Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death
Ali Hasan Cemendtaur May 19, 2002
#206 Posted by cutandpaste on May 29, 2002 12:49:14 am
Triangle of Tension: India, Pakistan and the United States
28 May 2002
Summary
Historical distrust and tensions between India and Pakistan have reached practically unsustainable levels. New Delhi cannot tolerate paramilitary attacks such as the one against its parliament in December, but the regime of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf simply may not be able to rein in the militants. Any concession on Islamabad`s part could set off a destabilizing political backlash, but this reality also moves the countries closer to a war footing. The United States, meanwhile, has willingly used the threat of war to pressure Islamabad for cooperation in its battle against al Qaeda. Washington realizes that actual war between India and Pakistan would harm its own interests, but for New Delhi there has never been a better time to act.
Analysis
Tension between India and Pakistan has been a feature of the international system since Britain withdrew from the subcontinent and its imperium was partitioned between predominantly Muslim Pakistan and predominantly Hindu India. The rhetoric has concerned Kashmir, but the reality is that each nation deeply distrusts the intentions of the other. As with other conflicts, the litanies of injustice on both sides are real but ultimately irrelevant. India and Pakistan are two nations that regard the very existence of the other as a threat to their fundamental interests.
From India`s viewpoint, Pakistan represents the only serious national security challenge. However bad Sino-Indian relations might become, China`s ability to sustain an invasion deep into India, with a supply line running over the Himalayas, is negligible. To the east, India is buffered by deep jungles and weak nations. To the south lies the Indian Ocean, which is militarily dominated by the United States, a country whose interests frequently have diverged from India`s but which never has threatened India`s existence. In other words, India is effectively an island except on its western frontier. There lies Pakistan: insecure, fragmented and therefore unpredictable.
If Pakistan were to cease to exist, India`s strategic situation would shift to invulnerability on land, thus opening up strategic opportunities at sea.
On a deeper level, the Pakistani-Indian frontier represents the borderland between the Islamic and Hindu worlds. Whatever the current condition of India, the broad historical threat is that the Islamic world one day might unite. In that case, the manageable threat posed by Pakistan would become a potentially unmanageable situation, in which the weight of re-emergent Islamic power would thrust up against an India that might not be able to resist. These are hypothetical fears, far in the future, but they are not trivial.
Islamabad is acutely aware of India`s hopes and fears. Given India`s enormously greater size and military potential, logic would dictate that it would be in Pakistan`s strategic interest to reach a stable accommodation with its neighbor, but two problems prevent this.
First, Islamabad perceives -- not irrationally -- that India`s ultimate goal is the dismemberment of Pakistan. Rather than stabilizing the situation, any concession to India would simply increase the disadvantage at which Pakistan is already operating.
Second, Pakistan as a nation is fragile. It is divided by ethnic group as well as by worldviews. The essentially secular Pakistan of the founders and their heirs collides with the profoundly religious Pakistan that has re-emerged. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a Pakistani government to make substantial concessions to India. Any concession -- in Kashmir, for example -- would come at the expense of an ethnic group and a religious perspective that has the potential to destabilize the entire regime if displeased, thereby increasing the danger to national survival.
Under these conditions, it has been Pakistan`s historical imperative to avoid engaging India in any negotiations that might lead to a comprehensive settlement. This is because of both reasonable fears of India`s long-term intentions and even more reasonable fears of the domestic response to any concession. For instance, if Pakistan were to accept the current Line of Control in Kashmir, the consequences would be destabilizing.
Pakistan has therefore adopted a three-part strategy that is essentially military in nature.
First, it has created a military force designed to impose heavy costs on any Indian offensive. While this has strained Pakistan`s economy in comparison with India`s, the country has had, as force multipliers, the advantages both of terrain and of being on the defensive.
Second, it has developed nuclear weapons -- not only to counter India`s nuclear force but also to deter India from threatening its existence. In the central region of the front, where terrain is less defensible, Islamabad is aware that India potentially could launch an attack that would split the country in half. Pakistan`s nuclear force, like that of Israel, is designed to prevent conventional defeat by making the risk of success too high for its foe.
Third and most risky, Islamabad has adopted a strategy of permitting paramilitary operations by various groups against Indian installations, such as that against its parliament in December. It might be overstating it to say this is part of a strategy. Rather, these well may be groups whose operations the government can`t control or, alternatively, whose operations it chooses not to control for domestic reasons. Clamping down on these groups might pose political challenges at home.
The paradox is that the domestic benefits of permitting these operations inevitably increase the risk of Indian military action. It has been Pakistan`s strategy to present a substantial defense along the frontier while using the nuclear threat as the final deterrent. If India were to penetrate the frontier to any depth, it is not clear whether Pakistani forces would fall back, regroup and allow guerrillas to operate to the rear of the Indian forces or whether they would rapidly grow nuclear. This is precisely the indeterminacy Islamabad wants to create.
The situation was fairly stable, if noisy, until the United States entered the picture after Sept. 11. For Washington, the essential strategic problem in the region has been Pakistan, not Afghanistan. After the defeat of the Taliban regime, al Qaeda redeployed into Pakistan, joining forces that were already there. In the same way that Islamabad found it less risky to permit paramilitary operations against India than to prevent them, it found it less risky to permit al Qaeda forces sanctuary than to close them down -- not to mention permitting U.S. forces to take on al Qaeda in Pakistani territory.
Following the attack on India`s Parliament, New Delhi created the first post-Sept. 11 crisis. The United States used that crisis to back the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf into a corner: While publicly seeking to defuse the crisis, Washington used the Indian threat to change the equation for Pakistan. Officials made it clear that, in fact, permitting al Qaeda to operate in Pakistan is a greater threat to regime survival than permitting U.S. forces to operate against al Qaeda. If India attacked Pakistan and the United States remained neutral or actively participated, the consequences for Pakistan would be catastrophic.
Musharraf publicly conceded, and U.S. forces entered Pakistan. Obviously, with India and the United States involved, Musharraf had to re-evaluate the value of his nuclear capability. The United States clearly had the ability to destroy Pakistan`s nuclear facilities more effectively than India might. When Washington announced a shift in its nuclear policy to permit first strikes, Pakistan was the unmentioned audience. Musharraf clearly heard and understood. Unconfirmed rumors have persisted in the region for several months that Pakistan`s nuclear arsenals already are in U.S. hands or that U.S. observers are at least positioned at various facilities. The Times of India recently published an article to this effect, without providing evidence.
Musharraf, however, has limited control, whatever his desires might be. Operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan clearly have been less than successful because of limits on Pakistani cooperation. Musharraf`s ability to control anti-Indian groups is similarly limited. Thus, the recent attack on an Indian facility by Pakistan-based paramilitaries has reignited the crisis with India -- at the same time that the United States is revisiting the issue of Pakistan`s support for U.S. operations against al Qaeda.
Washington has been moving steadily closer to India, particularly in the area of military cooperation. This is partly out of recognition that the two countries have similar interests in combating Islamic groups in Pakistan. It also is because the United States wants to replicate its maneuvers of earlier this year, using India as the lever to compel cooperation from Pakistan.
Washington expects it can manage the India-Pakistan confrontation effectively, but there are two reasons this might not be the case this time. First, Musharraf simply may have reached the limits of his power. He just may not be able to provide the United States and India with the degree of control over Islamic factions that they seek.
Indeed, Musharraf has known his limits all along and has been playing for time, hoping the crisis can be defused. The Islamic groups do not want to see the crisis defused, since their goal is to create a cauldron that draws in U.S. forces on the ground, sucking them into a war of attrition that will, in the long run, enhance their own position. Since Musharraf cannot deliver what is demanded, he is being forced to consider alternative solutions to the crisis. The solution is to increase the fearsomeness of his military -- in short, brush aside U.S. threats and brandish Pakistan`s nuclear capability.
The second problem is India. New Delhi understands that there will never be a better time to deal with Pakistan. Paramilitary attacks are genuinely intolerable to India. They also provide an excuse for war to which the United States cannot ultimately object, given its views on al Qaeda and its support for Israel. Washington is neither politically nor militarily in a position to block New Delhi. Therefore, if India ever intends to deal with Pakistan, now is the time to act.
There are two problems with action. First, from the Indian standpoint, the Pakistani nuclear threat must be treated as real and likely to be used in the event of war. This leaves New Delhi with two options. One is a non-regime threatening strategy of special operations against Islamic groups in Pakistan, but this would not solve the core problem. The second option is a broader attack into Pakistan, designed to shatter the country. That attack could be carried out only with a pre-emptive strike against Pakistani nuclear facilities. The issue is the degree of confidence India has in its own surgical nuclear capabilities -- or the United States` willingness to take out Pakistani weapons in order to prevent nuclear escalation.
This brings us to the second problem. The dismemberment of Pakistan would compound rather than solve the United States` problem. The chaos that would follow would create precisely the conditions al Qaeda needs for its own security. Entire areas of the country, in the least hospitable terrain, would become more secure for al Qaeda than before. Therefore, from the U.S. standpoint, using the threat of an Indian attack is ideal; a successful Indian attack would be harmful.
India`s calculus is not the same, however. If it is accepted that Pakistan represents a permanent strategic threat to India, the question of war is not whether but when. Given the current political situation and correlation of forces, if this isn`t the perfect time, what is?
If war is inevitable, it is difficult to see how India can act without taking out Pakistan`s nuclear capability. It is unclear how India could take those out without nuclear weapons, or without U.S. precision-guided munitions, Special Operations and other covert forces. But at the end of the day, the United States does not want Pakistan in chaos, it does not want an Indian nuclear strike and it certainly doesn`t want Pakistan -- facing a use-it-or-lose-it scenario -- to launch its own nuclear strike.
The United States probably could paralyze Pakistan`s nuclear force. That, however, would open the door to Indian attack, since the United States could not prevent paramilitary operations and cannot permit India to achieve its historical goal -- at least not until al Qaeda has been dealt with. On the other hand, India cannot afford to miss this historic opportunity.
We are therefore in an extraordinarily difficult crisis. The three players each have strategic interests that simply don`t mesh. If Washington convinces New Delhi to wait, it will have to convince Islamabad to stay in India`s crosshairs and India to put up with intolerable attacks. If India proceeds, it essentially would save al Qaeda by shattering Pakistan. In the event of complete mismanagement, a nuclear exchange costing millions of lives is a genuine possibility.
India has given Pakistan a small window of opportunity to solve the problem it cannot solve. It gives the United States a period of time to defuse a situation that, in STRATFOR`s view, could suddenly and catastrophically get out of hand.
STRATFOR.com
http://www.stratfor.com
28 May 2002
Summary
Historical distrust and tensions between India and Pakistan have reached practically unsustainable levels. New Delhi cannot tolerate paramilitary attacks such as the one against its parliament in December, but the regime of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf simply may not be able to rein in the militants. Any concession on Islamabad`s part could set off a destabilizing political backlash, but this reality also moves the countries closer to a war footing. The United States, meanwhile, has willingly used the threat of war to pressure Islamabad for cooperation in its battle against al Qaeda. Washington realizes that actual war between India and Pakistan would harm its own interests, but for New Delhi there has never been a better time to act.
Analysis
Tension between India and Pakistan has been a feature of the international system since Britain withdrew from the subcontinent and its imperium was partitioned between predominantly Muslim Pakistan and predominantly Hindu India. The rhetoric has concerned Kashmir, but the reality is that each nation deeply distrusts the intentions of the other. As with other conflicts, the litanies of injustice on both sides are real but ultimately irrelevant. India and Pakistan are two nations that regard the very existence of the other as a threat to their fundamental interests.
