Lighting The Nuclear Fire

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

Dr. Hoodbhoy,
you are right on the money here in this article. But the problem is ``what next?``.
The BJP is in trouble with the Indian voter,
The Musharraf Regime, although appearing to be strongly in the drivers seat, has been weakened
by this latest farce of a Referendum.
I hope that there are a lot more people in both countries who are into self preservation today
and choose to be vocal about it.
Sorry to dissapoint the Indian posters here but India cannot win a decisive war against Pakistan
again.
But the problem with Pakistan today is that its economy cannot afford the luxury of war
period. That is another reason why such a scenario has to be avoided.
There is just one point that you did not address
her Dr. Sahib (Dubys`s role?). But that will have to wait till later.
I am all for the Putin initiative today
but will the BJP show up for a summit in Moscow?

Ras

Is there any truth to this link?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Articleshow.asp?art_id=10950554

I am sure that a lot of people would like to know!

Ras

...conviction,‘eemaan’ is one thing…but holding unwilling and unsuspecting millions across international borders a ‘hostage’ to their convictions is another thing…that is not my islam…or yours i suspect…and i cannot think of any reason my Allah would be interested in the ‘jihadi’s narrow and sophistic interpretation…

…please read this:

May 26, 2002

The world holds its breath

Old foes India and Pakistan inch ever closer to nuclear war

By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor

[… With tensions at the breaking point, another bloody incident, such as the December attack on India`s Parliament, or last week`s raid on an Indian Army base in southern Kashmir, could finally provoke an Indian attack.

This means the fate of South Asia may well be in the hands of militant ``jihadi,`` - or holy warriors - in Pakistan and Indian Kashmir who believe an Indo-Pakistani conflict would somehow liberate Kashmir and drive the Americans from Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of these shadowy groups mounted the December attack on India`s parliament, which provoked India to declare its own, George Bush-style ``total war against terrorism.``

War fever is overcoming caution. A wrong move, new attack, or even a mistake, could plunge 20% of humankind into disaster.…]


http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_may26.html

Militants are trained in stages before infiltrating

From Rahul Bedi, in Jammu





INDIA/PAKISTAN: Kashmiri militants preparing to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir assemble at Pakistani army border posts in the dark, shivering in the icy winds sweeping down from the Himalayas.

Trained in camps across Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, they are poised to join their tanzems, or militant groups, fighting the 13-year civil war in the disputed northern principality, which is shared between the nuclear rivals but claimed by both. More than 35,000 people have died in Kashmir`s insurgency.

On a signal from their guide, they slither towards one of the Pakistan army`s machine-gun nests along the line of control near Kupwara, in northern Kashmir.

The tanzimi or administrator attached to each of the 35 to 40 training camps hands a promissory note to the guide, which is to be signed by his counterpart across the frontier, indicating that the crossing has been made safely.

On returning the guide receives about Rs 10,000 (£147 sterling) for each crossing for the well-oiled operation which has been in place across Kashmir`s 600-mile porous border ever since the insurgency for an Islamic homeland erupted in 1989.

As the heavy-calibre guns open up, following a wireless transmission by militants from Indian territory, the nervous insurgent group, led by a sure-footed scout, dashes across no man`s land into the thickly wooded hills.

Within seconds they are squirrelling their way across a maze of rock-strewn gullies that offer excellent cover, preventing any meaningful pursuit by the Indian army.

Like a ghost, another guide, familiar with the minefields, army patrols and ambush parties, emerges from the forest and escorts the newly infiltrated militants to their particular area of operation. Often they have to trek several nights across high mountain ranges, spending the day in ``transit camps``, their location changing continually.

Indian security officials said Pakistan`s secret Inter Services Intelligence, which ``runs`` Kashmir`s insurgency, follows precise procedures before helping militants infiltrate India.

They said once the tanzimi receives a ``requisition`` for fresh cadres over the wireless, he determines where and when the crossing will take place. This information is relayed back across the border and the crossing is effected a few days later, sometimes under cover of artillery fire.

Pakistan denies all links with Kashmiri militants, saying it provides the insurgency only diplomatic and political support. Indian and western intelligence agencies, however, refute Pakistani claims.

