Lighting The Nuclear Fire

Dear Prof.

I respect your views a lot but I would like to say however, the junction at which we find ourselves at this particular moment is pretty serious, how did we arrive here that could be debated till the cows come home but there are certain ground realities which simply can`t be ignored. Have we made mistakes along the way, Yes...Many, did we learn, I hardly think so but be that as it may its our home and the enemy is 1 million strong knocking at the door.I would like to put some questions to you I hope you take a moment and look at these without the idealistic and normative lense you normally use.

1) Indian denied Kashmiris the legal and moral right to self determination. True or False.

What has UN ( the most frivilous org ) done to fix it, Has it been successful to let Kashmiris choose their freedom. NO

2) They want to do away with Indus Basin treaty. They either want to ``flood`` us or bring ``drought`` on us. Ture or False

3) They are 10 times our size with growing fundamentalist rhetoric of ``Mandir Bun Kay Rahaye Gaa`` to ``India is only for Hindus`` to ``state sponsored genocide in Gujrat`` Do you have any reason left in your mind that they are ``willing and able`` to listen to reason. Ture or False

Has Anyone in the so called civilized world listened to any reason to Muslim plight may it be Palestine or Bosnia or Afghanistan or Kashmir EVER !!!

4) The only reason that stops them now in their tracks is because Pakistan does have, however limited, but some Nulcear capability and thank god for that other wise instead of knocking at your door they would not think twice before crossing the LOC. Ture or False

5) They have had 700,000 strong army in kashmir for a long time now, are you telling me that this being practically a military state has been ``unable`` to curb some disfranchised seperatist. They don`t allow human rights or UN in Kashmir...why? Are they afraid that the true side of their hypocritical secularism would come to light? And as usual the world is silent. Sure they have a green light from USA because Indians would not be up on such a scale on their own. We may be weaker, smaller, financially less stable but We are NO Palestinian Authority, we do have a 600,000 strong army and we do have medium and long range missile capability those war mongering Vajpaee`s, Advani`s, Thakarays, Fernandes want to push us around...fine but it won`t be that simple. They simply can not think that the idiotic ``limited war`` nonsense would apply in our situation.

6) And lastly, I hope you do know that NO ONE likes a Muslim Country with Nuclear capability or a Missile program, even to defend herself. How true is that. And the ummah...can go *bleep * itself and no one has uttered one word to the recent crisis. How sorry is that? We must ACKNOWLEDGE that we are ALONE in this, may be we can count on Chinese but only to a certain extent. Reagon had his evil empire, Bush don`t like china, and I hope Chinese can see through the over all US / INDIA design for the future of south east/asia. We are the only thorn in both of their sides.

7) I hope there is no war and saner sense prevails but India will never let go. They would keep killing kasmiris on one pretext or the other, they will keep ethinic cleansing in other states and keep committing genocide of Muslims, they WILL deny you water and they will work on some way to hurt you. I hope we pakistani should understand that we should ACCEPT that USA is not our friend, UK is not our friend, Israel is not our friend. We have lost Afghanistan I hope we can mend it but I doubt it. But still if there is to be a war, then I pray that for every Lahore or Karachi or Islamabad we take out 2 Mumbais, and 5 Madras and 10 Delhis.

Lalas lost sleep the day we discoloured Chagai mountains and that`s a FACT.

PAKISTAN COURTS DOOM

May 23, 2002 --

Don`t look now, but India and Pakistan may be about to go to war.

And given that both have nukes, this is serious business.

Yesterday, the rhetoric made war seem imminent: ``Be ready for sacrifice,`` Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee told troops on the front line. ``Your goal should be victory. It`s time to fight a decisive battle.``

There`s a chance, of course, that this was mere chest-beating by the Indian leader - his way of nudging Pakistan to clamp down on Islamic fundamentalists who are waging terrorist attacks in the disputed Himalayan state of Kashmir.

But he also said this: ``Whether our neighbor gets that signal or not, whether the world keeps record of that or not, we will write a new chapter of victory.``

The risks are indeed high: Both sides have massed huge numbers of troops near the border.

``The situation is a tense one,`` Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

Added State Department spokesman Philip Reeker: ``The shelling across the line of control in Kashmir has recently increased. It`s now heavy. We find this a very worrisome development.``

U.S. and European officials yesterday were scrambling to reduce tensions.

But in South Asia as in the Middle East, responsibility does not accrue to both sides equally. Last week, a squad of Islamic terrorists slaughtered nearly three dozen people - most of them civilians, ten of them children - in a machine-gun attack on the family quarters of an Indian army camp. Weeks earlier, terrorists attacked India`s parliament. India believes, with good reason, that the terrorists are trained, armed and backed by Pakistan.

(Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to use the threat of Indian military intervention as an excuse for limiting its cooperation with the United States in the hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban gunmen.)

Certainly, India would be justified in sending its forces across the border to smash terrorist bases in Pakistani territory. But it`s all too possible that in the event of a major clash, first Pakistan and then India would go nuclear.

A new report by a former senior staffer on the Clinton National Security Council, Bruce Reidel, reveals that the two countries came frighteningly close to a nuclear exchange back in 1999.

Apparently, U.S. intelligence discovered that the Pakistani military was putting nuclear warheads on its medium-range ballistic missiles.

President Clinton confronted then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (who was ``taken aback``) and the Pakistanis - who had started the crisis by sending proxy forces into Indian territory - stood down.

