Terrorism: Do you handle it as a crime or as a war or both?
Bhaskar Dasgupta July 15, 2006
#14 Posted by rashid_s on July 19, 2006 9:33:49 pm
A good article.
“While the short term benefits of the American School are clear – you have a direct way of handling terrorists, you shoot them and they be damned, no silly rules of evidence collection, etc. etc. etc.”
The problem with the above is that a) there is a disproportionate innocent and non combatant casualties and b) the society is deprived of any involvement in the debate on the cause and effect of the terrorism.
Hence any long term and effective solution can not be reached.
Rashid
“While the short term benefits of the American School are clear – you have a direct way of handling terrorists, you shoot them and they be damned, no silly rules of evidence collection, etc. etc. etc.”
The problem with the above is that a) there is a disproportionate innocent and non combatant casualties and b) the society is deprived of any involvement in the debate on the cause and effect of the terrorism.
Hence any long term and effective solution can not be reached.
Rashid
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#13 Posted by Urstruly on July 18, 2006 7:50:55 am
Re: # 12
I think for an ordinary citizen, chosing a side in the war between the two terrors i.e. state terror inflicted upon people and people`s resistance to it with counter terror, will not bear any fruit. Does it matter now if we choose one party to be suffrere over the other? Would doing so increase my chances of survival as a distant observer??? I think everybody knows the answer to this question. So, what I suggested in my last post was that unless we address the original sin the war will go on forever. Our objective should be to stop the war.
I think for an ordinary citizen, chosing a side in the war between the two terrors i.e. state terror inflicted upon people and people`s resistance to it with counter terror, will not bear any fruit. Does it matter now if we choose one party to be suffrere over the other? Would doing so increase my chances of survival as a distant observer??? I think everybody knows the answer to this question. So, what I suggested in my last post was that unless we address the original sin the war will go on forever. Our objective should be to stop the war.
#12 Posted by injun on July 18, 2006 5:24:48 am
#9 URSTRULY
````terrorism can only be controlled or eradicated altogether, by addressing the causes which made the phenomenon to appear in the first place. There is absolutely no other way````
You are right but it is easier said than done.
The main cause of terrorism and that too Islamic terrorism is Israel-Palestine Conflict. Rest other conflicts are trivial.
To resolve Israel-Palestine conflict is not a small fly as worlds superpowers are involved in it. Lesser mortals like sub-continent, Japan and other have no say at all.
But I-P conflict is spilling over and more and more people are getting affected by it no matter whether the affected people have any influence or not.
Now the onus is on jehadis to decide what do they want. If their purpose is only Jehad, then there cannot be any root cause as Jehad is considered to be a part and parcel of Islam and non-muslims have no option but to fight Muslims. In such a situation, Terrorism will continue unless one of the sides wins decisively. This will be a long drawn battle running into decades.
And if their purpose is political conflicts like I-P, then attacks like London, Madrid, Mumbai etc. will only lead to the situation that whatever sympathisers of Palestine/ Other Muslim causes are left, they will also leave.
It will not be out of place to mention here that for full 40 years, India supported Palestine. Yaaser Arafat was heavily funded by USSR and India. But after the so-called Jehad struck in Kashmir, the support for Palestine has evaporated. Today, the sympathy is with Israel because it is seen as the sufferer.
````terrorism can only be controlled or eradicated altogether, by addressing the causes which made the phenomenon to appear in the first place. There is absolutely no other way````
You are right but it is easier said than done.
The main cause of terrorism and that too Islamic terrorism is Israel-Palestine Conflict. Rest other conflicts are trivial.
To resolve Israel-Palestine conflict is not a small fly as worlds superpowers are involved in it. Lesser mortals like sub-continent, Japan and other have no say at all.
But I-P conflict is spilling over and more and more people are getting affected by it no matter whether the affected people have any influence or not.
Now the onus is on jehadis to decide what do they want. If their purpose is only Jehad, then there cannot be any root cause as Jehad is considered to be a part and parcel of Islam and non-muslims have no option but to fight Muslims. In such a situation, Terrorism will continue unless one of the sides wins decisively. This will be a long drawn battle running into decades.
And if their purpose is political conflicts like I-P, then attacks like London, Madrid, Mumbai etc. will only lead to the situation that whatever sympathisers of Palestine/ Other Muslim causes are left, they will also leave.
It will not be out of place to mention here that for full 40 years, India supported Palestine. Yaaser Arafat was heavily funded by USSR and India. But after the so-called Jehad struck in Kashmir, the support for Palestine has evaporated. Today, the sympathy is with Israel because it is seen as the sufferer.
#11 Posted by anzar on July 17, 2006 7:38:49 pm
++
Terrorism: Do you handle it as a crime or as a war or both?