From India`s viewpoint, Pakistan represents the only serious national security challenge. However bad Sino-Indian relations might become, China`s ability to sustain an invasion deep into India, with a supply line running over the Himalayas, is negligible. To the east, India is buffered by deep jungles and weak nations. To the south lies the Indian Ocean, which is militarily dominated by the United States, a country whose interests frequently have diverged from India`s but which never has threatened India`s existence. In other words, India is effectively an island except on its western frontier. There lies Pakistan: insecure, fragmented and therefore unpredictable.
If Pakistan were to cease to exist, India`s strategic situation would shift to invulnerability on land, thus opening up strategic opportunities at sea.
On a deeper level, the Pakistani-Indian frontier represents the borderland between the Islamic and Hindu worlds. Whatever the current condition of India, the broad historical threat is that the Islamic world one day might unite. In that case, the manageable threat posed by Pakistan would become a potentially unmanageable situation, in which the weight of re-emergent Islamic power would thrust up against an India that might not be able to resist. These are hypothetical fears, far in the future, but they are not trivial.
Islamabad is acutely aware of India`s hopes and fears. Given India`s enormously greater size and military potential, logic would dictate that it would be in Pakistan`s strategic interest to reach a stable accommodation with its neighbor, but two problems prevent this.
First, Islamabad perceives -- not irrationally -- that India`s ultimate goal is the dismemberment of Pakistan. Rather than stabilizing the situation, any concession to India would simply increase the disadvantage at which Pakistan is already operating.
Second, Pakistan as a nation is fragile. It is divided by ethnic group as well as by worldviews. The essentially secular Pakistan of the founders and their heirs collides with the profoundly religious Pakistan that has re-emerged. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a Pakistani government to make substantial concessions to India. Any concession -- in Kashmir, for example -- would come at the expense of an ethnic group and a religious perspective that has the potential to destabilize the entire regime if displeased, thereby increasing the danger to national survival.
Under these conditions, it has been Pakistan`s historical imperative to avoid engaging India in any negotiations that might lead to a comprehensive settlement. This is because of both reasonable fears of India`s long-term intentions and even more reasonable fears of the domestic response to any concession. For instance, if Pakistan were to accept the current Line of Control in Kashmir, the consequences would be destabilizing.
Pakistan has therefore adopted a three-part strategy that is essentially military in nature.
First, it has created a military force designed to impose heavy costs on any Indian offensive. While this has strained Pakistan`s economy in comparison with India`s, the country has had, as force multipliers, the advantages both of terrain and of being on the defensive.
Second, it has developed nuclear weapons -- not only to counter India`s nuclear force but also to deter India from threatening its existence. In the central region of the front, where terrain is less defensible, Islamabad is aware that India potentially could launch an attack that would split the country in half. Pakistan`s nuclear force, like that of Israel, is designed to prevent conventional defeat by making the risk of success too high for its foe.
Third and most risky, Islamabad has adopted a strategy of permitting paramilitary operations by various groups against Indian installations, such as that against its parliament in December. It might be overstating it to say this is part of a strategy. Rather, these well may be groups whose operations the government can`t control or, alternatively, whose operations it chooses not to control for domestic reasons. Clamping down on these groups might pose political challenges at home.
The paradox is that the domestic benefits of permitting these operations inevitably increase the risk of Indian military action. It has been Pakistan`s strategy to present a substantial defense along the frontier while using the nuclear threat as the final deterrent. If India were to penetrate the frontier to any depth, it is not clear whether Pakistani forces would fall back, regroup and allow guerrillas to operate to the rear of the Indian forces or whether they would rapidly grow nuclear. This is precisely the indeterminacy Islamabad wants to create.
The situation was fairly stable, if noisy, until the United States entered the picture after Sept. 11. For Washington, the essential strategic problem in the region has been Pakistan, not Afghanistan. After the defeat of the Taliban regime, al Qaeda redeployed into Pakistan, joining forces that were already there. In the same way that Islamabad found it less risky to permit paramilitary operations against India than to prevent them, it found it less risky to permit al Qaeda forces sanctuary than to close them down -- not to mention permitting U.S. forces to take on al Qaeda in Pakistani territory.
Following the attack on India`s Parliament, New Delhi created the first post-Sept. 11 crisis. The United States used that crisis to back the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf into a corner: While publicly seeking to defuse the crisis, Washington used the Indian threat to change the equation for Pakistan. Officials made it clear that, in fact, permitting al Qaeda to operate in Pakistan is a greater threat to regime survival than permitting U.S. forces to operate against al Qaeda. If India attacked Pakistan and the United States remained neutral or actively participated, the consequences for Pakistan would be catastrophic.
Musharraf publicly conceded, and U.S. forces entered Pakistan. Obviously, with India and the United States involved, Musharraf had to re-evaluate the value of his nuclear capability. The United States clearly had the ability to destroy Pakistan`s nuclear facilities more effectively than India might. When Washington announced a shift in its nuclear policy to permit first strikes, Pakistan was the unmentioned audience. Musharraf clearly heard and understood. Unconfirmed rumors have persisted in the region for several months that Pakistan`s nuclear arsenals already are in U.S. hands or that U.S. observers are at least positioned at various facilities. The Times of India recently published an article to this effect, without providing evidence.
Musharraf, however, has limited control, whatever his desires might be. Operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan clearly have been less than successful because of limits on Pakistani cooperation. Musharraf`s ability to control anti-Indian groups is similarly limited. Thus, the recent attack on an Indian facility by Pakistan-based paramilitaries has reignited the crisis with India -- at the same time that the United States is revisiting the issue of Pakistan`s support for U.S. operations against al Qaeda.
Washington has been moving steadily closer to India, particularly in the area of military cooperation. This is partly out of recognition that the two countries have similar interests in combating Islamic groups in Pakistan. It also is because the United States wants to replicate its maneuvers of earlier this year, using India as the lever to compel cooperation from Pakistan.
Washington expects it can manage the India-Pakistan confrontation effectively, but there are two reasons this might not be the case this time. First, Musharraf simply may have reached the limits of his power. He just may not be able to provide the United States and India with the degree of control over Islamic factions that they seek.
Indeed, Musharraf has known his limits all along and has been playing for time, hoping the crisis can be defused. The Islamic groups do not want to see the crisis defused, since their goal is to create a cauldron that draws in U.S. forces on the ground, sucking them into a war of attrition that will, in the long run, enhance their own position. Since Musharraf cannot deliver what is demanded, he is being forced to consider alternative solutions to the crisis. The solution is to increase the fearsomeness of his military -- in short, brush aside U.S. threats and brandish Pakistan`s nuclear capability.
The second problem is India. New Delhi understands that there will never be a better time to deal with Pakistan. Paramilitary attacks are genuinely intolerable to India. They also provide an excuse for war to which the United States cannot ultimately object, given its views on al Qaeda and its support for Israel. Washington is neither politically nor militarily in a position to block New Delhi. Therefore, if India ever intends to deal with Pakistan, now is the time to act.
There are two problems with action. First, from the Indian standpoint, the Pakistani nuclear threat must be treated as real and likely to be used in the event of war. This leaves New Delhi with two options. One is a non-regime threatening strategy of special operations against Islamic groups in Pakistan, but this would not solve the core problem. The second option is a broader attack into Pakistan, designed to shatter the country. That attack could be carried out only with a pre-emptive strike against Pakistani nuclear facilities. The issue is the degree of confidence India has in its own surgical nuclear capabilities -- or the United States` willingness to take out Pakistani weapons in order to prevent nuclear escalation.
This brings us to the second problem. The dismemberment of Pakistan would compound rather than solve the United States` problem. The chaos that would follow would create precisely the conditions al Qaeda needs for its own security. Entire areas of the country, in the least hospitable terrain, would become more secure for al Qaeda than before. Therefore, from the U.S. standpoint, using the threat of an Indian attack is ideal; a successful Indian attack would be harmful.
India`s calculus is not the same, however. If it is accepted that Pakistan represents a permanent strategic threat to India, the question of war is not whether but when. Given the current political situation and correlation of forces, if this isn`t the perfect time, what is?
If war is inevitable, it is difficult to see how India can act without taking out Pakistan`s nuclear capability. It is unclear how India could take those out without nuclear weapons, or without U.S. precision-guided munitions, Special Operations and other covert forces. But at the end of the day, the United States does not want Pakistan in chaos, it does not want an Indian nuclear strike and it certainly doesn`t want Pakistan -- facing a use-it-or-lose-it scenario -- to launch its own nuclear strike.
The United States probably could paralyze Pakistan`s nuclear force. That, however, would open the door to Indian attack, since the United States could not prevent paramilitary operations and cannot permit India to achieve its historical goal -- at least not until al Qaeda has been dealt with. On the other hand, India cannot afford to miss this historic opportunity.
We are therefore in an extraordinarily difficult crisis. The three players each have strategic interests that simply don`t mesh. If Washington convinces New Delhi to wait, it will have to convince Islamabad to stay in India`s crosshairs and India to put up with intolerable attacks. If India proceeds, it essentially would save al Qaeda by shattering Pakistan. In the event of complete mismanagement, a nuclear exchange costing millions of lives is a genuine possibility.
India has given Pakistan a small window of opportunity to solve the problem it cannot solve. It gives the United States a period of time to defuse a situation that, in STRATFOR`s view, could suddenly and catastrophically get out of hand.
STRATFOR.com
http://www.stratfor.com
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#205 Posted by Layman on May 28, 2002 1:48:22 pm
All said and done, I think India`s strategy of military diplomacy seems to be paying off. In January, Musharraf banned (however nominally) the Lashkar e Toyba and four other terrorist organisations.
Yesterday, he clearly said that cross-border infiltration of terrorists has stopped. Even if this is not true, Musharraf has conceded that cross-border terrorism was happening which is a major departure from his earlier stand. It also opens the door for the international community and India to hold him to his promise of stopping infiltration in the future.
The next logical step for Musharraf would be to say that terrorist camps no longer exist. Then the rest of the world can pressure him by pointing out terrorist camps whenever they come up in Pak or PoK.
Musharraf has clearly lost ground and can bow down to pressure. I wish the US had communication lines open with the other Generals in the Pak army and the ISI so that it can pressure them to obey Musharraf, when he asks them to stop supporting the jihadis.
Its a shame that the Pak army - the last working institution in Pakistan - is now no longer so. Musharraf has no control over jihadis, over ISI and now, over his own Generals. He should go.
Yesterday, he clearly said that cross-border infiltration of terrorists has stopped. Even if this is not true, Musharraf has conceded that cross-border terrorism was happening which is a major departure from his earlier stand. It also opens the door for the international community and India to hold him to his promise of stopping infiltration in the future.
The next logical step for Musharraf would be to say that terrorist camps no longer exist. Then the rest of the world can pressure him by pointing out terrorist camps whenever they come up in Pak or PoK.
Musharraf has clearly lost ground and can bow down to pressure. I wish the US had communication lines open with the other Generals in the Pak army and the ISI so that it can pressure them to obey Musharraf, when he asks them to stop supporting the jihadis.
Its a shame that the Pak army - the last working institution in Pakistan - is now no longer so. Musharraf has no control over jihadis, over ISI and now, over his own Generals. He should go.
