Lighting The Nuclear Fire

There are balanced voices in the media in the west making themselves heard after all. Reporters are beginning to write about the role of India in the crisis in the subcontinent.

An editorial from the Seattle Times has this to say:

``(Musharraf) wants to rid Pakistan of terrorists and many Muslim fundamentalists — a nearly impossible task — to get on with the job of building his country into a democratic and modern Islamic nation. He is having elections in October for the parliament, from which will be selected a prime minister to head the government.

He is very determined and very straight — unusually so for a politician, especially a Pakistani politician. Pakistan has been plagued with leaders that have not been so — I have known many of them over the past 30 years.``

He goes on to say:

``Why would India want to go to war? Probably the overwhelming reason is its Hindu nationalist government has never accepted Pakistan as a reality and always wanted to eliminate it.``

Complete article at:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134467029_indiapakistan04.html

The LATimes has an editorial that points out:

``In fact, India has been playing the U.S. like a violin throughout this crisis. It is getting from Washington the carte blanche it seeks, which is to advance the agenda in regard to Kashmir that India has sought for years.``

Complete article at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000038690jun02.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dopinions

And the Independent has this to say:

``...that it is Mr Vajpayee who is primarily responsible for having provoked this grave and dangerous confrontation. He has cynically exploited the rhetoric of George Bush`s war against terrorism to rouse nationalist indignation against Kashmiri separatists, and he was at it again yesterday.``

Complete article at: http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=301639

mullah progressive,

Sorry to interrupt ``how great Islam is & how wretched everybody else is`` propaganda.

Just a gentle reminder. Please thank the gentle ancient Persian muslims for giving India Parsis--without whose persecution, they would`nt have have sent Manekshaw`s ancestors to India & he would`nt have kicked Gen. Yayha Khan, Tikka Khan ,Niazi Khan & every other world famous ``marital race`` Khan`s ass in 71.

Also, please thank the gentle benevolent, tolerant modern Persian muslims about their gentle persecutory genocide of bahais.

Also, I want to take this opportunity to profusely THANK the great, one & only, QAID for creating Pakistan & keeping guys like you & hobbyty on the other side of the border. Just dont be a ghusbatiya, OK? Cowards like you usually arent.

Now go ahead & tell us how fcuked up we hindus are. Knock your socks off..

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=12300030

Nuclear rationality

K SUBRAHMANYAM

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ SATURDAY, JUNE 08, 2002 12:00:08 AM ]

The visiting US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have opposed SALT II in the 1970s and frustrated Dr Kissinger’s attempts to progress towards arms reduction.

He is today the driving force behind the missile defence and a strong advocate of US dominance of outerspace.

According to media reports he is being sent to the subcontinent to teach Pakistan and India about the harsh realities of a nuclear exchange. As is to be expected a section of the Indian media have tried their best to raise nuclear scares and a few Indian strategists have doubts about India’s strategic acumen.

Therefore it is necessary to recall the evolution of Indian nuclear strategic thought and the rationality of the Indian nuclear doctrine which is being frequently quoted by our policy makers though they have not bothered to formalise it for over 30 months.

The country which brought out officially the first book on horrors of the use of nuclear weapons was India in the latter 50s and the book on effects of nuclear explosions was published by the DRDO under the leadership of Prof D S Kothari.

It became the standard text book for the campaign against nuclear testing led by Prof Linus Pauling in the US and the campaign for nuclear disarmament in the United Kingdom.

Delhi decided on nuclear option when the US chief of staff recommended that no nuclear guarantee could be given to India as it would annoy Pakistan and soon thereafter came the Pakistan-US-China line up in 1971 and the intimidatory US Enterprise mission.

Before Mrs Gandhi gave formal direction to DAE for the Pokhran of 1974 Pakistan had already decided to go for nuclear weapons in the meeting held in January, 1972 at Multan under the chairmanship of President Bhutto.

Pakistan reached its nuclear capability in 1987 and this was reported to Washington by CIA operative, Richard Barlow.