Indian security officials said the insurgents were trained in two stages, lasting about three months each, in about 30 to 40 camps located near the frontier in and around the Lipa valley in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

In the ``foundation`` course, batches of 50 to 100 militants undergo Islamic indoctrination and basic weapon training. In the ``advanced`` phase, they are divided into groups depending on their individual talents, and given rigorous commando and advanced weapons training.

The insurgents are also trained to make improvised explosive devices which have been responsible for killing a majority of the 4,200 security force personnel in Kashmir over the past 13 years.

At dawn every day, road-opening parties, armed with metal detectors and long sticks to probe the foliage, walk down highways and pathways frequented by the security forces, looking for buried explosives. At great cost the army acquired 90 mine-protection vehicles from South Africa four years ago to counter the improvised explosives.

Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0524/2614565746FR24BEDIMIL.html

May 25, 2002, 1:11PM

General: Al-Qaida trying to settle in Pakistan

Associated Press

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The al-Qaida terrorist network is trying to establish a safe haven in Pakistan, and the United States will deal with it when the time is right, the U.S. Army`s second-in-command said today.

Gen. John M. Keane said the United States and its coalition allies have denied Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network the use of Afghanistan as a base and removed the Taliban as the government supporting them. What few al-Qaida fighters remain, he said, have been reduced ``to small groups hiding in the mountains.``

``We have broken their will and they are trying to establish another safe haven now in Pakistan, and we will deal with that. When the time is right, we will deal with that one as well,`` Keane said during an address to members of the 101st Airborne Division based at Kandahar airport in southern Afghanistan.

``The only way we can protect the American people ... is to kill those who would kill them. There is no other way to do it.``

U.S. officials believe some al-Qaida and senior Taliban officials have fled across the porous border with Pakistan, where they are trying to reorganize.

``There is no longer a safe haven for the al-Qaida in Afghanistan. There is no longer a government that they can use to support them. There are no base camps left, there are no training camps left,`` Keane said during his one-day visit.

Keane told troops their objective in Afghanistan was the eradication of al-Qaida, and he lauded the 101st`s participation in Operation Anaconda, the March offensive in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan to surround and destroy al-Qaida fighters.

``We got one thing here (and that) is to kill these`` people, Keane said. ``And that`s what we are going to do, and we are going to keep doing, and keep doing, and keep doing it until we finish this thing on our terms.``

Since the collapse of the Taliban in December, fewer than 100 bodies of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters have been recovered. U.S. officials say others have been incinerated by bombs, buried in collapsed caves or dragged away by their compatriots.

Keane said U.S. troops in Afghanistan have an unprecedented level of support at home.

``All those other years, going all the way back to World War II, it`s always been about somebody else`s people; some other nation where some thug has imposed his will on them. This time it is all about the American people and they are here for us,`` he said.

The United States can`t rely on security measures alone, he told cheering troops, but must bring the fight to the terrorists.

``We can`t defend an open democratic society of 285 million people. The only way we can protect Americans is to kill those who would kill them. And that`s what you are here for and we`re doing that,`` Keane said.

Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1426259

re: Hoodhbhoy`s article

This man shows total ignorance of realities. He is not speaking on any one topic but is just blabbering on without focus. Is he talking about Indo-Pak conflict or Kashmir or fate of muslims in India? He jumps from one to the other. I have read better articles by him.

I agree that Pak`s nuclear threat should not be taken lightly by Indian planners. But which nation goes on threatining the way Pak does? It is like crying wolf once too often. Pak has said it would be the first to push the nuclear button if its existence is threatened and there the matter should end. We hear ad-nauseum Pak politicians and ex-military men talk about Pak`s nuclear capabilities. Have you even once heard any Indian politician or bureacrat talk about India`a capabilities. Deterrence lies in perception of threat not voicing the threat ad-nauseum.

Would Pak dare to push the nuclear button knowing well it will get annihilated? Would US allow this to happen as it is watching developments closely from close quarters.

I think India is trying to cripple Pak economically by rising the pitch everytime some killings happen. It is hard for me to believe that some killings, however reprehensible they are, would materially change everything. India has seized this opportunity to move some ships to Arabian Sea and will economically blockade Pak. Pak`s Stock markets have already crashed. Foreigners are leaving the country in droves. Few people will think of investing in Pak at present juncture. So, already India has succeeded in some way in causing a lot of economic problems for Pak.

India has taken the war hysteria to such a feverish pitch that western powers are now asking Pak to dismantle cross-border terrorism. Such words as ``cross border terrorism`` are being freely used by foreign press for the first time. Pak has thus been put under tremendous pressure.