#203 Posted by cutandpaste on May 28, 2002 1:48:22 pm
WHO IS GOING TO RECONCILE INDIA AND PAKISTAN?
The conflict between India and Pakistan is gathering pace. The officials statements that are released from Delhi and Islamabad are becoming more and more militant. However, both India and Pakistan continue to claim that neither one will start a war first and that military actions will be possible only in the case of aggression by the other side. There are not many people who believe these statements, taking into consideration the fact that both Pakistan and India are obviously getting ready for a war, concentrating their troops on the border and testing their missiles. Pakistan even withdrew its peacemaking contingent from Sierra-Leone, so it looks like this: ?if you want peace, get ready for war.?
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is expected to visit Delhi and Islamabad this week together with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It is not hard to guess the subject of the talks: the politicians will talk about the cessation of the conflict. Noone can guarantee that this mission will be successful. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee claimed that Delhi was not going to listen to the opinion of the international community and exercise restraint with Pakistan. This statement is like a cross on the visit of the British premier and UN Secretary-General.
Currently, India is taking rather a tough position as far as the conflict is concerned. Delhi believes that this is the only way to cause Pakistan to stop supporting Kashmir separatists. It is worth mentioning that India is in a better situation that Pakistan. The reputation of a country that supports terrorism is not good for Pakistan. Delhi realizes this advantage, and it is trying to use it as much as possible. This is where the harsh tone of Indian statements comes from.
For example, Indian Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani stated today that a war with Pakistan is already taking place. The minister believes that Pakistan and its terrorists have declared war on India several years ago. He estimated the current situation in the region as ?challenging? for India, which needs to find other ways to solve its conflict with Pakistan. He claimed that there has been a common war between the two countries during the last couple of weeks, but the phantom war (terrorism) has lasted for two decades. Advani added that India?s losses from the phantom war have been much greater than in the armed conflict.
The fact that the ruling party of India is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is not optimistic either. This party is well-known for its radicalism and irreconcilability. A lot of observers believe that the recent Indo-Muslim massacre in Gujarat was provoked by BJP?s policy. The Indian premier is considered to be a moderate politician, and Advani is conspicuous for his radicalism. It is hard to say whose influence is bigger in the government.
It seems that Delhi is more and more inclined to solve the issue of terrorism very quickly, as the Indian government is ready to start amilitary conflict with Pakistan if there is a necessity. The consequences of this would be very lamentable, since neither Delhi, nor Pakistan will stop when it comes to nuclear weapons. Negotiations may put an end to the conflict, but there is not much hope for this.
Oleg Artyukov
PRAVDA.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/05/27/29356.html
The conflict between India and Pakistan is gathering pace. The officials statements that are released from Delhi and Islamabad are becoming more and more militant. However, both India and Pakistan continue to claim that neither one will start a war first and that military actions will be possible only in the case of aggression by the other side. There are not many people who believe these statements, taking into consideration the fact that both Pakistan and India are obviously getting ready for a war, concentrating their troops on the border and testing their missiles. Pakistan even withdrew its peacemaking contingent from Sierra-Leone, so it looks like this: ?if you want peace, get ready for war.?
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is expected to visit Delhi and Islamabad this week together with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It is not hard to guess the subject of the talks: the politicians will talk about the cessation of the conflict. Noone can guarantee that this mission will be successful. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee claimed that Delhi was not going to listen to the opinion of the international community and exercise restraint with Pakistan. This statement is like a cross on the visit of the British premier and UN Secretary-General.
Currently, India is taking rather a tough position as far as the conflict is concerned. Delhi believes that this is the only way to cause Pakistan to stop supporting Kashmir separatists. It is worth mentioning that India is in a better situation that Pakistan. The reputation of a country that supports terrorism is not good for Pakistan. Delhi realizes this advantage, and it is trying to use it as much as possible. This is where the harsh tone of Indian statements comes from.
For example, Indian Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani stated today that a war with Pakistan is already taking place. The minister believes that Pakistan and its terrorists have declared war on India several years ago. He estimated the current situation in the region as ?challenging? for India, which needs to find other ways to solve its conflict with Pakistan. He claimed that there has been a common war between the two countries during the last couple of weeks, but the phantom war (terrorism) has lasted for two decades. Advani added that India?s losses from the phantom war have been much greater than in the armed conflict.
The fact that the ruling party of India is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is not optimistic either. This party is well-known for its radicalism and irreconcilability. A lot of observers believe that the recent Indo-Muslim massacre in Gujarat was provoked by BJP?s policy. The Indian premier is considered to be a moderate politician, and Advani is conspicuous for his radicalism. It is hard to say whose influence is bigger in the government.
It seems that Delhi is more and more inclined to solve the issue of terrorism very quickly, as the Indian government is ready to start amilitary conflict with Pakistan if there is a necessity. The consequences of this would be very lamentable, since neither Delhi, nor Pakistan will stop when it comes to nuclear weapons. Negotiations may put an end to the conflict, but there is not much hope for this.
Oleg Artyukov
PRAVDA.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/05/27/29356.html
#202 Posted by cutandpaste on May 28, 2002 1:48:22 pm
Resigned to war in the missiles` shadow
Luke Harding in Pakhlan, on the line of control, Kashmir
Monday May 27, 2002
The Guardian
The shell came clattering over the mountain just as Mohammed Arif Bhat ventured outside to rescue his sheep. It fell through the cool Himalayan air and crashed into a sloping forest of pine trees, horse chestnut and white blossom.
Mohammed`s three sisters heard the explosion - and then silence. When the bombardment ceased, they went to look for their brother.
The shell had landed 20 feet away from where Mohammed, an 18-year-old student, had been crouching on a stone wall. ``We tried to wake him up. But the shrapnel had hit him in the front and back of his head,`` his sister Shaheena, 22, said. ``We loved him very much. He was the only male in our family.``
``We have lost our hopes,`` she added.
Mohammed`s death six days ago was random, meaningless and cruel. His village, Pakhlan, is less than three miles from the ``line of control``, the frontline in Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani forces. The invisible Pakistani gunners on the other side of the densely forested mountain had been trying to hit the Indian army brigade headquarters lower down the valley. They killed Mohammed instead.
But India and Pakistan, now standing on the brink of an all-out war, have over time developed an insouciant attitude towards death. There are now daily artillery battles between Indian and Pakistani forces. Since January, after militants launched an audacious and symbolic attack on India`s parliament building, nearly a million men have been dug in on either side of the border.
When relations between India and Pakistan are good - which is not often - the shelling stops. When they are bad, it starts again.
But few of Pakhlan`s 1,000 villagers understand that the subcontinent is on the verge of a different, more chilling, kind of war, fought not with shells but nuclear-tipped missiles. ``We don`t know what is going on. We just know that when the shells start landing things are bad,`` Shaheena said.
Who did she blame for Mohammed`s death? ``We don`t want to blame anybody.``
The line of control divides Pakistan and Indian occupied Kashmir. The border has scarcely changed since January 1949, when Indian and Pakistani troops fought each other to a standstill over the disputed territory and signed a ceasefire.
Driving towards it, it becomes clear that any invasion would be almost impossible. The whole area is hugely militarised. The ruler-straight road from Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir`s summer capital, passes through a valley enclosed by the mountains of Gulmarg, India`s only ski resort. The apple orchards and rice fields gradually disappear. The route then rises above the turbulent olive-green Jhelum river and bumps through a landscape of sheer peaks, glinting tin roofs, and shimmering willows. Indian soldiers are everywhere, checking identity papers or standing on patrol under the shade of poplars. Army convoys clatter towards the frontline in a whirl of dust.
Since the latest escalation in hostilities, firing has taken place on a daily basis, sending residents in the border town of Uri jumping into their home-made underground bunkers. ``The entire roof of my house was destroyed last week in shelling,`` Shah Zaman Patman, 40, a civil servant said. ``I`ve had to move out.`` Who did he blame for the current standoff? ``I`m fed up with both India and Pakistan.``
Mr Patman and other locals are phlegmatic about the prospect of a full-blown conflict. ``The shelling has been going on for a long time. It is already like a war for us,`` he said. The residents of these Himalayan mountains are not stupid: most of the time, they point out, the shells miss. The last shelling in Mohammed`s village was over a year ago. To reach his house involves a steep 30-minute trek.
The air is fresh and scented with resin. In the near distance is a snow-topped mountain. The mountain belongs to Pakistan. The shells landed in the village between 5.25am and 5.40am. There were 20 of them. ``Three of the shells landed in the village itself; the others crashed into the forest on the opposite side,`` Nazir Ahmed, 30, a shopkeeper, said. ``It was brutal.``
The Indian authorities have developed a perfunctory attitude towards shelling victims: there are, after all, plenty of them. The local deputy-general of police gave Mohammed`s family 100,000 rupees (about £1,500) in compensation. After an autopsy, Mohammed`s body was returned to the village the day he was killed. His funeral was held at 9pm. Mohammed`s sisters, Shaheena, Jabeena, 17, and Nasreena, 12, are wondering what to do next.
``Our parents are dead. Mohammed was the only breadwinner. When he was not studying he also worked as a labourer to get us some money,`` Shaheena said. ``The last thing he said to me was: `Keep my breakfast for when I come back.` The shells had already started falling and he wanted to bring in our sheep and cattle.``
The shell landed on a ziaryat, or holy site, sacred to a Kashmiri saint, Baba Dawood Khaki. Ironically the site, a pile of boulders decorated with red flags, is supposed to offer protection from evil.
Yesterday Mohammed`s sisters sat in the sunshine and took his school textbooks out of his fraying satchel. They produced a notebook in which Mohammed had written an essay on communal harmony. ``Hindus and Muslims are brothers,`` he wrote. ``They are both human beings and should respect each other.`` It is a reasonable enough sentiment, but one that faces extinction as India and Pakistan hurtle towards the abyss.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,722695,00.html
Luke Harding in Pakhlan, on the line of control, Kashmir
Monday May 27, 2002
The Guardian
The shell came clattering over the mountain just as Mohammed Arif Bhat ventured outside to rescue his sheep. It fell through the cool Himalayan air and crashed into a sloping forest of pine trees, horse chestnut and white blossom.
Mohammed`s three sisters heard the explosion - and then silence. When the bombardment ceased, they went to look for their brother.
The shell had landed 20 feet away from where Mohammed, an 18-year-old student, had been crouching on a stone wall. ``We tried to wake him up. But the shrapnel had hit him in the front and back of his head,`` his sister Shaheena, 22, said. ``We loved him very much. He was the only male in our family.``
``We have lost our hopes,`` she added.
Mohammed`s death six days ago was random, meaningless and cruel. His village, Pakhlan, is less than three miles from the ``line of control``, the frontline in Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani forces. The invisible Pakistani gunners on the other side of the densely forested mountain had been trying to hit the Indian army brigade headquarters lower down the valley. They killed Mohammed instead.
But India and Pakistan, now standing on the brink of an all-out war, have over time developed an insouciant attitude towards death. There are now daily artillery battles between Indian and Pakistani forces. Since January, after militants launched an audacious and symbolic attack on India`s parliament building, nearly a million men have been dug in on either side of the border.
When relations between India and Pakistan are good - which is not often - the shelling stops. When they are bad, it starts again.
But few of Pakhlan`s 1,000 villagers understand that the subcontinent is on the verge of a different, more chilling, kind of war, fought not with shells but nuclear-tipped missiles. ``We don`t know what is going on. We just know that when the shells start landing things are bad,`` Shaheena said.
