan, dictatorships, running with the hare and hunting with the hound. For decades dictators played hide and seek with militants for their  own political survival. Years of dancing with the dictators has encouraged the crisis of today.”

On Afghanistan he said “Once the Soviets were defeated, the Americans took the next bus out of town, leaving behind a political vacuum that ultimately led to the Talibanization and radicalization of Afghanistan, the birth of Al-Qaeda and the current jihadi insurrection in Pakistan.”

On India, ‘Zardari has come out with a bold statement claiming that the militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir are terrorists. This statement by Zardari seems to put him just opposite to former Pakistani President Musharraf who described these militants as freedom fighters.  He also stated that Pakistan is not worried about India and does not find it to be a threat to Pakistan. Pakistan has no objection regarding India’s nuclear deal with US.’

‘Speaking about the relation between India and Pakistan, Zardari said that the issue of Kashmir should not evolve up as an obstacle in maintaining the mutual relationship between the two countries. He is hopeful of better ties between the countries and plans for a free trade agreement with India. Zardari finds India as one of the biggest neighboring trade partners. These statements by the Pakistani President are surely going to create a viable platform for taking ahead the relation of the two South-Asian countries.’

Terrorism He has been unequivocal in his condemnation of terrorism and terrorists. He has not categorized terrorists as good and bad. This is in exact opposite of the army and the ISI which has aided and abetted terrorists for over two decades. Pakistan army is willing to call Al Quaida and some elements of Taliban terrorist organisations. However Pakistan army , even today, is unwilling to accept that Sipah –e Sabha (SSP)  Lashkar –e-Jhangvi, Jaish-e –Mohammad, Harkatul Jahad e Islami  are terrorist organizations. Their cadre is Punjabi, and the army has been supporting them since their inception. The fact that the GHQ attack on October 18, 2009,had all terrorists who were Punjabis has not called for a rethink. They are still trotting out the story that terrorists are in Waziristan and Swat valley only, Punjab, the province with maximum Sunni population is clean as a whistle.

Nuclear Options

Zardari in Nov 2008 Addressing a conference in New Delhi by video, in answer to a question, contradicted Pakistan’s long-standing policy on nuclear weapons. “We will most certainly not use it first,” he said. “I don’t agree to nuclear weapons. I hope we never get to that position. “I am against nuclear warfare altogether.” India has been a strong advocate of the “no first strike” policy on nuclear missiles, but previous Pakistani leaders have opposed such a stance. The Pakistan army, averse to any sanity in its policies or peace moves with India would have none of it, and immediately countered the statement[4].

ATTA Zardari’s agreement to special status to India in the draft of the Afghanistan Trade and Transit Agreement has riled the ISI.

Corruption Charges

There have been no open allegations of corruption since he has become the President of Pakistan.

However Zardari has faced a number of trials for corruption. He was notorious at one time as Mr. 10%. In March 2008  “five different corruption cases against Zardari dropped by judges appointed by President Pervez Musharraf. Charges in connection with the murder of Justice Nizam Ahmed were also dropped.”[5] Pakistan’s judiciary has not had a reputation for acting independently of the government when it comes to high-profile cases, especially of a political nature. [6]In Aug 2008 “ all cases against Zardari in Swiss courts dropped at the request of Pakistani authorities. USD 60m in allegedly laundered money restored. Zardari denies the money is his.”[7]

“Another area where President Asif Ali Zardari is highly criticized by common Pakistanis and a majority of opposition leaders is that during one year he spent 94 day abroad. His foreign tours mostly emanate from Dubai. Here finger-pointing starts about major deals and agreements. Though none of his foes has so far offered any fresh case of corruption, people do question his lengthening absence from Pakistan.” [8]

Limited education and insufficient experience of statesmanship encourages bureaucrats to get their plans translated into action through Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani

Dr. A.Q. Khan During   the last year he has freed Pakistan’s nuclear scientist Dr. A.Q. Khan.

Chief Justice Iftkhar Chaudhry He has managed to bring back the former Chief Justice Iftkhar Chaudhry shunted out by Musharraf and  restored Chief Justice who was persona non grata with the Pakistan army and Musharraf, .

Future ?

Pakistan army, and the ISI have ruled Pakistan for nearly four decades. They have  grown fat over the years on drug money and  aid from US, and favors rendered to themselves. They have fooled the people of Pakistan, and  led them down an abyss. They have been able fool the Americans too for all these years. America did try after six decades to exercise some supervision through the KL bill on how $ 7.5 billon in aid will be utilized. But the Pakistan army has been able to foment enough demonstrations and opposition to any sort of control on spending aid money.

Gen Kiyani unlike his predecessor has been working quietly behind the scenes. He has been meeting opposition leaders secretly, especially those personally opposed to Zardari. How long can Zardari with his policy of promoting peace with neighbors and tough handling of terrorists last?

---

[1] Wikepedia

[2] Omer Farooq Khan, TNN 9 July 2009

[3] Omer Farooq Khan, TNN 9 July 2009,

[4] The Australian

[5] Peter Gill

[6] BBC News 16 June 2009

[7] Peter Gill

[8]  Azhar Masood : Pakistan: President Zardari’s One Year of Flip Flops September 11, 2009

Afghanistan: US buckling under pressure ? Taliban and Pakistan wait in the wings

Losing Ground To Taliban?