I have said before, war is the last option. It will happen only if national interests are jeopardised: eg something similar to bombing of Indian parliament. I do not think more killings will lead to war though it will result in more international pressure on Pak and India resorting to more punitive measures.

All in all, a bad article coming from the Professor.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 1

temporal,

Brian Cloughley is wrong about conventional war in which India has overwhelming superiority. The question is: at what point will Pak pushe the nuclear trigger. Mushy dodged answering the question in an interview to Washington Post recently. Even US did not use nuclear ammo against Vietnam while it was losing war nor during the Korean conflict. Of course these are 2 different scenarios. In one case, a country`s survival is at stake. Still, for Pak to push the button first, it has to make sure there is no backlash by India. Can Pak annihilate every major town and city deep south apart from major ones like Delhi or Bombay by first strike. Let us face it. Nuclear deterrance is just that: a deterrance. Only a mentally deranged person will think of using it. Besides i hate to think US will sit watching as the nuclear powers nuke each other.

India does not have to go to war at all if it can ruin Pak economically. It is slowing upping the pitch. With this attack in Jammu, it has moved naval ships to Arabian Sea. It can effectively blockade all shipments to Karachi port. There are other options. War is the last option. By increasing the war hysteria to a feverish pith, India has demonstrated its seriousness and western powwers have taken note. Pressure is now on Mushy.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 4

Godot,

I suggest you read a little about Abdul Kalam. If indeed he becomes a President, it will be a proud day for India.

This man has a vision for India. It is to make India powerful enough so that its vital interests are safe and it can progress economically. Noone respects a big powerless country. China learnt it early on.

There have been a number of spin-offs from his defense labs. One such is production of low weight callipers for artificial limbs. There are others.

This man is no Abdul Kadir ``Xerox`` Khan. Abdul Kalam is also a poet (he is fluent in Tamil and sanskrit)and a writer and a visionary. So much for your pathetic knowledge.

In case you have missed it, yes he is also a muslim. That tells you about the country and its people. When was the last time a hindu or a non-muslim risen to such a high governmental position in Pak?

Sridhar

NEARING DOOM



By JIM HOAGLAND

May 25, 2002 -- INDIA and Pakistan are within three to four weeks of a foreseeable war that the United States has done too little to prevent. By misreading Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Bush administration has contributed to a dangerous confrontation between two nuclear-armed rivals.

The million troops deployed in the Kashmir theater now balance on a razor`s edge. The winter snows that immobilized them for four months are gone. Extreme heat and monsoon conditions will arrive in a month or so in the region, limiting India`s logistical capabilities and campaign predictability. India`s politically faltering government faces a choice of going to war before that moment - or enduring the embarrassment of ending a costly and seemingly ineffective mobilization.

But India may not wait until the last moment and give up the element of surprise. Another incident in Kashmir like the May 14 guerrilla attack on defenseless Indian women and children in Jammu would almost certainly trigger immediate Indian retaliation.

``The country is ready for war,`` Indian officials say confidently. Pakistan`s tightly monitored press is featuring usually taboo reports of deployments of troops and weapons such as surface-to-surface Shaheen missiles.

A full war is presumably not Musharraf`s aim. He cannot conquer India. But the Pakistani military ruler has shown in the past two months that when it comes to the half-century conflict over Kashmir, he is an extraordinary risk-taker. He has dared India to fight and has boldly reneged on a promise to the Bush White House to shut down terror camps in Kashmir. The two steps are related.

After internal debate, the U.S. intelligence community now accepts that Musharraf allowed the quiescent guerrilla camps in Kashmir to come back to life in mid-March. Two other Musharraf promises - to prevent cross-border terrorism from Pakistan or Pakistani-controlled territory and to dismantle and prevent the return of Islamic fundamentalist organizations preaching jihad in Pakistan - have also withered as U.S. attention has been focused on the Middle East.

``The debate about what is going on has been settled,`` says one U.S. official involved in the contentious discussions here about Musharraf`s dishonored pledge to cut off the help and training that his intelligence services and military give to terrorists in Kashmir and India. ``The rate of infiltration into Indian-occupied Kashmir is above the rate of a year ago. What is still being debated is Musharraf`s intention. Is he unable or unwilling to prevent what is happening? And what do we do about either case?``

The effect of Secretary of State Colin Powell`s intense and successful diplomatic intervention last winter to ease tensions has been washed away by U.S. inattention and failure even to acknowledge Pakistan`s subsequent backsliding. ``America is either with us or with the terrorists,`` Omar Abdullah, a rising star in India`s political system, said in Parliament last week as details of the grisly Jammu raid spread.

