Reporting on Afghanistan

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sudden Resonance for an Iranian Film About Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/05/movies/05KAND.html

Quote:

The film has been well received. But because its theme is essentially grim, several critics have been troubled by the beauty of some images, not least those of multicolored burkas floating across arid landscapes. Writing in The New York Times from Cannes this spring, A. O. Scott noted that both ``Kandahar`` and Abbas Kiarostami`s ``ABC Africa`` (about Ugandan orphans) ``contain moments of sublime visual poetry that at once heighten and complicate their humanitarian messages.``

Christophe Ayad, film critic of the left-of-center Paris daily Libération, also acknowledged ``pure moments of grace,`` like a scene in which dozens of real-life maimed refugees rush on crutches to catch artificial limbs being parachuted by the International Red Cross. ``The problem is that the message and the camera go in opposite directions,`` Mr. Ayad noted. ``The burka is an abomination, that`s understood, but it does not prevent one from thinking that it is also photogenic.``

Sorry to flood this board and the one below with my posts, but I thought the article written by Irfan Husain (``Mazdak``) in Dawn was so good that you may wish to read it.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

Basically, he is drawing the interesting comparison with the situation in France where the country is heavily in favor of a known corrupt politican (Chirac), given that the only other choice they now have is a the militant nationalist Le Pen. It is sad, as Irfan Husain notes, that Musharaff now has to keep harping about the corruption of NS and BB in order to hide his own arrogant continuation of power by making a mockery of the political process in pakistan.

Thanks Rehan for your help. Much appreciated.

I am a big fan of Majid Majidi. I loved his two other movies as well, which received international acclaim. He certainly portrayed the wretchedness of being poor so very well in his movie ``rung-e-khuda``. You know, I often wonder that Iran is not light years away from Pakistan;yet none of that artistic talent, or passion for making superb movies rubbed off onto our producers of urdu and punjabi film trash. Why did the independent or non-commercial cinema never really take off in Pakistan? Did someone even try?

Sad!

to urstruly #83:

I agree with you that Mush and his team made a bad choice in carrying forth the referendum. Good intentioned or not it was poorly and undemocratically carried out with people voting multiple times.

However for democracy to truly flourish the political parties (ie Muslim League and PPP) are not the bastions of democracy either.

Damn it, if someone in Pakistan or on Chowk can even tell me what agenda or political view any party in Pakistan holds I will be much obliged. Social democrat, progressive liberal or protectionist islamic right winged (religious parties excluded) who knows?

Secondly, I`d rather have a hand picked technocratic government with people who are capable of managing ministeries and producing tangible results than feudals who become ministers and governors so that they can show off their flagged cars and guards and give their friends positions of power and kickbacks.

Yes the army is an obstacle to democracy but so are the feudal elite, the corrupt political parties (many of whom have never had internal elections eg. BB is a chairperson for life.)

So if real progress is to come about in Pakistan it is more likely that a benevolent dictator will bring it about rather than a government that is more interested in consolidating its power (NS and BB).

Mush`s real test will come when he strengthens democratic institutions; has checks and balances to curb corruption (army as well); has continous economic growth and cuts the military budget towards education.

Only when our people are informed and free from the slavery of the feudals who buy and force their votes to get elected will real deomcracy truly flourish

Dear Rehan,

Thank you for a well-penned and informative read. You have captured the helplessness of the ``civilian`` Afghans rather well.

Any word as to where can we get hold of these movies that you mentioned. I know blockbusters refuse to carry anything which can be mildly construed as artistic or good taste.They revel in propagting American ``feelgood`` trash designed to rob people of their $ 3.89.

Regards

Asim

Mourning a Mentor, Rallying for Resistance

Scarred Survivor Recounts Attack on Massoud, Assails Bin Laden and Pakistan



By Pamela Constable

Washington Post Foreign Service

Wednesday, October 31, 2001; Page A12



NEW DELHI, Oct. 30 -- Next to the crystal candy dish in Masood Khalili`s parlor is a framed 1984 photograph of two men in combat fatigues, boots and woolen caps, leaning against a rock in northern Afghanistan with their rifles resting behind them.

The man on the right, with the sharp face and brooding eyes, is Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary Afghan resistance commander. The chunkier, slightly older man on the left is Khalili.