But India can`t be expected to restrain itself indefinitely. The United States must make it clear to Pakistan that the war on terror, regional stability and America`s friendship all depend on that country`s willingness to crack down on the Islamic militants operating on its soil.

Those militants, remember, are America`s enemies, too

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=203704

New York Post

Excerpts From Post Interview

Musharraf: `There Is Nothing Happening on the Line of Control`



The Washington Post

Saturday, May 25, 2002; 3:21 PM

Following are excerpts from an interview Saturday with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in Islamabad, Pakistan, by Washington Post Managing Editor Steve Coll:

Q. I`d like to start by asking how serious, at this stage, you think the threat of war is.

A. My honest judgment is that the situation is certainly tense, and serious. I say this because of the massing of troops – army, navy, air force – by the Indians, and our doing the same in response. Now in military terminology, we judge it by capability and intention. If intentions are judged through rhetoric and what they are thinking in the mind, capability is physical. It can be quantified. When capability is acquired, in quantified terms, on ground, in terms of forces, the situation becomes extremely explosive. Because the intention can arise at any moment, and extreme adventurism can be undertaken at any time. The seriousness of the situation now is that the capability exists for any adventurous act. So whenever an intention comes about, it will erupt. So therefore, I think as long as the capability exists, the situation will remain serious.

Q. The United States and some of its allies have asked your government, as part of the discussions surrounding this crisis, to do everything in your power to stop cross-border infiltrations along the Line of Control. Have such infiltrations stopped?

A. Well, I`ve always been saying that there is nothing happening across the Line of Control. And I`ve also said that Pakistan is a part of the coalition to fight terrorism. And we will ensure that terrorism does not go from Pakistan anywhere outside into the world. That is our stand, and we adhere to it.

Q. Are there new steps, concrete steps, that you feel you can take to assure all observers that this commitment can be met?

A. Well, first of all, as far as observers are concerned, we certainly want neutral observers to watch what is happening. We`ve been saying this all along. There is a United Nations mission here, and this mission should be strengthened, and they must be allowed to monitor the Line of Control on both sides. Unfortunately, the Indian side is not allowing that. We cannot allow Indians to be the judges because they are a party. Therefore any neutral monitors are more than welcome. We`ve been saying that many times. So this is the reality on [the] ground. And may I also add that Pakistan looks for reciprocation. Now, reciprocation is not de-escalation alone, because de-escalation, if there is some actions from our side, there has to be responses and reciprocation from the other side. Unfortunately, we don`t see reciprocation. Reciprocation, we mean, is de-escalation, initiation of [a] dialogue process, reduction of atrocities within Kashmir. And when I say that, on defining it, it really means that as a first step, the military should leave the towns and cities of Kashmir and be in the outskirts. And then allowing the international media, human rights organizations, into Kashmir. These are reciprocative measures. We want reciprocation on these lines. And then . . . a useful process on normalization, in its entirety, between India and Pakistan, can proceed.

Q. Just to finish up on this area, and I don`t mean to harp only on Pakistan`s obligations, but just to be clear about what you`re saying about where you are this week on the effort to renew the commitment that you outlined on January 12th. As to infiltration across the border, as to camps, as to the status of the groups that were banned earlier in the year: Are there new initiatives that your government can take now to advance the cause that you outlined in January? And if so, what concrete steps might be involved?

A. I know a lot of people are having doubts about this issue, about my having made this speech on 12th January, and not going along with that, or backtracking on it. Let me assure the world through your newspaper that this is furthest from the truth. Now there are three elements – I`ll take a little time on this – there are three elements of terrorism that the world is concerned about. Number one, the al Qaeda factor. Number two is what they are calling cross-border terrorism and we are calling the freedom struggle in Kashmir. Number three is the sectarian [Sunni vs. Shia] extremism and sectarian terrorism within Pakistan. My government is looking at these three elements. Now, let`s take each. The third one is more our concern, and unfortunately, the world is not bothered about that. We are very much bothered about that, because that is destabilizing us internally. I`ll take each one.

Now, number one, the al Qaeda factor. Pakistan will not – repeat, will not – allow any foreign mercenaries, militants, anywhere inside Pakistan, from anywhere outside the world, whether they are infiltrating through Afghanistan, or coming from any other place. Whether they are on our border belt, or in our cities, we will hunt them down. Now, and let me tell you, I know an article from [The] Washington Post, I was very disturbed about [reporting that Pakistan had hesitated to send troops to its tribal border areas as part of a joint military operation with the United States against al Qaeda and Taliban cells]. And I spoke personally to the leadership in the United States. And I asked them, is there a problem? There is no problem whatsoever. And I would request you to find out from the leadership, from the administration in the United States, and from the military, who`s taking part in all these operations. There is no problem whatsoever in the cooperation and coordination between Pakistan and the United States, on the effort against al Qaeda in Pakistan. There is no doubt in this. Because it`s in our own interest. We are flushing out anyone who comes from outside. So that much for al Qaeda. And there has been wonderful, successful operations on this, very successful operations. We know how many al Qaeda anyone has caught – how much al Qaeda has the United States caught? We have caught all of them. It`s we who are active. So let that be very, very clear. And this will be borne out by anybody. I take full authenticity of what I am saying. So this is the al Qaeda part. There is no backtracking on it.