The attack on an Indian military family housing area by three guerrillas identified in the Indian media as Pakistani citizens could hardly have been more inflammatory. Wives and children of Indian soldiers were butchered. A 2-month-

old baby was machine-gunned to death. By coincidence or design, the attackers went to the very limit of the Indian military`s tolerance.

Musharraf`s own assessment of the consequences of such acts remains murky. He may believe that India does not have the will to attack. Or he may believe that Washington needs him too much in the war on al Qaeda and the Taliban to let India come after him. U.S. officials have certainly given him grounds for thinking that.

Or Musharraf may be quite willing to see limited clashes begin in hopes of provoking international intervention in Kashmir, much as Yasser Arafat hopes to draw outside powers into his conflict with Israel.

In 1971, Pakistan launched attacks along India`s western frontier that had no chance of military success. Pakistan`s military rulers, humiliated by India`s easy conquest of their forces in the eastern territory that would become Bangladesh, went to war in a desperate and forlorn bid for outside intervention to save them from defeat and disgrace.

Managing Musharraf and Pakistan`s role in Operation Enduring Freedom is a tricky task. But Powell and his chief aides have devoted little time and energy to that demanding job since mid-February. They are letting events drag them back in belatedly to separate two nuclear-armed antagonists.

Pakistan helped create and foster al Qaeda and the Taliban. It has long used terror as an instrument of state policy to try to break India`s hold on two-thirds of Kashmir that New Delhi controls. Confronted with anything less than unrelenting pressure, Musharraf will keep on gambling, up to the brink and perhaps beyond.

E-mail: hoaglandj@washpost.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/43087.htm

China card could yet trump Musharraf

By Ahmad Faruqui

By reversing the policy of supporting the Taliban last October, President General Pervez Musharraf eliminated a major irritant in Pakistan`s relations not only with the United States but also with China. To the world at large, Islamabad sent a signal that it had stopped its policy of using the mujahideen to promote Islamic causes in Kashmir and elsewhere. Once the Soviets left Afghanistan in the early 1990s, China became concerned that mujahideen fighters trained by the Pakistani army for fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Indians in Kashmir were turning their attention to China`s northwestern province of Xinjiang.

Xinjiang is home to a large Muslim population, several of whom are believed to be waging a struggle for an independent homeland known as Eastern Turkestan. They live in an area where two short-lived independent Uyghur republics were set up in 1933 and 1944. At one point during the 1990s, China closed off the Karakorum Highway between Xinjiang and Pakistan`s Northern Areas. The highway terminates at the town of Kashgar in China, which along with Khotan is known as the hotbed of Uyghur nationalism in the southern part of Xinjiang province. The Chinese closed the highway because they suspected that it had become an easy conduit for the mujahideen. They also wanted to send a strong signal to the government of Pakistan that China would not hesitate to freeze the close ties between the two neighbors if Pakistan did not stop its backing for Islamic militants.

As they entered the 21st century, the aging rulers in Beijing identified ``separatism, extremism and splitism`` as three great evils that had the potential of unraveling China more forcefully than any overseas threat from Washington or Moscow. The areas formerly known as Eastern Turkestan were identified as a key priority area for containing these three evils because they are largely inhabited by ethnic minorities with unclear allegiances to Beijing. A program to transplant large numbers of Han Chinese into these areas was initiated, seeking to change the ethnic balance of power in the province, just as they had changed the ethnic balance in Tibet in prior decades. Han immigrants now form some 40 percent of the region`s 18 million people, up from a mere 6 percent in 1949. In the mid-1990s, China joined Russia and three Central Asian republics in creating the Shanghai Five grouping designed to stop ethnic movements from fomenting rebellions and gaining independence.

Beijing had finally concluded that Islamabad`s policy of fighting a proxy war in Kashmir was a danger to China`s security, not just India`s. Deng Xiaoping, who chose to implement a program of ``four modernizations``, stated bluntly that China wanted peace and stability along all its borders to ensure their achievement. He invited then Indian premier Rajiv Gandhi to Beijing and began a process of normalizing relations between the two Asian giants. Deng signaled to Islamabad that China could not afford to experience the spillover effects of a major war along its southern borders between India and Pakistan.