Last month the two men were together again, this time in Massoud`s Panjshir Valley headquarters -- the commander granting an interview to a pair of men claiming to be journalists, the longtime political aide at his side. And though there are no pictures of that Sept. 9 meeting, Khalili says he relives the moment every night in photographic detail: the cameraman adjusting his equipment with a ``poisonous smile,`` the burst of blue fire rushing toward him, the impulse to shout ``God is great!`` that seized him, thinking he was about to die, in the instant before he lost consciousness.

Then comes a second scene, equally searing: ``I open my eyes. I am lying in a helicopter. My commander`s face is 10 centimeters from me, full of blood but still handsome. I think we are dying and I want to touch him, but I cannot because I am losing consciousness again. . . . Every single night I see that face.``

Khalili`s shrapnel-scarred face contorts, and he pounds his wheelchair arm once, twice.

``It`s okay,`` he says finally. ``Let`s go on.``

The suicide bombing fatally wounded Massoud, who died soon afterward. Khalili survived, but is blind in one eye and unable to walk, his arms peppered with shrapnel wounds and his right leg healing from a massive skin graft.

In the seven weeks since Massoud`s death, Afghanistan`s political fortunes have turned upside down. The ruling Taliban Islamic movement, once seemingly invincible in its control of 90 percent of the country, is now the target of a U.S.-led bombing campaign.

And the Northern Alliance, once a persistent but ragtag militia built around Massoud`s charismatic personality that constantly sought foreign support in its solitary war against the Taliban, is now the de facto ground ally of an international alliance against terrorism.

Khalili, who is Afghanistan`s ambassador to India -- the Northern Alliance leaders who ruled Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996 are still recognized by most of the world as its legitimate government -- has quickly seized the unexpected opportunity to promote his longtime cause, despite a painful convalescence and the loss of Massoud, his mentor and best friend.

In an interview this week after returning from medical treatment in Germany, Khalili adamantly blamed Osama bin Laden, the suspected terrorist who is sheltered by the Taliban and is the major target of the U.S.-led campaign, for orchestrating Massoud`s assassination, although the killers died in the attack and have not been identified.

He asserted that the U.S. accusations against bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network have vindicated the alliance`s long-standing allegations about Arabs dominating the Taliban. And he insisted that despite mounting civilian casualties, political setbacks and criticism from Muslims worldwide, the U.S.-led airstrikes must continue until the Taliban is defeated.

``This is not a campaign against Islam or the Afghan people. It is a campaign against terrorism,`` he said, echoing the Bush administration position. ``We know it will take time. They can`t just bomb, chase out bin Laden and the Taliban and have the United Nations rush into Kabul. And for God`s sake, they must try to minimize civilian casualties. But they must finish what they have started.``

Khalili, a seasoned political strategist whose group has courted assistance from various foreign powers, said he hoped the new international focus on Afghanistan would boost the Northern Alliance`s fortunes. But he declined to say whether it is receiving new aid from Washington or from Russia. whose president met recently with the alliance`s political leader, Burhanuddin Rabbani.

``I do not back the United States, but I don`t hate them any more than necessary,`` he said with a grin. ``I would be lying if I told you this campaign is not helping us. We still have shortages of guns and ammunition, and we still have only three helicopters. We have received promises, but we know help won`t come overnight.``

In the weeks since the U.S. bombing campaign began, fighting between Northern Alliance and Taliban forces has veered back and forth inconclusively as the alliance, which controls pockets of northeastern Afghanistan, struggles without Massoud`s strategic expertise and forceful personality.

Despite the loss of its longtime leader, Khalili said, ``things are good`` for the alliance. ``My commander is gone, but Afghanistan is back in the eye of the world, and our enemy is being bombed,`` he said. `` People used to think we were talking like monkeys [about the Taliban and their Arab support], but now they believe us. Now we can see there is a light at the end of the tunnel.``

Khalili brushed aside concerns raised by Pakistan, U.N. officials and human rights groups that if the Northern Alliance sweeps into Kabul, the Afghan capital, before a new government can be established there, it will unleash a frenzy of revenge killings and chaos similar to the civil war that engulfed Kabul in the mid-1990s, when Rabbani, Massoud and their cohort were in power. Since the Taliban ousted the government in 1996, alliance figures have been accused of serious civil rights abuses.