The war against Taliban could be lost within a year without more troops, says Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan

More troops are required in Afghanistan. It is obvious. But Obama administration is facing opposition from within the country, non co operation from its allies in Europe who have contributed manpower and material for the on going operation in Afghanistan.

To add Pakistan has been giving shelter to Taliban, and Al Quaida, while making a show of mock fighting in its tribal areas. Pakistan is aware that US cannot stay forever in Afghanistan. It is only a matter of time before they withdraw. Taliban and Al Quaida will walk in again in to Afghanistan. Pakistan as their ally in bad times will have achieved its aim of ’securing depth’ and prime movers in the ‘operation terror’, and unequalled ability to blackmail nations across the globe.

The sole beneficiary of the fight against the Taliban has been Pakistan.

Obama knows he cannot win the Afghan war with the present resources. He also knows his country men want out. No wonder Hillary is all set to undermine the recommendations of the Theatre commander.

Afghan failure sans surge: Gen

McChrystal, In Secret Report, Seeks More Troops Within A Year

Eric Schmitt & Thom Shanker

Washington: The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war that he needs more troops within the next year or else the conflict “will likely result in failure”.

The grim assessment is contained in a 66-page report that the commander, Gen Stanley McChrystal, submitted to defense secretary Robert Gates on August 30, and which is now under review by President Obama and his top national security advisers.

The disclosure of details in the assessment coincided with new skepticism expressed by President Obama about sending any more troops into Afghanistan until he was certain that the strategy was clear.
His remarks came as opposition to the eight-year-old war within his own party is growing. McChrystal’s view offered a stark contrast, and the language he used was striking.

“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the next 12 months — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,” McChrystal writes. He ends his summary on a cautiously optimistic note: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”

But throughout the document, he warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost.

Pentagon and military officials involved in Afghanistan policy say McChrystal is expected to propose a range of options for additional troops beyond the 68,000 American forces already approved, from 10,000 to as many as 45,000.

In a series of interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows, Obama expressed skepticism about sending more American troops to Afghanistan until he was sure his administration had the right strategy to succeed.
Obama said he and his top advisers had not delayed any request for more troops from McChrystal because of the political delicacy of the issue or other domestic priorities. “No, no, no, no,” Obama said when asked whether Mc-Chrystal had been told to sit on his request.

In his report, McChrystal issues a withering critique of both his Nato command and the Afghan government. His Nato command, he says, is “poorly configured” for counterinsurgency and is “inexperienced in local languages and culture.”

The general also describes a savvy insurgency that is using the prison system as a training ground. “These (Taliban and al-Qaida) detainees are currently radicalising non insurgent inmates,” the report concludes.

NYT NEWS SERVICE

Hillary rebuffs Gen’s Afghan warning

Pentagon Asks McChrystal To Defer Surge Plea

New York/Washington: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton pushed back against the US military’s blunt warning that the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan would likely be lost within a year without more US troops.

Hillary’s comments in an interview with PBS television late on Monday came amid reports that the Pentagon has asked General Stanley Mc-Chrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, to delay a request for more troops.
In the interview, Hillary expressed “respect” for Mc-Chrystal’s assessment that the US would likely lose the war in Afghanistan within a year without more US forces.

“But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite,” she said.

Hillary’s remarks were the latest sign of resistance by the administration of President Barack Obama to a major escalation in the US commitment in Afghanistan without a lengthy internal review and debate.
The Wall Street Journal, citing defense officials, reported that defense secretary Robert Gates has asked McChrystal to delay submitting his request for more troops until the completion of a review of the US war effort.
McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post a day after Obama defended
the delay in making a decision about more troops. AFP

Losing Ground To Taliban? The war against Taliban could be lost within a year without more troops, says Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan

How To Avoid Defeat? McChrystal makes clear that ultimate success in Afghanistan requires overcoming two main threats: insurgency and a ‘crisis of confidence’ among Afghans in their own government. Both must be addressed, and together they require more resources, he says. ‘Insufficiently addressing either principal threat will result in failure,’ the general concludes

More Troops
Afghanistan has long been an ‘under-resourced’ mission. This prevents coalition forces from being able to ‘hold’ an area after clearing it This fact risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support Double the number of Afghan security forces from a current goal of about 200,000 police and army to about 400,000 — ensuring the success of the US exit strategy

Change in Strategy
The US must mount a proper counter-insurgency effort — it must protect the population, weed out insurgency
The key weakness, McChrystal says, is that Nato is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. ‘Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us from the people we seek to protect’

Winning Hearts
‘Victory is within our grasp, provided we recommit ourselves based on lessons learned and provided that we fulfill the requirements needed to make success inevitable,’ says McChrystal
The Afghan government is riddled with corruption, leading to more disillusionment among the people

Pak Factor
Factions of the ISI and the Quds forces of Iran have been supporting the Taliban and other terrorist groups to carry out attacks on the US-led forces in Afghanistan

Stronger Enemy
The Taliban insurgency has mushroomed into a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda in its operations
Hundreds of Afghans are held without charge. This allows the enemy to radicalize them far beyond their pre-capture orientation

AQ Khan: A Hero made a Scapegoat and media fodder

AQ Khan should be a Hero for all Pakistan.

