Indian Airlines Plane Hijacked
Chowk P Room December 24, 1999
#28 Posted by sadna on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
#155
Another `objective` commentator bites the dust. Can someone publish what Najam Sethi said about dialogue during Kargil?
`` The correct diplomatic response to this Indian precondition would be for Islamabad to offer unconditional talks to India in the perspective of the Lahore Summit last February. If India puts Kashmir on the table as it agreed to do in Lahore in February 99, well and good. But if it doesn`t, which is more than likely, the onus of a ``failed`` dialogue for regional peace will be on New Delhi and not Islamabad.``
Wake up, 10,000 RAW agents in Karachi were reported in world newspapers as shouting `Death to India and America` during the discourse of a newly freed Pakistani activist.
Frankly, I think all this shadow boxing ought to be left to politicans and leaders of both sides, who know quite well what they are doing.
Sadhana
Another `objective` commentator bites the dust. Can someone publish what Najam Sethi said about dialogue during Kargil?
`` The correct diplomatic response to this Indian precondition would be for Islamabad to offer unconditional talks to India in the perspective of the Lahore Summit last February. If India puts Kashmir on the table as it agreed to do in Lahore in February 99, well and good. But if it doesn`t, which is more than likely, the onus of a ``failed`` dialogue for regional peace will be on New Delhi and not Islamabad.``
Wake up, 10,000 RAW agents in Karachi were reported in world newspapers as shouting `Death to India and America` during the discourse of a newly freed Pakistani activist.
Frankly, I think all this shadow boxing ought to be left to politicans and leaders of both sides, who know quite well what they are doing.
Sadhana
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#27 Posted by Assad_K on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
I`m interested in seeing how the `Rogue State` allegations will play out. After all, now Mr Vajpayee has also come out with no mincing of words to announce his desire to see Pakistan decalred a terrorist state. Is this media play to distract attention from Indias internal problems to Pakistan (just like we enjoy blaming everything on the Hindu-Jewish axis), or is serious?
If the former, then these sort of games are always ultimately self-deceiving and as such, self-destructive (just look at Pakistan).
If the latter.. well, there are certainly even some Pakistanis who would buy that line! But what keeps India from pursuing that policy in all seriousness? It wants Pakistan to be isolated diplomatically, economically and militarily, as much as possible just as Iran, Libya etc are (or were, seeing as how Europe is beginning to break free of American desires). Shouldn`t it start by itself breaking off diplomatic ties, what little trade there is and of course by refusing to deal with any companies that have investments in Pakistan? The Indian ambassador to the US has said that they`ll give definitive proof in a couple of days.. why doesn`t India get the ball rolling, or would it prefer to wait until the rest of the world (or the US..) decides to impose those sanctions?
If the former, then these sort of games are always ultimately self-deceiving and as such, self-destructive (just look at Pakistan).
If the latter.. well, there are certainly even some Pakistanis who would buy that line! But what keeps India from pursuing that policy in all seriousness? It wants Pakistan to be isolated diplomatically, economically and militarily, as much as possible just as Iran, Libya etc are (or were, seeing as how Europe is beginning to break free of American desires). Shouldn`t it start by itself breaking off diplomatic ties, what little trade there is and of course by refusing to deal with any companies that have investments in Pakistan? The Indian ambassador to the US has said that they`ll give definitive proof in a couple of days.. why doesn`t India get the ball rolling, or would it prefer to wait until the rest of the world (or the US..) decides to impose those sanctions?
#26 Posted by Truth on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Najam Sethi wrote:
``The hijackers, whether Kashmiris or even Pakistanis, are an angry consequence of the historic and continuing injury perpetrated by India against Pakistan and Kashmir. Therefore the onus of responsibility, or the root cause of the problem in whichever form it manifests itself (war, armed insurgency or hijacking), lies squarely with India.``
Najam Sethi shows he is an apologist for the hijackers - similar to a lot of meaning well-meaning leftists who tried to ``explain`` the Berlin Wall, Stalins purges, the Chinese cultural revolution, Najam Sethi has become the propaganda vehicle for the hijackers. A human being remains different from a computer - he is not simply an input-output machine, he must use his conscience to avoid violence against innocents. Every ``new`` act of violence is the personal responsibilty of the perpetrator, regardless of whether it is the act of an Indian General or Indian soldier or a hijacker. Responsibilty for violence must never be shifted backwards in time, it must stay right there where it happened - in this case, on the conscience of the hijackers. That is the only way to build a better society because, believe me, I have plenty of historical grievances too. Mr. Katyal was an innocent and at least two of the three released militants/terrorists/freedom fighters were directly responsible for violence - one person has been verified by the Australians who were lured into a trap by him. The fact that they were not convicted in an Indian court has more to do with the failure of the Indian judicial system than the innocence of the man - he is one of India`s many OJ Simpsons. Let us remember a judicial system only proclaims ``Not Guilty`` - it nevers says ``Innocent`` because the burden of proof to proclaim innocence is a lot higher.