The envoy, however, sharply criticized Pakistan and its intelligence agencies, first for backing several ruthless Islamic Afghan factions that fought over Afghanistan in the 1990s after Soviet troops withdrew, then for helping to nurture the Taliban and sustain it in power.

Pakistan was allied with the Taliban until September, when it agreed to abandon the strict Islamic movement and back the Western anti-terrorist campaign.

Khalili also dismissed as ``deceptive propaganda`` new assertions by Pakistan that ``moderate Taliban`` members should be courted to participate in a future government.

He suggested that Abdul Haq, a former Afghan resistance commander who was captured and executed by the Taliban last week, had been ``double-crossed`` by Pakistani intelligence agents who encouraged him to visit Afghanistan and search for potential Taliban defectors. Some Afghan exiles and other sources have made similar allegations.

But mostly, Khalili wanted to talk about the death of his old friend Massoud, and about the final hours they spent the night before the assassination, reciting Persian romantic poetry and talking about everything from the new air conditioner in Massoud`s military headquarters to their favorite restaurants in Europe.

``We were opening poetry books and reading whatever verse was on the page,`` he recounted. ``One ghazal [poem] appeared, and the commander asked me to read it twice. I am not lying when I tell you this:

It said you must value this night, sitting and talking, because in the days to come, this night will not be repeated.``

Khalili, a man given to both hearty laughter and cagey diplomatic evasiveness, fell somber when he described slipping in and out of a haze in the German hospital where he was treated last month, each time asking his wife, son and doctors what had happened to Massoud, and each time being reassured he was all right.

It is still not clear exactly when Massoud died; aides maintained he was alive for several days after the bombing, but he apparently never regained consciousness. Tens of thousands of supporters attended his funeral last month in the Panjshir Valley, his military stronghold for two decades.

Khalili seemed to lose all guile when he spoke of Massoud, describing the striking ethnic Tajik fighter as ``beautiful`` and their 22-year friendship as the most important of his life. ``I loved him, did I tell you that?`` he said suddenly, leaning forward and gripping the sides of his wheelchair. ``I loved him more than was necessary.``(WP)

War Is Not a Vehicle for Social Agendas

Tuesday, October 30, 2001
By Wendy McElroy

There is no question that the oppression suffered by women under Afghanistan`s Taliban government is intolerable. But as feminist voices gain volume in the complex political climate surrounding the United States war on terrorism, it is important to remember why the U.S. is engaged in this fight.


The proximate cause of the current conflict is the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 — not the oppression of Afghan women. The stated goals of the war are to punish those responsible for the hijackings and to prevent further terrorist attacks — not to achieve equality for women in Afghanistan. If the American military is used as a vehicle of social justice — whether the cause is racial equality, gay rights, or equity for women — the world will be at perpetual war.

And if feminist conditions are placed upon the peace negotiations, it will be disastrous. At worst, the cultural differences inherent in such conditions would doom peace talks to failure. At best, such conditions would place an immense burden on the already Herculean job of creating a lasting peace between Afghan tribes and factions with very different notions of women in society.

But though using the American military to enforce social causes such as feminism — even if the causes are good ones — is counter to the objectives of the military and U.S. diplomacy — this is what the most prominent feminist organizations are attempting to do by demanding that the U.S. configure a post-Taliban government in Afghanistan to ensure full participation for women.

As a matter of law, Afghan women are denied the right of free association, access to medical care and education, the right to an unbiased trial...the list of crimes against women scrolls on. But most feminist voices are now insisting upon more than protecting Afghan women from harm. They are demanding equality of representation in power. For example, the left-wing Feminist Majority is circulating a petition that reads, in part, ``We must help ensure that Afghan women`s rights are restored and women are at the center of the rebuilding of the country.``

The National Organization for Women has posted an Action Alert which reads, ``We need your help to demand that the U.S. include Afghan women Leaders ...`` in the post-war government and ``at the table`` in the peace negotiations. NOW asks supporters to phone and send e-mails to President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Biden and U.N. Secretary General Annan.

The Washington-based Women`s Alliance for Peace and Human Rights in Afghanistan, along with other feminist groups, is asking not only the U.S. but also the United Nations to make recognition of women`s rights a precondition for peace. They have already delivered a rough draft peace plan to the U.N.