Who did she blame for Mohammed`s death? ``We don`t want to blame anybody.``
The line of control divides Pakistan and Indian occupied Kashmir. The border has scarcely changed since January 1949, when Indian and Pakistani troops fought each other to a standstill over the disputed territory and signed a ceasefire.
Driving towards it, it becomes clear that any invasion would be almost impossible. The whole area is hugely militarised. The ruler-straight road from Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir`s summer capital, passes through a valley enclosed by the mountains of Gulmarg, India`s only ski resort. The apple orchards and rice fields gradually disappear. The route then rises above the turbulent olive-green Jhelum river and bumps through a landscape of sheer peaks, glinting tin roofs, and shimmering willows. Indian soldiers are everywhere, checking identity papers or standing on patrol under the shade of poplars. Army convoys clatter towards the frontline in a whirl of dust.
Since the latest escalation in hostilities, firing has taken place on a daily basis, sending residents in the border town of Uri jumping into their home-made underground bunkers. ``The entire roof of my house was destroyed last week in shelling,`` Shah Zaman Patman, 40, a civil servant said. ``I`ve had to move out.`` Who did he blame for the current standoff? ``I`m fed up with both India and Pakistan.``
Mr Patman and other locals are phlegmatic about the prospect of a full-blown conflict. ``The shelling has been going on for a long time. It is already like a war for us,`` he said. The residents of these Himalayan mountains are not stupid: most of the time, they point out, the shells miss. The last shelling in Mohammed`s village was over a year ago. To reach his house involves a steep 30-minute trek.
The air is fresh and scented with resin. In the near distance is a snow-topped mountain. The mountain belongs to Pakistan. The shells landed in the village between 5.25am and 5.40am. There were 20 of them. ``Three of the shells landed in the village itself; the others crashed into the forest on the opposite side,`` Nazir Ahmed, 30, a shopkeeper, said. ``It was brutal.``
The Indian authorities have developed a perfunctory attitude towards shelling victims: there are, after all, plenty of them. The local deputy-general of police gave Mohammed`s family 100,000 rupees (about £1,500) in compensation. After an autopsy, Mohammed`s body was returned to the village the day he was killed. His funeral was held at 9pm. Mohammed`s sisters, Shaheena, Jabeena, 17, and Nasreena, 12, are wondering what to do next.
``Our parents are dead. Mohammed was the only breadwinner. When he was not studying he also worked as a labourer to get us some money,`` Shaheena said. ``The last thing he said to me was: `Keep my breakfast for when I come back.` The shells had already started falling and he wanted to bring in our sheep and cattle.``
The shell landed on a ziaryat, or holy site, sacred to a Kashmiri saint, Baba Dawood Khaki. Ironically the site, a pile of boulders decorated with red flags, is supposed to offer protection from evil.
Yesterday Mohammed`s sisters sat in the sunshine and took his school textbooks out of his fraying satchel. They produced a notebook in which Mohammed had written an essay on communal harmony. ``Hindus and Muslims are brothers,`` he wrote. ``They are both human beings and should respect each other.`` It is a reasonable enough sentiment, but one that faces extinction as India and Pakistan hurtle towards the abyss.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,722695,00.html
#200 Posted by hamidm on May 27, 2002 8:34:53 pm
tahmed
....you are right.... drinking is not cool - it is a bad habit, and some of us are too old to change .... it is also a professional hazard for those who travel a lot and have clients who don`t mind paying 25% of the fees in expenses...
shammi
.... somehow i never think of sunil as an indian - he is simply my buddy ........he and i always end up agreeing that we were born into the wrong tribes - our people are stupid, but thank god we are okay ! .... i don`t know how it works, but it does ......i doubt if it will work for groups of more than one - if it did, we could have world peace ........
....you are right.... drinking is not cool - it is a bad habit, and some of us are too old to change .... it is also a professional hazard for those who travel a lot and have clients who don`t mind paying 25% of the fees in expenses...
shammi
.... somehow i never think of sunil as an indian - he is simply my buddy ........he and i always end up agreeing that we were born into the wrong tribes - our people are stupid, but thank god we are okay ! .... i don`t know how it works, but it does ......i doubt if it will work for groups of more than one - if it did, we could have world peace ........
#199 Posted by cutandpaste on May 27, 2002 8:34:53 pm
Pakistani Militants` Ties to Military Make Radicals Hard to Dislodge
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
SLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 26 ? For more than 20 years, the Pakistani government has used Islamic radicals as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy.
Now, many Pakistani security experts doubt that the government has the will or the means to neutralize what has become a huge network of violence.
Advertisement
In recent days the general who is now president, Pervez Musharraf, has reportedly resolved to strengthen a 1997 antiterrorism law to make it easier to prosecute extremist acts by Islamic militants, and he is pushing for changes to allow longer detention of suspects without trial.
Left untouched by these proposals and largely taboo in public discussion, though, are the tight and longstanding ties between Kashmiri separatists, radical Islamic groups and Pakistan`s military and intelligence structure.
According to Pakistani experts on Islamic militancy and national security, there are as many as 500,000 members of jihadi ? Muslim holy war organizations ? in Pakistan, including many thousands committed to the cause of forcing India out of the sector of Kashmir that it controls. One expert said that as many as 3,000 fighters trained in Pakistan are operating in Indian-controlled territory.
In December, Kashmiri militants attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, killing 12 and setting the two countries on a course for a crisis that has brought a million soldiers to the Kashmir region, Indian threats of a ``decisive victory`` over its neighbor and provocative Pakistani tests of ballistic missiles.
A new test this weekend of the Ghauri missile, which has a range of 900 miles, brought reproaches not only from India, but from President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Even after those reproaches, Pakistan tested a Ghaznavi missile, whose 175-mile range could reach border regions of India.
The jihadis trace their roots to the mujahedeen, the Islamic fighters who battled the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan, beginning in 1979. Pakistani experts say the Kashmiri separatists, like the American- and Pakistani-backed mujahedeen, have been assisted by Pakistan`s military spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.
``The terror structure built up in the 1980`s is very much intact, and the jihadi groups are functioning the same way they always have, recruiting, training and fund-raising,`` said Arif Jamal, a Pakistani author who has spent years studying Islamic militancy here. ``This government does not have the political will to crack down. The only thing new is that since December, these groups are not visible. They have changed their names, their telephone numbers and addresses, and they have moved out of Islamabad.``
When the Kashmiri insurgency entered its violent phase 12 years ago, it was mostly indigenous. Over the years, Pakistan first gave political support to the separatists, then more and more military support, drawing on the 80,000 fighters whom Pakistan had trained and armed to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
As the insurgency evolved, Pakistan`s military and intelligence services struck upon the idea of employing jihadis to wrest control of the Kashmir from India.
``We have fought three wars with India and have not won even one of them,`` said an expert on the country`s jihad movements. ``The success of the jihadi strategy in Afghanistan compelled the generals to try it on India, too. The Kashmir jihadis are our cannon fodder because they are willing to die for their cause in a way that no paid soldiers would.``
The Pakistani government strongly denies promoting cross-border infiltration, but the enduring official ambivalence about support for such groups could be heard in the comments of one senior official here who said that although there was heavy pressure now to arrest separatist leaders, any action must ``ensure that the Kashmiri population on our side of border is not disillusioned, because their support for our strategic objectives is crucial.``
Though India insists that Pakistan can and must curb attacks within Kashmir, the political issue of governing the state has become overshadowed by the religious agenda of the Islamic jihadis. This religious aura has been reinforced by the return of many of Pakistan`s most hardened Islamic militants from Afghanistan since the unseating of the Taliban there.
Groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba, which received heavy patronage from the former president Zia ul-Haq, who used them to keep civilian politicians off guard, reportedly still enjoy strong links to the Pakistani intelligence services, particularly through retired agents and army officers who worked with them both domestically and in Afghanistan.
``If the army is with Musharraf, he can neutralize these groups, but it will take a long time, and a terrible amount of violence in Pakistan first,`` said one Pakistani with intimate knowledge of the security services. ``I still don`t see the army taking these groups on, though. Jihad has been part of the defense structure of this country for 20 years. How do you get rid of 500,000 people?``
Recent attacks in Pakistan ? the killing of the journalist Daniel Pearl, a church bombing in Islamabad, a car bomb in Karachi that killed 12 French military contractors ? hint at what lies ahead if President Musharraf pursues a war on domestic terrorist groups.
``With Pakistan`s support for the American attacks against the Taliban, President Musharraf is already their enemy,`` said Dr. Rasul Baksh Rais, director of the Area Studies Center, an independent political research group. The president may give some hint of his plans when he addresses the nation on Monday.
Pakistani intelligence sources have reportedly linked Lashkar-e-Jhangvi to both the Karachi bombing and the Pearl killing, and describe them as revenge against the West for the defeat of the Taliban, and a shot across the bow of the government not to toe an overly enthusiastic pro-Western line.
Under heavy international pressure to crack down on terrorism after these two incidents, the government has responded with uncommon energy, rounding up three suspects in the Karachi bombing who led them to Mr. Pearl`s body last week.
Pakistani intelligence sources now say that the killing of Riaz Basra, leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the country`s most wanted man, was in fact a police execution in detention, and not a shootout with villagers in southern Pakistan, as publicly reported. According to The Weekly Independent, the killing of Mr. Basra, who had recently returned to Pakistan from a base in Afghanistan, was a warning by the government to his followers.
``The government will want to pursue a systematic but gradual line against terror,`` Dr. Rais said. ``There is change, but there is also a long history of collaboration here, so it will take time. If the government pushes too hard, it will create a rebellion.``
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/international/asia/27STAN.html
New York Times
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
SLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 26 ? For more than 20 years, the Pakistani government has used Islamic radicals as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy.
Now, many Pakistani security experts doubt that the government has the will or the means to neutralize what has become a huge network of violence.
Advertisement
In recent days the general who is now president, Pervez Musharraf, has reportedly resolved to strengthen a 1997 antiterrorism law to make it easier to prosecute extremist acts by Islamic militants, and he is pushing for changes to allow longer detention of suspects without trial.
Left untouched by these proposals and largely taboo in public discussion, though, are the tight and longstanding ties between Kashmiri separatists, radical Islamic groups and Pakistan`s military and intelligence structure.
According to Pakistani experts on Islamic militancy and national security, there are as many as 500,000 members of jihadi ? Muslim holy war organizations ? in Pakistan, including many thousands committed to the cause of forcing India out of the sector of Kashmir that it controls. One expert said that as many as 3,000 fighters trained in Pakistan are operating in Indian-controlled territory.
In December, Kashmiri militants attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, killing 12 and setting the two countries on a course for a crisis that has brought a million soldiers to the Kashmir region, Indian threats of a ``decisive victory`` over its neighbor and provocative Pakistani tests of ballistic missiles.
A new test this weekend of the Ghauri missile, which has a range of 900 miles, brought reproaches not only from India, but from President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Even after those reproaches, Pakistan tested a Ghaznavi missile, whose 175-mile range could reach border regions of India.
The jihadis trace their roots to the mujahedeen, the Islamic fighters who battled the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan, beginning in 1979. Pakistani experts say the Kashmiri separatists, like the American- and Pakistani-backed mujahedeen, have been assisted by Pakistan`s military spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.