++
The best way to handle fire is to remove the fuel. To handle terrorism address the injustices/grievances that turn a man into a terrorist.
Handling it as crime will not address the issue. Handling it as war will beget more terrorism.
Terrorism: Do you handle it as a crime or as a war or both?
++
The best way to handle fire is to remove the fuel. To handle terrorism address the injustices/grievances that turn a man into a terrorist.
Handling it as crime will not address the issue. Handling it as war will beget more terrorism.
#10 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on July 17, 2006 12:53:40 pm
Bhaskar Sahib,
Terrorism, especially within the context of the Israeli/Hamas/Hizbollah threesome, needs to be addressed in a much more comprehensive manner. The loss of innocent human lives, whether in Ashkelon, Gaza, Nahariya, Haifa, Beirut, Sidon, or Tyre - and for that matter Baghdad is the result of an act of terror by someone. If the perpetrators wear combat uniforms, fly airplanes proudly proclaiming their national insignia, or they hide behind buildings, civilians, or bushes is not the distinguishing factor. When the objective is to kill indiscrimately, you are guilty of terrorism and all the hypocritical pontifications about ``the right to defend itself,`` and ``this is a crusade,`` and ``we are fighting to bring democracy and freedom (and killing everyone in the process!) are just sheer nonsense. To the British in the late 18th century, the ``cowards`` without uniforms who shot at the redcoats were indeed terrorists.
Terrorism, especially within the context of the Israeli/Hamas/Hizbollah threesome, needs to be addressed in a much more comprehensive manner. The loss of innocent human lives, whether in Ashkelon, Gaza, Nahariya, Haifa, Beirut, Sidon, or Tyre - and for that matter Baghdad is the result of an act of terror by someone. If the perpetrators wear combat uniforms, fly airplanes proudly proclaiming their national insignia, or they hide behind buildings, civilians, or bushes is not the distinguishing factor. When the objective is to kill indiscrimately, you are guilty of terrorism and all the hypocritical pontifications about ``the right to defend itself,`` and ``this is a crusade,`` and ``we are fighting to bring democracy and freedom (and killing everyone in the process!) are just sheer nonsense. To the British in the late 18th century, the ``cowards`` without uniforms who shot at the redcoats were indeed terrorists.
#9 Posted by Urstruly on July 17, 2006 10:13:32 am
terrorism can only be controlled or eradicated altogether, by addressing the causes which made the phenomenon to appear in the first place. There is absolutely no other way. Period.
#8 Posted by echoboom on July 17, 2006 9:52:35 am
and the kanjarrs are heading towards the way Iran was before they witheir masters were kicked out of Iran.
The only way to finish off the business of Imperialism & colonialism: is to colonise the bastards themselves for at least 300 years.
Two worlds :Cocktail party set divorced from Afghanistan reality It is easy to forget the poverty affecting the
rest of the countrySome 10,000 US-led coalition forces have been engaged in a large-scale offensive against Taleban fighters in southern Afghanistan, where around 700 people have been killed in the last few weeks.
The only way to finish off the business of Imperialism & colonialism: is to colonise the bastards themselves for at least 300 years.
Two worlds :Cocktail party set divorced from Afghanistan reality It is easy to forget the poverty affecting the
rest of the countrySome 10,000 US-led coalition forces have been engaged in a large-scale offensive against Taleban fighters in southern Afghanistan, where around 700 people have been killed in the last few weeks.
But in the capital, Kabul, the upper echelons of society appear to have forgotten the horrors on their doorstep.
Just a few days ago now, a grand party was held at the US Embassy in Kabul, a redoubt as impregnable as any crusader castle reinforced deep in the heart of a city still described by hardy optimists as the capital of Afghanistan.
The US Ambassador, Ronald Neumann, made an upbeat speech reminding the guests (dress code: lounge suits or national dress) of the thousands of Afghan students educated thanks to the generosity of the American people; of the schools and courthouses built, and of the roads rolled out by provincial reconstruction teams stretching far into the
deserts and mountains.
deserts and mountains.
There was some polite applause and then the guests made a bee line for the dance floor, the band of the 10th Mountain Division, still wearing their desert camouflage, struck up and churned out a few more Gershwin classics.
Kabul scene
This was a typical social event, tailor-made for the elite in Kabul; aid workers, journalists, diplomats, military top brass and the odd rough diamond - the Northwest Frontier`s new Raj - all eagerly swapping business cards and networking with the same people they had met before at the last, equally lavish cocktail and canape melee.
In fact, the same faces and the same frocks turn up over and over again at this embassy or that - at the British Council perhaps.