Why has he been treated so shabbily in the last two years?

It is indeed a matter of shame for Pakistan.

AQ Khan was the one man who convinced Zulfikar Bhutto that he could develop an atomic weapon for Pakistan. It was his sustained efforts (both legal and illegal) that could enable Pakistan to produce atomic weapons.

He could not have done it without the resources of Pakistan Government, and the ISI.

If he did part with weapon making techniques to Iran, China or North Korea, how can he be faulted? He did what he did with full knowledge, backing and support of all heads of state from Zulfikar Bhutto, Zia Ul Haq, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharief, to Pervez Musharraf.

These deals could never have happened without knowledge and support of a succession of US presidents, Nixon, Regan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Junior. That the CIA must have been a party to many of the deals cannot be doubted.

Pakistani establishment including the army and the ISI have had close relationship with the covert agencies in USA. They have a fantastic network in the State department, and the US Armed Forces resulting from decades of training and cooperation.

If he did make some Moolah on the way from any of the many clandestine deals, he has done no more than what the politicians, bureaucrats and the generals have done over the last five decades.

The only reason for his being placed in the manger can be the sudden turn around of US, in its newly found concerns on CTBT and sabre rattling with respect to Iran and North Korea.

Pakistani establishment cannot openly avow the connivance of CIA, State department or drag the name of presidents of USA who have winked at repeated illegal activities of Pakistan over decades.

As far as the Presidents of Pakistan are concerned, has history not proved again and again, that kings have no loyalty to their advisers and benefactors

So AQ Khan has been abandoned to save face of the faceless CIA and US administration, and ISI.

AQ Khan is just a scapegoat. Fodder for the press.

Pak b ****** s used us, are playing games with us’

Chidanand Rajghatta | TNN

Washington:An angry,humiliated and wounded A Q Khan has finally made public and official what has long been suspected: his nuclear proliferation activities that included exchanging and passing blueprints and equipment to China, Iran, North Korea, and Libya were done at the behest of the Pakistani government and military, and he was forced to take the rap for it.
“The bastards first used us and are now playing dirty games with us,’’ Khan writes about the Pakistani leadership in a December 2003 letter to his wife Henny that has finally been made public by an interlocutor. “Darling, if the government plays any mischief with me, take a tough stand,’’ he tells his wife, adding, “They might try to get rid of me to cover up all the things they got done by me.’’
But Henny was unable to play hardball because Khan had also sent copies of that letter to his daughter Dina in London and to his niece Kausar Khan in Amsterdam through his brother, a Pakistan Airlines executive. Pakistani intelligence agencies got wind of it and threatened the wellbeing of the family, forcing him to recant and publicly take the blame for the proliferation activities in a humiliating television spectacle engineered by then military ruler Pervez Musharraf.
A Q Khan Blows The Whistle
Darling, if the government plays
any mischief with me, take a
tough stand…They might try to get rid of me to cover up all the things they got done by me—A Q Khan in his letter to his wife Henny now made public
On China | We put up a centrifuge plant at Hanzhong. The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us 50 kg of enriched uranium
On helping Iran’s N-plan | BB’s (Benazir Bhutto) defence advisor asked me to give a set of drawings and components to the Iranians
On N Korea | A now-retired general took $3 million through me from the N Koreans and asked me to give some drawings and machines Khan’s letter could leave China red-faced
Washington: A copy of ‘rogue’ Pakistani scientist A Q Khan’s four-page letter reached his long-time journalistic contact Simon Henderson in 2007.
In fact, in the letter, Khan tells his wife, “Get in touch with Simon Henderson and give him all the details.’’ Henderson says when he acquired the copy of the letter, he was shocked. His acquaintance with Khan goes back to the late 1970s, but it was never intimate, and consisted of occasional interviews and conversations.
Describing the letter as “extraordinary’’, Henderson says it outlines in numbered paragraphs Pakistan’s nuclear co-operation with China, Iran and North Korea, and also mentions Libya. In one para that is bound to embarrass Beijing, Khan writes about how Pakistan helped China in enrichment technology in return for bomb blueprints.
“We put up a centrifuge plant at Hanzhong (250 km southwest of Xian), Khan writes. The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us 50 kg of enriched uranium, gave us 10 tonnes of UF6 (natural) and 5 tonnes of UF6 (3%).’’ UF6 is uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous feedstock for an enrichment plan.
On Iran, the letter says: “Probably with the blessings of BB [Benazir Bhutto] General Imtiaz [Benazir’s defence adviser, now dead] asked me to give a set of drawings and some components to the Iranians. The names and addresses of suppliers were given to the Iranians.’’ On North Korea: “[A nowretired general] took $3 million through me from the North Koreans and asked me to give drawings and machines.’’
Henderson does not explain why he waited nearly two years to make the letter public, but writes sympathetically about Khan, who is held largely incommunicado under house arrest.
Henderson’s Sunday Times expose also implicates the US and other Western powers, who he says, shoved Islamabad’s proliferation (while blaming it solely on Khan) under the rug to get their cooperation in the war on terror.
The move also saved the US from embarrassment since it was asleep on the watch when Pakistan began its nuclear proliferation and then winked at it when it was discovered, all the while lavishing billions in military supplies on its unstable client state.
Govt rescued broke scientist with pension
Simon Henderson, AQ Khan’s journalistic contact, has said the scientist was close to being broke by the summer of 2007, when he was finding it difficult to make ends meet on his pension of 12,200 (Pakistani) rupees per month. Henderson has defended Khan from charges that he profited from proliferation activities, as alleged by Pervez Musharraf. After pleading with General Khalid Kidwai, the officer supervising both Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and Khan, the pension was increased to $2,500 per month and there was a one-off lump-sum payment of the equivalent of $50,000. Hendersen says he has copies of the agreement and cheques. TNN