This is not a call to fund refugee camps, schools or hospitals — humanitarian measures with no necessary political overtones. The demand that Afghan women be fully represented in the peace negotiations and post-war government is a blatantly political demand for equality for women.

To their credit, NOW and the Feminist Majority have publicized the horrors of the Taliban. To their shame, they are now trying to use the war and U.S. foreign policy as a tool to impose a social agenda upon Afghanistan and, perhaps, upon some allies as well. An increasing amount of criticism is being directed specifically toward Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Such demands might be dismissed as wartime opportunism by a special interest group if Senators were not listening and nodding their heads in approval.

On October 15th, the Feminist Majority proudly announced that Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., had won passage of an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that included Afghan women in the establishment of a new Afghan government. Boxer reportedly called the war on terrorism, ``an opportunity to return women to their rightful place in Afghan society.``

Under Boxer`s amendment, the U.S. government`s foreign policy would be used to impose a ``social good`` on a foreign nation. The American military would be used as leverage to force a non-western culture to abandon its attitudes and some of its religious practices regarding women.

Feminists are being hypocritical. On the ``700 Club`` television show of Sept. 13, Rev. Jerry Falwell declared that feminists and gays bore some responsibility for the terrorist events of Sept. 11. The backlash was swift. On Sept. 14, the Feminist Majority excoriated Falwell for attaching his own agenda to the tragedy.

Now it`s the feminists who are viewing the war as an opportunity.

Consider one example. Afghanistan`s powerful Northern Alliance — the military and political opponents of the Taliban — has been openly critical of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, the group that has emerged as the main voice of Afghan women. NA representatives have accused RAWA of being a communist front. Whether the accusation is accurate or not, it illustrates the difficulties ``feminist`` demands would create at a peace table.

For arguing that the war is not a feminist issue, I will be branded as ``anti-woman.`` What I am really trying to do is separate humanitarian issues from political ones in order to help women. A lasting peace is the prerequisite for improving the lives of every human being in Afghanistan. It is in that peace where Afghan women will almost certainly make remarkable advances. The global attention and money now directed at their cause almost guarantees this progress. It can occur through diplomacy, global pressure, the funding of women`s rights agencies. But any ``advance`` for Afghan women that occurs due to a fear of U.S. or U.N. military action is unlikely to last.