``The terror structure built up in the 1980`s is very much intact, and the jihadi groups are functioning the same way they always have, recruiting, training and fund-raising,`` said Arif Jamal, a Pakistani author who has spent years studying Islamic militancy here. ``This government does not have the political will to crack down. The only thing new is that since December, these groups are not visible. They have changed their names, their telephone numbers and addresses, and they have moved out of Islamabad.``
When the Kashmiri insurgency entered its violent phase 12 years ago, it was mostly indigenous. Over the years, Pakistan first gave political support to the separatists, then more and more military support, drawing on the 80,000 fighters whom Pakistan had trained and armed to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
As the insurgency evolved, Pakistan`s military and intelligence services struck upon the idea of employing jihadis to wrest control of the Kashmir from India.
``We have fought three wars with India and have not won even one of them,`` said an expert on the country`s jihad movements. ``The success of the jihadi strategy in Afghanistan compelled the generals to try it on India, too. The Kashmir jihadis are our cannon fodder because they are willing to die for their cause in a way that no paid soldiers would.``
The Pakistani government strongly denies promoting cross-border infiltration, but the enduring official ambivalence about support for such groups could be heard in the comments of one senior official here who said that although there was heavy pressure now to arrest separatist leaders, any action must ``ensure that the Kashmiri population on our side of border is not disillusioned, because their support for our strategic objectives is crucial.``
Though India insists that Pakistan can and must curb attacks within Kashmir, the political issue of governing the state has become overshadowed by the religious agenda of the Islamic jihadis. This religious aura has been reinforced by the return of many of Pakistan`s most hardened Islamic militants from Afghanistan since the unseating of the Taliban there.
Groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba, which received heavy patronage from the former president Zia ul-Haq, who used them to keep civilian politicians off guard, reportedly still enjoy strong links to the Pakistani intelligence services, particularly through retired agents and army officers who worked with them both domestically and in Afghanistan.
``If the army is with Musharraf, he can neutralize these groups, but it will take a long time, and a terrible amount of violence in Pakistan first,`` said one Pakistani with intimate knowledge of the security services. ``I still don`t see the army taking these groups on, though. Jihad has been part of the defense structure of this country for 20 years. How do you get rid of 500,000 people?``
Recent attacks in Pakistan ? the killing of the journalist Daniel Pearl, a church bombing in Islamabad, a car bomb in Karachi that killed 12 French military contractors ? hint at what lies ahead if President Musharraf pursues a war on domestic terrorist groups.
``With Pakistan`s support for the American attacks against the Taliban, President Musharraf is already their enemy,`` said Dr. Rasul Baksh Rais, director of the Area Studies Center, an independent political research group. The president may give some hint of his plans when he addresses the nation on Monday.
Pakistani intelligence sources have reportedly linked Lashkar-e-Jhangvi to both the Karachi bombing and the Pearl killing, and describe them as revenge against the West for the defeat of the Taliban, and a shot across the bow of the government not to toe an overly enthusiastic pro-Western line.
Under heavy international pressure to crack down on terrorism after these two incidents, the government has responded with uncommon energy, rounding up three suspects in the Karachi bombing who led them to Mr. Pearl`s body last week.
Pakistani intelligence sources now say that the killing of Riaz Basra, leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the country`s most wanted man, was in fact a police execution in detention, and not a shootout with villagers in southern Pakistan, as publicly reported. According to The Weekly Independent, the killing of Mr. Basra, who had recently returned to Pakistan from a base in Afghanistan, was a warning by the government to his followers.
``The government will want to pursue a systematic but gradual line against terror,`` Dr. Rais said. ``There is change, but there is also a long history of collaboration here, so it will take time. If the government pushes too hard, it will create a rebellion.``
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/international/asia/27STAN.html
New York Times
#198 Posted by cutandpaste on May 27, 2002 8:34:53 pm
Pakistani Militants` Ties to Military Make Radicals Hard to Dislodge
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 26 ? For more than 20 years, the Pakistani government has used Islamic radicals as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy.
Now, many Pakistani security experts doubt that the government has the will or the means to neutralize what has become a huge network of violence.
Advertisement
In recent days the general who is now president, Pervez Musharraf, has reportedly resolved to strengthen a 1997 antiterrorism law to make it easier to prosecute extremist acts by Islamic militants, and he is pushing for changes to allow longer detention of suspects without trial.
Left untouched by these proposals and largely taboo in public discussion, though, are the tight and longstanding ties between Kashmiri separatists, radical Islamic groups and Pakistan`s military and intelligence structure.
According to Pakistani experts on Islamic militancy and national security, there are as many as 500,000 members of jihadi ? Muslim holy war organizations ? in Pakistan, including many thousands committed to the cause of forcing India out of the sector of Kashmir that it controls. One expert said that as many as 3,000 fighters trained in Pakistan are operating in Indian-controlled territory.
In December, Kashmiri militants attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, killing 12 and setting the two countries on a course for a crisis that has brought a million soldiers to the Kashmir region, Indian threats of a ``decisive victory`` over its neighbor and provocative Pakistani tests of ballistic missiles.
A new test this weekend of the Ghauri missile, which has a range of 900 miles, brought reproaches not only from India, but from President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Even after those reproaches, Pakistan tested a Ghaznavi missile, whose 175-mile range could reach border regions of India.
The jihadis trace their roots to the mujahedeen, the Islamic fighters who battled the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan, beginning in 1979. Pakistani experts say the Kashmiri separatists, like the American- and Pakistani-backed mujahedeen, have been assisted by Pakistan`s military spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.
``The terror structure built up in the 1980`s is very much intact, and the jihadi groups are functioning the same way they always have, recruiting, training and fund-raising,`` said Arif Jamal, a Pakistani author who has spent years studying Islamic militancy here. ``This government does not have the political will to crack down. The only thing new is that since December, these groups are not visible. They have changed their names, their telephone numbers and addresses, and they have moved out of Islamabad.``
When the Kashmiri insurgency entered its violent phase 12 years ago, it was mostly indigenous. Over the years, Pakistan first gave political support to the separatists, then more and more military support, drawing on the 80,000 fighters whom Pakistan had trained and armed to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
As the insurgency evolved, Pakistan`s military and intelligence services struck upon the idea of employing jihadis to wrest control of the Kashmir from India.
``We have fought three wars with India and have not won even one of them,`` said an expert on the country`s jihad movements. ``The success of the jihadi strategy in Afghanistan compelled the generals to try it on India, too. The Kashmir jihadis are our cannon fodder because they are willing to die for their cause in a way that no paid soldiers would.``
The Pakistani government strongly denies promoting cross-border infiltration, but the enduring official ambivalence about support for such groups could be heard in the comments of one senior official here who said that although there was heavy pressure now to arrest separatist leaders, any action must ``ensure that the Kashmiri population on our side of border is not disillusioned, because their support for our strategic objectives is crucial.``
Though India insists that Pakistan can and must curb attacks within Kashmir, the political issue of governing the state has become overshadowed by the religious agenda of the Islamic jihadis. This religious aura has been reinforced by the return of many of Pakistan`s most hardened Islamic militants from Afghanistan since the unseating of the Taliban there.
Groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba, which received heavy patronage from the former president Zia ul-Haq, who used them to keep civilian politicians off guard, reportedly still enjoy strong links to the Pakistani intelligence services, particularly through retired agents and army officers who worked with them both domestically and in Afghanistan.
``If the army is with Musharraf, he can neutralize these groups, but it will take a long time, and a terrible amount of violence in Pakistan first,`` said one Pakistani with intimate knowledge of the security services. ``I still don`t see the army taking these groups on, though. Jihad has been part of the defense structure of this country for 20 years. How do you get rid of 500,000 people?``
Recent attacks in Pakistan ? the killing of the journalist Daniel Pearl, a church bombing in Islamabad, a car bomb in Karachi that killed 12 French military contractors ? hint at what lies ahead if President Musharraf pursues a war on domestic terrorist groups.
``With Pakistan`s support for the American attacks against the Taliban, President Musharraf is already their enemy,`` said Dr. Rasul Baksh Rais, director of the Area Studies Center, an independent political research group. The president may give some hint of his plans when he addresses the nation on Monday.
Pakistani intelligence sources have reportedly linked Lashkar-e-Jhangvi to both the Karachi bombing and the Pearl killing, and describe them as revenge against the West for the defeat of the Taliban, and a shot across the bow of the government not to toe an overly enthusiastic pro-Western line.
Under heavy international pressure to crack down on terrorism after these two incidents, the government has responded with uncommon energy, rounding up three suspects in the Karachi bombing who led them to Mr. Pearl`s body last week.
Pakistani intelligence sources now say that the killing of Riaz Basra, leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the country`s most wanted man, was in fact a police execution in detention, and not a shootout with villagers in southern Pakistan, as publicly reported. According to The Weekly Independent, the killing of Mr. Basra, who had recently returned to Pakistan from a base in Afghanistan, was a warning by the government to his followers.
``The government will want to pursue a systematic but gradual line against terror,`` Dr. Rais said. ``There is change, but there is also a long history of collaboration here, so it will take time. If the government pushes too hard, it will create a rebellion.``
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/international/asia/27STAN.html
New York Times
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 26 ? For more than 20 years, the Pakistani government has used Islamic radicals as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy.
Now, many Pakistani security experts doubt that the government has the will or the means to neutralize what has become a huge network of violence.
Advertisement
In recent days the general who is now president, Pervez Musharraf, has reportedly resolved to strengthen a 1997 antiterrorism law to make it easier to prosecute extremist acts by Islamic militants, and he is pushing for changes to allow longer detention of suspects without trial.
Left untouched by these proposals and largely taboo in public discussion, though, are the tight and longstanding ties between Kashmiri separatists, radical Islamic groups and Pakistan`s military and intelligence structure.
According to Pakistani experts on Islamic militancy and national security, there are as many as 500,000 members of jihadi ? Muslim holy war organizations ? in Pakistan, including many thousands committed to the cause of forcing India out of the sector of Kashmir that it controls. One expert said that as many as 3,000 fighters trained in Pakistan are operating in Indian-controlled territory.
In December, Kashmiri militants attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, killing 12 and setting the two countries on a course for a crisis that has brought a million soldiers to the Kashmir region, Indian threats of a ``decisive victory`` over its neighbor and provocative Pakistani tests of ballistic missiles.
A new test this weekend of the Ghauri missile, which has a range of 900 miles, brought reproaches not only from India, but from President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Even after those reproaches, Pakistan tested a Ghaznavi missile, whose 175-mile range could reach border regions of India.
The jihadis trace their roots to the mujahedeen, the Islamic fighters who battled the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan, beginning in 1979. Pakistani experts say the Kashmiri separatists, like the American- and Pakistani-backed mujahedeen, have been assisted by Pakistan`s military spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.
``The terror structure built up in the 1980`s is very much intact, and the jihadi groups are functioning the same way they always have, recruiting, training and fund-raising,`` said Arif Jamal, a Pakistani author who has spent years studying Islamic militancy here. ``This government does not have the political will to crack down. The only thing new is that since December, these groups are not visible. They have changed their names, their telephone numbers and addresses, and they have moved out of Islamabad.``
When the Kashmiri insurgency entered its violent phase 12 years ago, it was mostly indigenous. Over the years, Pakistan first gave political support to the separatists, then more and more military support, drawing on the 80,000 fighters whom Pakistan had trained and armed to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
As the insurgency evolved, Pakistan`s military and intelligence services struck upon the idea of employing jihadis to wrest control of the Kashmir from India.