In 1990 when Pakistan was perceived by US intelligence to be preparing for a strike on India, unlike in the present occasion, the Senior Bush, as president despatched the Robert Gates mission to warn Pakistan. He did not order a travel advisory.

The US pressure did have its effect on Pakistan. India has been fully aware of the nature of nuclear war and its horrible impact.

Long before Western authors and US defence intelligence agency came up with their scenarios, Dr Sampuran Singh published one scenario in late 1960s and General Sundarji s second one in early 90s in his book ``Blind men of Hindustan’’.

Secretary Rumsfeld may save his time on making presentation on the effects of nuclear war and command and control problems and use it more effectively to discuss what US and India can jointly do to discipline Pakistan’s nuclear sabre-rattling.

The Indian nuclear doctrine makes it clear that this country would only retaliate after it has been hit and even that under specific orders of the prime minister or his designated successor.

There is no delegated power to any commanders as had been done in the US and the Soviet Union which made the Cuban missile crisis a uniquely dangerous one.

India does not subscribe to doctrines of nuclear war fighting and the Indian nuclear capability is intended solely for deterrence and retaliation.

Pakistan on its own admission had conveyed threat of use of nuclear weapon thrice and perhaps May 2002 should be considered as the fourth attempt at nuclear threat.

Rumsfeld will be reassuring the US as well as Indian populations if in the light of successive missile tests by Pakistan, Islamabad’s attempt at nuclear blackmail and the presence of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaderships in Pakistan and their continuing ability to operate.

He discusses what steps US proposes to take to ensure that there will no nuclear terrorism. It must be recalled that the Al Qaeda men who converted fuel-laden jet air-liners into missiles with fuel-air explosives are technologically clued-in people.

This is a matter of immediate concern to the Americans. Will Mr Rumsfeld be able to find out whether Pakistanis will be replacing the Ghauri missile they fired with new ones from North Korea, that member of evil axis? Does it enhance the US capability in calling North Korea names while keeping silent when that North Korea supplied missile is test fired in Pakistan?

Rumsfeld may have reasons to thank India for the Indian army deployment on the border. The entire Al Qaeda and Taliban slipped into Pakistan before India deployed its forces and it was done presumably with the full knowledge and connivance of Pakistani army.

Therefore getting the Pakistani army away from Pakistan-Afghanistan border will reduce the risks of intelligence on US operations being tipped off to al Qaeda and Taliban.

Rumsfeld has the unenviable task of explaining to US Congress and people why all US operations have so far not produced any results in Afghan-Pak border. He talks of Al Qaeda exploiting the Indo-Pak tension.

In that event there has to be much closer coordination between India and US. But the US succumbing to Pak nuclear blackmail and the panicky attempt to evacuate Americans in India even from Bangalore, Calcutta and Chennai etc have damaged trust between the two countries.

Therefore the first task of Rumsfeld in Delhi will be to carry out damage limitation for the events of May 31, 2001. Mr Rumsfeld of today does not carry the same credibility as he did in October-November 2001, having allowed the Al Qaeda to slip through.

In spite of that Rumsfeld’s visit is very timely since he has to listen and answer a lot of queries in Delhi about US policy towards Pak nuclear blackmail and strategy to vanquish Al Qaeda and not be outsmarted for the second time as happened in 1989-90.

It will be useful to have his assessment why 20 out of 22 Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have escaped the US dragnet over the last seven months. Rumsfeld will be a very busy man during his short stay in Delhi.

Something for Paki Kanjars to ponder upon.These westernised(the vulgar naked kind) go to great lenghts to please their massas and gloat about being ``moderate`` ``liberal`` muslims.

``Look massa,how much I almost look,walk & talk like you---yet I`m not a duck or am I? Quack Quack.

Onwards towards Islamic revolution & Sharia laws for Pakistan & eventually the world.

Hinduism,Hindians,secularism---the final unfinished business of eradicating idol-worship and God-lessness from earth.

__________________________________________________

IRAN: Life of Jews Living in Iran.