``The hijackers, whether Kashmiris or even Pakistanis, are an angry consequence of the historic and continuing injury perpetrated by India against Pakistan and Kashmir. Therefore the onus of responsibility, or the root cause of the problem in whichever form it manifests itself (war, armed insurgency or hijacking), lies squarely with India.``
Najam Sethi shows he is an apologist for the hijackers - similar to a lot of meaning well-meaning leftists who tried to ``explain`` the Berlin Wall, Stalins purges, the Chinese cultural revolution, Najam Sethi has become the propaganda vehicle for the hijackers. A human being remains different from a computer - he is not simply an input-output machine, he must use his conscience to avoid violence against innocents. Every ``new`` act of violence is the personal responsibilty of the perpetrator, regardless of whether it is the act of an Indian General or Indian soldier or a hijacker. Responsibilty for violence must never be shifted backwards in time, it must stay right there where it happened - in this case, on the conscience of the hijackers. That is the only way to build a better society because, believe me, I have plenty of historical grievances too. Mr. Katyal was an innocent and at least two of the three released militants/terrorists/freedom fighters were directly responsible for violence - one person has been verified by the Australians who were lured into a trap by him. The fact that they were not convicted in an Indian court has more to do with the failure of the Indian judicial system than the innocence of the man - he is one of India`s many OJ Simpsons. Let us remember a judicial system only proclaims ``Not Guilty`` - it nevers says ``Innocent`` because the burden of proof to proclaim innocence is a lot higher.
#25 Posted by Umairr on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Interesting article from Najam Sethi. He is the journalist who was kidnapped by Nawaz Sharif because he made a speech in India, at the invatation of Gujral, in which he criticized both India and Pakistan. He is a multiple award recepient of Amnesty International, and other human rights organizations. Personally, I think he has described the recents events quite accurately.
``Hard and soft options
We have heard of ``rogue`` states, ``failed`` states and ``terrorist`` states. Now we are informed that a state can be like a hard boiled egg, ``hard`` on the outside and ``soft`` on the inside. Like India, for example?
Indian hawks argue that their state is ``soft`` because it treated ``Pakistani-trained hijackers`` with kid gloves and did a ``deal`` with terrorists. A real, ``hard`` state like Israel or the USA would never have done that, they say, admonishing their own state.
Many Indians are also telling the world that the Pakistani state is a ``rogue`` state and a ``terrorist`` state both hopelessly rolled into one grand ``failed`` state.
All this is hogwash. If the Pakistani state has ``failed`` to adequately look after 100 million Pakistanis, as alleged by India, the Indian state has ``failed`` to take care of nearly 400 million Indians below the poverty line. If Pakistani exports of terrorism to Kashmir and Afghanistan are the rage, as charged by India, Indian exports of terrorism to Karachi and Sri Lanka are no laughing matter either. If Pakistani nuclear weapons are in rogue Islamic hands, Indian nuclear weapons are surely in fiendish Hindu clutches. If the Pakistani state opted for a ``hard`` crackdown in quelling separatism in East Pakistan or insurgency in Balochistan, the Indian state tore up the 1948 UN Resolutions on Kashmir, sent troops to annex Hyderabad and Junagarh, bombed the Mizos in Aizawi, stabbed Pakistan in Bangladesh, stormed the holiest Sikh shrines in Amritsar, invaded SriLanka, committed genocide in Kashmir and nuked Pokharan many times. If the Pakistani state spends US$ 2.75 billion beefing itself up, the Indian state weighs in at US$ 11 billion in ``hard`` military muscle every year. Finally, if the experience of non-Muslim minorities is anything to write about in Pakistan, ask the Muslims, Christians and untouchable castes how they feel under the heel of the saffron state in India.
Conspiracies notwithstanding, the facts of the current situation are also straightforward. The hijackers, whether Kashmiris or even Pakistanis, are an angry consequence of the historic and continuing injury perpetrated by India against Pakistan and Kashmir. Therefore the onus of responsibility, or the root cause of the problem in whichever form it manifests itself (war, armed insurgency or hijacking), lies squarely with India. Also, India`s refusal to negotiate with the hijackers in Amritsar or refuel the plane suggests that it wanted the plane to land in Lahore or crash over Pakistani territory, in both cases pinning responsibility on Islamabad.
This tactic fits India`s post-Kargil strategy like a glove: paint Pakistan as a ``rogue`` or ``terrorist`` state, condemn and isolate it internationally, drag it into a suicidal nuclear arms race and wait for it to implode as a ``failed`` state. How should Pakistan confront this Indian challenge?
