An International Failure
Feroz R Khan December 5, 2001
#1 Posted by sarwar on January 2, 2001 2:49:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by sarwar on January 2, 2001 2:49:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#3 Posted by cutandpaste on January 9, 2001 8:01:40 pm
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
Cover story
THE TIMES, UK
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
Cover story
THE TIMES, UK
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
#4 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on December 5, 2001 10:59:25 pm
Feroz, I can agree with your basic observations
here but not with:
``The Pakistani constitution of 1956, and later the constitution of 1973, would prove to be the greatest obstacles towards rationalizing an effective Pakistani foreign policy.``
Many countries in the world have constitutional
issues, yet are doing much better then Pakistan.
I personally think that it is the domestic failure in implementation of Pakistan`s constitution that continues to be the problem.
Length still seems to be the biggest challenge
in your writing. Yaar itna time nahi milta kay
puri tawajjeh say parh sakain.
Ras
#5 Posted by SameerJB on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Our affliction with deen and maswak is not just detrimental to our foreign policy and international arena; it has led to more pathetic outcomes at home with respect to literacy, rights and role of women, population growth rate, minorities etc. That is another reason, for me, to support parochialism over Islam at all levels at home.
However, without Islamic reason, the case for Kashmir and thus nonsensical military spending weakens tremendously. It is in the interest of later special interest groups to keep the deen and maswak deep in the psyche of Pakistanis.
Good article though very long but then it is your hallmark.
Regards,
However, without Islamic reason, the case for Kashmir and thus nonsensical military spending weakens tremendously. It is in the interest of later special interest groups to keep the deen and maswak deep in the psyche of Pakistanis.
Good article though very long but then it is your hallmark.
Regards,
#6 Posted by SameerJB on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Pakistan should stop immediately talking about representative government in Afghanistan - when Mush himself showing no sign of delivering representative government to Pakistanis. It would be a good sign to be the first to recognize the new interim government of Afghanistan. How about today instead of waiting until December 22nd.
#7 Posted by mohajir on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Looks like a Gandhian has become the head of Afghan government. A graduate from Simla, India. Already relations between India and Afghanistan have started to improve. Bollywood (Hindi) films, music, Indian newspapers, satellite channels are already in Afghanistan. Indian doctors are in Afghanistan and India supported and maintained hospitals are treating wounded Afghans. Afghan airliner Ariana would begin their first international flight after Taliban`s fall to Amritsar and New Delhi. Hindus and Sikhs have been invited back to Kabul .......
Profile of Hamid Karzai: New Head of Afghan Govt.
The new head of Afghanistan`s interim administration is a 44-year-old tribesman from the Taliban heartland of Kandahar, who speaks fluent English, studied abroad and is leading troops in his homeland against the Islamic militia.
Hamid Karzai, equally comfortable in a suit and tie as in a turban and tunic, initially supported the creation of the Taliban in 1994 as an alternative to the lawlessness of the warlords who ruled his native Kandahar.
In 1995 the Taliban approached Karzai to be their permanent representative at the United Nations (news - web sites). But by then he was disillusioned by the religious movement because he said it had been hijacked by neighboring Pakistan. Until the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, Pakistan was the Taliban`s strongest ally.
On Oct. 7, President Bush (news - web sites) ordered air strikes against Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and leaders of his al-Qaida network in connection with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
Karzai and another prominent Pashtun, Abdul Haq, slipped separately and secretly into Afghanistan to organize Pashtun resistance against the Taliban. Haq was captured and hanged. Karzai was nearly caught but was rescued by U.S. helicopters and special forces.
His appointment should delight India. A scion of the prominent Durrani tribe, he earned his Master’s degree in political science in Shimla, India, and is known to be a student of Mahatma Gandhi’s works. He left India in the 1980s to fight the Soviet occupation of his homeland.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Karzai was ``extracted`` but he insisted he never left the country.
The Taliban fled the capital Kabul on Nov. 13, driven southward by northern alliance soldiers in the wake of relentless bombing of Taliban front lines by the U.S.-led coalition.
Karzai, meanwhile, cut deals with Pashtuns in Uruzgan to abandon the Taliban and then began moving southward toward Kandahar with an armed force of several thousand tribesmen.
In a satellite telephone interview with The Associated Press on Monday, Karzai said he wanted the Taliban`s defeat in Kandahar to be a negotiated one that avoided bloodshed.
Karzai often accused the religious militia of being manipulated by neighboring Pakistan, with whom he had a complicated relationship. While Pakistan allowed Karzai to maintain his headquarters in its southwestern Baluchistan province, the two sparred regularly.
A fierce nationalist, Karzai often accused his fellow tribesmen of being pawns in a greater game being played out by Afghanistan`s neighbors, specifically Pakistan.
He charged Afghanistan`s neighbors used his homeland for their own purposes, Pakistan to train militants to fight in Indian-ruled Kashmir; Russia to maintain a grip on its Central Asian states.
Karzai was born Dec. 24, 1957, into one of southern Afghanistan`s most powerful tribes, the Popolzai. The city of Kandahar, the spiritual headquarters of the Taliban, was built in 1761 on land given to King Ahmed Shah Durrani by the Popolzai.
Karzai`s father was chief of the Popolzai tribe. He was assassinated in the Pakistani city of Quetta in 1999, a killing believed linked to Afghanistan`s violent feuds. The killers were never caught.
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Karzai was in Pakistan. But when Islamic insurgents took power from the pro-Moscow regime in 1992, Karzai became Afghanistan`s deputy foreign minister.
The rebel government, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani, the current de facto ruler of Afghanistan, fought bitterly among themselves, destroying large sections of the city and killing 50,000 civilians. Karzai left Rabbani`s government in the first years, disillusioned by the bickering between the groups.
In the early years of the rebel government, Karzai asked Rabbani and his regime, which was largely run by minority Tajiks, to incorporate more ethnic Pashtuns, Afghanistan`s largest ethnic group.
The Taliban movement which began in southern Kandahar, originally to end the lawlessness brought by the warlords who ruled, were mostly ethnic Pashtuns.
According to the northern alliance foreign minister, Dr. Abdullah, the members of the interim administration will be chosen according to the ethnic breakdown in Afghanistan, based on a 1974 United Nations survey. That survey says 38 percent of Afghans are ethnic Pashtuns, 27 percent ethnic Tajiks, 17 percent Hazaras and 6 percent Uzbeks.
Profile of Hamid Karzai: New Head of Afghan Govt.
The new head of Afghanistan`s interim administration is a 44-year-old tribesman from the Taliban heartland of Kandahar, who speaks fluent English, studied abroad and is leading troops in his homeland against the Islamic militia.
Hamid Karzai, equally comfortable in a suit and tie as in a turban and tunic, initially supported the creation of the Taliban in 1994 as an alternative to the lawlessness of the warlords who ruled his native Kandahar.
In 1995 the Taliban approached Karzai to be their permanent representative at the United Nations (news - web sites). But by then he was disillusioned by the religious movement because he said it had been hijacked by neighboring Pakistan. Until the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, Pakistan was the Taliban`s strongest ally.