Now, let`s come on to the issue of cross-border terrorism. As I`ve said, I think it suffices to say that there is nothing happening across the Line of Control. Now, but I must say, that unfortunately, whatever happens in Kashmir, I cannot guarantee that. Everything that happens there, unfortunately, gets thrown onto Pakistan. . . . Every time they manage to get people, and they kill them and arrest them, and they say they are ISI agents and Pakistanis. Now, the issue of Jammu, or Parliament, or the bomb attack on the Parliament, and Calcutta, these are condemnable because there were civilians who have been killed, and I call them terrorist acts. There is no doubt in my mind. But let`s have proof. Let us have evidence, if there is anyone involved here who we`d like to move against. This much for cross-border.

. . . You mentioned the groups that we moved against. There were – we moved against a number of groups because they were also involved in – they were involved in sectarian extremist activities in Pakistan. They were destabilizing us internally. And also, many of them, also had fingers in the pie as far as al Qaeda was concerned. So we moved against them. . . . We have closed down their offices. We have sealed their funds. We have sealed their offices, closing their funds. We have arrested their people, both the leaders. So this is what we`ve done. Now, unfortunately, the world talks of some people having been let [go]. There is a legal process on the ground. When something happens, you take drastic measures, you take people in, according to the law, which allows arresting people. But the law does not allow keeping people under detention without their trial. And the trial is not possible without evidence. So we must understand that. If we`ve taken 500 people, that doesn`t mean that each of those 500 is to be tried and punished. If there`s evidence, by all means we would like to try them and punish them. Even when we are talking about action against al Qaeda, several times, the people crossing through our borders, we got hold of a number of people. But even the joint interrogation with the coalition, with the United States, and our own people interrogating, many are found innocent and they are let [go]. That doesn`t mean you have taken people and each one of them has to be arrested, and if any one of them is let [go], that we are backtracking. It doesn`t mean that at all. We are not backtracking. Let me assure you, there is no backtracking on what I said on 12th January. What happened against the French, we moved against these very organizations because we thought that, maybe, again they are involved. And we picked up people and we are trying to interrogate and investigate. But that doesn`t mean that everyone we get in is the man who was involved in the attack on the French. So those who are not, they are cleared, and declared [innocent], and they are let [go]. So you must understand that there is a legal process going on in the country, which I cannot violate. This is where we stand.

Q. Just to follow up on two parts of that. You referred earlier to the cooperation with the United States in the western tribal areas, in the campaign against al Qaeda, and wanting to emphasize that cooperation was strong. But has this crisis with India affected your ability to deploy against al Qaeda in those areas?

A. Yes. We wanted to move – actually, these areas where no troops were allowed for over a century. Never have people moved into that area. And I would request Washington Post to give us the credit, that this is the first time that this government has moved in. Our forces moved into areas where nobody went. No British troops went into those areas. And we have gone in. We`ll take the credit for that. We moved in the Frontier Corps. And we moved in the army. And we have got the willing cooperation of the people of that area. Now, this is the biggest point. They have allowed us to come in. And we are doing a lot to pacify that area, to have reconstruction and rehabilitation afterwards in that area, so that people accept us. The people are very much with us in telling us if there is any al Qaeda activity there, any foreign activity, any foreigners in that area. They are with us. I am very sure of that. There may be some who may be sympathetic towards them. But I am 100 percent sure that the majority have assured us that we will tell you, and we have even laid down the rules of the game of how much fine there will be, and how much punishment there will be, if anyone is harboring anyone from outside. This is the agreement between us and those people, the tribals. This is a great achievement that we`ve got. There should be no suspicion around this by anyone. Now. The issue is, to answer your question now, the east, and what happened in the east. Yes, we are very concerned. And whatever our regular troops there, we have stalled it for the moment. We haven`t moved them out. But we have stalled the additional induction. We were going in a big way. We have stalled that all right. And if the tension rises, we will have to move them to the eastern border. We haven`t done it as yet.

Q. Just one last time, I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying on the cross-border subject. You said, `There is no activity on the Line of Control` now. And I wasn`t sure that you meant that you had consistently seen no activity, since January, or whether what you`re saying is, right now, this week, you feel confident that you have stopped the infiltration.

A. I repeat: There is nothing happening on the Line of Control. That is what I would like to repeat. And I would like to repeat again: Reciprocation is extremely important. And reciprocation, again, is not de-escalation, because that appears – and I told this even to Mr. Chris Patten [the European Union`s commissioner for external affairs] – we are not bothered about escalation. If they think they are doing us a favor by de-escalating, please don`t do this favor for us. I would say, we are doing them a favor by de-escalating ourselves. So this is no favor. Nobody is doing anybody a favor. If at all, we are doing a favor to our respective countries by de-escalating. So let that not be a favor to us.

Q. What do you think India is trying to accomplish in this crisis?

A. We are very clear, whether the world believes it or not, and I would ask you to make the world believe it. They want to destabilize Pakistan. There is no doubt in our minds. They have their own agenda on Kashmir. They don`t want to see the realities on the ground in Kashmir, where not one man in Kashmir would like to be with India. I am100 percent sure of that. Let them have an election today. Not one man would want to be India. They are not seeing this reality, and they want to suppress this movement, this freedom struggle which is their right in accordance with a United Nations Security Council resolution. They want to suppress this. With all their military might, with all the atrocities – more than 70,000 people are dead now – this is one thing that they want to achieve. They want to isolate Kashmir and then crush whatever is happening with all their force. Secondly – their second aim – is to destabilize me, my government, and Pakistan. Destabilize us economically and politically and diplomatically. This is what they want to achieve.