Hindus forced to convert in Pakistan:Fleeing

Hindus and Christians have been hounded out of Pakistan in large number since the last six decades. Abductions and forcible conversions are the order  of the day. Christian Nations have always highlighted the plight of harassed Christians in any part of the world, and come to their aid.

Government of India could not care less about Hindus being harassed anywhere in this world, least of all in Pakistan and Bangla Desh.

Lakhs of Hindus have fled Kashmir, driven out by terrorists assisted by locals and are rotting in various camps in Delhi since decades.

T here is no glamour , free trips abroad, free khana peena and seminars in taking up their tragic tales.

So no Booker prize winners, Supreme court lawyers, society birds to take up their case.

Jaiisalmer: In the past four years, some 5,000 Hindus may have crossed over from Pakistan, never to return. It has not been easy, abandoning their homes, sometimes even their families, but they say they had no choice: they had to flee the Taliban.

It started as a trickle in 2006, the year the Thar Express was flagged off. The weekly train starts from Karachi, enters India at Munabao — a border town in Barmer — and runs up to Jodhpur. In the first year, 392 Hindus came over. It grew to 880 in 2007. Last year, the number was 1,240, and this year, till August, more than 1,000 had crossed over and not gone back.

They just keep extending their visas, hoping to become Indian citizens. And these are the official figures. Sources say there are many more who cross over and melt into the local milieu; officials have a soft corner for these immigrants, most of whom have harrowing stories to tell.

Hetudan Charan, immigration officer at Munabao railway station, said the arrival of migrants had suddenly increased — 15 to 16 families are reaching India every week. ‘‘None of them admits they have come to settle here but seeing their baggage, we understand,’’ he said.

Ranaram, who used to live in the Rahimyar district of Pakistan’s Punjab, says he fell prey to the Taliban. His wife was kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted to Islam. His two daughters were also forcibly converted. Ranaram, too, had to accept Islam for fear of his life. He thought it best to flee with his two daughters; his wife was untraceable.

Dungaram, another migrant, says the atrocity against Hindus in Pakistan has increased in the past two years since the ouster of Pervez Musharraf. ‘‘Fanatics have become active… We were not entitled to permanent jobs unless we converted to Islam.’’

Hindu Singh Sodha, president of Seemant Lok Sangathan — a group working for the refugees in Barmer and Jaisalmer — says there’s no refugee policy in India though people from Pakistan come in large numbers. ‘‘The government of India has rarely raised the issue of atrocity against Hindus during talks with Pakistan,’’ said Sodha.

He said in 2004-05, more than 135 families were given Indian citizenship but the rest continue to live illegally and are tortured by police. ‘‘In December 2008, over 200 Hindus were converted to Islam in Mirpur Khas town of Pakistan. There are several who want to stick to their religion but there’s no safety for them,” Sodha added.

Horror Story
Ranaram’s wife was kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted to Islam in Punjab province. He and his two daughters were forcibly converted.

Ranaram fled with the girls; his wife is missing

Afghanistan: US To Pull out or not?

President Barack Obama is under pressure.

Over 50% of Americans polled recently want disengagement  from Afganistan.

Trillions have been sunk into the bottomless pits called Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to speak of nearly 6000 dead and many more wounded. No news channel will broadcast the maimed and the dead arriving back home.

Iraq was a blunder by Bush and and his cronies. The cross is on the shoulders of President Obama, and he has to carry it. Abandoning Afghanistan twenty years back was a grave error. Another cross to carry.

While Iraq is showing some marginal improvement, at least on paper, things seem to be going  downhill in Afghanistan.Taliban and Al Quaida has recuperated in the last four years, and is operating freely from their R&R zones in Pakistan.

President Obama’s commitments to the nation at the time of polls that war in Afghanistan was ‘necessary’, may come up for a re look not because a positive conclusion to the Afghan situation is not in the long-term interests of US, but simply the inability of its armed forces to complete their job of finishing off or at least keeping the Taliban-Al Quaida away, till the Afghan government becomes viable.

In his endeavour to complete the Afghan operation early, President Obama has  ‘changed the top leadership of his armed forces there, sanctioned increased manpower and asked Congress for more money’. (GA, TOI).

Obama  today is in an unenviable position. American troops are required in greater numbers in Afghanistan, and to stay for longer period of time may be five years more. However the public may not be patient for that long. Within a year the tide of support for intervention in Afghanistan has turned.

Withdrawal by US from this theatre will spell doom for the Government of Afghanistan, which is trying to cobble up some system of administration against all odds.

Taliban and AlQuaida will walk back into Afghanistan which will become a centre for all fanatic and  lawless elements of the Muslim world.

A real and permanent threat to Humanity.