On Oct. 7, President Bush (news - web sites) ordered air strikes against Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and leaders of his al-Qaida network in connection with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
Karzai and another prominent Pashtun, Abdul Haq, slipped separately and secretly into Afghanistan to organize Pashtun resistance against the Taliban. Haq was captured and hanged. Karzai was nearly caught but was rescued by U.S. helicopters and special forces.
His appointment should delight India. A scion of the prominent Durrani tribe, he earned his Master’s degree in political science in Shimla, India, and is known to be a student of Mahatma Gandhi’s works. He left India in the 1980s to fight the Soviet occupation of his homeland.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Karzai was ``extracted`` but he insisted he never left the country.
The Taliban fled the capital Kabul on Nov. 13, driven southward by northern alliance soldiers in the wake of relentless bombing of Taliban front lines by the U.S.-led coalition.
Karzai, meanwhile, cut deals with Pashtuns in Uruzgan to abandon the Taliban and then began moving southward toward Kandahar with an armed force of several thousand tribesmen.
In a satellite telephone interview with The Associated Press on Monday, Karzai said he wanted the Taliban`s defeat in Kandahar to be a negotiated one that avoided bloodshed.
Karzai often accused the religious militia of being manipulated by neighboring Pakistan, with whom he had a complicated relationship. While Pakistan allowed Karzai to maintain his headquarters in its southwestern Baluchistan province, the two sparred regularly.
A fierce nationalist, Karzai often accused his fellow tribesmen of being pawns in a greater game being played out by Afghanistan`s neighbors, specifically Pakistan.
He charged Afghanistan`s neighbors used his homeland for their own purposes, Pakistan to train militants to fight in Indian-ruled Kashmir; Russia to maintain a grip on its Central Asian states.
Karzai was born Dec. 24, 1957, into one of southern Afghanistan`s most powerful tribes, the Popolzai. The city of Kandahar, the spiritual headquarters of the Taliban, was built in 1761 on land given to King Ahmed Shah Durrani by the Popolzai.
Karzai`s father was chief of the Popolzai tribe. He was assassinated in the Pakistani city of Quetta in 1999, a killing believed linked to Afghanistan`s violent feuds. The killers were never caught.
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Karzai was in Pakistan. But when Islamic insurgents took power from the pro-Moscow regime in 1992, Karzai became Afghanistan`s deputy foreign minister.
The rebel government, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani, the current de facto ruler of Afghanistan, fought bitterly among themselves, destroying large sections of the city and killing 50,000 civilians. Karzai left Rabbani`s government in the first years, disillusioned by the bickering between the groups.
In the early years of the rebel government, Karzai asked Rabbani and his regime, which was largely run by minority Tajiks, to incorporate more ethnic Pashtuns, Afghanistan`s largest ethnic group.
The Taliban movement which began in southern Kandahar, originally to end the lawlessness brought by the warlords who ruled, were mostly ethnic Pashtuns.
According to the northern alliance foreign minister, Dr. Abdullah, the members of the interim administration will be chosen according to the ethnic breakdown in Afghanistan, based on a 1974 United Nations survey. That survey says 38 percent of Afghans are ethnic Pashtuns, 27 percent ethnic Tajiks, 17 percent Hazaras and 6 percent Uzbeks.
#8 Posted by AAmir on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#9 Posted by vanguard on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
What should I say? I am at loss for words. Such a long article high on cliches and jingoistic language but short on history.
You have tried to show that the reason for the failure of Pakistan`s foreign policy is the Muslim values.
Let me inform you that Pakistan may have been estbalished on religious grounds but religion came into politics long after - late seventies when Zia Ul Haq came to power.
The constitutions may have the words ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` but there was nothing as such Islamic about them. Pakistan has been floundering in its foreign policy and number of other issues since its inception, but that has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic values.
If you read the history after 1947, the country was being run by beaurucrats, feudals and army men who were secular in their thinking (infidel by todays fundamentalist standards) running the country on secular footings. It is still being run by them but gradually after 50 years of failures, the religious zealots are promoting the Islamic values as a recipe for success and pushing for their incorporation in all spheres of life. The result might be a failure as with the case of Hudood Ordinance but that will not be due to the Islamic values.
Because values are not the cause of failure. Rather whether the systems in place can be adapted to the changing values determines the workability.
So please don`t blame the failures on Islamic values. Try to find out the real reasons, causes , read some history .
You have tried to show that the reason for the failure of Pakistan`s foreign policy is the Muslim values.
Let me inform you that Pakistan may have been estbalished on religious grounds but religion came into politics long after - late seventies when Zia Ul Haq came to power.
The constitutions may have the words ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` but there was nothing as such Islamic about them. Pakistan has been floundering in its foreign policy and number of other issues since its inception, but that has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic values.
If you read the history after 1947, the country was being run by beaurucrats, feudals and army men who were secular in their thinking (infidel by todays fundamentalist standards) running the country on secular footings. It is still being run by them but gradually after 50 years of failures, the religious zealots are promoting the Islamic values as a recipe for success and pushing for their incorporation in all spheres of life. The result might be a failure as with the case of Hudood Ordinance but that will not be due to the Islamic values.
Because values are not the cause of failure. Rather whether the systems in place can be adapted to the changing values determines the workability.
So please don`t blame the failures on Islamic values. Try to find out the real reasons, causes , read some history .
#10 Posted by anil on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Dear Feroze:
I could resist my urge to congratulate you, because it is certainly the first time for me to see an article that touches Pakistani Foreign policy without India being mentioned.
I honestly feel that given the geopolitics, aspirations of Pakistani - despite cultural commonality and unsymmetry in fundamental factor -ones heros others enemy etc. etc., Pakistan`s future belongs in Islamic world, if any such entity can ever be created. As a South Asian entity, Pakistan must accept a dominant position of India. Nothing short of disintegrating India, can be done. Given geopolitical reality and economic forces, in this century it would be impossible for Pakistan - even if entire Islamic world supports - to disintegrate India.
It is this economic force, and geopolitics of the wealth generation in South Asia that is the driver to make the U.S. and others realize India`s role. The U.S. and the west would never let a single country dominate Asia. Just the center of gravity, considering population mass, market size, economic reality - despite abject poverty in many sections of Indian society - dictates three or four centers which are Japan-Korea, Greater China (including Asean), and India.
I do not subscribe to Samuel Huntington`s theoretical perspective on clash of civilization based on religion. Technology, economy, speed of dissemination of Information, and conversion Information into Knowledge for and greater the participation of masses are shaping and would continue to shape modern civilizations. Islamists, Hinduists and their ilks would provide inertia that shall be overcome, as we are witnessing in Afganistan. I am confident this phenomena has nothing to do with religion. If Talibanist - Islamist of Muslim variety, were replaced by Talibanists - Hinduists of Hindu variety as who are obstructing the progress the same action would have been taken against them.
To me this is the march of civilization, and clash of civilization. The abovementioned factors - technology, economy, speed of transmission of information, rate of conversion of transmitted information into knowledge and greater participation of masses constitute a very powerful force that even if the president of the U.S. wants to stop, he would fail.