Clearly, international perception and assistance should figure as a critical element in the strategic objectives of both states. But despite Pakistan`s outstanding tactical military victory in Kargil, or perhaps because of it, it is India which clinched a strategic diplomatic win in July by successfully portraying Pakistan as an ``irresponsible`` nuclear state given to adventurism. Pakistan also seems to have miscalculated on the strategic value of delinking its nuclear policy from that of India so that it might reap some autonomous dividends from it. The tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998 and the reluctance to negotiate a timely signature on the CTBT are prime examples of this lack of vision. What now?
India is insisting that Pakistan should pull its ``terrorist`` hand out of Kashmir before its new military government can be accorded ``legitimacy`` by means of a dialogue with New Delhi. The correct diplomatic response to this Indian precondition would be for Islamabad to offer unconditional talks to India in the perspective of the Lahore Summit last February. If India puts Kashmir on the table as it agreed to do in Lahore in February 99, well and good. But if it doesn`t, which is more than likely, the onus of a ``failed`` dialogue for regional peace will be on New Delhi and not Islamabad.
But Pakistan has done no such thing. Indeed, government spokesmen seem to be tripping over themselves reiterating that there will be no dialogue with India unless the ``core`` issue of Kashmir is discussed! India`s conditionality has thus been matched by Pakistan`s conditionality. There is no dialogue. But that is what India wants. Why should Pakistan hand it over to India on a platter?
Since 1947, India and Pakistan have jointly mined the region in action and reaction. The end result is a conventional arms race followed by nuclear proliferation. Every now and then some mine goes off, as in Kargil last June or the airplane hijacking more recently. Both countries are hurting. But let`s face it. Pakistan is economically weaker than India, it is also more dependent on international goodwill and largesse than India. So it is currently hurting more than India. Therefore, while the goalpost of national security may remain the same, the game plan needs to be urgently revised. We need to build a state that is ``hard`` on the inside and ``soft`` on the outside rather than the other way round.
(The Friday Times)
``Hard and soft options
We have heard of ``rogue`` states, ``failed`` states and ``terrorist`` states. Now we are informed that a state can be like a hard boiled egg, ``hard`` on the outside and ``soft`` on the inside. Like India, for example?
Indian hawks argue that their state is ``soft`` because it treated ``Pakistani-trained hijackers`` with kid gloves and did a ``deal`` with terrorists. A real, ``hard`` state like Israel or the USA would never have done that, they say, admonishing their own state.
Many Indians are also telling the world that the Pakistani state is a ``rogue`` state and a ``terrorist`` state both hopelessly rolled into one grand ``failed`` state.
All this is hogwash. If the Pakistani state has ``failed`` to adequately look after 100 million Pakistanis, as alleged by India, the Indian state has ``failed`` to take care of nearly 400 million Indians below the poverty line. If Pakistani exports of terrorism to Kashmir and Afghanistan are the rage, as charged by India, Indian exports of terrorism to Karachi and Sri Lanka are no laughing matter either. If Pakistani nuclear weapons are in rogue Islamic hands, Indian nuclear weapons are surely in fiendish Hindu clutches. If the Pakistani state opted for a ``hard`` crackdown in quelling separatism in East Pakistan or insurgency in Balochistan, the Indian state tore up the 1948 UN Resolutions on Kashmir, sent troops to annex Hyderabad and Junagarh, bombed the Mizos in Aizawi, stabbed Pakistan in Bangladesh, stormed the holiest Sikh shrines in Amritsar, invaded SriLanka, committed genocide in Kashmir and nuked Pokharan many times. If the Pakistani state spends US$ 2.75 billion beefing itself up, the Indian state weighs in at US$ 11 billion in ``hard`` military muscle every year. Finally, if the experience of non-Muslim minorities is anything to write about in Pakistan, ask the Muslims, Christians and untouchable castes how they feel under the heel of the saffron state in India.
Conspiracies notwithstanding, the facts of the current situation are also straightforward. The hijackers, whether Kashmiris or even Pakistanis, are an angry consequence of the historic and continuing injury perpetrated by India against Pakistan and Kashmir. Therefore the onus of responsibility, or the root cause of the problem in whichever form it manifests itself (war, armed insurgency or hijacking), lies squarely with India. Also, India`s refusal to negotiate with the hijackers in Amritsar or refuel the plane suggests that it wanted the plane to land in Lahore or crash over Pakistani territory, in both cases pinning responsibility on Islamabad.
This tactic fits India`s post-Kargil strategy like a glove: paint Pakistan as a ``rogue`` or ``terrorist`` state, condemn and isolate it internationally, drag it into a suicidal nuclear arms race and wait for it to implode as a ``failed`` state. How should Pakistan confront this Indian challenge?