Nepal: Maoists strip and beat up Indian priests

Indian priests stripped, thrashed in Nepal temple

Maoist Supporters Go On Rampage At Pashupatinath

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Kathmandu: The issue of Indian priests officiating at Pashupatinath temple in Nepal reached a flashpoint on Friday with a mob assaulting the two newly appointed Indian priests, stripping them naked and tearing off their sacred threads regarded as mandatory for Brahmins.

Girish Bhatt and Raghavendra Bhatt, from Karnataka, were appointed only this month to continue the nearly 800-year-old tradition at the revered Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu of employing priests only from the orthodox southern states of India.
Both priests were elated last month when they were shortlisted from a panel of several Brahmin priests in India for appointment at the famed temple. But on Friday, 24 hours before their tenure was to start, the two priests from Karnataka are in mortal fear, urging temple authorities to send them back to India on Saturday itself, and provide them security till the airport.

The drastic mood swing came as the pair came under an unprecedented attack within the temple premises. The Pashupatinath temple area turned into an ugly battlefield late afternoon as groups of young men waving the Maoist red flag swarmed the secret room where the two priests had been confined two days ago to fast and undertake holy vows in readiness for the puja ceremony on Saturday.

Waving iron rods and batons, the men broke open the lock on the secret door, dragged the two priests out and began thrashing them. Amidst cries of ‘‘filthy Indians, go back home’’ their clothes were torn and their sacred thread ripped off. The whole incident was also videotaped.

As police came to intervene, the men clashed with the posse, heightening tensions that had begun simmering in the area from Sunday. Four men, said to belong to the Young Communist League, the Maoist youth wing, were reportedly arrested. However, there was no immediate official confirmation.

‘‘It’s deplorable that such things should happen in the sacred temple,’’ said Bharat Jangam, the man who is fighting a legal battle opposing the decision of the previous Maoist government to scrap the tradition of appointing priests from south India.

Religion is being politicized in Nepal. The row was triggered last week after the new government of PM Madhav Kumar Nepal okayed the appointment of the two priests from India.

Jinnah Controversy: Unwanted

The recent controversy over the part Jinnah played in his days in the subcontinent is of little importance to the comman man in India. The hoo ha in the BJP and the highlighting the same in the media is not warranted.

The book on Jinnah is just an excuse for shunting out Jaswant Singh from the BJP.

Extracts from some views

THE UNDERAGE OPTIMIST

Don’t fix history, look at the future

CHETAN BHAGAT

Sometimes, i wonder if television channels pay politicians to en act drama in real life After all, how else can we have top leaders of a leading party spend ing days discussing historical figure, banning a book and firing the author from his job of 30 years.

The reality is that despite its best intentions, the BJP is out of touch with the current generation. The recent Jinnah book/Jaswant Singh episode confirms this fact like none other. The BJP is screaming that Mr Jinnah was not indeed as secular as claimed by Jaswant Singh.

Experts on TV are citing events in 1932 which prove that Jinnah was a good person; countered by an equal number of experts citing historical events which prove that Jinnah did terrible things.

To answer the Jinnah question from the point of view of the young generation — Who cares?

Really, whether Mr Jinnah did wonderful things or he did horrible things and whatever point of view your party likes to take — who gives a damn? How is this relevant to the India we have to build today? Are we electing leaders for the future or selecting a history teacher?

The strange thing is the media buys into this pointless debate — about Mr Jinnah being good or bad and spends hours discussing it. By doing so, it gives legitimacy to the whole exercise.

Meanwhile, the young generation fails to understand why do our politicians become so passionate defending these relics of the past? Why don’t they have a fanatical debate about how fast we will make roads, colleges, bridges and power plants? Why don’t people get expelled over current nonperformance rather than historical opinions? Why don’t we ban useless government paperwork rather than banning books about dead people?

The BJP, however, seems to be out of touch with the above. They actually feel what their party thinks about Jinnah drives the voting process of Indians. They feel people will only vote for them if they somehow present a hardline Hindu (which means anti-Muslim) stance.

However, today, the young generation does not think so.

A word about the RSS as wellThe RSS needs to take a tough decision — will they support the BJP even if the BJP no longer hates Muslims? I think the RSS can make this switch and promote a Hinduism of tolerance and acceptance, which is more relevant in the India of today.

Meanwhile, let’s let Mr Jinnah rest in peace. Let the book be there, as banning a book in the time of the Internet is silly anyway. And let’s not worry too much about this subject called History; let’s create a new subject called The Future.

Extract from an article by Kushwant Singh, HT

Books on Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founding father of Pakistan, will fill many shelves of a library. We assume that all that could be known about him has been recorded and there is little new material to bring to light besides interpreting his role in Indian politics leading to the Partition of the country in August 1947.

Evidently, that is not so. In his recently published book, BJP leader Jaswant Singh has uncovered new material from sources hitherto untapped and come to the conclusion that Jinnah was deliberately demonised by Indian politicians and writers. That is the theme of his book Jinnah: India-Partition Independence (Rupa). Independence (Rupa).

I do not agree with Jaswant Singh’s reading of the events leading to the division of the country. I believe Partition was inevitable as its seeds had been sown many centuries earlier and nurtured by Indian politicians of British times. My analysis is as follows : Indians were never an integrated society. Besides caste and language divisions, the greatest was the HinduMuslim divide.