Therefore, more appropriate debate is no longer Islamic v. Secular, India v. Pakistan (nation state etc.), but how to harness above forces quickly. In my view religions relevance at greater society level will increasingly erode, and it will increasingly become a source to fulfill spritual need. With easier access to information, people can pick and choose pick part of which religion suits them best, and thus themselves would convert this into knowledge needed to meet spiritual needs.
I am quite keen in a healthy discussion on this, and not insulting words, I hope you would be able to control this thread. Good article, Good questions and Good Luck.
Thank you.
ANIL KAPURIA
I could resist my urge to congratulate you, because it is certainly the first time for me to see an article that touches Pakistani Foreign policy without India being mentioned.
I honestly feel that given the geopolitics, aspirations of Pakistani - despite cultural commonality and unsymmetry in fundamental factor -ones heros others enemy etc. etc., Pakistan`s future belongs in Islamic world, if any such entity can ever be created. As a South Asian entity, Pakistan must accept a dominant position of India. Nothing short of disintegrating India, can be done. Given geopolitical reality and economic forces, in this century it would be impossible for Pakistan - even if entire Islamic world supports - to disintegrate India.
It is this economic force, and geopolitics of the wealth generation in South Asia that is the driver to make the U.S. and others realize India`s role. The U.S. and the west would never let a single country dominate Asia. Just the center of gravity, considering population mass, market size, economic reality - despite abject poverty in many sections of Indian society - dictates three or four centers which are Japan-Korea, Greater China (including Asean), and India.
I do not subscribe to Samuel Huntington`s theoretical perspective on clash of civilization based on religion. Technology, economy, speed of dissemination of Information, and conversion Information into Knowledge for and greater the participation of masses are shaping and would continue to shape modern civilizations. Islamists, Hinduists and their ilks would provide inertia that shall be overcome, as we are witnessing in Afganistan. I am confident this phenomena has nothing to do with religion. If Talibanist - Islamist of Muslim variety, were replaced by Talibanists - Hinduists of Hindu variety as who are obstructing the progress the same action would have been taken against them.
To me this is the march of civilization, and clash of civilization. The abovementioned factors - technology, economy, speed of transmission of information, rate of conversion of transmitted information into knowledge and greater participation of masses constitute a very powerful force that even if the president of the U.S. wants to stop, he would fail.
Therefore, more appropriate debate is no longer Islamic v. Secular, India v. Pakistan (nation state etc.), but how to harness above forces quickly. In my view religions relevance at greater society level will increasingly erode, and it will increasingly become a source to fulfill spritual need. With easier access to information, people can pick and choose pick part of which religion suits them best, and thus themselves would convert this into knowledge needed to meet spiritual needs.
I am quite keen in a healthy discussion on this, and not insulting words, I hope you would be able to control this thread. Good article, Good questions and Good Luck.
Thank you.
ANIL KAPURIA
#11 Posted by hobbyty on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Excellent, pertinent article - a little too much circular reasoning - and ultimately based on too narrow a conception - Secular or religious -``with us or against us!``
These choices hardly represent the ``independent`` nature of a foreign policy, the author advocates.
Is any foreign policy ``independent``? the answer is clearly, no! - The degree and complexity of interdependence and interaction, nullify ``independent`` nature of polices. How about ``Raison d`etat``? clearly, given the number of interests at play, both domestic and international, it is only fair to suggest that if a single reason or policy conception can be identified as ``raison d`etat``, it must be the survival and welfare of the nation state.
Secular or religious - a completely false choice and an incorrect reflection of the reality of the exercise of Pakistani foreign poliy options. ``Fait accompli`` are not created only by powers other than Pakistan - such an attitude is worthy of slaves. Yet, this does not mean that be seek to be beligerent. Pakistanis in the main want prosperity for their nation and matter of faith to be handled by the faithful. On the other hand to suggest that the so called ``secularists`` are neutral in matters of faith and culture is an outright lie. Pakistanis are more than willing to accept the differentiation, the specialization, of institutions of faith and governance - they are not about to countenance the differentiation of religion from culture and conscience - nor should they have too. Suggestions that this is the choice before Pakistanis, are at best, misinformed. Western intellectual trends migrate to the stages of the subcontinent, only after they are close to exhaustion in the cultural environment of their birth: such is the case with secular humanism. Having declared ``God is dead`` in the West, the newly ``enlightened`` seek to confer this ``cultural`` gift to Pakistanis -
Is the concept of ``human rights`` not one derived from religious teachings? Perhaps the author should review george F Kennan`s lecture (Foreign Policy and the Christian conscience) at the Princeton Theological seminary: ``I should like to say at the outset that questions of method in foreign policy seem to me to be generally a much more fitting subject for Christian concern than questions of purpose. It is very difficult for us to know which of the specific undertakings of government in foreign affairs might have Christian significance and which might not.``
What we can conclude about foreign policy conception and conduct is that while not all considerations call for a moral (religious) filter, clearly there are some considerations that do. Would the author not have supported the sanctions against South Africa for it`s apartheid policies? What were the basis of this policy? or indeed was Martin L King and his movement not deserving of support abroad? and the basis of this support was...? far from forgetting that we are a predominatly Muslim country, whose creation was premised on the moral precepts of our faith, we should be embracing and promoting those precepts, I`m not suggesting promotion of the faith, but of those moral principles which we seek to guide us in the formulation and conduct of policy.
Democracy at home, is even more problematic than our foreign policy - our foreign policy lacks credibility as we can muster little power to alter the course of events to our advantage - at home, yet another false choice exist: BB or some NS stand in. The larger problem is structural: if competition among the interests (ethinic, liguistic, provincial,etc) is to be attenuated such that national interest are promoted while the process of the civil social negotiation of interest groups is institutionalized, the process of the competition will have to be diffused laterally and vertically. In this process, the inclusion of growing numbers in the private economy, along with the disassociation of government management from the economy (which is what the interest groups are competing over), remain imperatives. Such structual changes and innovations can only be negotiated with changes in the constitution of Pakistan. So long as government resources remain the main prize and source of succor for the competing interest groups, you can be sure, political stability will be a mirage.
Coupled with these, there must be (and I can say with confident will be) the forceful presentation to Pakistanis of a new theoretical conception of the ideology of Pakistan - one which vigourly promotes pluralism, pluralism of salvation, the requirement of liberty to exercise a free conscience, of service, of rights and obligations - as essential - such a new theoretical formulation is already being studied and refined.
#12 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
You seem to me like one of the raw Pakistanis who are willing to overemphasize and blow out of proportion the ills of Pakistan`s foreign policy (an overused word itself in this piece). Nonetheless, what you say is true, but the effects seem too dry and artificial, what was the purpose of this? I don’t get anything new or original.
``Pakistani foreign policy and the principle reason behind its mediocre performance on the international stage. Pakistani foreign policy has no raison d’ état, which can guide the creation of its foreign policy objectives, because its domestic politics are divided over its national identity. This national confusion, in the domestic politics, is reflective of the Pakistani diplomacy, whose international appearance is one of reactionary, adventurous, destabilizing and schizophrenic inconsistencies.``
So first we have to realize that Pakistani foreign policy stinks then we should sulk because it is a reflection of our domestic and national adventures that are beyond repair and inconsistent. Is that what your premise is? Its ironic that you point out the wrong foundation of these policies doomed to fail yet you start up with something that will only get you hoo haa from the very week thriving on such articles about Pakistan.