Q. I guess then it goes without saying, but you don`t believe that India wants a stable, modernizing Pakistan as its neighbor.

A. No, sir, not at all. Not at all. This is what they say. They keep saying that. No, sir, this is not what they want. They want a subservient Pakistan which remains subservient to them. They don`t believe in sovereign equality. They believe in their own superiority in the region. They`ve done this with all countries of the region. They are arrogant and they want to impose their will on every country in the region. If I was to even say that they want to bully every country in this region. Pakistan, fortunately, or unfortunately for them, is the only country which is a thorn in their side. We want to live in peace. But we want to live in peace with our sovereignty guaranteed, with our honor and dignity not compromised. We will not compromise it. We will never compromise. So if they are prepared to accept this reality, we will live in peace, there will be peace in the region. They don`t want this. They don`t want to accept this reality. And that is the conflict between India and Pakistan.

Q. Just to shift gears a little bit. If a war were to erupt, despite the best efforts of all parties, in what circumstances would you consider using nuclear weapons?

A. This is a – it is such a question which I wouldn`t like to even imagine, frankly, that we come to a stage where this is due. But let me give an assessment that this stage will never come. And I would like to give my views on this. Because the whole world thinks that India has very large armed forces. They keep talking of punishing us, going across the border, ``We`ve given two weeks to them,`` ``We`ve given two months to them.`` Let me tell you that we don`t accept this kind of gimmick. Pakistan is no Iraq. India is no United States. We have forces. They follow a strategy of deterrence. And we are very capable of deterring them. And in case that deterrence fails, we are very capable of an offensive defense. Our forces are capable of offensive defense. These words are very important. We are not only on the defensive. We`ll take the offensive into Indian territory. That must be very clear to the Indians. Let me add to this. At the moment, if there is anything that they do across the Line of Control, there are thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, our part of Kashmir, who are demanding to be armed. And they will be inside Kashmir. If they think this is going to be a battle between two forces alone, Pakistan will be defended by every man in Pakistan. And this will be such – it is going to unleash such dynamics in this area that their forces will be engulfed by people inside Kashmir who will rise, they have already risen, and people on this side of Kashmir, who are telling me, that you be out, we will take Kashmir. Let me also tell you that there are 150,000 at the moment – roughly – retired army soldiers in Kashmir. In Azad Kashmir. They are from our army. They are retired soldiers who have retired from service over all these years. This is the dynamic, the reality on [the]ground. And they are all brothers and kin across the border, in Kashmir. They want to fight for them. So such dynamics will be unleashed if they ever attempt to cross the Line of Control, which maybe even I may not be able to control. And Mr. Vajpayee must know these realities. Their military analysts and their political analysts must know these realities. So we are very strong on the ground. If they think anything other than this, they are miscalculating. Miscalculations in the military field can lead to blunders. This is my message to them. This is the reality on ground. So, coming to your question, I really don`t think we will ever reach that stage, and I only hope that we – I hope and pray that we will never reach that stage. It`s too unthinkable.

Q. What has been your message to the Americans as they have interacted with you, as Colin Powell and other officials in the last week have opened this channel at that level? What message have they delivered to you, what message have you delivered to them?

A. Exactly almost the same [as I have been saying here]. That there is nothing happening across the Line of Control. And this issue of reciprocation. And frankly, and I`ve said, there`s so much of chest thumping that goes on from the other side, this rhetoric. We have been restrained. And I`ve said this. The amount of restraint that we have shown – that I have personally shown – but continuously, there is a jabbing at us, a rhetoric, which is annoying. Which is, if not responded, if I may say, frankly, we would be humiliated. As if we are nothing. As if they are very great, they are very powerful. And here we are, we`ll get a spanking from them. This is not the case. And this [is] visible even now. We have fired, we have tested our missiles. They have tested more than10 missiles in the past months, I would say, over the year. So we have tested our missiles. We are not saying anything. We have informed them. And they were honor-bound not to raise a hue and cry. When they tested their missiles, did we raise a hue and cry? They were honor-bound now to do that, but they come out, ``This doesn`t impress us.`` Who`s telling them? We`re not trying to impress you. We`re doing something to try to ensure our own security. So this kind of rhetoric goes on, and this is what I have complained, really. ``Antics,`` yes. ``We are not impressed by these antics.`` I didn`t say these are antics, so you don`t need to be impressed. And we are also not impressed by their antics, giving us two weeks and two months. We are not impressed. So this the message. Sorry, I deviated from your question. But basically, reciprocation, which is a very important factor if we are to move forward and bring peace to this region.

Q. And your definition of reciprocation is not limited, of course, to de-escalation, as you`ve said. But the renewal of dialogue – and what else in concrete terms?