They got along reasonably well but kept their distance from each other. There was never any real mixing of families visiting each other’s homes or even contemplating matrimonial relationships. The British fostered the feeling of separateness between the two. As the time neared for the British to leave, Muslims began to feel uneasy at the prospect of living in a Hindu-dominated India.

National divisions of India had been made before. Lala Lajpat Rai made before. Lala Lajpat Rai had made a rough map dividing India along communal lines. Later, Chaudhary Rehmat Ali coined the word Pakistan.

Allama Iqbal, who at one time composed patriotic verses including Saarey Jahaan Se Achha, spoke of a Muslim state. Jinnah’s contribution to separateness was evolving the twonation theory that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations which would not live together in one state.

The feeling was echoed in the minds of middle-class Muslims across the subcontinent. After that no one, neither Gandhiji, nor Nehru, nor Sardar Patel nor Jinnah, could stop the process of religious cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Muslim-dominated areas. It may be recalled that as early as March 1947, Hindus and Sikhs were being driven out of towns and villages in north-west Punjab. There were communal riots in many Punjab cities, including Lahore.

By August 15, 1947, the migration of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan had become a bloody exodus. Sikhs and Hindus of east Punjab made sure that this was not going to be one-way traffic: they drove out Muslims from east Punjab with double the violence. It was the most catastrophic exchange of populations in the history of mankind, leaving a million dead and tens of millions homeless.

Pointing accusing fingers at Nehru or Patel or Jinnah serves no purpose.

Not one of them, nor indeed all of them put together, could have stopped the process of Partition. They were helpless against the tidal wave of hatred generated by history. They were the real causes of the wars we have fought against Pakistan and the continuing conflict over the future of Kashmir.

Nepal: colonial attitude towards Madhesis ?

No last word on Nepal’s Hindi row

Bithi Sarkar | TNN

Kathmandu: Last year’s photograph takes pride of place in Paramananda Jha’s drawing room. It has Jha dressed in dhoti-kurta and a jacket, being sworn in as the Nepalese republic’s first vicepresident. But that momentous occasion captured on camera 13 months ago is a grim reminder of 65-year-old Jha’s predicament today.

The former Supreme Court judge is at the centre of a raging language row. Last week, Nepal’s Supreme Court ruled that Jha had violated the Constitution by taking his oath of office and secrecy in Hindi instead of Nepali. The Court gave him an ultimatum: take a fresh oath in Nepali or resign. On Friday, Jha filed two appeals, seeking a review of the Court decision.

Nepal’s ruling parties have asked Jha to obey the Court’s directive, but he is adamant. “The court verdict reflects Nepal’s colonial attitude towards the Terai people,” he tells STOI. “It is not just an insult to Madhesis (people living in the Terai), but to all indigenous communities whose mother tongue is different from Nepali.”

Jha links the order to Nepal’s very real bias against Hindi, which is perceived as an Indian language. “Every Nepali speaks Hindi; it’s spoken all over Nepal. In spite of that, it is regarded as an Indian language as people forget that Hindi is spoken on both sides of the border.

In the Terai, even people whose mother tongues are Maithili or Bhojpuri or Avadhi lapse into Hindi when they are excited. If Hindi is an Indian language, then so is Nepali; after all, the Indian Constitution recognizes it as an official language of India.”

The vice-president believes base politics is behind the row. “Three years ago, a case was filed against Army chief Gen Rookmangud Katawal, (on the charge that he had falsified his year of birth and should have retired before he became army chief). But the general retires next month, and the court has not dared to take up the matter as the ruling parties are backing Katawal. On the other hand, the party that nominated me as vice-president, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, weakened after a split in the party and the attacks against Madhesis increased.”

He also alleges that the apex court judges are biased. “The chief justice (Min Bahadur Rayamajhi) was an old adversary when I was a judge,” he says. “He took this opportunity to settle personal scores. The verdict misinterprets the Constitution.

The Constitution never said the oath has to be taken in Nepali; what it has laid down is the format. Besides the oath, I also signed an official acceptance letter that was written in Nepali. That still remains valid.”

In the past, India had often stepped in to defuse rows between the Nepalese government and parties that espouse the Hindi cause.

But Jha will have none of it. “It is my battle,” he says. “I am capable of fighting it. I don’t need anyone’s support.”

Nepal vice-president under fresh attack

TNN 29 August 2009, 08:51pm IST

KATHMANDU: Within hours of Nepal’s government announcing it would take stringent action against an obscure armed group that had exploded a bomb near beleaguered Vice-President Paramananda Jha’s residence Friday night, attackers tried to set off a second bomb that, however, was detected by police and neutralised before it could cause any damage.

This is the second attack within 24 hours on the vice-president who has been at the heart of a language war that has divided Nepal vertically since last year and is headed for a showdown Sunday.

The violence started with an obscure armed group exploding a bomb near Jha’s residence in the Gaurighat area of the capital Friday night. Though the 65-year-old former judge was unhurt, a woman was injured. The Kirat Janabadi Workers’ Party, an underground organisation that is demanding a Kirat state in eastern Nepal, claimed responsibility for the attack and warned more would follow if Jha refused to take his oath of office and secrecy in Nepali.