``We have fought three wars with India and have not won even one of them,`` said an expert on the country`s jihad movements. ``The success of the jihadi strategy in Afghanistan compelled the generals to try it on India, too. The Kashmir jihadis are our cannon fodder because they are willing to die for their cause in a way that no paid soldiers would.``
The Pakistani government strongly denies promoting cross-border infiltration, but the enduring official ambivalence about support for such groups could be heard in the comments of one senior official here who said that although there was heavy pressure now to arrest separatist leaders, any action must ``ensure that the Kashmiri population on our side of border is not disillusioned, because their support for our strategic objectives is crucial.``
Though India insists that Pakistan can and must curb attacks within Kashmir, the political issue of governing the state has become overshadowed by the religious agenda of the Islamic jihadis. This religious aura has been reinforced by the return of many of Pakistan`s most hardened Islamic militants from Afghanistan since the unseating of the Taliban there.
Groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba, which received heavy patronage from the former president Zia ul-Haq, who used them to keep civilian politicians off guard, reportedly still enjoy strong links to the Pakistani intelligence services, particularly through retired agents and army officers who worked with them both domestically and in Afghanistan.
``If the army is with Musharraf, he can neutralize these groups, but it will take a long time, and a terrible amount of violence in Pakistan first,`` said one Pakistani with intimate knowledge of the security services. ``I still don`t see the army taking these groups on, though. Jihad has been part of the defense structure of this country for 20 years. How do you get rid of 500,000 people?``
Recent attacks in Pakistan ? the killing of the journalist Daniel Pearl, a church bombing in Islamabad, a car bomb in Karachi that killed 12 French military contractors ? hint at what lies ahead if President Musharraf pursues a war on domestic terrorist groups.
``With Pakistan`s support for the American attacks against the Taliban, President Musharraf is already their enemy,`` said Dr. Rasul Baksh Rais, director of the Area Studies Center, an independent political research group. The president may give some hint of his plans when he addresses the nation on Monday.
Pakistani intelligence sources have reportedly linked Lashkar-e-Jhangvi to both the Karachi bombing and the Pearl killing, and describe them as revenge against the West for the defeat of the Taliban, and a shot across the bow of the government not to toe an overly enthusiastic pro-Western line.
Under heavy international pressure to crack down on terrorism after these two incidents, the government has responded with uncommon energy, rounding up three suspects in the Karachi bombing who led them to Mr. Pearl`s body last week.
Pakistani intelligence sources now say that the killing of Riaz Basra, leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the country`s most wanted man, was in fact a police execution in detention, and not a shootout with villagers in southern Pakistan, as publicly reported. According to The Weekly Independent, the killing of Mr. Basra, who had recently returned to Pakistan from a base in Afghanistan, was a warning by the government to his followers.
``The government will want to pursue a systematic but gradual line against terror,`` Dr. Rais said. ``There is change, but there is also a long history of collaboration here, so it will take time. If the government pushes too hard, it will create a rebellion.``
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/international/asia/27STAN.html
New York Times
#197 Posted by cutandpaste on May 27, 2002 8:34:53 pm
Pakistan President Tries to Stave Off War
Musharraf Promises to Restrain Militants in Kashmir
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17397-2002May27.html
By Sharon LaFraniere
And Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 27 (Monday) ? In a speech by turns defiant and conciliatory, Pakistan`s president Gen. Pervez Musharraf tonight tried to stave off the threat of war with India, promising to keep Pakistani militants out of the Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir.
But he also accused India`s leaders of irresponsible and aggressive behavior toward Pakistan, and asked the world to investigate atrocities that he said are being committed against Muslims in Kashmir under India`s rule.
Although some Pakistani analysts said Musharraf seemed to want to pacify India without appearing too weak, political leaders in New Dehli said the Pakistani general failed miserably. Rather than averting war, they said, Musharraf made it more likely for the two nuclear-armed nations.
``There is absolutely nothing for us to work with in this speech,`` said India`s deputy foreign minister, Omar Abdullah. ``He`s categorically told the world, that as far as I`m concerned, there`s absolutely nothing that I need to stop.``
Abdullah said the Pakistani president`s strident tone suggests there is little room for further negotiations with Pakistan. ``I had believed there was still a lot of diplomatic options available to us,`` he said. ``But today he has closed down a lot of that space.``
With nearly a million Pakistani and Indian soldiers massed along an 1,800-mile border, Musharraf is under heavy pressure at home and abroad to ease tensions with India lest a full-scale war breaks out. Firing along the Line of Control dividing the two parts of Kashmir is now a daily occurrence, with deaths of civilians mounting. Tens of thousands of villagers on both sides have fled the border region.
Musharraf, who seized power three years ago, said repeatedly that Pakistan would not allow itself to be used as a staging area for insurgents who want to drive India out of its portion of Kashmir. Musharraf made a similar promise Jan. 12 when the two countries were at a similarly dangerous junction.
First in Urdu, then in English, Musharraf said, ``We do not want war. We want peace in the region. Pakistan will never allow the export of terrorism anywhere in the world from within Pakistan.``
He noted that Pakistan had also suffered terrorist incidents, and suggested the two countries are victims of the same extremist groups. Again condemning a May attack that left more than 30 people dead in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, he said, ``We believe that whoever is involved is also endeavoring to destablize Pakistan.``
But he also accused India of trying to intimidate Pakistan, stirring up an atmosphere of near hysteria and failing to respond to Pakistan`s ``bold steps`` to stop extremism. ``I would like to state that this aggressive naming and blaming from the Indian leadership is extremely irresponsible,`` he said.
And while he vowed to stop any incursions across the Indian border, he said Pakistan would never give up the struggle for Kashmir`s independence. ``Kashmir lives in the heart of every single Pakistani,`` he said, and Pakistan will fulfill its ``moral, political and diplomatic commitments`` for Kashmir`s freedom.
``I think this is about the maximum he could have said,`` said Najam Sethi, editor of the Islamabad newspaper Friday Times, who was one of a number of journalists who met with Musharraf last week.
``He really stuck his neck out this time. He said Pakistan will never export terrorism, and he said it not once but five times. This is very strong stuff.``
But Abdullah, the Indian deputy foreign minister, and another senior Indian official, I.D. Swami, the deputy minister for home affairs, said the Pakistani president offered no concessions. They said the speech would strengthen India`s resolve to use military force to attack what it alleges are militant training camps in the Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir, an action that could precipitate full-scale combat.
``Now there`s no scope, no room left,`` Swami said. ``It looked like nothing worked, not even American pressure. He`s saying he just doesn`t bother about the world.``
As Musharraf addressed his increasingly nervous nation, the violence on the border continued to escalate after a relative lull last week.
Indian mortar fire today killed six civilians and wounded at least 16 more near the Pakistani town of Sialkot on the southern part of the border that divides Kashmir between the two nations. Four more died and 12 were wounded in the same area Sunday. India, which has suffered fewer civilian casulties, reported that one soldier died and three were wounded in heavy fire Sunday night.
The Pakistani and Indian military accuse each other of firing anti-tank weapons and heavy artillery, despite the thousands of villages that lie close to each side of the border. The narrow roads that lead away from the border carry a steady flow of fleeing villagers, their wagons piled high with their belongings.
Leaders of both nations are under intense international pressure to restrain their armies. President Bush called Sunday on Musharraf to fulfill his January promise to control Pakistani militants.
Britain`s foreign secretary, Jack Straw, landed in Pakistan tonight in a bid to defuse the crisis. He is scheduled to travel to India later in the week. The U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, is scheduled to travel to the region next week. Senior Pakistani officials said the Islamabad government decided Thursday to do everything necessary to stop the incursions into India`s territory, and Musharraf claimed in an interview Saturday with The Washington Post that the raids have stopped.
But Indian officials claim 50 to 60 fighters crossed over into Indian-controlled Kashmir from Pakistan in the past month alone.
Swami, the Indian deputy minister for home affairs, said he was unconvinced by Musharraf`s pledges. ``I don`t know how far we can continue to believe him and how far he can continue to befool the world,`` Swami said.
He said India now has little reason to delay before commencing military strikes. ``I don`t think there`s anything left to wait for,`` he said. ``We`ve already been suffering with terrorism for two decades. I don`t think India is left with any other choice.``
But other officials and analysts said India would continue to spend the next several days trying further diplomatic sanctions and pressure to avert a military confrontation. Although India already has expelled Pakistan`s ambassador to New Delhi, Indian officials are seriously considering breaking off all diplomatic relations with Pakistan, a step that has never been formally taken since Pakistan was partitioned from British colonial India in 1947.
``There`s still room for a last-ditch international effort to avoid war,`` said Brahma Chellaney, the head of strategic affairs at the Center for Policy Research, a think-tank in New Delhi. ``War still isn`t imminent.``
But Chellaney said Musharraf`s stance would increase domestic pressure on India`s prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, to go to war. ``He is perceived right now as a man who is only engaged in talk but no action,`` Chellaney said. ``This speech was like waving a red flag at a bull.``
Musharraf Promises to Restrain Militants in Kashmir
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17397-2002May27.html
By Sharon LaFraniere
And Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 27 (Monday) ? In a speech by turns defiant and conciliatory, Pakistan`s president Gen. Pervez Musharraf tonight tried to stave off the threat of war with India, promising to keep Pakistani militants out of the Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir.
But he also accused India`s leaders of irresponsible and aggressive behavior toward Pakistan, and asked the world to investigate atrocities that he said are being committed against Muslims in Kashmir under India`s rule.
Although some Pakistani analysts said Musharraf seemed to want to pacify India without appearing too weak, political leaders in New Dehli said the Pakistani general failed miserably. Rather than averting war, they said, Musharraf made it more likely for the two nuclear-armed nations.
``There is absolutely nothing for us to work with in this speech,`` said India`s deputy foreign minister, Omar Abdullah. ``He`s categorically told the world, that as far as I`m concerned, there`s absolutely nothing that I need to stop.``
Abdullah said the Pakistani president`s strident tone suggests there is little room for further negotiations with Pakistan. ``I had believed there was still a lot of diplomatic options available to us,`` he said. ``But today he has closed down a lot of that space.``
With nearly a million Pakistani and Indian soldiers massed along an 1,800-mile border, Musharraf is under heavy pressure at home and abroad to ease tensions with India lest a full-scale war breaks out. Firing along the Line of Control dividing the two parts of Kashmir is now a daily occurrence, with deaths of civilians mounting. Tens of thousands of villagers on both sides have fled the border region.
Musharraf, who seized power three years ago, said repeatedly that Pakistan would not allow itself to be used as a staging area for insurgents who want to drive India out of its portion of Kashmir. Musharraf made a similar promise Jan. 12 when the two countries were at a similarly dangerous junction.
First in Urdu, then in English, Musharraf said, ``We do not want war. We want peace in the region. Pakistan will never allow the export of terrorism anywhere in the world from within Pakistan.``
He noted that Pakistan had also suffered terrorist incidents, and suggested the two countries are victims of the same extremist groups. Again condemning a May attack that left more than 30 people dead in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, he said, ``We believe that whoever is involved is also endeavoring to destablize Pakistan.``
But he also accused India of trying to intimidate Pakistan, stirring up an atmosphere of near hysteria and failing to respond to Pakistan`s ``bold steps`` to stop extremism. ``I would like to state that this aggressive naming and blaming from the Indian leadership is extremely irresponsible,`` he said.