Clearly, international perception and assistance should figure as a critical element in the strategic objectives of both states. But despite Pakistan`s outstanding tactical military victory in Kargil, or perhaps because of it, it is India which clinched a strategic diplomatic win in July by successfully portraying Pakistan as an ``irresponsible`` nuclear state given to adventurism. Pakistan also seems to have miscalculated on the strategic value of delinking its nuclear policy from that of India so that it might reap some autonomous dividends from it. The tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998 and the reluctance to negotiate a timely signature on the CTBT are prime examples of this lack of vision. What now?
India is insisting that Pakistan should pull its ``terrorist`` hand out of Kashmir before its new military government can be accorded ``legitimacy`` by means of a dialogue with New Delhi. The correct diplomatic response to this Indian precondition would be for Islamabad to offer unconditional talks to India in the perspective of the Lahore Summit last February. If India puts Kashmir on the table as it agreed to do in Lahore in February 99, well and good. But if it doesn`t, which is more than likely, the onus of a ``failed`` dialogue for regional peace will be on New Delhi and not Islamabad.
But Pakistan has done no such thing. Indeed, government spokesmen seem to be tripping over themselves reiterating that there will be no dialogue with India unless the ``core`` issue of Kashmir is discussed! India`s conditionality has thus been matched by Pakistan`s conditionality. There is no dialogue. But that is what India wants. Why should Pakistan hand it over to India on a platter?
Since 1947, India and Pakistan have jointly mined the region in action and reaction. The end result is a conventional arms race followed by nuclear proliferation. Every now and then some mine goes off, as in Kargil last June or the airplane hijacking more recently. Both countries are hurting. But let`s face it. Pakistan is economically weaker than India, it is also more dependent on international goodwill and largesse than India. So it is currently hurting more than India. Therefore, while the goalpost of national security may remain the same, the game plan needs to be urgently revised. We need to build a state that is ``hard`` on the inside and ``soft`` on the outside rather than the other way round.
(The Friday Times)
#24 Posted by alireza on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Re: anarayan #147
(``I`m sure there are some intelligent people...raising of irrelevant issues like amritsar, etc.``)
you do realize that your latter statatement, by calling amritsar an `irrelevant` issue, directly contradicts your former statement.
indian airlines. indian passengers. indian crisis. indian airport. still fail to see the relevance?
(``I`m sure there are some intelligent people...raising of irrelevant issues like amritsar, etc.``)
you do realize that your latter statatement, by calling amritsar an `irrelevant` issue, directly contradicts your former statement.
indian airlines. indian passengers. indian crisis. indian airport. still fail to see the relevance?
#23 Posted by concerned on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
umairr:
if i had time and patience, i would have loved to extract your posts during the initial stages of kargil (assuming, of course, that you were posting on chowk then).
well, if you were, i would think, your posts would have indicated a contempt for the indian `lies`, and `propaganda` that pakistani army was hiding in the garb of `rag-tag mujahideen`.
and then, i wonder what you would have written after `aggressive patrolling` was admitted. and then after the `mujahideen` withdrew in an orderly fashion when nawaj `requested` them. and then after `everybody was on-board` was announced by the general.
so you see, umairr, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. don`t lose your breath.
and as far as going to icj is concerned, i believe international laws allow for `hot pursuit`. :-|
if i had time and patience, i would have loved to extract your posts during the initial stages of kargil (assuming, of course, that you were posting on chowk then).
well, if you were, i would think, your posts would have indicated a contempt for the indian `lies`, and `propaganda` that pakistani army was hiding in the garb of `rag-tag mujahideen`.
and then, i wonder what you would have written after `aggressive patrolling` was admitted. and then after the `mujahideen` withdrew in an orderly fashion when nawaj `requested` them. and then after `everybody was on-board` was announced by the general.
so you see, umairr, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. don`t lose your breath.
and as far as going to icj is concerned, i believe international laws allow for `hot pursuit`. :-|
#22 Posted by jamil on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
The IA plane was refused landing at Luckhnow
The IA flight was forced to fly to Lahore by Indian authorities.
Pakistan refused to let IA plane at Lahore
Plane is flown back to Amritsor. There plane is filled with just enough fuel to fly to Lahore.
No attempt is made to keep the plane from taking off by Indian authorities
The plane is allowed to take off from Amritsor by Indian authorities.
The plane is forced to land at Lahore due to low fuel.
The pilot of the plane seems calm and not nervous at all
Plane is loaded with full tanks.
Plane lands at Dubai. Takes off and finally allowed by Afghanistan to land in Kandhar.
India refuses to allow U.N to negotiate with hijackers.
Russia tries to debate the hijacking in Security Council but withdraws due to stiff Indian opposition.
The hijackers never raise the Kashmir issue
Hijackers have their meals with the pilot in his cabin
The hijackers demand the release of some relatively unknown persons in Indian jails
Only India seems to know the identity of hijackers.
India blames Pakistan for hijacking but presents no proofs.
U.S and world community doesn`t take India`s accusations seriously, but India`s rhetoric on hijacking only makes the Kashmir issue more serious in the eyes of world community.