An alarmed Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal Saturday rushed to Jha’s residence in the morning to condemn the bomb attack and promise stern action against the perpetrators. The prime minister also promised that the perpetrators would be brought to justice.

However, hours after the government announcement, police found a second bomb near Jha’s residence.

both the President, Dr Ram Baran Yadav, and the prime minister have been urging Jha to end the row – that began last year when the latter took his oath in Hindi – by being sworn in again in Nepali, so far, he has refused to toe the line. On Friday, he struck back, filing two petitions against the controversial Supreme Court verdict that has slapped the ultimatum on him, calling it biased and unconstitutional.

The three-month-old Nepal government is in its worst dilemma over the language row. On Sunday, it faces the option of either removing Jha and facing the wrath of the Hindi belt or continuing with status quo and angering the anti-Hindi hill community.

Jha however says neither the court nor the government has the power to sack him. According to him, the interim constitution authorises his impeachment only if two-third of Nepal’s 601-member parliament vote for the motion.

The Hindi war triggered a 48-hour general strike Saturday in Nepal’s Hindi belt, the Terai plains along the Indo-Nepal border, in support of the embattled Vice-President. Sunsari, Siraha, Dhanusha and Nawalparasi districts were hard-hit by the bandh spearheaded by the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum party with cadres clashing with police.

Janakpur, a major pilgrim destination in Nepal famed for its Janaki temple, remained tense as protesters pelted police with stones and were baton-charged. More than a dozen people were hurt with police reportedly arrested two demonstrators from hospital.

Taliban: Mehsud terminated. Taliban & ISI still alive.

Mission Not Accomplished

Despite Mehsud’s end, conflict with the Taliban is far from over

” The Americans will soon find that the army establishment has no intention of reining in the Taliban, operating from the tribal areas to attack American, coalition and Afghan troops across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.”

At around 1 a.m. on August 5, a pilotless US drone hovering across the Durand Line moved in and fired two ‘Hellfire’ missiles at a house in a remote village in the tribal area of South Waziristan. The house was owned by the father-in-law of Pakistan’s most wanted terrorist, Baitullah Mehsud. Despite his supporters’ denials, it seems more than plausible that Baitullah perished in the deadly missile strike.

Alluding to the attack, Pakistani strategic analyst Ayesha Siddiqa observed: “He (Baitullah) was originally supported by the military and ISI. But he had begun to bite the hand that fed him. His death was a powerful signal to them all.”      Baitullah had, after all, been an ISI “asset”.

Pakistan’s military signed a landmark ceasefire agreement with him in 2005, which gave him control over South Waziristan. Baitullah, however, turned a bitter foe of the military after it stormed the Lal Masjid in Islamabad and killed hundreds of young Pashtun women from the tribal areas, in July 2007. The action ordered by General Pervez Musharraf came after radical clerics took over the masjid and virtually held the capital hostage. Following this, Baitullah united Taliban groups operating across the seven tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, under the Tehriq-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan’s (TTP) banner. Apart from launching attacks on army and ISI personnel in cities like Rawalpindi and Lahore, the TTP humiliated the army by forcing the surrender of a convoy of 243 army personnel on November 4, 2007.

The popular belief in Pakistan is that Baitullah masterminded Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Predictably, the ISI built the myth that he was actually an agent of the CIA, KHAD (Afghan Intelligence) and India’s R&AW! Now that he has been eliminated by a CIA missile, the Americans would possibly be exonerated of this cardinal sin.

But Baitullah is merely one of dozens of Taliban leaders in Pakistan, where the classification appears to be that if you kill American and Afghan soldiers after crossing the Durand Line into Afghanistan, you are officially ‘good Taliban’, to be armed, trained and backed by the ISI.  But if you combine such activity with attempts to create unrest in Pakistan, you are categorised as  ‘bad Taliban’, and eliminated.

While the army, ISI and a large section of the public in Pakistan are overjoyed at Baitullah’s killing by the otherwise much-reviled Americans, it would not be prudent to believe that his removal will signal any change in the ISI’s approach of supporting the Taliban leaders it favours. Notable amongst the commanders of the ‘good Taliban’ are veteran Taliban leader Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin, who executed the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in July 2008.

Sections in the Pentagon have, despite strong evidence to the contrary, been giving good conduct certificates to General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and suggesting that only rogue elements in the ISI have been assisting the Taliban.

The Americans will soon find that the army establishment has no intention of reining in the Taliban, operating from the tribal areas to attack American, coalition and Afghan troops across the Durand Line in Afghanistan. Would the Americans then be ready to launch drone attacks unilaterally targeting the Taliban political leadership in Balochistan, or Taliban commanders like Haqqani in the tribal areas? Unlike India, the US acts firmly on issues pertaining to the security of its citizens and soldiers.

While the Americans plan to reduce their military presence in Afghanistan only after significantly degrading Taliban capabilities, the ISI appears determined to bolster the Taliban, with the objective of making Afghanistan a Taliban-dominated client state. A hurried American withdrawal, with the Taliban still posing a threat to Afghanistan’s security, will have serious implications for India.

An emboldened ISI commenced support for its jihad in Kashmir after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988. It would be similarly emboldened to step up terrorist attacks across India once it is persuaded that its borders along the Durand Line with Afghanistan are secure, with the Taliban providing ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan.