Iran remains home to Jewish enclave

By Barbara Demick

TEHRAN - The Jewish women in the back rows of the synagogue wear long garments in the traditional Iranian style, but instead of chadors, their heads are covered with cheerful, flowered scarves. The boys in their skullcaps, with Hebrew prayer books tucked under their arms, scamper down the aisles to grab the best spots near the lush, turquoise Persian carpet of the altar.

This is Friday night, Shabbat - Iranian style, and the synagogue in an affluent neighborhood of North Tehran is filled to capacity with more than 400 worshipers.

It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this most virulent anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

While Jewish communities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria have all but vanished, Iran is home to 25,000 - some here say 35,000 - Jews. The Jewish population is less than half the number that lived here before the Islamic revolution of 1979. But the Jews have tried to compensate for their diminishing numbers by adopting a new religious fervor.

``The funny thing is that before the Islamic revolution, you would see maybe 20 old men in the synagogue,`` whispers Nahit Eliyason, 48, as she climbs over four other women to find one of the few vacant seats. ``Now the place is full. You can barely find a seat.`` Parvis Yashaya, a film producer who heads Tehran`s Jewish community, adds: ``We are smaller, but we are stronger in some ways.``

Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, and a Jewish hospital, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles, its reading room decorated with a photograph of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Khomeini protection (for Jews)

Iran`s Jewish community is confronted by contradictions. Many of the prayers uttered in synagogue, for instance, refer to the desire to see Jerusalem again. Yet there is no postal service or telephone contact with Israel, and any Iranian who dares travel to Israel faces imprisonment and passport confiscation. ``We are Jews, not Zionists. We are a religious community, not a political one,`` Yashaya said.

Before the revolution, Jews were well-represented among Iran`s business elite, holding key posts in the oil industry, banking and law, as well as in the traditional bazaar. The wave of anti-Israeli sentiment that swept Iran during the revolution, as well as large-scale confiscations of private wealth, sent thousands of the more affluent Jews fleeing to the United States or Israel. Those remaining lived in fear of pogroms, or massacres.

But Khomeini met with the Jewish community upon his return from exile in Paris and issued a ``fatwa`` decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. Similar edicts also protect Iran`s tiny Christian minority.

Just as it radically transformed Muslim society, the revolution changed the Jews. Families that had been secular in the 1970s started keeping kosher and strictly observing rules against driving on Shabbat. They stopped going to restaurants, cafes and cinemas - many such establishments were closed down - and the synagogue perforce became the focal point of their social lives.

Iranian Jews say they socialize far less with Muslims now than before the revolution. As a whole, they occupy their own separate space within the rigid confines of the Islamic republic, a protected yet precarious niche.

Jewish women, like Muslim women, are required by law to keep their heads covered, although most eschew the chador for a simple scarf. But Jews, unlike Muslims, can keep small flasks of home-brewed wine or arrack to drink within the privacy of their homes - in theory, for religious purposes. Some Hebrew schools are coed, and men and women dance with each other at weddings, practices strictly forbidden for Muslims.

``Sometimes I think they are kinder to the Jews than they are to themselves. ... If we are gathered in a house, and the family is having a ceremony with wine or the music is playing too loud, if they find out we are Jews, they don`t bother us so much,`` Eliyason said.

``Everywhere in the world there are people who don`t like Jews. In England, they draw swastikas on Jewish graves. I don`t think that Iran is more dangerous for Jews than other places.``

Some problems exist

Testimony from Jews who have left Iran suggests more serious problems than those cited by Jews inside the country. In written testimony to a congressional subcommittee in February 1996, an Iranian Jew complained of being imprisoned for two years on trumped-up charges of spying for Israel. He also said his arrest was preceded by harassment at work and pressure to convert to Islam. Inside Iran, Jews say that they frequently receive alarmed telephone calls and letters from relatives in the United States concerned about their well-being, but that they themselves do not feel physically endangered. Their major complaint is the inability to visit family in Israel, and what they say is inadequate funding for Hebrew schools, which are administered by the Iranian Ministry of Education.