In the absence of lack of identity of hijackers it becomes alsmost impossible to track the hijackers if they ever crossed over to Pakistan.
Only India knows the whereabouts of the hijackers
Strong evidence emerges that hijackers mingled with AI passengers and flew back to India in a different plane.
India emerges as a big clown after hijacking episode.
The IA flight was forced to fly to Lahore by Indian authorities.
Pakistan refused to let IA plane at Lahore
Plane is flown back to Amritsor. There plane is filled with just enough fuel to fly to Lahore.
No attempt is made to keep the plane from taking off by Indian authorities
The plane is allowed to take off from Amritsor by Indian authorities.
The plane is forced to land at Lahore due to low fuel.
The pilot of the plane seems calm and not nervous at all
Plane is loaded with full tanks.
Plane lands at Dubai. Takes off and finally allowed by Afghanistan to land in Kandhar.
India refuses to allow U.N to negotiate with hijackers.
Russia tries to debate the hijacking in Security Council but withdraws due to stiff Indian opposition.
The hijackers never raise the Kashmir issue
Hijackers have their meals with the pilot in his cabin
The hijackers demand the release of some relatively unknown persons in Indian jails
Only India seems to know the identity of hijackers.
India blames Pakistan for hijacking but presents no proofs.
U.S and world community doesn`t take India`s accusations seriously, but India`s rhetoric on hijacking only makes the Kashmir issue more serious in the eyes of world community.
In the absence of lack of identity of hijackers it becomes alsmost impossible to track the hijackers if they ever crossed over to Pakistan.
Only India knows the whereabouts of the hijackers
Strong evidence emerges that hijackers mingled with AI passengers and flew back to India in a different plane.
India emerges as a big clown after hijacking episode.
#21 Posted by concerned on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
temporal:
do you think that the hijackers were wearing monkey caps when they boarded the plane?
is it possible that the crew and even some passengers might recall the faces when photographs of the suspects are shown to them?
they wore monkey caps, i guess, when they reached around lucknow. but surely before that they were visible to the crew and the passengers. it is just a matter of remembering the faces.
do you think that the hijackers were wearing monkey caps when they boarded the plane?
is it possible that the crew and even some passengers might recall the faces when photographs of the suspects are shown to them?
they wore monkey caps, i guess, when they reached around lucknow. but surely before that they were visible to the crew and the passengers. it is just a matter of remembering the faces.
#20 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
http://www.sunspot.net/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?section=opinion&pagename=story&storyid=1150210210747
Baltimore Sun 01/06/00
AIR travel is less safe after the hijacking of an Indian airliner on Christmas Eve succeeded. The hijackers attained a major demand and got away. Others will be tempted to do the same.
The peace of the world is less secure because, in the aftermath, two nations that have fought three wars and now have nuclear weapons are hurling accusations.
There is India accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorists in general and these in particular. There is Pakistan, claiming weakly that the hijacking was a put-up job by India to foment trouble.
Afghanistan, unrecognized by most of the world except Pakistan, played a responsible role in ending the trauma, then let the hijackers go free.
Two of three prisoners released by India to save 155 hostages have appeared in Pakistan. The five hijackers are rumored by sympathizers to be in Afghanistan, which says they went to Pakistan.
India`s patient negotiating saved lives, most of them Indian, after the murder of one left no doubt about the peril. The Indian Airlines pilot, Capt. Devi Sharan, was a cool-headed hero throughout the ordeal.
But in acceding to some of the terrorists` demands, India spurned the conventional wisdom that any concession validates terrorism. Until these terrorists are caught and prosecuted, the world will live with the consequence.
Having called Pakistan responsible, India with restraint is not taking unilateral action, as the United States did after the bombing of its embassies in East Africa.
Rather, India is urging the world community to isolate Pakistan as a rogue state for supporting terrorism, promising evidence while so far providing none.
Pakistan and Afghanistan support the secessionist goals of the insurrectionists in India-occupied Kashmir, while claiming not to aid the terrorism. They must make good on this disavowal with respect to these hijackers.
To protect the skies and seas for all peoples, the United States has returned hijackers to Cuba despite sympathizing with their political goals.
Until Pakistan and Afghanistan do the same, they stand, if not guilty, at least suspect.
Baltimore Sun 01/06/00
AIR travel is less safe after the hijacking of an Indian airliner on Christmas Eve succeeded. The hijackers attained a major demand and got away. Others will be tempted to do the same.
The peace of the world is less secure because, in the aftermath, two nations that have fought three wars and now have nuclear weapons are hurling accusations.
There is India accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorists in general and these in particular. There is Pakistan, claiming weakly that the hijacking was a put-up job by India to foment trouble.
Afghanistan, unrecognized by most of the world except Pakistan, played a responsible role in ending the trauma, then let the hijackers go free.