Anyway, what Shahid Javed Burki wrote in his papers about Pakistan`s policies on Afghanistan make a good read. The thing is... yes we have been in desperate states most of our history, right form the start; expectations and finances were scarce and low. It would have been realistic for us to fail. What matters is that we are a nation, a separate entity and have a platform to argue our stances on our policies all we want. Yet another tool in the world to work with for a better system.
I agree that raison d’ état is corrupted when equality has a religious yardstick. And yes we are guilty of doing that in the Zia Era, something still much part of our society. But if you really are adamant about seeing each decision without its context you will never acknowledge that Pakistan`s very nature is opposed to the mixing of religion with politics. You also bring up an interesting point that we need a face-to-face/ head on confrontation between the two ideologies of secularism and the Islamic state dreamers. I happen to believe 100% in Musharraf`s recent observation of this confrontation after Sep 11th have made things easy to maneuver. The residue of the handful fanatics have shown their faces, their acts of weakness apparent have seperarated them form the mainstream, and their own misgivings and inconsistencies will thin them out in any political support they will try to muster.
Pakistan was created in a way that makes its ideology prone to religious ends. What is wrong with letting the religious pendulum swing, don`t all societies have their own morallity searches? Pakistan happens to sit next to what it was separated from. It borders a nation largely used by US and Russia for a power game it was automatically a part of. India`s involvement in any possibility of Pakistan`s compromising position doesn`t help either. You provide a lot of policy jargon but fail to shed light on what the consequences would have been of taking a different route than what we took in the past.
-Aisha Sarwari
Let me guess what your next topic will be, ``safeguarding Pakistan`s nukes`` or ``detalibanizing Kashmir``?
``Pakistani foreign policy and the principle reason behind its mediocre performance on the international stage. Pakistani foreign policy has no raison d’ état, which can guide the creation of its foreign policy objectives, because its domestic politics are divided over its national identity. This national confusion, in the domestic politics, is reflective of the Pakistani diplomacy, whose international appearance is one of reactionary, adventurous, destabilizing and schizophrenic inconsistencies.``
So first we have to realize that Pakistani foreign policy stinks then we should sulk because it is a reflection of our domestic and national adventures that are beyond repair and inconsistent. Is that what your premise is? Its ironic that you point out the wrong foundation of these policies doomed to fail yet you start up with something that will only get you hoo haa from the very week thriving on such articles about Pakistan.
Anyway, what Shahid Javed Burki wrote in his papers about Pakistan`s policies on Afghanistan make a good read. The thing is... yes we have been in desperate states most of our history, right form the start; expectations and finances were scarce and low. It would have been realistic for us to fail. What matters is that we are a nation, a separate entity and have a platform to argue our stances on our policies all we want. Yet another tool in the world to work with for a better system.
I agree that raison d’ état is corrupted when equality has a religious yardstick. And yes we are guilty of doing that in the Zia Era, something still much part of our society. But if you really are adamant about seeing each decision without its context you will never acknowledge that Pakistan`s very nature is opposed to the mixing of religion with politics. You also bring up an interesting point that we need a face-to-face/ head on confrontation between the two ideologies of secularism and the Islamic state dreamers. I happen to believe 100% in Musharraf`s recent observation of this confrontation after Sep 11th have made things easy to maneuver. The residue of the handful fanatics have shown their faces, their acts of weakness apparent have seperarated them form the mainstream, and their own misgivings and inconsistencies will thin them out in any political support they will try to muster.
Pakistan was created in a way that makes its ideology prone to religious ends. What is wrong with letting the religious pendulum swing, don`t all societies have their own morallity searches? Pakistan happens to sit next to what it was separated from. It borders a nation largely used by US and Russia for a power game it was automatically a part of. India`s involvement in any possibility of Pakistan`s compromising position doesn`t help either. You provide a lot of policy jargon but fail to shed light on what the consequences would have been of taking a different route than what we took in the past.
-Aisha Sarwari
Let me guess what your next topic will be, ``safeguarding Pakistan`s nukes`` or ``detalibanizing Kashmir``?
#13 Posted by soysauce on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Runonsentences and a lot of gobbldigook..
In desperation i tried mahim maher`s poem. That didn`t make sense either.
In desperation i tried mahim maher`s poem. That didn`t make sense either.
#14 Posted by hamzadafaqui on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
Tired of CNN lies-------Here is the other side!
ENJOY!
www.azzam.co.uk
06 December 2001 : Taliban Kill 93 US Commandos and Capture Six
``Severe damage has been done to the Americans but the media keeps it in the dark,`` says Taliban Interior Minister
QUETTA (Islam News): The Interior Minister of Afghanistan says that it is absolutely ridiculous and baseless that the Americans, resting in a desert, 220 miles away from Kandahar claim to have captured the city of Kandahar. Similarly, the Pashtun claim to have captured Kadahar is based on false reports. He further said that the local and the international media reveal only one side of the picture, but the truth is that heavy damage has been done to the Americans in Afghanistan. In recent operations, Taliban troops killed 93 Americans and captured six. Dozens of soldiers were killed in and around Takhta Pul. Furthermore, an Amercian helicopter was also destroyed in this battle, but the media continues to keep such news in the dark. The Minister informed about World about the wellbeing of the Kandahar Taliban Corps Commander, Mulla Akhtar Uthmani and Taliban Air Force Commander, Akhtar Mansoor. According to him, the Taliban have total control over Spin Boldak and the news about the retreat of the (local) Taliban commander in Spin Boldak is incorrect.
Dalbandin and Jacobabad Stink Due to the Smell of Rotting American and British Troops
JACOBABAD (KPI): There has been a marked shortage of chemicals in Jacobabad and Dalbandin, which serve to preserve the dead bodies of the American and British soldiers reaching these two cities. As a result of this, the atmosphere around the airbases in these towns is giving off a foul stench due to the rotting of these corpses. According to the latest news from the information office at Swat, the British and Americans are very much disturbed because they do not want to send these bodies to their countries, thus creating panic and uncertainty in their people. Therefore they are trying all possible means to preserve these bodies, but obviously all these means will prove to be shortlived. It has also been reported that numerous coffins have been sent to these areas. On the one hand, the Americans are making every possible effort not to disclose the deaths of their soldiers in Afghanistan, while on the other hand their families are busy preparing for the celebrations of Christmas back home.