India should work with the US and its NATO allies, and also with Russia, Iran and Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbours like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, to ensure that Afghanistan’s elected government is backed diplomatically, financially and militarily to deal with challenges from across the Durand Line, even after presidential elections later this month.

Buoyed by its diplomatic ‘triumph’ in Sharm el-Sheikh, Pakistan now threatens that there can be no durable peace in the subcontinent till the Kashmir ‘dispute’ is settled to its satisfaction.

Surely, one way to deal with the emerging scenario is for India to make common cause with its Afghan friends and assert that the Durand Line is a disputed frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while expressing the hope that this ‘dispute’ would be resolved in a manner that fulfils the aspirations of Pashtuns on both sides of the border.

No genuine Pashtun leader, including Mullah Omar, accepts the legitimacy of the Durand Line as an international border.

The writer is a former high commissioner to Pakistan.

Moderate Taliban: “Welcome to Obama’s first big mistake.”

Politicians can coin words to suit their requirements. It is their special ability. To play with words.

Vested interests play along, causing destruction and inflicting unspeakable miseries on innocents.

Ed:

Extract from TOI

There is nothing called the ‘moderate Taliban’

“Welcome to Obama’s first big mistake.”

M J AKBAR

If necessity is the mother of invention then politics is often the father. Barack Obama has invented a phrase that did not exist on January 20, the day he became president.

Anxious to win a war through the treasury rather than the Pentagon, he has discovered something called the ‘‘moderate Taliban’’ in Afghanistan.

Joe Biden, his vice president, has found the mathematical coordinates of this oxymoron: only 5% of the Taliban are ‘‘extremists’’.

Welcome to Obama’s first big mistake.

The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not simply against some bearded men and beardless boys who have been turned into suicide missionaries. The critical conflict is against the ideology of a chauvinistic theocracy that seeks to remould the Muslim world into a regressive region from which it can assault every aspect of modernity, whether that be in political space or the social sphere.

Washington has a single dimension definition of ‘‘moderate’’: anyone who stops an active, immediate war against the US is a ‘‘moderate’’.

Let me introduce him to a couple of ‘‘moderate Taliban’’. They are now world famous, having been on every national and international news channel these past few days, stars of a video clip from Swat. Two of them had pinned down a 17-year-old girl called Chand Bibi, while a third, his face shrouded, lashed her with a whip 37 times on suspicion of being seen with a man who was not her father or brother.

Obama should record the screams of Chand Bibi and play them to his daughters as the ‘‘moderate’’ music to which he wants to dance in his Afghan war.

These Taliban are ‘‘moderate’’ by the norms of the Obama Doctrine: they have come to a deal with America through Islamabad. Pakistani troops are not engaged in their medieval haven, nor are American Drones bombing their homes. All that remains, one presumes, is that they are placed on the Pentagon payroll as insurance of their ceasefire.

Perhaps, in their desperate search for moderation, Obama and Islamabad will promote the denial being manipulated into public discourse. The unbearable Swat-lashing video is now described as fake.

It would be nice to know the names of the actors who played such a convincing part in the filming of this ‘fake’. Chand Bibi has ‘‘denied’’ any such incident. Sure: but was any doctor sent to check the scars?

Such compromise with ‘moderation’ has also taken place next door, in Afghanistan, under the watchful eye of American ally Hamid Karzai. He has just signed a family law bill which compels Afghan women to take permission from their husbands before going to a doctor, seeking education, or getting a job.

The husband has become complete master of the bedroom. Custody of children can only go to fathers or grandfathers; women have no rights.

A member of Afghanistan’s upper house, Senator Humaira Namati, has called this law ‘‘worse than during the Taliban (government). Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam’’.

It makes no difference to the Taliban, of course, that the Quran expressly forbids Muslim men from forcing decisions on their wives ‘‘against their will’’. Karzai’s justification is the usual one: politics. He wanted the support of theocrats in the election scheduled for August this year. Under pressure, there is talk of a review but no one is sure what that means.

If it’s democracy, it must be ‘‘moderate’’, right?

One can understand a post-Iraq America’s reluctance towards wars that seem straight out of Kipling. But we in the region have to live with the political consequences of superpower intervention, and the casual legitimacy that Obama is offering to a destructive ideology will create blowback that spreads far beyond the geography of ‘‘Afpak’’.

Benazir Bhutto and the ISI did not create the Taliban in the winter of 1994 for war against America. Its purpose was to defeat fractious Afghan warlords, and establish a totalitarian regime that would equate Afghanistan’s strategic interests to Pakistan’s. The ISI conceived an ‘‘Afpak’’ long before the idea reached the outer rim of Washington’s thinking.

Pakistan worked assiduously to widen the Taliban’s legitimacy and would have drawn America into the fold through the oil-pipeline siren song if Osama bin Laden had not blown every plan apart. In some essentials, things have not changed. Pakistan’s interests still lie in a pro-Islamabad Taliban regime in Kabul.

The ‘‘moderation’’ theory is a ploy to provide war-weary America with an exit point. India’s anxieties will be offered a smile in public and a shrug in private.

History is uncomfortable with neat closures. Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan are what they were in 1994: the former is much stronger, the latter substantially weaker.

The fall of Kabul to the Taliban this time could be a curtain raiser to the siege of Islamabad.

There is nothing called a moderate lash, or backlash, President Obama.