During a landmark speech to the Pakistani Senate in 1996, Chinese President Jiang Zemin counseled the Pakistanis to seek a peaceful resolution of their conflict with India. Jiang`s speech represented a significant softening in the policy of supporting the Pakistani position in Kashmir. Much to Islamabad`s chagrin, it was billed as a major policy speech dealing with South Asia. To this day, it continues to be posted on the Chinese government`s official website dealing with Pakistan.

The Kargil incursion of spring 1999, under which Pakistani irregulars, regulars and jihad-seeking mujahideen fighters were injected into Indian-held Kashmir, was a low water mark in the ties between the two countries. By putting the Indian garrison in Kargil on the defensive, Pakistan sought to present a fait accompli to the world community, one it hoped that would restore the topic of Kashmir to the global front burner. The Pakistani army, which has always made Pakistan`s national security policy regardless of who is in power in Islamabad, had hoped that the incursion would be viewed as an indigenous uprising in Kashmir. It would lead to United Nations intervention, and be followed by the injection of a peacekeeping force a la Kosovo. The ultimate goal was to force a plebiscite in Indian-held Kashmir. The generals in Rawalpindi saw the UN-sponsored plebiscite in East Timor as a good omen.

Much to Islamabad`s surprise, China not only refused to back the Pakistani position, but joined with the United States to call for the withdrawal of the fighters. The Pakistani forces were subsequently withdrawn in July, on the urging of then US president Bill Clinton. This act of military humiliation triggered a power struggle between then premier Nawaz Shariff and the army chief, General Pervez Musharraf, resulting in the latter`s coup d`etat in October 1999.

China and Pakistan have often been called ``all-weather friends``. However, the friendship has gone through significant ups and downs over the past half-century. During the 1950s, relations between the two countries were marked by open hostility. Pakistan was a member of several Cold War alliances created by then US secretary of state John Foster Dulles, which aimed at containing the spread of Soviet and Chinese communism.

In 1959, Field Marshal Ayub Khan offered a joint defense pact to India that premier Jawaharlal Nehru spurned by asking, ``Joint defense against whom?`` During China`s border war with India in 1962, Pakistan accepted US appeals not to open a second front against India in Kashmir. However, after Ayub`s foreign minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto signed a border agreement in March 1963 with China, delineating the respective territories in Kashmir, relations took a very positive turn. Pakistan International Airlines became the first non-communist airline to fly into Beijing. Pakistan, then the world`s largest Muslim country, provided China with an opening to the Muslim world, something that China had lacked for years.

During its 1965 war with India, Pakistan took much comfort in strong statements emanating from Chinese foreign minister Chen Yi condemning Indian aggression and threatening to send the People`s Liberation Army against Indian border positions. Premier Zhou Enlai sent Chinese weapon shipments to Pakistan, but these arrived too late to alter the course of the war. The United States and Britain slapped an arms embargo against both belligerents and this in effect crippled Pakistan`s chances to carry on the war against an enemy that was not only three times as big militarily but also had a significant domestic defense industry. The war ended in a Soviet-brokered ceasefire in Tashkent, in present-day Uzbekistan.

After the war, Pakistan sought to diversify its arms supplies by going to France and China. French equipment was very expensive, and had to be confined to a few squadrons of Mirage III and V fighter-bombers and three Daphne-class submarines. Beijing became Pakistan`s arms supplier of first resort, with its bulk supplies of more than 100 F-6 (Soviet MiG-19 derivative) supersonic fighter-bombers and almost 1,000 T-59 (Soviet T-54 derivative) main battle tanks. Pakistan upgraded the F-6s to carry US-made Sidewinder missiles and equipped them with advanced European radar. More important, China offered to set up a defense production complex near Islamabad.

In addition, it proceeded to bankroll the engineering and construction of an all-weather highway through the Karakorum mountains, along the site of the southern branch of the ancient Silk Road. Sappers from the Pakistani army corps of engineers worked side by side with their Chinese counterparts to construct this highway, whose significance was entirely symbolic since not much trade took place by land.