There is even a magazine here called Kabul Scene Magazine that carries a people section with Tatler-style photos. If you fancy a change there is l`Atmosphere, Kabul`s premier French restaurant, where by day you can lounge by the pool, or play petanque and by night you can dine under the stars, eating steak frites, ending the evening with a brandy, or one of the best mojitos in town.
Gary, an American military contractor, told me over a cold beer that the street outside l`Atmosphere is known as
``Abduction Alley``.
``Abduction Alley``.
It is especially busy at night, when well-oiled partygoers who have forgotten that they are in a war zone set off into the darkness hoping to find their Landcruisers.
And it is easy to forget that you are in a war zone when you graduate to this exclusive social set. It is easy to forget the poverty too.
Chicken Street
A very glamorous French woman with ruby-painted toenails bent my ear about her shopping trip to Chicken Street.
``I have bought everything I need for my apartment,`` she said. ``All I want now is to find somewhere in Kabul that sells enough bubble wrap so I can fly it home.``A quarter of the children born in this country still die before reaching the age of five She had spent more than most Afghans earn in a year on carpets and traditional furniture.
And she complained: ``I hate the military here. All they do is follow orders.
``Most of the private contractors are nothing more than murderers,`` she said. I thought of my friend Gary, the contractor.
Had this murderous band of soldier contractors not been here, I suggested, the shopping trip might well have ended with a bag over her head ... or much worse.
She silenced the discussion with a brisk flick of her hand.
But the last time I was here, a
local man strolled up to a Western shopper - just as though he was greeting an old friend, his beard dyed scarlet with henna, his eyes ecstatic.
local man strolled up to a Western shopper - just as though he was greeting an old friend, his beard dyed scarlet with henna, his eyes ecstatic.
He embraced the shopper and then detonated the five grenades tied around his belt. That was Chicken Street not so long ago.
No future
The only Afghans that many of these people meet are the ones circulating with the trays of Chardonnay or Merlot at parties.
But once they have collected the empty glasses, they go home to a rather different Afghanistan - the Afghanistan that their guests are supposed to be reconstructing.
A quarter of the children born in this country still die before reaching the age of five. In provinces like Helmand and Zabul, those fabled schools have been taken over by mullahs who have learned to hate the West 
If they live longer than that, they can expect, on the whole, to find little healthcare, no safe water, no sewage system, no jobs, no security and no future. 
If they live longer than that, they can expect, on the whole, to find little healthcare, no safe water, no sewage system, no jobs, no security and no future. The roads that the American ambassador boasts about all too soon enter Taleban strongholds.
In provinces like Helmand and Zabul, those fabled schools have been taken over by mullahs who have learned to hate the West and its values and who firmly believe that their classrooms are no place for girls.
Outside l`Atmosphere, I chatted to one of the guards, a
friendly old chap whose name I will withhold.
friendly old chap whose name I will withhold.
He was cradling his AK-47 and smiled at me, with his set of yellow and broken teeth. I had got to know him a little, stopping at the guard hut for a chat when I had time.
``I earn $47 a month,`` he said, ``and I work every hour I can for my three sons and my wife.``
He gestured towards the entrance to l`Atmosphere: ``Do you really think that if the Taleban came, I would stay and fight?``
Not for $47, I said. ``No,`` he said, ``I would take off my uniform and join them.``
From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 15 July, 2006 at 1130 BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the
#7 Posted by HisExcellency on July 17, 2006 9:24:46 am
A well written piece.
But in my opinion, the author is asking the wrong question. The right one is...
Terrorism: Do you react to it with sticks or with carrots or both?
Terrorists are politicians who use war or crime to pursue their political goals. Given a choice, most terrorists would prefer to achieve their goals through nonviolent means.
By combining a carrots-and-sticks policy, a state can bring terrorists to the negotiating table and show them the benefits of achieving some of their goals through nonviolent means. At the same time, the state must possess enough firepower to convince terrorists that they cannot adopt an uncompromising attitude in negotiations.
The ultimate objective of a counter-terrorism strategy should be to reduce terrorism in the long-run. If the state has to compromise with terrorists in the short-run to achieve truce, this is not a weakness of the state but rather its strength. No agreement between terrorists and the state is a permanent one. Negotiations can be used for expediency as well.
But in my opinion, the author is asking the wrong question. The right one is...
Terrorism: Do you react to it with sticks or with carrots or both?
Terrorists are politicians who use war or crime to pursue their political goals. Given a choice, most terrorists would prefer to achieve their goals through nonviolent means.
By combining a carrots-and-sticks policy, a state can bring terrorists to the negotiating table and show them the benefits of achieving some of their goals through nonviolent means. At the same time, the state must possess enough firepower to convince terrorists that they cannot adopt an uncompromising attitude in negotiations.