Equality for women should not be put on the peace table for negotiation because it is not part of the war and could be an obstacle to peace; and it is an enduring peace that is the key to restoring human rights to women in Afghanistan.

````Nasah, surely there must be some better way for a selfrespecting Indian to spend his free(?) time. try this as a worthier means to expending your precious ethical energgies... http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/02/top16.htm````(PM)

Dear PM:

Thanks for your suggestion. Checked the DAWN editorial here it is what I found:

After referendum

Editorial/DAWN

Even though exact figures were not available while these lines were being written, President Pervez Musharraf had all but wrapped up Tuesday`s referendum by an overwhelming majority.

What was in doubt was the margin of his victory.

A low turn-out was recorded throughout the country, though there is a wide gap between government and opposition claims with regard to the percentage of people voting. The boycott by the Muttahida further made the turn-out look even thinner in the nation`s biggest city, though mercifully the day passed without any untoward incident.

Nevertheless, the referendum is behind us, and for all practical purposes President Musharraf has secured a five-year term for himself.

_______________________________________________

He, thus, becomes Pakistan`s third serving army chief to claim to be an elected head of state - a clear violation of the Constitution.

_______________________________________________

The effects of Tuesday`s referendum will cast their shadow across Pakistan`s political landscape for quite some time.

The task before President Musharraf now is to prove by his actions that his victory would tend to strengthen democracy and lead Pakistan towards political stability and economic growth.

With so many powers already in his hands, and more to be acquired through the proposed constitutional amendments, there is a danger that, instead of checks and balances, we may have a situation in which the president will have all the powers for himself.

In such a scenario there is no guarantee that the interests of civil society will be upheld, since the National Security Council, too, will be heavily dominated by the military.

There is, thus, the possibility that the elected civilian leadership, instead of being responsive to the people`s urges, may succumb to pressures from the military, which may tend to see a given issue in a different light.

Given the controversial nature of the referendum, it is of vital importance that controversy should not surround the general election due in October.

It should be fair and free, and all political parties and personalities not debarred by the law should be allowed to take part in it.

The entire exercise should not only be free from the remotest suspicion of manipulation; it should appear to be so.

No constitutional scheme is inherently unworkable; nor is the world`s best constitution necessarily a guarantee of political serenity. Ultimately, what matters is the sincerity or otherwise of those who are called upon to run a constitutional scheme. During the last more than half a century, Pakistani politicians, including those in uniform, have tried several such schemes and failed.

The Constitutions of 1956 and 1962 failed because those who were supposed to uphold them sabotaged them. The same has been true of the 1973 Constitution, except that it has not been abrogated. Amendments made by Ziaul Haq were repudiated by his protege, Nawaz Sharif, but that did not stand him in good stead; it was his evil deeds that proved his undoing.

Under the scheme that is to come about as a result of the amendments sought by President Musharraf, the big issue again will be whether those charged with the task of making a success of it will be able to come up to the people`s trust.

Let us hope both the victor in Tuesday`s referendum and the politicians who will come to the fore after the October election will try to work the new scheme, whatever its merits and demerits, instead of adopting confrontational policies that could undo the system and throw the country once again into the kind of crisis it has been its misfortune to live with.(DAWN)

Please don`t get upset at the messengers -- and the critics -- for something that basically and inherently is rotten at the core -- an army man committing a CRIME -- and TO HIDE HIS CRIME -- acting like an IMPOSTER ``SAVIOR``.

Whenever I see him on the TV strutting like a peacock in military uniform -- or as fashion model in various politician`s uniform -- I say to myself -- this man is supposed to be in the barracks -- what the hell he is doing pontificating on the podium -- is he alright -- does he need a psychiatric consult -- where in the world an army officer acts like that -- such an ill disciplined soldier of a supposedly professional army.

Referendum or no referendum -- that man does not belong where he is right now -- and what to talk about -- for another 5 illegal years?

No self respecting 5 star General will do that -- create SUCH a mess in the country -- only to save his COAS job -- and then come up with all these lame EXCUSES -- shame on him.

Reply Veeresh # 52

“. . . and by the way, you are sir Sydney? I am sir ex-Woolloomooloo and have great memories of that place circa 1977 . . . with Minolta.”

VeereshJi/Bhai/Unkil

Actually I am currently sir St Peters (less glamourous suburb) rather than Sydney. But I’m delighted to hear you enjoyed Sydney Town...I assume during your days as Merchant Marine?…Sydney has always had a soft spot for sailors…hamari convict sanskriti ke karan, doubtless…

Zafar

Reply Rehan # 54

“My intentions, Zafar, are of a dirty old man. Dirty, and old before my time.“

Mashallah. With this attitude you will go far. (I myself have spent so many years as Troll-In-Waiting – actually the title of the next volume of my Ninesque autobiography, watch the quality publishers for its imminent release – that I totally empathise.)

Tamil and Telegu sound like extremely sensible language requirements to me. That way the Mrs Ansari can decipher the instructions on the back of sambar powder packages without difficulty, not to mention idli/ada/dosai mixes…you can look forward to a lifetime of good South Indian breakfasts.

“And I only want to be a ghar jamai. I must have inlaws that love me.”

Ansaribhai, if you marry one or more of Lajwanti & Co. “love” will not even come close to describing your inlaws’ feelings for you. Even adoration would fall far short.

“If Fatima and Deepika are reading this (Osama-take-me!) you think we have a future together?”

Very forward of you! But I note that you got a response from Deepika:

“Are muslim men as loose as the word is in India. Ayub Khan to Fazal Mehmood have made pass at Indian women. Arnt you married to beseech Zafar dalal for this purpose .I let you go with a warning this time.”

Maaaaaaaaaaan! I think she likes you…so you’re off to a good start with at least one of them. Six or seven more to go, but frankly it doesn’t look like you need my help. Must be that photograph…

Zafar

PS Your faith in asking me to use my own details as yours is touching….aren’t you lucky I have a few fly-blown scruples left?

re: Faiza # 64

Faiza, its been so long since anyone even half agreed with me. So a big thank you for that 110 :)

But more seriously, I am glad you agree since the last point, the one about religious freedom, needs far greater developing. A better, deeper understanding of that construct is key if we are to break out of the current conflict-ridden mould. I hope you will continue to provide your critical input as I struggle with this issue.

Regards.