At that time, China saw Pakistan as a key element in its South Asian policy of pinning down Indian forces away from the border with China. In an unguarded moment, a Chinese general is believed to have called Pakistan ``China`s Israel``. During the waning years of the Vietnam War, Pakistan provided a diplomatic bridge to the US as it sought a rapprochement with China. Both Washington and Beijing were anxious to create a counterweight to Moscow, and in General Yahya Khan`s Pakistan they found a willing marriage broker. Henry Kissinger visited Beijing in secret, while suffering from a mystery ailment in Islamabad.

During the 1971 war with India, Beijing did not provide any overt military help to Pakistan`s beleaguered garrison in East Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. Not only were the Himalayan passes snowed in, but India`s strong ties with Moscow had brought about the movement of several heavy Soviet divisions to the Soviet-China border in Manchuria. China felt powerless to help the generals in Rawalpindi, who had ignored its advice to find a political solution to the civil war in East Pakistan. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the architect of Pakistan`s China policy, soon replaced the generals. Bhutto began a nuclear-weapons program in Pakistan with covert Chinese assistance, and even though he was removed from power by the army in 1977 and hanged in 1979, China continued to support the Pakistani drive to acquire the bomb.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1989 was another positive milestone in the ties between Islamabad and Beijing. Both countries had a common enemy in Moscow. So did Washington, which initiated a major proxy war against the puppet regime that the Soviets installed in Kabul. Under General Zia ul-Haq`s watchful eye, mujahideen fighters were recruited, trained and equipped by the Pakistani army, with support not only from Washington but also from Beijing.

China continued to shower Pakistan with military hardware at subsidized prices. Shipments coming into the port of Karachi now included F-7 (Soviet MiG-21 derivative) air-superiority fighters and A-5 ground attack warplanes for the Pakistani air force; T-69 and T-85 main battle tanks for the army; and fast attack missile boats for its navy. A heavy mechanical complex and a heavy foundry and forge complex had become operational in the areas around Taxila (near Islamabad), as did an aircraft rebuilding factory in Kamra, giving the Pakistani military much needed domestic production capability. In the early 1990s, China went a step further and provided M-11 short-range ballistic missiles. Under the open eye of US satellite cameras, they were placed in storage bunkers in Pakistan`s strategic air base in Sargodha. On the civilian front, China built a medium-sized nuclear power plant at Chasma.

Sino-Pakistani ties began to ebb as Pakistan stepped up its support for Islamic militants, culminating in the establishment of the Taliban government in Kabul in 1996. China stopped supplying arms to the Taliban, and urged Islamabad to rein them in. The Taliban, in their zeal to restore the ancient glory of Islam, remained focused on exporting an Islamic revolution throughout Central Asia. Pakistan was reluctant to curb them since it was anxious to acquire strategic depth vis-a-vis India by having a pro-Islamabad regime in Kabul.

The events of September 11 and US President George W Bush`s clarion call to Islamabad to decide which side it was on brought about a completely unexpected reversal in Pakistan`s pro-Taliban policy. New strength was injected into the ties between Islamabad and Beijing.

On a state visit to China, Musharraf visited the historic city of Xi`an in December 2001. At the request of the Chinese leadership, he held an unprecedented meeting with the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Xi`an. Musharraf said, ``Islam is a religion of peace and we don`t believe in any violence and therefore you, being a part of China, have to be very patriotic and for the good of China, all Muslims in China should work for the good of China.`` In a meeting with leading parliamentarian Li Peng, he said, ``Pakistan will make full efforts to support China to fight against East Turkestan terrorism forces.`` Many Chinese human-rights group assailed his statement.

They expressed their concern that China would use every opportunity it could to repress the human rights of minority Chinese. Amnesty International accused China of stepping up repression and executions of its Uyghur Muslim minorities in the name of fighting the global war on terrorism. UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson warned that there had been a significant increase in complaints of extrajudicial killings, torture and ill-treatment of Uyghurs since September 11.

In a letter to Pakistan`s US ambassador, the president of the Uyghur American Association challenged Musharraf`s moral authority to call on the Uyghurs to shun violence. He said that in sharp contrast to the television images coming out of Muslim Pakistan, riots, public disorders and other violence were a rarity among Uyghurs, even though they were being provoked and violated constantly by an atheistic regime. Stating that Pakistan fights with India over land that is not even part of Pakistan, he argued that the Uyghurs were fighting to regain an occupied land from foreign occupation. He asserted that the Uyghur struggle for freedom from Han tyranny was at least as legitimate as Pakistan`s struggle for Kashmir, where the Muslims at least have some common history and culture with India. His points were not lost on many Muslims living in Pakistan, who had found Musharraf`s statements gratuitous.