Two of three prisoners released by India to save 155 hostages have appeared in Pakistan. The five hijackers are rumored by sympathizers to be in Afghanistan, which says they went to Pakistan.
India`s patient negotiating saved lives, most of them Indian, after the murder of one left no doubt about the peril. The Indian Airlines pilot, Capt. Devi Sharan, was a cool-headed hero throughout the ordeal.
But in acceding to some of the terrorists` demands, India spurned the conventional wisdom that any concession validates terrorism. Until these terrorists are caught and prosecuted, the world will live with the consequence.
Having called Pakistan responsible, India with restraint is not taking unilateral action, as the United States did after the bombing of its embassies in East Africa.
Rather, India is urging the world community to isolate Pakistan as a rogue state for supporting terrorism, promising evidence while so far providing none.
Pakistan and Afghanistan support the secessionist goals of the insurrectionists in India-occupied Kashmir, while claiming not to aid the terrorism. They must make good on this disavowal with respect to these hijackers.
To protect the skies and seas for all peoples, the United States has returned hijackers to Cuba despite sympathizing with their political goals.
Until Pakistan and Afghanistan do the same, they stand, if not guilty, at least suspect.
#19 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
http://www.sunspot.net/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?section=opinion&pagename=story&storyid=1150210210747
Baltimore Sun 01/06/00
AIR travel is less safe after the hijacking of an Indian airliner on Christmas Eve succeeded. The hijackers attained a major demand and got away. Others will be tempted to do the same.
The peace of the world is less secure because, in the aftermath, two nations that have fought three wars and now have nuclear weapons are hurling accusations.
There is India accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorists in general and these in particular. There is Pakistan, claiming weakly that the hijacking was a put-up job by India to foment trouble.
Afghanistan, unrecognized by most of the world except Pakistan, played a responsible role in ending the trauma, then let the hijackers go free.
Two of three prisoners released by India to save 155 hostages have appeared in Pakistan. The five hijackers are rumored by sympathizers to be in Afghanistan, which says they went to Pakistan.
India`s patient negotiating saved lives, most of them Indian, after the murder of one left no doubt about the peril. The Indian Airlines pilot, Capt. Devi Sharan, was a cool-headed hero throughout the ordeal.
But in acceding to some of the terrorists` demands, India spurned the conventional wisdom that any concession validates terrorism. Until these terrorists are caught and prosecuted, the world will live with the consequence.
Having called Pakistan responsible, India with restraint is not taking unilateral action, as the United States did after the bombing of its embassies in East Africa.
Rather, India is urging the world community to isolate Pakistan as a rogue state for supporting terrorism, promising evidence while so far providing none.
Pakistan and Afghanistan support the secessionist goals of the insurrectionists in India-occupied Kashmir, while claiming not to aid the terrorism. They must make good on this disavowal with respect to these hijackers.
To protect the skies and seas for all peoples, the United States has returned hijackers to Cuba despite sympathizing with their political goals.
Until Pakistan and Afghanistan do the same, they stand, if not guilty, at least suspect.
Baltimore Sun 01/06/00
AIR travel is less safe after the hijacking of an Indian airliner on Christmas Eve succeeded. The hijackers attained a major demand and got away. Others will be tempted to do the same.
The peace of the world is less secure because, in the aftermath, two nations that have fought three wars and now have nuclear weapons are hurling accusations.
There is India accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorists in general and these in particular. There is Pakistan, claiming weakly that the hijacking was a put-up job by India to foment trouble.
Afghanistan, unrecognized by most of the world except Pakistan, played a responsible role in ending the trauma, then let the hijackers go free.
Two of three prisoners released by India to save 155 hostages have appeared in Pakistan. The five hijackers are rumored by sympathizers to be in Afghanistan, which says they went to Pakistan.
India`s patient negotiating saved lives, most of them Indian, after the murder of one left no doubt about the peril. The Indian Airlines pilot, Capt. Devi Sharan, was a cool-headed hero throughout the ordeal.
But in acceding to some of the terrorists` demands, India spurned the conventional wisdom that any concession validates terrorism. Until these terrorists are caught and prosecuted, the world will live with the consequence.
Having called Pakistan responsible, India with restraint is not taking unilateral action, as the United States did after the bombing of its embassies in East Africa.
Rather, India is urging the world community to isolate Pakistan as a rogue state for supporting terrorism, promising evidence while so far providing none.
Pakistan and Afghanistan support the secessionist goals of the insurrectionists in India-occupied Kashmir, while claiming not to aid the terrorism. They must make good on this disavowal with respect to these hijackers.
To protect the skies and seas for all peoples, the United States has returned hijackers to Cuba despite sympathizing with their political goals.
Until Pakistan and Afghanistan do the same, they stand, if not guilty, at least suspect.
#18 Posted by shamsi on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
I would like to say it again, many of us here are doing a amazing feat maligning each other. Great Job!