Although many Jews hold jobs in government ministries or within state-owned firms, they say they are unlikely to rise to top positions. In addition, Iran`s strict Islamic law, or ``sharia,`` contains many discriminatory provisions toward non-Muslims.

Jews `part of Iran`

Still, Jewish leaders say their community has far stronger roots in Iran than other Middle East Jewish communities, which were virtually eradicated by massive immigration to Israel in the 1940s and 1950s. Esther, the biblical Jewish queen who saved her people from persecution in the fifth century B.C., is reputed to be buried in Hamadan, in western Iran. The grave of the Old Testament prophet Daniel lies in southwestern Iran.

``We are different from the Jews of the diaspora. You see the name `Persia` in the Old Testament almost as often as the name `Israel.` The Iranian Jews are very much part of Iran,`` said Gad Naim, 60, who runs the old-age home in Tehran. Iranian Jews trace their history to the reign of Persia`s King Cyrus. As the Bible tells it, Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 B.C., liberated the Jews from captivity, and raised funds for the rebuilding of their destroyed temple in Jerusalem. The return of the Jews to Jerusalem at that time was accompanied by a large migration to the lands that were then Persia, and now Iran.

In Esfahan, an Iranian city fabled for its intricate Persian tile work, the first Persian Jews were settled under the reign of Cyrus. The ancient city was once known as Dar-Al-Yahud (``House of the Jews`` in Farsi), and as late as the 19th century it was the home of 100,000 Jews, according to Elias Haronian, head of Esfahan`s Jewish community.

Today, the city is a repository of Jewish lore. It has a cemetery with Jewish graves 2,000 years old, stunning synagogues and Jewish mausoleums with tiles to rival those of the mosques - but a population of only 1,500 Jews.

What happened to the Jews?

Some converted centuries ago. Indeed, in Muslim villages surrounding Esfahan, a distinctive Jewish dialect of Farsi is spoken, and Muslims still follow certain Jewish rituals, such as lighting candles on Fridays. Others left for Tehran, or for California or New York. Some went to Israel.

``It is not that life is so difficult for us, but a minority is a minority... We are like a glass of water in the sea,`` Haronian said. Haronian, a petroleum engineer, worries less about persecution than about the faltering Iranian economy, the lack of job opportunities for his four children, and the shortage of suitable Jewish spouses. ``There are very few Jewish boys here. There are so few of us,`` said his 17-year-old daughter, Shirin. At Esfahan`s Hebrew school, students confided that they are deeply torn between a love of their homeland and a desire to escape from the stifling isolation of Iran.

The decision to stay or go may rest largely on Mohammad Khatami, a relatively progressive cleric who won a landslide election May 23 as the next president of Iran. Although he is virulently anti-Israel in his public comments, Khatami was considered sympathetic to the Jews during his term as Iran`s minister of culture and Islamic guidance. He paid a campaign visit to a social club for Jewish women in Tehran. ``We expect more freedom, an easier life, not just for Jews, for everybody,`` said Farangis Hassidim, an administrator of Tehran`s Jewish hospital.

Not everyone in the Jewish community favors liberalization of Iranian society. Arizel Levihim, 20, a prospective Hebrew teacher, said Judaism has fared better within the confines of Iran`s strictly religious society. ``I believe it is good for women to keep their head covered. I think it is good to restrict relations between boys and girls,`` Levihim said. ``I agree with the ideals of the Islamic republic. These are Jewish values too.``

Shatru Sinha 429

You are a big Shutri. Everyone can not be a Minister. You blackmailed Vajpayee to make you MP with cabinet rank. You like rest of Biharis are a ``Kalank``. Anyway, the scar on your fat face puts me off. You tried you r best to be leading man in films - a role which never came to you. You got sidey roles of Goonda, Lufanga etc which Biharis deserve.