A. I said that, renewal of dialogue. And in which we can discuss all issues, and Kashmir. And in fact we achieved that in Agra. But it was just unfortunate that in their own areas, behind the scenes, there were some things that went on. Other than that, reciprocation for the people of Kashmir. There are such atrocities going on there, which the world doesn`t know. Because the international media is not there. The international media must go in. Human rights organizations must go in. I would even say, okay, monitoring on the Line of Control by neutral organizations, the United Nations. Let`s beef them up and let them come in. Then atrocity reduction. Now this is a vague term, but in concrete form, I say as a step one, they should leave the cities and towns, and as a step two, the forces should be reduced. They have 750,000 troops there, carrying out all kinds of activities, like rapes. This is the kind of thing that is going on there, other than killings, and burning of houses. This is the reciprocation I am talking about.

Q. Do you believe that India sponsors terrorist attacks on Pakistan`s soil?

A. Yes, indeed. I`m very sure. I`m very sure. There are so many bomb attacks here. These attacks on our mosques. Well, I wouldn`t say that all of them could be inspired from abroad. I am pretty sure that our sectarian divide is such an issue that it can be easily exploitable. So this is the area where they exploit. Wherever there is an ethnic division which can be exploited, wherever there is a sectarian division which can be exploited, these are the two areas which they have exploited all along in the past years. All along. And we know that. We know that there have been training camps across on their borders when there were certain ethnic differences within our society. They have been involved with that. We are very sure that they carried this out. . . .

Q. Thank you very much for taking the time. I appreciate it.

A. Thank you very much. I think at such a moment of tension, you allowed me to vent my feelings. [Laughs]. Thank you very much.

Q. Now, are you going to address the nation in the next day or two, is that part of your plan? Are you going to be speaking on these subjects, on the crisis, or on other subjects?

A. No, I`ll speak on the crisis.

Q. What will your message be, in general terms?

A. Well, the message, frankly, you ask an important question. It has to be – we want to avoid war. We want to bring peace into the region. So therefore the message is to be addressed to the outside world. The message has to be addressed to India. The message has to be addressed to my own people.

Q. Complicated.

A. Very complicated. This is a complicated region.

Q. You must have excellent speechwriters.

A. I don`t write speeches. I speak with points, and then I let my mind flow free. So that becomes a little more natural, and I think it will become more natural. And you can show more feelings. With something that you`re reading, feelings never come out.

Q. When you will deliver this speech?

A. We`re still discussing it. The problem is, I was even, I thought I`d come in the evening [Saturday], but I think there`s too much rhetoric on, the missiles and such, so I think I`ll delay it a bit. Maybe not tomorrow – if you do it tomorrow, the newspapers are not there. Maybe the day after tomorrow. But within the next two or three days I will speak to the nation. Let me see how I go through this complicated message. This is a complicated region. International issues are involved, regional issues are involved, and domestic issues. All three joined in one. It becomes a very. . . .

Q. You talked so forcefully earlier about India`s arrogance and hegemony, at least you used one of those words. As you think about your legacy in Pakistan, whenever it`s completed, can you visualize a prosperous peace of the sort that was suggested at Agra and Lahore, a ``two-state solution`` to use the terminology of the Middle East, that is peaceful and focused on economic progress? Do you think that`s possible in your time?

A. In the region, or in Pakistan?

Q. Between India and Pakistan.

A. It`s possible in two ways. There are two possibilities. Number one, either we submit, and we accept them as a big brother, and we do whatever they want. They dominate, they will dominate our foreign policy and our economic policy. This is what they do exactly with other countries, these two elements. So either we accept this, or they be magnanimous enough to let our countries with sovereign equality, and they accept Pakistan as a sovereign, equal state. Unless they change this attitude of theirs, one of these two things has to happen, to bring this harmony. Otherwise, it`s difficult. Otherwise, we need to grow within this conflict situation.

Q. Do you think the Americans can help more than in the past, given their role here?

A. Yes. They`re the only ones who can help. They must help. They can bring normalcy here. They must resolve this dispute. And they must ensure balance in this region. Balance is when two opposites cannot be met. India does not want to give up its domineering and hegemonistic attitude. And we don`t want to give up, we don`t want to submit. So therefore, the only answer in this situation is to have a balancing power, a balancing conventional power. It can easily be done. But that must be maintained. So that there is balance and peace.

© 2002

Dangerous game of state-sponsored terror that threatens nuclear conflict

Pakistani leader`s attempt to rein in militants is met with defiance

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad

Saturday May 25, 2002

The Guardian

Around the table at army headquarters in Rawalpindi sat the leading officers in Pakistan`s armed forces, summoned to the most important meeting of their careers.

Hours after the September 11 attacks Washington had ordered Islamabad to halt unconditionally its long-criticised support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Within days General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan`s straight-talking military dictator, called together his 12 or 13 most senior officers. Although he expects his generals to speak freely at these meetings they rarely oppose the army chief`s decisions.

This time the atmosphere was cold. Gen Musharraf laid out his proposal to support America in the imminent war against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. There was, he told them, simply no other choice. Officially the public was told the officers supported Gen Musharraf unanimously. But now it has emerged that four of his most senior generals opposed him outright. The Guardian has learned that the four openly challenged the president`s pro-US stance. In military terms it was a stunning display of disloyalty.

According to a source close to the military leadership the most angry among the four that night was Lieutenant General Mehmood Ahmed, the religious hardliner who headed the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) - responsible for internal security and covert operations - and was once Gen Musharraf`s closest ally.