````Nasah, surely there must be some better way for a selfrespecting Indian to spend his free(?) time. try this as a worthier means to expending your precious ethical energgies... http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/02/top16.htm````(PM)

Dear PM:

Thanks for your suggestion. Checked the DAWN editorial here it is what I found:

After referendum

Editorial/DAWN

Even though exact figures were not available while these lines were being written, President Pervez Musharraf had all but wrapped up Tuesday`s referendum by an overwhelming majority.

What was in doubt was the margin of his victory.

A low turn-out was recorded throughout the country, though there is a wide gap between government and opposition claims with regard to the percentage of people voting. The boycott by the Muttahida further made the turn-out look even thinner in the nation`s biggest city, though mercifully the day passed without any untoward incident.

Nevertheless, the referendum is behind us, and for all practical purposes President Musharraf has secured a five-year term for himself.

_______________________________________________

He, thus, becomes Pakistan`s third serving army chief to claim to be an elected head of state - a clear violation of the Constitution.

_______________________________________________

The effects of Tuesday`s referendum will cast their shadow across Pakistan`s political landscape for quite some time.

The task before President Musharraf now is to prove by his actions that his victory would tend to strengthen democracy and lead Pakistan towards political stability and economic growth.

With so many powers already in his hands, and more to be acquired through the proposed constitutional amendments, there is a danger that, instead of checks and balances, we may have a situation in which the president will have all the powers for himself.

In such a scenario there is no guarantee that the interests of civil society will be upheld, since the National Security Council, too, will be heavily dominated by the military.

There is, thus, the possibility that the elected civilian leadership, instead of being responsive to the people`s urges, may succumb to pressures from the military, which may tend to see a given issue in a different light.

Given the controversial nature of the referendum, it is of vital importance that controversy should not surround the general election due in October.

It should be fair and free, and all political parties and personalities not debarred by the law should be allowed to take part in it.

The entire exercise should not only be free from the remotest suspicion of manipulation; it should appear to be so.

No constitutional scheme is inherently unworkable; nor is the world`s best constitution necessarily a guarantee of political serenity. Ultimately, what matters is the sincerity or otherwise of those who are called upon to run a constitutional scheme. During the last more than half a century, Pakistani politicians, including those in uniform, have tried several such schemes and failed.

The Constitutions of 1956 and 1962 failed because those who were supposed to uphold them sabotaged them. The same has been true of the 1973 Constitution, except that it has not been abrogated. Amendments made by Ziaul Haq were repudiated by his protege, Nawaz Sharif, but that did not stand him in good stead; it was his evil deeds that proved his undoing.

Under the scheme that is to come about as a result of the amendments sought by President Musharraf, the big issue again will be whether those charged with the task of making a success of it will be able to come up to the people`s trust.

Let us hope both the victor in Tuesday`s referendum and the politicians who will come to the fore after the October election will try to work the new scheme, whatever its merits and demerits, instead of adopting confrontational policies that could undo the system and throw the country once again into the kind of crisis it has been its misfortune to live with.(DAWN)

Please don`t get upset at the messengers -- and the critics -- for something that basically and inherently is rotten at the core -- an army man committing a CRIME -- and TO HIDE HIS CRIME -- acting like an IMPOSTER ``SAVIOR``.

Whenver I see him on the TV strutting like a peacock in military uniform -- or as fashion model in various politician`s uniform -- I say to mysef -- this man is supposed to be in the barracks -- what the hell he is doing pontificating on the podium -- is he alright -- does he need a psychiatric consult -- where in the world an army officer acts like that -- such an ill disciplined soldier of a supposedly professional army.

Referundum or no referundum -- that man does not belong where he is right now -- and what to talk about -- for another 5 illegal years?