``Jihad Will Continue Even if Usama is Martyred`` Al-Qaeda
KUWAIT (Al-Watan): Al-Qaeda has once again expressed its firm determination that the Jihad will not come to a stop, not even if Usama Bin Laden is martyred. Another Usama will appear to impart the teachings of Jihad and the rebirth of Usama will continue each time the former Usama is martyred. Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Al-Qaeda spokesman, said in an interview to Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Watan, that he condemned the Government of Kuwait for the cancellation of his citizenship. He further expressed his firm determination for striving for the noble cause of Jihad in future, for the sake of Allah and Islam. Earlier, Al-Qabaas News (Kuwait) issued a news report about Sulaiman Abu Ghaith being injured or martyred by the American attacks, but Al-Watan News (Kuwait) confirmed his wellbeing from the Taliban.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW OF `DAILY ISLAM` WITH TALIBAN COMMANDER IN KUNDUZ, MULLAH DADULLAH
KANDAHAR: Mullah Dadullah, the senior guerrilla commander of the Taliban arrived in Kandahar from Kunduz last week. He is a warrior of great courage, firm determination and par excellence. He is believed to be the biggest threat and enemy to the Northern Alliance who declared him as one of their most wanted men. His narrow escape from the clutches of the Northern Alliance in Kunduz is an amazing miracle in itself and indeed a blessing of Allah.
DAILY ISLAM: Don`t you think the retreat of the Taliban has increased the morale of the Americans?
MULLAH DADULLAH: No, this is not the case. The Americans are very well aware of the courage and determination of the Taliban fighters, and with the strength with which they all withstood the American attacks over Mazar-i- Sharif for a whole month. We heard a Northern Alliance commander say to another on the wireless radio that an American said to him that ever since they have started their war against the Taliban, they have realised how courageous and brave these people (Taliban) are, and if they continue to fight with the same valour, we will never be able to win the war against them.
DAILY ISLAM: Weren`t you a part of the treaty between the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Fazal and the Northern Alliance (to vacate Kunduz)?
MULLAH DADULLAH: To tell you the truth, I do not trust the Northern Alliance at all. To avoid any disputes, I told Mullah Fazal that may Allah reward you for your pure intentions, grant me the permission to fight the enemies of Allah. In case of survival, I`ll be a warrior (Mujahid), otherwise a martyr, and indeed martyrdom is my intense desire. The aim of Mullah Fazal was to defend and safeguard the fellow troops because he has great fondness and love for the Mujahideen. I pray to Allah to spare him and his colleagues from the seizure by the enemy so that he rises once again against the enemies of Islam.
DAILY ISLAM: What do you say about the battles in and around Mazar-i- Sharif?
MULLAH DADULLAH: We have fought many fierce battles at Mazar-i-Sharif and most of these battles were historical. In the recent days I had only 500 guerrillas (Mujahideen) and 400 amongst them got martyred. In addition to this, 300 of the Mujahideen who were with Mullah Naafiz`s platoon got Shaheed. Inspite all of this, we continued to fight with the same spirit and valour, and the fact is that the tree of Islam cannot be nourished and flourished EXCEPT with the blood of the martyrs.
DAILY ISLAM: Why did the Taliban retreat from Mazar-i-Sharif? Was it due to heavy bombardment and fierce attacks?
MULLAH DADULLAH: No, this wasn`t the reason. The reason was that some of the local commanders came under pressure of US threats and they sold themselves in exchange of few dollars. Therefore in these circumstances we didn`t have any option other than leaving Mazar-i-Sharif. Ameer-ul-Mumineen ordered us to leave the North, but we made some decisions ourselves due to which our brothers were made captives. Had we acted on the orders of Mullah Umar, this wouldn`t have been the case.
DAILY ISLAM: How is Mullah Umar and the rest of the leaders?
MULLAH DADULLAH:I met Mulla Umar and the others upon my arrival in Kandahar and it gave me a lot of pleasure and contentment of heart. I gave a detailed account of the conditions in Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif to Ameer-ul- Mumineen. We have had some important discussions with some senior ministers about the guerrilla war against the Americans.
The great Taliban commander concluded the meeting by saying that a Muslim`s life is incomplete without Jihad and that we have been blessed with the opportunity to fight in the Path of Allah.
Associated Links :
Alliance withdraws from Kandahar airport
India, US share common goals on Afghanistan: US official
Al Qaida has 20 Russian missiles
ENJOY!
www.azzam.co.uk
06 December 2001 : Taliban Kill 93 US Commandos and Capture Six
``Severe damage has been done to the Americans but the media keeps it in the dark,`` says Taliban Interior Minister
QUETTA (Islam News): The Interior Minister of Afghanistan says that it is absolutely ridiculous and baseless that the Americans, resting in a desert, 220 miles away from Kandahar claim to have captured the city of Kandahar. Similarly, the Pashtun claim to have captured Kadahar is based on false reports. He further said that the local and the international media reveal only one side of the picture, but the truth is that heavy damage has been done to the Americans in Afghanistan. In recent operations, Taliban troops killed 93 Americans and captured six. Dozens of soldiers were killed in and around Takhta Pul. Furthermore, an Amercian helicopter was also destroyed in this battle, but the media continues to keep such news in the dark. The Minister informed about World about the wellbeing of the Kandahar Taliban Corps Commander, Mulla Akhtar Uthmani and Taliban Air Force Commander, Akhtar Mansoor. According to him, the Taliban have total control over Spin Boldak and the news about the retreat of the (local) Taliban commander in Spin Boldak is incorrect.
Dalbandin and Jacobabad Stink Due to the Smell of Rotting American and British Troops
JACOBABAD (KPI): There has been a marked shortage of chemicals in Jacobabad and Dalbandin, which serve to preserve the dead bodies of the American and British soldiers reaching these two cities. As a result of this, the atmosphere around the airbases in these towns is giving off a foul stench due to the rotting of these corpses. According to the latest news from the information office at Swat, the British and Americans are very much disturbed because they do not want to send these bodies to their countries, thus creating panic and uncertainty in their people. Therefore they are trying all possible means to preserve these bodies, but obviously all these means will prove to be shortlived. It has also been reported that numerous coffins have been sent to these areas. On the one hand, the Americans are making every possible effort not to disclose the deaths of their soldiers in Afghanistan, while on the other hand their families are busy preparing for the celebrations of Christmas back home.
``Jihad Will Continue Even if Usama is Martyred`` Al-Qaeda
KUWAIT (Al-Watan): Al-Qaeda has once again expressed its firm determination that the Jihad will not come to a stop, not even if Usama Bin Laden is martyred. Another Usama will appear to impart the teachings of Jihad and the rebirth of Usama will continue each time the former Usama is martyred. Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Al-Qaeda spokesman, said in an interview to Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Watan, that he condemned the Government of Kuwait for the cancellation of his citizenship. He further expressed his firm determination for striving for the noble cause of Jihad in future, for the sake of Allah and Islam. Earlier, Al-Qabaas News (Kuwait) issued a news report about Sulaiman Abu Ghaith being injured or martyred by the American attacks, but Al-Watan News (Kuwait) confirmed his wellbeing from the Taliban.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW OF `DAILY ISLAM` WITH TALIBAN COMMANDER IN KUNDUZ, MULLAH DADULLAH
KANDAHAR: Mullah Dadullah, the senior guerrilla commander of the Taliban arrived in Kandahar from Kunduz last week. He is a warrior of great courage, firm determination and par excellence. He is believed to be the biggest threat and enemy to the Northern Alliance who declared him as one of their most wanted men. His narrow escape from the clutches of the Northern Alliance in Kunduz is an amazing miracle in itself and indeed a blessing of Allah.