God, please tell Pakistan to nuke Bihar. Other benefits:

Malaria will be eradicated from India

Filaria will become extinct from this world

Ganges will be cleaner

Laloo Yadav will not be there

Bombay slums will be history

But labour cost will go up

Rickshaw walah will not be seen

Sadna: ``Prediction : a number of posters will now remember previous engagements.``

I luv u 2.

*waddles back to room, hits book *

shankar #407 you write ``After the OIC meetings are over, they use the resolutions for toilet paper..thats the blunt truth.``

In the spirit of accuracy, I should note that in the middle east and in some homes in Pakistan they have this flexible water pipe, about 3 feet long, that is attached to the toilet seat. At the press of a button, it emits a powerful spray that, if properly targetted (a big IF for some of us who couldnt hit a wall) quickly disposes off this embarassing aspect of the human condition (I resist the urge to philosophize here). I am not sure if this pipe has a name (``cease-fire hydrant`` perhaps), but it is obviously the rich man`s lotta.

OIC resolutions are therefore not necessary for this purpose, and are instead used to wrap fish (in the coastal areas).

Hope this is helpful in the discussion.

Re: Romair

DELUSION:

``...However, the world needs to be in the good books of Pakistan...``

REALITY:

`West considers embargo on aid to Pakistan` (Financial Times)

Western governments are considering withholding economic aid to Pakistan as a means of exerting pressure on General Pervez Musharraf, its president, to clamp down on terrorism.

A senior western diplomat said: ``The US believes that India`s best hope of stopping terrorism coming from Pakistan lies with Gen Musharraf. But it is true that we [the west] are actively considering economic pressure on Pakistan if it reneges on its promises.``

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1023101525382&p=1012571727088

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

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

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

{India holds a cricket match between Pakistan and India in Srinigar. Only Kashmiris are allowed to attend. Whichever side the crowd cheers for, ends up with Kashmir. Which side do you think the crowd would cheer for?}

...on the other board, some a$$ was measuring economic performance based on his dad giving him a job, now this ullu wants to have a cricket match to measure political consensus...pataa nahi kahaaN se chale aate hain...

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

re: NDA`s coercion pays off

NDA`s coercion seems to be working. At least that is what this article says. Url:

http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=3928

Excerpts:



1. ``What the acceptance of Islamabad’s demand for a separate working group on Kashmir, the magnanimity toward Nawaz Sharif’s elected government including the unusual gesture of the Prime Minister travelling by bus for dialogue at Lahore, the symbolic gesture at the Minar-e Pakistan, the victory at Kargil against Pakistan Army’s clandestine aggression in Kargil during the summer of 1999, and the invitation to Islamabad’s commando on the horseback for dialogue at Agra could not produce, has now been achieved by the demonstrated resolve to raise the costs of Islamabad’s flawed assumption that, under the nuclear umbrella, it could continue its so-called ‘‘low cost option’’ of bleeding India through a thousand cuts.``

2. ``But the president, who at Agra was unwilling even to consider the term cross-border infiltration, now repeats that no infiltration will be allowed across the Line of Control in J&K. He has often repeated that no terrorism will be allowed from Pakistani territory anywhere in the world—even in the name of Kashmir. Since no one else had ever pointed a finger at Islamabad for terrorism elsewhere except in India, the references were clear.

At Almaty he even asserted that ‘‘we cannot allow individual or group terrorism on any pretext.’’ That should end his myth of ‘‘freedom struggle.’’

Pakistan, which kept threatening India and the international community with nuclear weapons with irresponsible regularity, now admits publicly that it would be insane to even think of using them. Realisation seems to be finally dawning that there is always a counter to any strategy that is adopted provided there is will and time to work out the appropriate responses in a given environment.``

This article is a rebuttal to Romair`s assertion that BJP has blundered by raising the pitch of war and mobilising the army to the border. India has only raised the stakes for Pak. Pak cannot just sit at home sponsoring terrorism and claim it is only giving moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri jehadists. The world community will not believe Mushy anymore. It took a strong stance from India to get the world to take note or what Musy boy is upto. As i said, these are troubled times for Mushy boy.

Sridhar

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