Three other lieutenant generals joined his protest: Muzaffar Usmani, a corps commander who was instrumental in orchestrating the coup of October 1999 that brought the army back to power; Jamshaid Gulzar Kiani, commander of the powerful Rawalpindi corps; and Mohammad Aziz Khan, the Kashmir-born Lahore corps commander and a former ISI deputy chief.

Within a month the dissenters were silenced. Gen Ahmed and Gen Usmani were sacked. Gen Kiani lost his corps to become Adjutant-General while Gen Khan was promoted to the theoretically powerful, but largely ceremonial, position of chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee.

It was exactly what Washington wanted - firm leadership against the militant wing of the army. Four months ago Gen Musharraf went further - he made his second major policy change, vowing to rid his country of Islamic extremists who for years have relied on clandestine financial and military support from the army. Militants listened to the general scoff at their ``half-baked religious minds``.

Crackdown

His words shook Pakistan`s Islamist network to its core. Within weeks 2,000 militants were rounded up and jailed, including several prominent hardline clerics and militant leaders. Not only did this delight the Bush administration, it also served to calm tensions with India which for years had been complaining about the Pakistan state`s secret sponsorship of the extreme Islamist campaign in Kashmir.

Today, all that goodwill is fast disappearing. It is clear the general`s promises are not being kept. Most of the militants have been released without charge, among them the heads of groups listed as terrorist organisations by Britain and the US. Pakistan has allowed militants backed by its own intelligence agency to continue their war in Kashmir even though it threatens to plunge India and Pakistan into a devastating conflict.

A Guardian investigation has uncovered evidence that Pakistani militants are still openly raising funds and training young fighters to cross into Kashmir to fight the Indian army. They are closely watched by their Islamist supporters in the ISI. Despite the purges, several hundred in the core of 2,500 ISI officers remain opposed to Gen Musharraf`s alliance with America.

It is taking the newly appointed pro-western generals at the top of the intelligence agency longer than expected to root out dissenters. ``It`s hard to tell who are the renegades and that`s what they`re trying to do now,`` said the source close to the military leadership.

In the past week alone fundraisers from Lashkar-e-Taiba working in a district near Mardan, in the North-West Frontier, collected 500kg of wheat in donations for their fighters, according to a senior Lashkar official. Yet this group is listed as a terrorist organisation by Britain and the US and was banned in Gen Musharraf`s January speech when all militant fundraising was outlawed.

Every Friday lunchtime, as men gather at the mosques near Mardan for prayers, a Lashkar commander makes an impassioned speech about the fight in Kashmir and openly collects thousands of rupees in donations. ``Our fundraising hasn`t been affected at all,`` said the Lashkar official, a pharmacist who now works as one of the group`s leading fundraisers. ``We are still getting enough from local people and from the Arab world to keep us going.``

Lashkar trains thousands of raw recruits every year for the war in Kashmir. ``Last year every jihadi organisation was required to send 3,500 mojahedin across the border and that target was met,`` the official said.

At one religious seminary, or madrassah, near Mardan new recruits start with a 15-day course in religious teaching before a 21-day course in basic military skills. If they pass they move out to secret camps in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir - known here as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (free Kashmir) - where for three months they learn the tricks of guerrilla war and take classes in suicide attacks, the new weapon of the Kashmir campaign.

The Lashkar official claimed a suicide squad from the group`s newest armed wing, Al-Mansoureen, was responsible for last week`s attack on an Indian army base near Srinagar which killed 34 people, including soldiers` wives and children.

The ISI has for years helped to direct the militant war in Kashmir, and its officers, militants say, are well aware that the Islamist fighters are still in business. ``Training is under way in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and we are not under pressure from any government agency to stop,`` the Lashkar fundraiser said. ``When this training is going on do you think these agencies are not aware? Of course they are.``

The Pakistan army consistently denies giving the militants anything more than moral, diplomatic and political support. The reality is quite different. The ISI`s Kashmir cell issues money and directions to militant groups.

``Every jihadi has links with ISI,`` said a military source. ``You cannot be a jihadi without having links with the ISI.`` A select few are in very close contact with ISI officers.

Sympathies

The dilemma for Gen Musharraf is that many of his army officers are still deeply sympathetic to the militants and the Kashmir cause. The Islamist sympathies of many of ISI operatives are all too apparent.

Khalid Khawaja, a retired ISI officer, retains close links with the militants fighting in Kashmir as well as leaders from the defeated Taliban regime. He regards the fight in Kashmir as a legitimate jihad.

In chilling tones he describes Gen Musharraf`s policies since September 11 as a threat. ``We have done the worst possible thing. We have been responsible for the miseries of our brothers and sisters because we didn`t believe in God but we believed in Bush and Blair.``

Gen Musharraf insists he is fully in control of the ISI and aware of everything the officers do. ``Whatever they are doing now I take total responsibility,`` he said earlier this month.

His advisers say the government has a diplomatic imperative for supporting the militant campaign in Kashmir: without the militant struggle there would be no pressure on the Indian government over Kashmir, and Pakistan would have little sway at the negotiating table.

Unless Gen Musharraf can offer the Pakistani people a diplomatic success in Kashmir, which now seems well out of his grasp, he has little choice but to keep up the guerrilla war.

But the ISI is playing a dangerous game. Gen Musharraf is left trying to balance his promise to rein in Islamic militancy with his army`s belief in the moral justice and diplomatic necessity of the Kashmir war. It is a treacherous dilemma which may yet draw India and Pakistan into an unimaginable nuclear conflict.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html

test

Dear Dr. Hoodbhoy,

Aap bhee jehadi, hum bhee jehadi. Aap bhee sadhu, hum bhee sadhu.