DAILY ISLAM: Don`t you think the retreat of the Taliban has increased the morale of the Americans?
MULLAH DADULLAH: No, this is not the case. The Americans are very well aware of the courage and determination of the Taliban fighters, and with the strength with which they all withstood the American attacks over Mazar-i- Sharif for a whole month. We heard a Northern Alliance commander say to another on the wireless radio that an American said to him that ever since they have started their war against the Taliban, they have realised how courageous and brave these people (Taliban) are, and if they continue to fight with the same valour, we will never be able to win the war against them.
DAILY ISLAM: Weren`t you a part of the treaty between the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Fazal and the Northern Alliance (to vacate Kunduz)?
MULLAH DADULLAH: To tell you the truth, I do not trust the Northern Alliance at all. To avoid any disputes, I told Mullah Fazal that may Allah reward you for your pure intentions, grant me the permission to fight the enemies of Allah. In case of survival, I`ll be a warrior (Mujahid), otherwise a martyr, and indeed martyrdom is my intense desire. The aim of Mullah Fazal was to defend and safeguard the fellow troops because he has great fondness and love for the Mujahideen. I pray to Allah to spare him and his colleagues from the seizure by the enemy so that he rises once again against the enemies of Islam.
DAILY ISLAM: What do you say about the battles in and around Mazar-i- Sharif?
MULLAH DADULLAH: We have fought many fierce battles at Mazar-i-Sharif and most of these battles were historical. In the recent days I had only 500 guerrillas (Mujahideen) and 400 amongst them got martyred. In addition to this, 300 of the Mujahideen who were with Mullah Naafiz`s platoon got Shaheed. Inspite all of this, we continued to fight with the same spirit and valour, and the fact is that the tree of Islam cannot be nourished and flourished EXCEPT with the blood of the martyrs.
DAILY ISLAM: Why did the Taliban retreat from Mazar-i-Sharif? Was it due to heavy bombardment and fierce attacks?
MULLAH DADULLAH: No, this wasn`t the reason. The reason was that some of the local commanders came under pressure of US threats and they sold themselves in exchange of few dollars. Therefore in these circumstances we didn`t have any option other than leaving Mazar-i-Sharif. Ameer-ul-Mumineen ordered us to leave the North, but we made some decisions ourselves due to which our brothers were made captives. Had we acted on the orders of Mullah Umar, this wouldn`t have been the case.
DAILY ISLAM: How is Mullah Umar and the rest of the leaders?
MULLAH DADULLAH:I met Mulla Umar and the others upon my arrival in Kandahar and it gave me a lot of pleasure and contentment of heart. I gave a detailed account of the conditions in Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif to Ameer-ul- Mumineen. We have had some important discussions with some senior ministers about the guerrilla war against the Americans.
The great Taliban commander concluded the meeting by saying that a Muslim`s life is incomplete without Jihad and that we have been blessed with the opportunity to fight in the Path of Allah.
Associated Links :
Alliance withdraws from Kandahar airport
India, US share common goals on Afghanistan: US official
Al Qaida has 20 Russian missiles
#15 Posted by harimau on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
It took you what -- misadventures in 1947, 65, 71 and 99 with India, a failed Afghan policy, running like a slut after the US and China in alternating sequence -- to come to the conclusion your country is an international failure? I could have told you that. No need to write page after page of stuff.
What you need is to make your Islamic population into a minority. I am sorry to be this blunt but something is there in The Book that makes you value civil intercourse with people of different persuasions less than the literal interpretation of the occasional ``satanic`` verses.
The only way you can make your majority population into a minority population is to merge with a country where your population will be a drop in the bucket. We already know that you can`t abide India. So let me suggest that you guys approach your ``permanent`` friend China for a merger. You kill several birds with one stone: your Muslim population becomes only 1o% of China`s total population; you guys would LOVE the idea of being under the progressive Chinese government; there will be no erections in all of Pakistan (that is Chinese for elections, go wash your mouth out with soap already!); they will shut down your madrassahs for you; as for strikes and wheel-jams, the Chinese will take care of that too; in fact, if you complain about the loudspeakers in the mosques, they will not only confiscate them but arrest the maulana on charges of treason and spreading false propaganda; your nukes will be safe from the prying hands of Uncle Sam; you would have completely encircled the hated heeng-loving Hindoos; and the kicker is that China would be forced to support your demand for a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir!
Go for it!
What you need is to make your Islamic population into a minority. I am sorry to be this blunt but something is there in The Book that makes you value civil intercourse with people of different persuasions less than the literal interpretation of the occasional ``satanic`` verses.
The only way you can make your majority population into a minority population is to merge with a country where your population will be a drop in the bucket. We already know that you can`t abide India. So let me suggest that you guys approach your ``permanent`` friend China for a merger. You kill several birds with one stone: your Muslim population becomes only 1o% of China`s total population; you guys would LOVE the idea of being under the progressive Chinese government; there will be no erections in all of Pakistan (that is Chinese for elections, go wash your mouth out with soap already!); they will shut down your madrassahs for you; as for strikes and wheel-jams, the Chinese will take care of that too; in fact, if you complain about the loudspeakers in the mosques, they will not only confiscate them but arrest the maulana on charges of treason and spreading false propaganda; your nukes will be safe from the prying hands of Uncle Sam; you would have completely encircled the hated heeng-loving Hindoos; and the kicker is that China would be forced to support your demand for a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir!
Go for it!
#16 Posted by mohajir on December 6, 2001 1:28:19 am
A Neighborhood Challenged
http://www.msnbc.com/news/667486.asp
After dozens of detainments, residents of New York’s immigrant-rich ‘Little Pakistan’ are feeling insecure
By Gretel C. Kovach
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Dec. 4 — On a recent Friday evening in New York City’s “Little Pakistan,” the mutton kebab and spicy curries are sitting largely untouched in the restaurant display cases. But that’s nothing new these days.
THE USUALLY-BUSTLING MIDWOOD area of Brooklyn is home to 125,000 or so of the 200,000 Pakistanis living in America, but now it has an empty feel. The community is painfully aware that of the 548 people being held nationwide on immigration charges as part of the investigation into the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, 208 of them are from Pakistan. The spillover effect is clear here, where some residents are in jail, others have fled back to Pakistan, and still more are holed up in their apartments, afraid of being arrested. Along Coney Island Avenue, men dressed in billowing shalwar kameez robes and white kufi caps and turbans talk about the disappeared. Some say the Immigration and Naturalization Service hauled away hundreds, others say less than 50, but whatever the real figure, everyone without proper immigration documentation is nervous.
“They took my chef,” says Zafar Iqbal, 32, who, together with his brother and uncle, owns the Lazzat side of Gina’s Pizza-Lazzat restaurant. The spot serves up rich Pakistani desserts such as gulab jamun, cottage cheese balls cooked in cardamom syrup. “A lot of people are scared. A lot of people go back to their country. Business is really down,” says Iqbal, looking glumly around at the vacant rows of tables covered in formica, the paper napkins unfurled like dove’s wings in the water glasses, untouched. “Everyone stays in their house. They say to the person with the green card, you go and buy the food.”