And a little IL for you.
International Law is formed on customary law, and requires participants. If India sees one individual as ``terrorist,`` Pakistan might not, so chapter closed. Read your media, ``India will not negotiate will terrorists.`` Now think about it, not only did they let them leave India under ``threats,`` they used the whole saga to malign Pakistan. The pilot went to the extent of saying the Ruppen Katyal`s death was Pakistan`s fault. It is interesting, because the same Pakistan allowed overflight through ``hostile`` territory, provided medical care in a ``rouge`` military hospital, and facillitated safe release fo passengers w/`fundamentalist` Taliban.
And what happed to Indian ``special forces`` to deal with Terrorists? Were they still busy in ``Kargil`` fighting ``Pakistani`` freedom fighters?
As it happened, India did negotiate with terrorists, and created a problem for others to deal with their own little insurgencies.
Atleast Pakistan does not shot down unarmed training planes that fall in ``Indian`` territory.
Media has already described that Mr Azhar was wrongfully accused, alongwith another ``terrorist`` who was infact a LSE student visiting India while arrest, jailed, and not released even after court orders. Some democracy you have!
Azhar is Pakistani, and if he chooses to be in Pakistan, that is none of anyone`s business.
And coming to probably the most important issue, pertinent to the Hijacking, is Human Rights. So it is okay for Indian BSF, and God knows who else, to rape, kill, pillage, and torture Kashmiri men, women and children because they never got the right of Self Determination, the basis of all human rights. Unfortunate for them, their Hindu Dogra Raja ran to India after Partition, and India, after the ``RadCliffe Award`` built a metaled road through Gurdaspur and moved her forces into Kashmir. Gurdaspur, was a muslim majority area too, FYI.
And a little IL for you.
International Law is formed on customary law, and requires participants. If India sees one individual as ``terrorist,`` Pakistan might not, so chapter closed. Read your media, ``India will not negotiate will terrorists.`` Now think about it, not only did they let them leave India under ``threats,`` they used the whole saga to malign Pakistan. The pilot went to the extent of saying the Ruppen Katyal`s death was Pakistan`s fault. It is interesting, because the same Pakistan allowed overflight through ``hostile`` territory, provided medical care in a ``rouge`` military hospital, and facillitated safe release fo passengers w/`fundamentalist` Taliban.
And what happed to Indian ``special forces`` to deal with Terrorists? Were they still busy in ``Kargil`` fighting ``Pakistani`` freedom fighters?
As it happened, India did negotiate with terrorists, and created a problem for others to deal with their own little insurgencies.
Atleast Pakistan does not shot down unarmed training planes that fall in ``Indian`` territory.
Media has already described that Mr Azhar was wrongfully accused, alongwith another ``terrorist`` who was infact a LSE student visiting India while arrest, jailed, and not released even after court orders. Some democracy you have!
Azhar is Pakistani, and if he chooses to be in Pakistan, that is none of anyone`s business.
And coming to probably the most important issue, pertinent to the Hijacking, is Human Rights. So it is okay for Indian BSF, and God knows who else, to rape, kill, pillage, and torture Kashmiri men, women and children because they never got the right of Self Determination, the basis of all human rights. Unfortunate for them, their Hindu Dogra Raja ran to India after Partition, and India, after the ``RadCliffe Award`` built a metaled road through Gurdaspur and moved her forces into Kashmir. Gurdaspur, was a muslim majority area too, FYI.
#17 Posted by anarayan on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
What amazes me is that not a single pakistani at chowk - not one - has even expressed the smallest thought that it might - just might - be pakistan`s handiwork. I`m sure there are some intelligent people over there. The typical reaction seems to be 1) studied silence or 2) raising of irrelevant issues like amritsar, etc.
Re: temporal Reply #: 141
Use your imagination Sir. If you are in a room with a masked person for 8 days with that person threatening to decapitate you every minute - would you not be able to describe that person in sufficient detail. Its a life-or-death situation and you have been watching and interacting with that person very intimately for 8 days.
-AN
Re: temporal Reply #: 141
Use your imagination Sir. If you are in a room with a masked person for 8 days with that person threatening to decapitate you every minute - would you not be able to describe that person in sufficient detail. Its a life-or-death situation and you have been watching and interacting with that person very intimately for 8 days.
-AN
#16 Posted by Truth on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Temporal:
They couldnt have boarded the plane wearing monkey caps. If shown photographs, I`m sure staff and passengers on the plane and at kathmandu airport terminal may be able to recall them. And if they are the wrong people, surely it will be easy for the real people who match the photographs and names to point out the falsity of the accusation. As a first step, do people with these names, photos and hometowns exist? The Govt of India has put itself out on a limb - they have put very specific facts out which are subject to refutation. This could be all a complete hog-wash but your accusation of Goebbelian tactics seems to point to the fact that you are not even willing to entertain the idea that these hijackers were Pakistani (not that that implicates the govt).