Musharraf decided to go the extra mile for China, knowing how sensitive the topic of Muslim separatism had become to Beijing. He was right because in a visit to Turkey in April, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji noted, ``East Turkestan forces, including some who received military training in Afghanistan, are trying to protect their strength and escape military hits by trying to move to some countries, including Turkey.``

When terrorists struck the Indian parliament in New Delhi on December 13, India mobilized half of its army and moved it within striking distance of the Pakistani border. China, while saying that there was no connection with the Indian mobilization, rushed 20 F-7 fighters to Pakistan. While small in number, the gesture had symbolic significance that was not lost on the leaders in New Delhi. The chairman of the Pakistani joint chiefs of staff committee, General Muhammad Aziz, visited Beijing in January at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart. A joint communique, issued at the conclusion of his visit, stated that no country would be allowed to use the war against terrorism to further its national interests, a clear reference to India.

China has rewarded Musharraf by agreeing to build a modern seaport at the town of Gwadar, along the Makran coast. Chinese aid to build the seaport is estimated as being close to US$1 billion, spread over several years. Gwadar, strategically located at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, can serve as a naval base for submarines of the Chinese navy, giving China unusual leverage over world supplies. China will also be able to exercise considerable control over the Indian navy, which is seeking to develop a blue water force projection capability and to venture as far eastward as the South China Sea. Pakistan appears to have granted full docking rights to the Chinese navy, even though Beijing has been anxious to not mention the military aspects of the Gwadar port construction project.

The recent terror attacks in Kashmir occurred as the Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan arrived in Islamabad on May 15. Tang congratulated Musharraf on his victory in the referendum (giving him another five years in power), and once again repeated the ``all-weather friends`` mantra. As India stepped up its rhetoric about pursuing the militants across the border, a low-ranking Chinese official issued a cautiously worded statement saying that China would back Pakistan in any conflict with India.

It is clear that China wants to interject itself back into the regional politics of South Asia. It is very apprehensive about an increasing US military presence not only in Afghanistan but in several Central Asian republics and now in Pakistan. It is simply not prepared to cede political and diplomatic leadership to Washington, with whom relations continue to be tense because of continuing US support for Taiwan. And it wants to keep Pakistan as a strong military counterweight to India, while pursing closer economic ties with India. Sino-Indian trade exceeds Sino-Pakistani trade by a wide margin, when it was practically non-existent until Rajiv Gandhi`s visit to Beijing.

China remains wary of India`s nascent military ties with the United States, and India`s support for the US missile defense program. Thus, it will continue to be Pakistan`s major arms supplier. At the same time, it will not support Pakistan`s proxy war in Kashmir. It continues to urge Pakistan to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict with India, through bilateral negotiations. That is tantamount to accepting the Line of Control that divides Indian and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as an international border.

Thus far, Musharraf has been able to solidify Islamabad`s traditional friendship with China, and strengthen his position against an Indian attack. But, like his newfound relationship with the US, friendship with China has been being regained at great personal cost. The events of the past several months have shown that his domestic crackdown against the militants will never be enough for India, or possibly even for the US. Yet, at some point, it will become simply too much for the religious parties to countenance. They have already united into a single platform with each other, and are exploring links with several mainstream political parties to make common cause against Musharraf`s extension of military rule via the April 30 referendum.

Having successfully expanded his space for maneuver internationally, Musharraf has now found that he has shrunk his space for maneuver domestically. Ultimately, since all foreign policy is domestic, he may find himself pinned into a corner from which the only exit strategy would be to hand over power to someone else, before that someone else takes it from him.

At that point, he may well feel betrayed by Beijing. The Chinese have shown no hesitancy in according legitimacy to new rulers in Islamabad. Their ``all weather`` interest in Pakistan is not enshrined in personalities - it is driven by their own national interests.

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DE25Df02.html

re: t # 2

That is why I say that the most ardent friends of BJP are not Indian people but Pakistani military. Everytime BJP is in political trouble, our friends across the border do (or allow to happen) something really stupid.

Real meaning of Vinash kale vipareeth buddhi!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<

One is under the influence of `wrong` intelligence

just before destruction.