Exactly four weeks earlier (“28 days,” says Iqbal, who’s counting) on Nov. 2, the Lazzat cook, Maqsood Ali, 43, was getting out of bed and ready for work when he got a knock on his door. It was agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They weren’t even looking for Ali, but when he couldn’t show proper documentation, he was detained and incarcerated in Paterson, New Jersey, along with 57 other Pakistani and Arab immigration violators. In a call to NEWSWEEK from prison, Ali said he was confident his application for political asylum will be successfully reopened. But it is his wife and six children back in Pakistan that he is worried about. “I feed my family before, so now they are waiting for me,” he says.
Ali moved to the United States 10 years ago because of his involvement with the Pakistan People’s Party, the party of deposed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Ali wanted to secure residency papers before his family could follow, but the family is still separated: nearly a decade later, he has still to meet his youngest son. After working five years at his first cooking job, Ali’s boss agreed to sponsor a green card application that would give him permanent residence in the U.S. But then an argument soured the deal, and Ali found another job at Lazzat. Now that Ali is locked up, his boss Iqbal sends money here and there to keep the household going. But it’s not clear how much longer the Alis can survive like this.
Iqbal is one of the lucky ones: he has a green card and his brother is an American citizen. Iqbal’s three children were born in this country, and he has clearly thrived here—nattily dressed in slacks, western shirt and a gold earring, and answering frequent calls on his cordless phone. He isn’t afraid of being arrested, but his business is suffering. “At this time [3 p.m.], I used to be so busy I couldn’t speak to you,” he says.
Liberty vs. Security: The War at Home
The immigration crackdown has also intensified the post Sept.-11 economic downturn in the Pakistani-American community. That icon of New York City—the Pakistani cabby—is suffering from the scarcity of tourists. And even as Pakistani-Americans mourned their own dead—like Salman Hamdani, a part-time emergency medical technician buried in the World Trade Center—they kept off the streets to avoid harassment. In the weeks after September 11, Pakistanis received death threats and were kicked off airplanes. Freelance journalist Haider Rizvi, 38, stepped out of a Fifth Avenue Pakistani grocery when a man said, “You look like Osama bin Laden.” The man attacked Rizvi, who later regained consciousness in a hospital bruised and missing a front tooth. In Brooklyn, motorists pelted eggs at the Makki Masjid and Muslim Community Center, the main mosque in New York for Pakistanis, and spat on a cabby parked out front. Police were posted outside the mosque after school children were harassed. Just when the worshippers were starting to feel safe again, the immigration arrests began. The unofficial mayor of Little Pakistan, an accountant named Asghar Choudhri, says he has been besieged by pleas for help, and by his count more than 40 people have been detained from Midwood recently. Only three or four have been released. During the evening hours of the month of Ramadan, after the fast is broken, the sidewalks used to be crowded with people, cars were double-parked, and police directed traffic. “Now our women are afraid to come out,” Choudhri says, and the streets are noticeably empty of their brightly colored dubattas(scarves).
The Cover: Secret Trials, How Far Should We Go?
At Makki, estimates of the number of detainees are higher. “Hundreds, I think,” says Farooq Hussain, 30, who was standing outside after afternoon prayers and smelling perfume oil one of the mosque elders had purchased. “One guy, they didn’t even let him withdraw the money from his account before they deported him.”
Despite their fears, it is unlikely that the Pakistani immigrants will give up on New York. They began moving into Brooklyn in bulk in the early 1980s, some fleeing the martial law in Pakistan; others seeking political asylum. Most, however, came for economic reasons. They settled in Midwood, where they could satisfy strict Islamic dietary requirements by shopping at Orthodox Jewish kosher butchers. Today, most of the businesses on Coney Island Avenue between Glenwood and Avenue H are owned by Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or other Muslims.
“Mayor” Choudhri, who also is president of the Pakistani-American Federation, organized a community meeting in mid-November to allay fears and get answers to the question, “Why us?” About 150 invitees packed into the richly decorated banquet hall at Bukhara restaurant with its patterned carpet wall coverings, including U.S. Congressmen Anthony Weiner and Major Owens, as well as representatives from the FBI, INS, U.S. Justice Department and the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Our government, the U.S. government, is against terrorism, and so is the Pakistani community,” says Malik Saleem Akbar, owner of Pak U.S. Travel. “But our people should not be discriminated against. The government has a right to question. They have to seek the security of the citizens. But questioning should be done for everyone, regardless of sect or ethnicity.” Maqsood Ali’s lawyer, Craig Goldsmith, agrees. “It seems outrageous, a clear violation of 14th amendment equal protection law. And to hold people indefinitely is fundamentally wrong. The INS says these people have violated immigration law. But these are general humanitarian rights.”
There were no easy answers, but Midwood residents still felt the meeting was a success, especially since the arrests have slowed. But the experience has left a lasting mark on their love for America. “This thing has divided us [as Americans]. I am really disappointed,” Choudhri says. “I came to this country as a student 35 years ago. I stayed because here there are lots of chances, everyone is somebody. There is equal education, and freedom....Now that dream is shattered,” he says.
Maqsood Ali, incarcerated in America while his family in Pakistan struggles to feed itself, still says he loves this country. “I cried that day [Sept. 11],” says Ali, who marched in the Union Square candlelight vigil alongside Bhutto. “I feel very bad to be in jail, but I have inside satisfaction because I love America. I want my family here. I don’t want my kids to go the wrong way. They are growing up, and I don’t want them to be brainwashed. The religious people have this [brainwashing] happen for everyone over there in Pakistan.”
Choudhri knows of at least one man who left the U.S. after an FBI agent came knocking. But Akbar, the travel agent, says he hasn’t seen a spike in one-way tickets to Pakistan. That’s a good sign, he feels, because immigrants are integral to the country. “Even the illegals are a strong part of the U.S. economy. They were giving back their fair share.” Akbar immigrated to the United States in the 1970s, and he, too, has been successful here. He pauses while counting a stack of cash meant for a plane ticket and says, “The beauty of New York City is that it is a city of immigrants. If you take away the immigrants, the city will not be the same.”
http://www.msnbc.com/news/667486.asp
After dozens of detainments, residents of New York’s immigrant-rich ‘Little Pakistan’ are feeling insecure
By Gretel C. Kovach
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Dec. 4 — On a recent Friday evening in New York City’s “Little Pakistan,” the mutton kebab and spicy curries are sitting largely untouched in the restaurant display cases. But that’s nothing new these days.
THE USUALLY-BUSTLING MIDWOOD area of Brooklyn is home to 125,000 or so of the 200,000 Pakistanis living in America, but now it has an empty feel. The community is painfully aware that of the 548 people being held nationwide on immigration charges as part of the investigation into the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, 208 of them are from Pakistan. The spillover effect is clear here, where some residents are in jail, others have fled back to Pakistan, and still more are holed up in their apartments, afraid of being arrested. Along Coney Island Avenue, men dressed in billowing shalwar kameez robes and white kufi caps and turbans talk about the disappeared. Some say the Immigration and Naturalization Service hauled away hundreds, others say less than 50, but whatever the real figure, everyone without proper immigration documentation is nervous.