Second, Maulana Azhar, the ``cleric`` who was ``pained`` to see innocent people suffer in order to get his release has, in a public meeting in Karachi, claimed, with approval, the hijackers are onto their next endeavour in Indian Kashmir. A small little hypocrite perhaps with a following of 15,000 or more in the crossroads of Karachi. Or is this also a continuation of the master Goebbelian RAW plot allowing the plane to take off from Amritsar?
Pakistan, a country with a narrow mono-religious vision cannot understand a multi-religious, multi-cultural country like India, and provides moral, political and armed support to undermine a beautiful idea, a beautiful vision of India. These are the jehadis who come across the border, steeped with self-righteousness because they have it directly from God.
They couldnt have boarded the plane wearing monkey caps. If shown photographs, I`m sure staff and passengers on the plane and at kathmandu airport terminal may be able to recall them. And if they are the wrong people, surely it will be easy for the real people who match the photographs and names to point out the falsity of the accusation. As a first step, do people with these names, photos and hometowns exist? The Govt of India has put itself out on a limb - they have put very specific facts out which are subject to refutation. This could be all a complete hog-wash but your accusation of Goebbelian tactics seems to point to the fact that you are not even willing to entertain the idea that these hijackers were Pakistani (not that that implicates the govt).
Second, Maulana Azhar, the ``cleric`` who was ``pained`` to see innocent people suffer in order to get his release has, in a public meeting in Karachi, claimed, with approval, the hijackers are onto their next endeavour in Indian Kashmir. A small little hypocrite perhaps with a following of 15,000 or more in the crossroads of Karachi. Or is this also a continuation of the master Goebbelian RAW plot allowing the plane to take off from Amritsar?
Pakistan, a country with a narrow mono-religious vision cannot understand a multi-religious, multi-cultural country like India, and provides moral, political and armed support to undermine a beautiful idea, a beautiful vision of India. These are the jehadis who come across the border, steeped with self-righteousness because they have it directly from God.
#15 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.athar.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.qazi.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.mistri.ibrahinjpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.shahid.akhtar.jpg
Pictures of the hijackers and identified them as Ibrahim Athar from the Pakistani city of Bahawalpur,
Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi and Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, all from Karachi, and Shaqir from Sukkur city.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.athar.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.qazi.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.mistri.ibrahinjpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/01/06/india.hijacking.arrest.01/link.shahid.akhtar.jpg
Pictures of the hijackers and identified them as Ibrahim Athar from the Pakistani city of Bahawalpur,
Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi and Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, all from Karachi, and Shaqir from Sukkur city.
#14 Posted by alireza on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Re: vineet #139
(``Although Pakistani officials earlier said the hijackers would be arrested if they stepped foot in their country, there was no effort to detain Azhar.``)
You must realize that this particular statement makes no sense. Azhar was obviously not one of the hijackers. Arresting him makes no legal sense, since even in India, where he was kept in prison for six years, he was never convicted by any Indian court.
(``Although Pakistani officials earlier said the hijackers would be arrested if they stepped foot in their country, there was no effort to detain Azhar.``)
You must realize that this particular statement makes no sense. Azhar was obviously not one of the hijackers. Arresting him makes no legal sense, since even in India, where he was kept in prison for six years, he was never convicted by any Indian court.
#13 Posted by Umairr on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Is it true that Maulana Azhar had been held for six years in an Indian jail, without a conviction?
Pakistan has taken the killing of 23 aircrew on the unarmed Naval aircraft inside Pakistan, by India, to the International Court of Justice. India so far has refused to agree to the ICJ hearing that case. I think India should take its claims of Pakistan`s hijacking to the ICJ also. I doubt it will do that, because so far the only evidence India has presented are false baseless statements by its govt. and media.
Lal Advani`s statement on BBC: One of the hijackers is from Defence, Karachi :)
Pakistan has taken the killing of 23 aircrew on the unarmed Naval aircraft inside Pakistan, by India, to the International Court of Justice. India so far has refused to agree to the ICJ hearing that case. I think India should take its claims of Pakistan`s hijacking to the ICJ also. I doubt it will do that, because so far the only evidence India has presented are false baseless statements by its govt. and media.
Lal Advani`s statement on BBC: One of the hijackers is from Defence, Karachi :)
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: Anil sahib, nice try... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pakiturk: My friends, ML, MQM, PPP,... MQM - History and
- anil: Masadi sahib: Your brain is... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- masadi: Thinking sahib, Please pardon the... Fathers and Daughters
- masadi: Anil writes "You show... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pakiturk: #86 Posted by hamidm2... MQM - History and
- vatanparast: #107 Whatever I say is... MQM - History and
- anil: Masadi sahib: Paranoia should... Historian Amaresh Misra on