No self respecting 5 star General will do that -- creat a mess in the country -- only to save his COAS job -- and then come up with all these lame EXCUSES -- shame on him.

```Taliban are welcome in Kashmir```

Hehe...as if the little arses who say that are in charge of Kashmir

Jeez..... a sure sign that the board is dead is when 13 of the last 15 posts are by El Thicko.

What if there are two parallel govt.extending from Kabul to Srinagar through Islamabad?

P.M. Parvez Musharaff can rif raff in english about protocol of UNO ,negotiations ,democraticization,& aspiring to be accepted by western countries like still waiting Turkey for admittence in the ECM-european common Market.

After all if muslims men ,women,children,old & young form a human chain from Kabul to Sri Nagar let jewish,Hindu ,American Nixus ,do whatever they want .

In to-days HINDU .paper 27th oct 2001

`Taliban are welcome in Kashmir`

SRINAGAR, OCT. 27. Ms. Asiya Andrabi is the only wanted woman leader in Kashmir. Just before the terrorist strikes in the United States, police did not spare any effort to apprehend her for alleged involvement in the much-publicised burqa (veil) campaign launched by the Lashkar-e-Jabbar(LeJ).

A staunch pro-Pakistan leader of the Dukhtaran-e- Millat (DeM or daughters of nation), Ms. Andrabi believes that the armed struggle in Kashmir is not nationalistic, but part of the Islamic movement worldwide. A bitter critic of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, she is all praise for the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda. The DeM, radical women`s group, had also been banned in 1990. Often referred to as a militant group, none of its activists has taken to the gun. But it is a strong supporter of militants. The Hindu Special Correspondent Shujaat Bukhari managed an hour-long conversation with Ms. Andrabi under the shadow of police chasing her. Here are the excerpts of the interview:

Question: Something about you and your organisation?

Ms. Asiya Andrabi: In fact, I started the movement in 1981 when I was a student of B.Sc. I came across a book consisting writeups by newly-converts to Islam. I read an article by Maryam Jameela who had converted to Islam from Christianity and my desire for learning Islam started from that day. I changed my subjects and did B.A.(Hon.) in Arabic. Initially, I founded the Dukhtaran-e- Fatima, which was later on renamed the Dukhtaran-e-Millat in `90.

You have been vociferously pursuing the teachings of Islam and want to implement the Islamic code of conduct strictly, particularly among women. But there has been little success.

No, we always have not been strict in the sense you refer to. From 1981 to 1992, we took recourse to awareness through preaching but, yes, in 1992 we sprinkled colour on women to enforce the ``purdah`` but that too after a declaration by Islamic scholars. It continued for two months. Those who adhered to it continue to do so, and those who did it under fear discontinued it afterwards.

Islam in Kashmir is being practised in a different way and not essentially like the Taliban do. Don`t you think it will not help you in influencing a larger chunk of people?

We are not bothered how many people follow us. We want Islamic teachings to be followed strictly. If I would have listened to people in the past, I would have been the most popular leader of Kashmir.

You are a staunch supporter of Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan, but you have turned against the Government of Pakistan on its support to the U.S.

We are for a united Muslim world, that is why we want Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. We are not the puppets of the Government of Pakistan nor are their paid agents. We are with the people of Pakistan, who have publicly resented Gen. Musharraf`s decision to support the U.S. He has done wrong. We do not care for the Pakistan Government.

What about the Hurriyat Conference?

Its place is in nowhere but in a dustbin. It claims to be representatives of people, but Kashmiris have rejected it. It does not exist anywhere and people have full faith in ``Mujahideen``.

What will be the impact of developments in Afghanistan on Kashmir?

It will be positive. The people of Pakistan, who have supported the Taliban, also support Kashmir militancy. The U.S. will be defeated and they have admitted that they cannot get Osama bin Laden. If the Taliban succeeds, it will give a fillip to militant activities and if they lose, they will turn to Kashmir as well.

But don`t you think that Kashmir militancy will be hijacked if forces like the Taliban come?

No, it is not the question of Kashmiriat or nationalism. We are part of Islamic movement worldwide. So any of our brethren, including the Taliban, are welcome in Kashmir.

You supported the Lashkar-e-Jabbar in its campaign on the ``purdah`` but it faded away.

The developments in Afghanistan took everything. We support their campaign and it is basically our agenda.

The LeJ, many people believe does not exist at all, who are they?

No, they exist. They are not sponsored by Pakistan or anybody else, but may be the members of some other group.

An impression goes that Pakistan will try to bargain with the U.S. on Kashmir.

We do not want ``azadi`` at the cost of the people of Afghanistan even if we remain slaves for whole life. The U.S. can never be a friend of any Muslim country as history speaks for itself. That is why we are opposed to the U.S. intervention in Kashmir. It has the arrogance of power and I hope Afghanistan will break that pride of the U.S.