Jaat naa poocho sadhu yaa jehadi ki.

Aapke fundamentalist aapko mubarak ho. Hamare fundamentalist humko mubarak ho.

Let us all migrate to Ladonia, those who think otherwise?

One of those days. No bijli, no water in tap, but, thank you, hamare aur aapke bomb bum-a-bum theek thaak hai.

Haal chaal theek thaak hai, sub kuch theek thaak hai, then what difference does a bomb or two make when at the end of the day, we are the same people?

Or maybe some are of Arabic lineage, but never mind never mind . . .

whatever

In Pakistan vs. India, we always forget that any escalation works against Indian Muslims. The more Pakistan fights India, the more it feeds propaganda for the BJP etc.

Obviously, India and Pakistan have to forever share long borders with nowhere else to go. At some point it may have made sense to befriend India in the interest of Indian Muslims. At this point, though, it is hard to envision any improvement. The events in Gujarat have shown the level to which Vajpayee & his scoundrels can go.

The best option for us would be to find allies among Indians who are also sick of the BJP. This

would mean a huge amount of self-criticism and realism on our side as well.

War is really not an option because of the massive amount of damage it will do, without probably giving any side a decisive victory. And this time, missiles will challenge the `strategic depth` of India as well. Then there`s the frightening nuclear issue...

Indians who speak of `punishing` Pakistan have watched too many bad Bollywood movies. They also tend to be more `exotic` Southie/Karnataka types. The few Sikh military brats I`ve known in the US have always been far less cavalier about the consequences of war with Pakistan.

Usman

Ras, I don`t for a moment believe that rumour. I always keep in mind the trait (and expertise) of the Indians in the media and propaganda arena: they are very good at half-truths and convenient speculations. I wouldn`t worry too much about the US taking control of the nukes at this time. The barometer to judge this by is quite simple: When you see the US boys packing up for a quick withdrawal, then it is time to worry. Here in Larkana/Jacobabad area (as well as the NW border) there is no such sign. The Indians are hyperventilating over the media stories they have to make up - keep a clear head and watch the signs on the ground level.

re: Ras # 19

IMO that article is an excellent example of how our ``experts`` hallucinate when they have nothing better to do.

arjun/progressive etc

These STUPID Mufukkaz... You people are nuthings. Faceless cowards who hide behind computers. Your whole vibe is weak, the second u say the word ``war`` u come off like a prepubescent school girl. In real life, yall are the fools no one pays any attention to. You nerds feel compelled to run to ur computers and type this childish fukkin crap. Who the fukk is it fooling? Then you feel all proud because youve aquired several useless `facts` on how good your country is.

You come on sh1tty sites and talk about war like youve ever been in fight. And i have to come here and read this childish sh1t written by grown men and women about who has the biggest balls.

In real life you would stay the fukk quiet and not even consider speakin, you roaches should be stepped on, fukk all u.

TIRED OLD LINE,

Pervez,

It is pathetic to see you towing the old line, pakistan has bomb, so do not mess with them. Pakistan is posing a global threat, under the promise of mushroom clouds, pakistan has emerged as the top terrorist organisation. There is no way forward, pakistan has to be iraquised, and that is what the mankind demands. In a few more years the threat is going to increase several fold, the error of indira gandhi in finishing off the pak military in 1971 has come back to haunt us.

The world want the threat to be removed, and if it is going to be a nuclear war, at least the end will see an iraquised pakistan and the world can sleep easy. The world has no options.

SECOND PHASE,

Early last year, india offered bases to the global coalition to take on the pakistanis and the afghan terrorists. US agrred to sort out the afghans first to be followed by pakistanis. Now the turn has come. It is pathetic to see a country having nurtured their own jihadists are tuning against them. Mushy, in fact is taking the indian help, as he did with the americans to slaughter their own in afghanistan, having sent them there in the first place.

All this point to a definite inferior mental capability for the pakistanis, largely due to the darwenian selection process, whic selected only the easy richness menatality people to go to pakistan to garner the assets left by the fleeing hindus.

Pakistan should have been kicked wway back in december after the pakis shot up the parliament and almost assasinated the Vice-prez of India.

Pakiland is doomed whether pervez the hood thinks or not. Time for all right minded pakis to tell it like it is.

I agree with Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy that nuke war has no winners. But at the same time - India is running out of options. Indian lives are being wasted every month by the Jihadis sent by Pakistan.

So far India has tried all the options. Here is a summary -

1. It undertook Lahore Declaration : the reward it got was Kargil. The result - loss of Indian lives. Now we know that while India was talking peace and brotherhood at Lahore - Musharraf was busy readying nukes to fry Indian people.

2.Yet, incredible as it may sound now - India invited the mad General to Agra, to talk peace. Yet another sincere attempt to find peace. We all know what happened. The dictator had no desire for peace - he used the occasion to play his domestic politics. And then India got attack on parliament, J&K assembly, temples in jammu and numerous other suicide attacks. Yet more loss of Indian lives.

At every attempt by India for a civilized solution - it has only got aggression in result. It is India who has suffered. Not Pakistan. Lives are continuously being lost in India. Not in Pakistan.