Or to paraphrase:

cause of destruction is weong intelligence.

. ``vipareet`` means ``wrong``,

``anti`` .. et

So what Sanskrit is Indias language & This saying is from Vedas in Sanskrit ....

Parvez in URDU it is said Choote ke marne ke din jab aate haine tou usse Par nikal aate haine aur Sheher ke our Bhagte hai

May be its time for India to get her death wish since there has been so much talk & activities about Death & Mayheim starting with GujjRIOT by GUJJURATS

Pak. test-fires Ghauri missile

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fhttp://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002052603660100.htm

Pak. test-fires Ghauri missile

A Pakistan Television image showing the launching of the Ghauri missile on Saturday. ? AP

ISLAMABAD MAY 25. Pakistan successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile today.

``Pakistan today carried out a successful test-fire of its indigenously developed medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Hatf-V (Ghauri),`` an official statement said.

``This was the third test of the Ghauri missile system. According to the data collected from the test, all the design parameters have been successfully validated. The Ghauri can carry warheads with great accuracy,`` the statement said, adding that Pakistan`s last missile tests were in April 1999.

The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, ``has congratulated the scientists, engineers and all others involved with the programme on their outstanding success, which is a source of pride for the nation.

``The series of tests are a part of the research and development of Pakistan`s indigenous missile programme, which is an essential element of Pakistan`s policy of maintaining minimum deterrence in the interest of our security.

``It demonstrates Pakistan`s determination to defend itself, strengthen national security and consolidate strategic balance in the region,`` the statement said.

The missile was fired in northern Pakistan, a security officer said. ``The Hatf-V can be tipped with any warhead. Any ballistic missile can carry a nuclear warhead.``

The missiles have a range of between 1,500 and 2,000 km.

http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20020525151310&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&rLink=0

Pak has developed two types of N-arms: Report

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PTI

NEW YORK: Pakistan has developed two types of nuclear arms while hundreds of scientists are labouring to design nuclear missiles in the Kahuta Khan Research Laboratories, a media report here said on Saturday.

``One is a smaller weapon that can be delivered by an aircraft. The other is bigger. One that was tested can be easily deployed on our Ghauri missiles,`` Abdul Qadeer Khan, director of the Kahuta plant and the man regarded as the architect of the country`s nuclear and missiles programmes, told The New York Times.

American intelligence agencies found ``disturbing evidence that the Pakistani were preparing their arsenals for possible deployment,`` according to a recent paper by Bruce O. Riedel, a former member of the Clinton administration`s National Security Council.

Despite claims by Pakistan that the late version of Ghauri missile was indigenously designed, the paper quoted experts and senior retired Pakistani officials as saying that Islamabad in fact obtained assistance from North Korea.

Under heavy pressure from Washington not to sell missiles to Pakistan, China instead reportedly financed North Korea to develop Pakistan`s missile programme, the daily said.

North Korea, in turn, agreed to provide Pakistan with components from its Nodong missile line, based on an old Soviet Scud. Pakistan was also assisted in its nuclear and missile programmes by Iran and Syria, it added.<

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

temporal..please, let`s not wish each other a fond goodbye just yet. *holding on *

Godot..I talked with someone incredibly dear to my heart about this whole stinking dangerous mess who echoes your sentiments.

I know that there are intelligent voices like those of Dr.Hoodbhoy on either side of the border, men and women alike for whom `a decisive action` is not that of war. Unfortunately these voices are lacking within both governments, and we hang our heads in shame as analysts in the Western world talk about us with condescension, and write about how we do not know what nuclear war means.

Why should anyone relax because its not India who will initiate the war, but Pakistan, Progressive ji? How will that make either position better?

Obviously the voices of reason and peace are falling upon the deaf ears of both sides..and the situation looks bleak and depressing. And yet..I`m still hoping....

An Appeal To All Indians

Please forward the following petition by Zafar to as many people as possible. It is extremely important that the message reaches a large audience. Put this message on as many websites as possible. This is a battle of hearts and minds and it should be fought this way. Chowk Staff, Can you publish the text of the petition as an article? Zafar is it possible to link this petition to Times of India/Indian Express or any other national newspaper? All of us can contribute a little bit towards alleviating bigotry in our own countrymen. Thank you in advance.

http://www.petitiononline.com/JaiHind/petition.html