And while he vowed to stop any incursions across the Indian border, he said Pakistan would never give up the struggle for Kashmir`s independence. ``Kashmir lives in the heart of every single Pakistani,`` he said, and Pakistan will fulfill its ``moral, political and diplomatic commitments`` for Kashmir`s freedom.
``I think this is about the maximum he could have said,`` said Najam Sethi, editor of the Islamabad newspaper Friday Times, who was one of a number of journalists who met with Musharraf last week.
``He really stuck his neck out this time. He said Pakistan will never export terrorism, and he said it not once but five times. This is very strong stuff.``
But Abdullah, the Indian deputy foreign minister, and another senior Indian official, I.D. Swami, the deputy minister for home affairs, said the Pakistani president offered no concessions. They said the speech would strengthen India`s resolve to use military force to attack what it alleges are militant training camps in the Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir, an action that could precipitate full-scale combat.
``Now there`s no scope, no room left,`` Swami said. ``It looked like nothing worked, not even American pressure. He`s saying he just doesn`t bother about the world.``
As Musharraf addressed his increasingly nervous nation, the violence on the border continued to escalate after a relative lull last week.
Indian mortar fire today killed six civilians and wounded at least 16 more near the Pakistani town of Sialkot on the southern part of the border that divides Kashmir between the two nations. Four more died and 12 were wounded in the same area Sunday. India, which has suffered fewer civilian casulties, reported that one soldier died and three were wounded in heavy fire Sunday night.
The Pakistani and Indian military accuse each other of firing anti-tank weapons and heavy artillery, despite the thousands of villages that lie close to each side of the border. The narrow roads that lead away from the border carry a steady flow of fleeing villagers, their wagons piled high with their belongings.
Leaders of both nations are under intense international pressure to restrain their armies. President Bush called Sunday on Musharraf to fulfill his January promise to control Pakistani militants.
Britain`s foreign secretary, Jack Straw, landed in Pakistan tonight in a bid to defuse the crisis. He is scheduled to travel to India later in the week. The U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, is scheduled to travel to the region next week. Senior Pakistani officials said the Islamabad government decided Thursday to do everything necessary to stop the incursions into India`s territory, and Musharraf claimed in an interview Saturday with The Washington Post that the raids have stopped.
But Indian officials claim 50 to 60 fighters crossed over into Indian-controlled Kashmir from Pakistan in the past month alone.
Swami, the Indian deputy minister for home affairs, said he was unconvinced by Musharraf`s pledges. ``I don`t know how far we can continue to believe him and how far he can continue to befool the world,`` Swami said.
He said India now has little reason to delay before commencing military strikes. ``I don`t think there`s anything left to wait for,`` he said. ``We`ve already been suffering with terrorism for two decades. I don`t think India is left with any other choice.``
But other officials and analysts said India would continue to spend the next several days trying further diplomatic sanctions and pressure to avert a military confrontation. Although India already has expelled Pakistan`s ambassador to New Delhi, Indian officials are seriously considering breaking off all diplomatic relations with Pakistan, a step that has never been formally taken since Pakistan was partitioned from British colonial India in 1947.
``There`s still room for a last-ditch international effort to avoid war,`` said Brahma Chellaney, the head of strategic affairs at the Center for Policy Research, a think-tank in New Delhi. ``War still isn`t imminent.``
But Chellaney said Musharraf`s stance would increase domestic pressure on India`s prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, to go to war. ``He is perceived right now as a man who is only engaged in talk but no action,`` Chellaney said. ``This speech was like waving a red flag at a bull.``
#196 Posted by arjun_m on May 27, 2002 4:55:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#195 Posted by arjun_m on May 27, 2002 4:55:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#194 Posted by DRUMZ on May 27, 2002 4:55:13 pm
Hamid: ``but that smoking weed would be better if it wasn`t against the law ......``
This goes against natural law. Why else do u think we were given balls?
This goes against natural law. Why else do u think we were given balls?
#193 Posted by cutandpaste on May 27, 2002 12:12:37 pm
Pakistan to crack down on militants
Musharraf speech today could hold key to peace
Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Monday May 27, 2002
The Guardian
Pakistan`s president, Pervez Musharraf, last night came under mounting pressure to announce stringent curbs on Islamic militancy, after he tested a new short-range missile in the face of growing threats of war with India.
He will address his people in a televised speech today which holds the key to defusing tensions between the nuclear rivals. Gen Musharraf is expected to announce new curbs on the Islamist extremists. Reports suggest that he may toughen current anti-terrorist laws.
After a second day of Pakistani missile tests, India`s prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, last night warned that conflict was close at hand.
``There is a limit to our patience and tolerance,`` Mr Vajpayee said. He said that General Musharraf`s actions would be closely watched. ``The efforts that are going on, we will see to what extent they bear fruit, whether ongoing terrorism is stopped or not.``
George Bush yesterday expressed his ``strong reservations`` about Islamabad`s missile tests and called for restraint by the two countries. He said the pressure was on Pakistan`s ruler to keep his earlier pledges to tackle extremism. ``It is very important for President Musharraf to do what he said he`s going to do on terror,`` Mr Bush said.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, is due to fly to Islamabad later this week to give Gen Musharraf a similar message, before heading to Delhi.
New attempts to engineer a diplomatic solution to the crisis on the subcontinent appeared to collapse at the weekend when Indian officials snubbed an offer for a meeting between the two leaders at a summit arranged by Russia`s President Vladimir Putin in Kazakhstan next month.
Although the US and Russia have warned Pakistan to halt its missile tests, more launches are scheduled for today and tomorrow. Yesterday Pakistan tested a new missile, the Ghaznavi, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to a target nearly 200 miles away. On Saturday, it launched its Ghauri missile, which has a range of 1,000 miles and can carry a nuclear warhead nearly twice the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
At least 16 villagers were killed at the weekend when Indian and Pakistani troops kept up a heavy barrage of artillery fire across ceasefire line which divides the disputed mountains of Kashmir.
Military sources said the Pakistani army had taken up positions behind a newly-flooded strategic canal which protects the city of Lahore, 30 minutes drive from the Indian border. The move indicated the seriousness of the threat of war, the sources said.
In an interview published yesterday, Gen Musharraf signalled that his outnumbered army was ready for battle. ``We are capable of an offensive defence. We`ll take the offensive into Indian territory,`` he told the Washington Post.
India and Pakistan have already fought three wars, and nearly began a fourth in the mountains of Kashmir in 1999.
The desert heat along the border and the onset of the monsoon season next month may delay a conflict until September. But another militant attack could trigger a retaliatory strike by India.
India holds Pakistan directly responsible for a series of militant attacks in Kashmir and New Delhi in the past six months. Mr Vajpayee has told Islamabad to halt its support for Islamist militants or face war. Yesterday he said he regretted that India had not struck after an attack on its parliament in December, and likened the crisis to the US war against al-Qaida. ``When the world is fighting terrorism _ how long can India tolerate terrorism?`` he said in a hard-hitting speech on TV. ``The infiltration of militants into India has to end``.
Militants in Pakistan have described how they are free to raise funds and train young fighters for the guerrilla war in Kashmir, with the knowledge of the state intelligence service.
But there is scepticism about his commitment to reining in the militants, who have long been funded and directed by the state intelligence agency. He made similar pledges in January, but attacks have continued. Till now Washington has withheld its criticism, because Pakistan is a vital ally in the hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban remnants. Now the pressure is mounting. Richard Armitage, the deputy US secretary of state, will visit Islamabad and New Delhi soon.
Guardian, UK
Musharraf speech today could hold key to peace
Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Monday May 27, 2002
The Guardian
Pakistan`s president, Pervez Musharraf, last night came under mounting pressure to announce stringent curbs on Islamic militancy, after he tested a new short-range missile in the face of growing threats of war with India.
He will address his people in a televised speech today which holds the key to defusing tensions between the nuclear rivals. Gen Musharraf is expected to announce new curbs on the Islamist extremists. Reports suggest that he may toughen current anti-terrorist laws.
After a second day of Pakistani missile tests, India`s prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, last night warned that conflict was close at hand.
``There is a limit to our patience and tolerance,`` Mr Vajpayee said. He said that General Musharraf`s actions would be closely watched. ``The efforts that are going on, we will see to what extent they bear fruit, whether ongoing terrorism is stopped or not.``
George Bush yesterday expressed his ``strong reservations`` about Islamabad`s missile tests and called for restraint by the two countries. He said the pressure was on Pakistan`s ruler to keep his earlier pledges to tackle extremism. ``It is very important for President Musharraf to do what he said he`s going to do on terror,`` Mr Bush said.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, is due to fly to Islamabad later this week to give Gen Musharraf a similar message, before heading to Delhi.
New attempts to engineer a diplomatic solution to the crisis on the subcontinent appeared to collapse at the weekend when Indian officials snubbed an offer for a meeting between the two leaders at a summit arranged by Russia`s President Vladimir Putin in Kazakhstan next month.
Although the US and Russia have warned Pakistan to halt its missile tests, more launches are scheduled for today and tomorrow. Yesterday Pakistan tested a new missile, the Ghaznavi, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to a target nearly 200 miles away. On Saturday, it launched its Ghauri missile, which has a range of 1,000 miles and can carry a nuclear warhead nearly twice the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
At least 16 villagers were killed at the weekend when Indian and Pakistani troops kept up a heavy barrage of artillery fire across ceasefire line which divides the disputed mountains of Kashmir.
Military sources said the Pakistani army had taken up positions behind a newly-flooded strategic canal which protects the city of Lahore, 30 minutes drive from the Indian border. The move indicated the seriousness of the threat of war, the sources said.
In an interview published yesterday, Gen Musharraf signalled that his outnumbered army was ready for battle. ``We are capable of an offensive defence. We`ll take the offensive into Indian territory,`` he told the Washington Post.
India and Pakistan have already fought three wars, and nearly began a fourth in the mountains of Kashmir in 1999.
The desert heat along the border and the onset of the monsoon season next month may delay a conflict until September. But another militant attack could trigger a retaliatory strike by India.
India holds Pakistan directly responsible for a series of militant attacks in Kashmir and New Delhi in the past six months. Mr Vajpayee has told Islamabad to halt its support for Islamist militants or face war. Yesterday he said he regretted that India had not struck after an attack on its parliament in December, and likened the crisis to the US war against al-Qaida. ``When the world is fighting terrorism _ how long can India tolerate terrorism?`` he said in a hard-hitting speech on TV. ``The infiltration of militants into India has to end``.
Militants in Pakistan have described how they are free to raise funds and train young fighters for the guerrilla war in Kashmir, with the knowledge of the state intelligence service.
But there is scepticism about his commitment to reining in the militants, who have long been funded and directed by the state intelligence agency. He made similar pledges in January, but attacks have continued. Till now Washington has withheld its criticism, because Pakistan is a vital ally in the hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban remnants. Now the pressure is mounting. Richard Armitage, the deputy US secretary of state, will visit Islamabad and New Delhi soon.
Guardian, UK
#192 Posted by sarwar on May 27, 2002 12:12:37 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#191 Posted by cutandpaste on May 27, 2002 12:12:37 pm
World Opinion Roundup
India and Pakistan Slide Toward War
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3969-2002May24.html
Reading the India and Pakistan press on the military confrontation in Kashmir is both frightening and familiar.
It`s frightening because the sense of two societies caught in a ``drift toward disaster`` (a common headline) is palpable. Writers in major newspapers in both countries say bloodshed has been unjustly imposed by the other side and must be repelled for the sake of national dignity. If war does break out, the use of nuclear weapons is openly advocated, at least in Pakistan.