What is India supposed to do? Flip over and play dead??

Pakistan`s Musharraf faces tough choice

By Andrew Koch, JDW Bureau Chief, Washington DC, and Rifaat Hussein, JDW Special Correspondent, Islamabad

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=203759

With war clouds looming low in South Asia and all sides painting themselves into the proverbial corner, nobody faces a more difficult choice than Pakistan`s president, Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf is caught between neighbour India`s threats to go to war over Islamabad`s continued support for Kashmiri militant separatists and his own public, which strongly supports the Kashmiri Muslim separatist cause. Meanwhile, the USA, which both sides hope will help them out of the current crisis, is quickly losing patience with Musharraf for not containing the cross-border violence and increasing pressure on the militants.

However, to do so would be a difficult and dangerous task for the president, whose political support at home is dropping and who faces challenges from religious groups over previous moves to end support for the Taliban and his work to bring Islamic fundamentalists in the country under control.

It will be no easy task for Musharraf to rein in the Pakistan-based Kashmiri militant groups, which enjoy strong support among the general public and lesser, but still important, backing from the army and intelligence services. The most recent crisis was precipitated on 14 May when Kashmiri militants attacked an Indian Army camp, killing 32 people, mostly women and children. With tensions already high and over a million troops of the nuclear-armed neighbours on the border, the situation deteriorated further following days of heavy artillery shelling across the Line of Control (LoC) that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

New Delhi increased its war preparations, sending five naval ships into the western Arabian Sea to threaten Pakistan`s primary port of Karachi. Pakistan responded by saying that, if needed, it would recall a brigade serving with the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone and shift troops supporting the USA`s Operation `Enduring Freedom` (OEF) on the Afghan border and send them to the eastern border with India.

To make matters worse, Kashmiri moderate political leader Abdul Ghani Lone, who supported dialogue rather than a military solution to the Kashmir problem, was assassinated by unidentified gunmen - an act for which both sides blamed the other. US officials called Lone`s death ``a huge negative`` and said it was probably perpetrated by Kashmiri militants with Pakistan`s backing. Mirroring a growing clamour for war at home, Indian officials started to turn up the pressure, with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee saying New Delhi would wage a ``decisive battle`` against terrorism. Indian officials were busy telling journalists they intended to launch military strikes across the LoC, sooner rather than later, if Pakistan did not take strong and immediate steps to end its training and equipping of the Kashmiri fighters.

US officials believe those strikes would initially be against training camps across into Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, but also fear that once a war begins, it would be difficult to contain. In a letter to US President George Bush, Vajpayee said India had completed all necessary preparations for a military strike and urged Bush to convince Pakistan to end its support for the Kashmiri fighters before it was too late. While US officials are sympathetic to India`s complaints - they noted, for example, that training and equipping of the Kashmiri fighters on Pakistani territory is continuing - they are also fully aware of the difficult steps Musharraf has already made. Moreover, they said, Pakistan`s continued support of OEF is vital, a point not lost on the Pakistani side.

Janes Defence Weekly

Pakistan: Between militants and politicians

What can President Musharraf offer?

He does now appear to have moved from his position that the militants are not his responsibility because they are operating from Pakistan controlled Kashmir, which is known as Azad or independent Kashmir.

According to the Indian press he has now said he will not allow any territory whose defense is the responsibility of Pakistan to be used for terrorism.

But can Musharraf put the genie back in the bottle? Curbing the militants is not as easy as India suggests with its simplistic demand, ``Pakistan must end cross-border terrorism``.

The attack on families of Indian soldiers in Kashmir during the visit a few days ago of Christina Rocca, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, is the last thing that Musharraf would have wanted.

He is trying to convince Washington he is doing all he can to curb terrorism.

What the attack on the Indian army families and now the killing of Abdul Gani Lone, the prominent politician from Indian administered Kashmir, show is that the militants don`t want peace.

They want to push both the countries into war.

The militants and the Pakistani politicians who support them are opposed to Musharraf.

They resent his cooperation with America in the war against terrorism, and oppose the actions he has taken against Islamic extremists, and would be quite prepared to see the Pakistan army humiliated.

The Islamic parties believe that they could fill the political vacuum, which was left.

But an unstable Islamic Pakistan would be far worse for India than a Pakistan ruled by General Musharraf.

International concern



Jack Straw: Diplomats will be pulled out of Pakistan with ``immediate effect``

Unfortunately Vajpayee does not believe that Musharraf is necessarily his best bet, and will not take the advice he is being given by America and European leaders, which is to accept the general`s word and reduce the tension by talking to him about Kashmir including ways of cooperating in curbing terrorism.

Although India has always opposed any third party mediation in its dispute with Pakistan it is now demanding that the international community put yet more pressure on Pakistan to end terrorism unconditionally.

Exactly what that means has not been spelt out.

But Musharaf cannot meekly submit to all India`s demands, including handing over the men on the list of suspected terrorists India has given him, without endangering his own position.

The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is expected in South Asia next week and he is to be followed by the American Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

These visits indicate the level of international concern about the tension between India and Pakistan.

American with some of its own soldiers stationed in Pakistan is particularly concerned.

It is to be hoped that the senior British and American visitors have some more concessions and commitments they can persuade Musharraf to offer and Vajpayee to accept.

There is no sign of those concessions and commitments yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/23/tully.column/index.html