“They took my chef,” says Zafar Iqbal, 32, who, together with his brother and uncle, owns the Lazzat side of Gina’s Pizza-Lazzat restaurant. The spot serves up rich Pakistani desserts such as gulab jamun, cottage cheese balls cooked in cardamom syrup. “A lot of people are scared. A lot of people go back to their country. Business is really down,” says Iqbal, looking glumly around at the vacant rows of tables covered in formica, the paper napkins unfurled like dove’s wings in the water glasses, untouched. “Everyone stays in their house. They say to the person with the green card, you go and buy the food.”
Exactly four weeks earlier (“28 days,” says Iqbal, who’s counting) on Nov. 2, the Lazzat cook, Maqsood Ali, 43, was getting out of bed and ready for work when he got a knock on his door. It was agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They weren’t even looking for Ali, but when he couldn’t show proper documentation, he was detained and incarcerated in Paterson, New Jersey, along with 57 other Pakistani and Arab immigration violators. In a call to NEWSWEEK from prison, Ali said he was confident his application for political asylum will be successfully reopened. But it is his wife and six children back in Pakistan that he is worried about. “I feed my family before, so now they are waiting for me,” he says.
Ali moved to the United States 10 years ago because of his involvement with the Pakistan People’s Party, the party of deposed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Ali wanted to secure residency papers before his family could follow, but the family is still separated: nearly a decade later, he has still to meet his youngest son. After working five years at his first cooking job, Ali’s boss agreed to sponsor a green card application that would give him permanent residence in the U.S. But then an argument soured the deal, and Ali found another job at Lazzat. Now that Ali is locked up, his boss Iqbal sends money here and there to keep the household going. But it’s not clear how much longer the Alis can survive like this.
Iqbal is one of the lucky ones: he has a green card and his brother is an American citizen. Iqbal’s three children were born in this country, and he has clearly thrived here—nattily dressed in slacks, western shirt and a gold earring, and answering frequent calls on his cordless phone. He isn’t afraid of being arrested, but his business is suffering. “At this time [3 p.m.], I used to be so busy I couldn’t speak to you,” he says.
Liberty vs. Security: The War at Home
The immigration crackdown has also intensified the post Sept.-11 economic downturn in the Pakistani-American community. That icon of New York City—the Pakistani cabby—is suffering from the scarcity of tourists. And even as Pakistani-Americans mourned their own dead—like Salman Hamdani, a part-time emergency medical technician buried in the World Trade Center—they kept off the streets to avoid harassment. In the weeks after September 11, Pakistanis received death threats and were kicked off airplanes. Freelance journalist Haider Rizvi, 38, stepped out of a Fifth Avenue Pakistani grocery when a man said, “You look like Osama bin Laden.” The man attacked Rizvi, who later regained consciousness in a hospital bruised and missing a front tooth. In Brooklyn, motorists pelted eggs at the Makki Masjid and Muslim Community Center, the main mosque in New York for Pakistanis, and spat on a cabby parked out front. Police were posted outside the mosque after school children were harassed. Just when the worshippers were starting to feel safe again, the immigration arrests began. The unofficial mayor of Little Pakistan, an accountant named Asghar Choudhri, says he has been besieged by pleas for help, and by his count more than 40 people have been detained from Midwood recently. Only three or four have been released. During the evening hours of the month of Ramadan, after the fast is broken, the sidewalks used to be crowded with people, cars were double-parked, and police directed traffic. “Now our women are afraid to come out,” Choudhri says, and the streets are noticeably empty of their brightly colored dubattas(scarves).
The Cover: Secret Trials, How Far Should We Go?
At Makki, estimates of the number of detainees are higher. “Hundreds, I think,” says Farooq Hussain, 30, who was standing outside after afternoon prayers and smelling perfume oil one of the mosque elders had purchased. “One guy, they didn’t even let him withdraw the money from his account before they deported him.”
Despite their fears, it is unlikely that the Pakistani immigrants will give up on New York. They began moving into Brooklyn in bulk in the early 1980s, some fleeing the martial law in Pakistan; others seeking political asylum. Most, however, came for economic reasons. They settled in Midwood, where they could satisfy strict Islamic dietary requirements by shopping at Orthodox Jewish kosher butchers. Today, most of the businesses on Coney Island Avenue between Glenwood and Avenue H are owned by Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or other Muslims.
“Mayor” Choudhri, who also is president of the Pakistani-American Federation, organized a community meeting in mid-November to allay fears and get answers to the question, “Why us?” About 150 invitees packed into the richly decorated banquet hall at Bukhara restaurant with its patterned carpet wall coverings, including U.S. Congressmen Anthony Weiner and Major Owens, as well as representatives from the FBI, INS, U.S. Justice Department and the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Our government, the U.S. government, is against terrorism, and so is the Pakistani community,” says Malik Saleem Akbar, owner of Pak U.S. Travel. “But our people should not be discriminated against. The government has a right to question. They have to seek the security of the citizens. But questioning should be done for everyone, regardless of sect or ethnicity.” Maqsood Ali’s lawyer, Craig Goldsmith, agrees. “It seems outrageous, a clear violation of 14th amendment equal protection law. And to hold people indefinitely is fundamentally wrong. The INS says these people have violated immigration law. But these are general humanitarian rights.”
There were no easy answers, but Midwood residents still felt the meeting was a success, especially since the arrests have slowed. But the experience has left a lasting mark on their love for America. “This thing has divided us [as Americans]. I am really disappointed,” Choudhri says. “I came to this country as a student 35 years ago. I stayed because here there are lots of chances, everyone is somebody. There is equal education, and freedom....Now that dream is shattered,” he says.
Maqsood Ali, incarcerated in America while his family in Pakistan struggles to feed itself, still says he loves this country. “I cried that day [Sept. 11],” says Ali, who marched in the Union Square candlelight vigil alongside Bhutto. “I feel very bad to be in jail, but I have inside satisfaction because I love America. I want my family here. I don’t want my kids to go the wrong way. They are growing up, and I don’t want them to be brainwashed. The religious people have this [brainwashing] happen for everyone over there in Pakistan.”
Choudhri knows of at least one man who left the U.S. after an FBI agent came knocking. But Akbar, the travel agent, says he hasn’t seen a spike in one-way tickets to Pakistan. That’s a good sign, he feels, because immigrants are integral to the country. “Even the illegals are a strong part of the U.S. economy. They were giving back their fair share.” Akbar immigrated to the United States in the 1970s, and he, too, has been successful here. He pauses while counting a stack of cash meant for a plane ticket and says, “The beauty of New York City is that it is a city of immigrants. If you take away the immigrants, the city will not be the same.”
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- CheGuevara: Meira sweetheart you are... Fathers and Daughters
- MeiraJ08: Cheguevara, I didn't get... Fathers and Daughters
- anil: Masadi sahib: If you want... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- ajeya: #24 Posted by dost_mittar [But... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- 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