The commentary is familiar too because of the language often echoes commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially when it comes to America`s position on terrorism.
India describes its predicament much as Israel does. Like many defenders of the Jewish state, Indian opinionmakers are expressing impatience with Washington`s calls for ``restraint`` in the face of terrorist attacks. After the May 14 assault on an Indian Army camp in Kashmir that killed 30 people, many Indian observers are saying it is preparing for war in self-defense--just as America did after September 11.
The Pakistanis make a case much like the Palestinians. The Muslims of Kashmir, like the Palestinians of West Bank and Gaza, are said to be living under occupation and have the right to resist. Like the Arab press on Israel, Pakistani newspapers are filled with calls for the United States to curb an ``arrogant`` occupying power, namely India.
In short, these enemies both regard the United States as an ally in the war on terrorism and expect the Bush administration to intervene on their behalf. There is no more complex battleground in the U.S. war on terrorism than the remote Kashmir.
India: `Decisive Steps`
``It`s time for decisive steps,`` said columnist T.V.R. Shenoy in the Indian Express, a leading Bombay daily.
`` The United States was quick to urge `restraint` on India immediately after the attack on Parliament on December 13 last year. The message, conveyed in the most honeyed terms, was to the effect: `Give Musharraf some more time to deal with the militants in his country. If you weaken his position then his successor will be even more of a hardliner.```
``Today, Delhi wants to send an unambiguous message to Washington: `We listened to you six months ago at our own peril. We have been betrayed by a fellow democracy. Under your shield, and taking advantage of your benign neglect, General Musharraf is up to his dirty tricks once again.` ``
`` The truth is that India has no choice but to act in a manner that will bring home the consequences of his actions to General Musharraf. I hope it does not come to that. .... But, somehow, I get the impression that the general is still calculating that the US will come to his rescue. ``
The Hindustan Times, a respected daily in New Dehli, said that India`s military build-up in Kashmir was working because it had caused Pakistan to ``blink.``
``After the initial successes of the US action in Afghanistan, Islamabad evidently felt that it could resume its terrorist operations in Kashmir with renewed vigour. However, it is the expression of India`s determination to respond even militarily if needed which has evidently had an impact in Islamabad.``
Pakistan, the paper said, is reluctantly considering ``no longer allowing terrorists to use its soil for fomenting terror in Kashmir,`` adding, ``It is hard to tell how serious the junta is about implementing this policy.
``The US has been torn between choosing its ally, Pakistan, and the world`s largest democracy, India, before. It has failed to satisfy either side,`` writes Pakistani diplomat and columnist Husain Haqani, also in the Indian Express.
``Washington may be unable to fulfill either side`s desire for US action. At best, it can act as an honest broker and help them end the current military standoff.``
Pakistan: Moving Toward Disaster
``Things in the subcontinent seem to be moving toward disaster,`` said the editors of Dawn, Pakistan`s leading English-language daily.``
``In this situation,`` declared the Urdu-language, Nawa-i-Waqt, the country`s second-largest circulation daily, ``it is the responsibility of the United States to not only compel India to resolve the Kashmir issue in accordance with the UN resolutions but also convince India to pull back its troops to a peacetime position.``
`` As an ally [in war against terrorism], Pakistan should make it clear to the United States that Pakistan is neither involved in any type of terrorism nor encouraging any. The difference between terrorism and the struggle of the people of Kashmir should be realized and such statements should not be issued that could encourage India. ``
`` If war does break out,`` said the editors The News, a Karachi daily,
`` the USA, in particular, will not be able to plead post-hoc innocence, as the Bush administration is doing in the case of prior warnings about the September 11 attacks, that it was not specifically forewarned. The writing is very much on the wall.``
`` Indeed, Pakistan is having difficulties in taking the anti-terrorism campaign to its logical conclusion mainly because of the unabated Indian bellicosity, its refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a dispute and the urgent need to find a negotiated solution and the ancillary violence. The blind US support for Israeli bloodletting in Palestine has made things even more difficult for all Muslim governments. ``
The paper, the English-language flagship of the Jang media empire, declared ``a firm and fair US intercession is needed to avert disaster. ``
If India attacks, should Pakistan use its nuclear weapons? The Islamabad-based Pakistan Observer, says that it should, saying that ``Pakistan`s strength and will to resist aggression should not be underestimated.``
The independent news site urged the UN and major world powers
to intervene in the deteriorating situation and restrain India from pursuing the catastrophic path, as the war may escalate into nuclear conflict. The responsibility for such a human disaster will squarely rest on India. Pakistan reserves the right to defend itself with every weapon at its disposal, in case war is thrust upon it by India`s chauvinist leadership.``
Kashmir: The Haunting Question
And from Kashmir itself: ``The longest stand off in the history of the two nations has adversely affected the common man in the two countries,`` says the Kashmir Observer, an online news site based in Srinigar, the summer capital of mountainous state.
`` The pinch of the war hysteria is being felt by millions of Indians living much below the poverty line. Seen dispassionately fall-out of the confrontation between the two countries has been more devastating than three wars fought by the two countries in the past. People living on the borders and near the LoC [Line of Control] have been paying heavily for the longest ever battle ready situation. In fact planting of thousands of lands mines along the borders has brought agricultural activity to a halt in these areas and rendered thousands of people jobless. . . . The question that haunts common people is that why can not the military standoff end and give place to fresh peace initiatives in order to settle disputes?``
India and Pakistan Slide Toward War
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3969-2002May24.html
Reading the India and Pakistan press on the military confrontation in Kashmir is both frightening and familiar.
It`s frightening because the sense of two societies caught in a ``drift toward disaster`` (a common headline) is palpable. Writers in major newspapers in both countries say bloodshed has been unjustly imposed by the other side and must be repelled for the sake of national dignity. If war does break out, the use of nuclear weapons is openly advocated, at least in Pakistan.
The commentary is familiar too because of the language often echoes commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially when it comes to America`s position on terrorism.
India describes its predicament much as Israel does. Like many defenders of the Jewish state, Indian opinionmakers are expressing impatience with Washington`s calls for ``restraint`` in the face of terrorist attacks. After the May 14 assault on an Indian Army camp in Kashmir that killed 30 people, many Indian observers are saying it is preparing for war in self-defense--just as America did after September 11.
The Pakistanis make a case much like the Palestinians. The Muslims of Kashmir, like the Palestinians of West Bank and Gaza, are said to be living under occupation and have the right to resist. Like the Arab press on Israel, Pakistani newspapers are filled with calls for the United States to curb an ``arrogant`` occupying power, namely India.
In short, these enemies both regard the United States as an ally in the war on terrorism and expect the Bush administration to intervene on their behalf. There is no more complex battleground in the U.S. war on terrorism than the remote Kashmir.
India: `Decisive Steps`
``It`s time for decisive steps,`` said columnist T.V.R. Shenoy in the Indian Express, a leading Bombay daily.
`` The United States was quick to urge `restraint` on India immediately after the attack on Parliament on December 13 last year. The message, conveyed in the most honeyed terms, was to the effect: `Give Musharraf some more time to deal with the militants in his country. If you weaken his position then his successor will be even more of a hardliner.```
``Today, Delhi wants to send an unambiguous message to Washington: `We listened to you six months ago at our own peril. We have been betrayed by a fellow democracy. Under your shield, and taking advantage of your benign neglect, General Musharraf is up to his dirty tricks once again.` ``
`` The truth is that India has no choice but to act in a manner that will bring home the consequences of his actions to General Musharraf. I hope it does not come to that. .... But, somehow, I get the impression that the general is still calculating that the US will come to his rescue. ``
The Hindustan Times, a respected daily in New Dehli, said that India`s military build-up in Kashmir was working because it had caused Pakistan to ``blink.``
``After the initial successes of the US action in Afghanistan, Islamabad evidently felt that it could resume its terrorist operations in Kashmir with renewed vigour. However, it is the expression of India`s determination to respond even militarily if needed which has evidently had an impact in Islamabad.``
Pakistan, the paper said, is reluctantly considering ``no longer allowing terrorists to use its soil for fomenting terror in Kashmir,`` adding, ``It is hard to tell how serious the junta is about implementing this policy.
``The US has been torn between choosing its ally, Pakistan, and the world`s largest democracy, India, before. It has failed to satisfy either side,`` writes Pakistani diplomat and columnist Husain Haqani, also in the Indian Express.
``Washington may be unable to fulfill either side`s desire for US action. At best, it can act as an honest broker and help them end the current military standoff.``
Pakistan: Moving Toward Disaster
``Things in the subcontinent seem to be moving toward disaster,`` said the editors of Dawn, Pakistan`s leading English-language daily.``
``In this situation,`` declared the Urdu-language, Nawa-i-Waqt, the country`s second-largest circulation daily, ``it is the responsibility of the United States to not only compel India to resolve the Kashmir issue in accordance with the UN resolutions but also convince India to pull back its troops to a peacetime position.``
`` As an ally [in war against terrorism], Pakistan should make it clear to the United States that Pakistan is neither involved in any type of terrorism nor encouraging any. The difference between terrorism and the struggle of the people of Kashmir should be realized and such statements should not be issued that could encourage India. ``
`` If war does break out,`` said the editors The News, a Karachi daily,
`` the USA, in particular, will not be able to plead post-hoc innocence, as the Bush administration is doing in the case of prior warnings about the September 11 attacks, that it was not specifically forewarned. The writing is very much on the wall.``
`` Indeed, Pakistan is having difficulties in taking the anti-terrorism campaign to its logical conclusion mainly because of the unabated Indian bellicosity, its refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a dispute and the urgent need to find a negotiated solution and the ancillary violence. The blind US support for Israeli bloodletting in Palestine has made things even more difficult for all Muslim governments. ``
The paper, the English-language flagship of the Jang media empire, declared ``a firm and fair US intercession is needed to avert disaster. ``
If India attacks, should Pakistan use its nuclear weapons? The Islamabad-based Pakistan Observer, says that it should, saying that ``Pakistan`s strength and will to resist aggression should not be underestimated.``
The independent news site urged the UN and major world powers
to intervene in the deteriorating situation and restrain India from pursuing the catastrophic path, as the war may escalate into nuclear conflict. The responsibility for such a human disaster will squarely rest on India. Pakistan reserves the right to defend itself with every weapon at its disposal, in case war is thrust upon it by India`s chauvinist leadership.``
Kashmir: The Haunting Question
And from Kashmir itself: ``The longest stand off in the history of the two nations has adversely affected the common man in the two countries,`` says the Kashmir Observer, an online news site based in Srinigar, the summer capital of mountainous state.
`` The pinch of the war hysteria is being felt by millions of Indians living much below the poverty line. Seen dispassionately fall-out of the confrontation between the two countries has been more devastating than three wars fought by the two countries in the past. People living on the borders and near the LoC [Line of Control] have been paying heavily for the longest ever battle ready situation. In fact planting of thousands of lands mines along the borders has brought agricultural activity to a halt in these areas and rendered thousands of people jobless. . . . The question that haunts common people is that why can not the military standoff end and give place to fresh peace initiatives in order to settle disputes?``
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #70 hamidm: you wrote... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 33 You... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- KaalChakra: DM ji, we will... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Do... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Problem is... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 104 Quetta will... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 94 Jokingly... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- sadna: OK, thanks d_m, that... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