The ultimate objective of a counter-terrorism strategy should be to reduce terrorism in the long-run. If the state has to compromise with terrorists in the short-run to achieve truce, this is not a weakness of the state but rather its strength. No agreement between terrorists and the state is a permanent one. Negotiations can be used for expediency as well.
#6 Posted by injun on July 17, 2006 5:16:16 am
Terrorism is an undeclared war and is to be treated like that.
USA has declared the so-called ``War on Terrorism``. Dont think that this is just a catchy slogan. It has wider meanings. It means that US has declared a war of terrorism and anybody who supports terrorism is automatically at war with the US. Also, since it is a war, US may use all resources at its command to fight the terrorists anywhere in the world. This includes its diplomatic missions, its institutions and other facilties etc. Just like during the Cold War, the superpowers used all their facilties like diplomatic missions etc for espionage, subversion etc.
If you treat terrorism as a crime, then a crime at one place may not be a crime at other place. Further, for crimes, the punishment is to be meted out by following normal judicial process. Whereas in war, no judicial process is to be followed.
All in all, Terrorism is to be treated as a war and not crime.
USA has declared the so-called ``War on Terrorism``. Dont think that this is just a catchy slogan. It has wider meanings. It means that US has declared a war of terrorism and anybody who supports terrorism is automatically at war with the US. Also, since it is a war, US may use all resources at its command to fight the terrorists anywhere in the world. This includes its diplomatic missions, its institutions and other facilties etc. Just like during the Cold War, the superpowers used all their facilties like diplomatic missions etc for espionage, subversion etc.
If you treat terrorism as a crime, then a crime at one place may not be a crime at other place. Further, for crimes, the punishment is to be meted out by following normal judicial process. Whereas in war, no judicial process is to be followed.
All in all, Terrorism is to be treated as a war and not crime.
#5 Posted by khadiboli on July 17, 2006 1:31:12 am
The terrorism is to be treated like a war and not a crime. Because it is indeed a WAR. Crime is generally done with a personal motive. Terrorism does not have any personal motive. The terrorist doesnt kill for personal gains or settling a score. He kills because he feels that the victims are a part of that something which is at war with his country, society or religion. Therefore, the terrorist acts as a warrior and not as a criminal.
Secondly, criminality in humans is genarally associated with mentality i.e. the thought process. Terrorism is associated with a purpose. A terrorist has a purpose for each and every act of his whereas a criminal doesnt have any purpose as such. He acts on his whims. A criminal will commit a crime against anybody but a terrorist will strike only if his purpose is getting served.
Since terrorism is a war it is to be treated like a war. The american, russian or even Pakistani strategy is correct, to my mind.
Secondly, criminality in humans is genarally associated with mentality i.e. the thought process. Terrorism is associated with a purpose. A terrorist has a purpose for each and every act of his whereas a criminal doesnt have any purpose as such. He acts on his whims. A criminal will commit a crime against anybody but a terrorist will strike only if his purpose is getting served.
Since terrorism is a war it is to be treated like a war. The american, russian or even Pakistani strategy is correct, to my mind.
#4 Posted by parthaab on July 16, 2006 5:00:39 am
Historically, Religion and violence are intertwined.
Around the world, most violence occurs in areas which have `faith`.
A recent study showed that while 92% of Indians believed in God, Britain had a third less believers. Religion thrives on insecurity, poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and ill-health.
Many may argue that terrorism is due to politics, no matter what the religion, age or sex. While a major part of Indian politics is based on religion, Pakistani extremists want a religious solution to an essentially political Kashmir problem.
One outstanding example of a purely religious strife is Gujarat. Whose architect, the BJP, is a major political party in India.
The Kashmir issue, like the Palestine or Sri Lankan one, is a vexed issue avoiding a political solution. The Kashmiris have been marauded for generations now and the Indian subcontinent has limped along economically, compared to atheist China, for eg. This issue, that Indira Gandhi and Bhutto played marbles with, and is now at our doorsteps, needs urgent attention from the governments involved. Otherwise, the subcontinent is bound to spiral into further instability.
Let us remember the example of the EU - our most important friends are our neighbours.
Around the world, most violence occurs in areas which have `faith`.
A recent study showed that while 92% of Indians believed in God, Britain had a third less believers. Religion thrives on insecurity, poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and ill-health.
Many may argue that terrorism is due to politics, no matter what the religion, age or sex. While a major part of Indian politics is based on religion, Pakistani extremists want a religious solution to an essentially political Kashmir problem.
One outstanding example of a purely religious strife is Gujarat. Whose architect, the BJP, is a major political party in India.
The Kashmir issue, like the Palestine or Sri Lankan one, is a vexed issue avoiding a political solution. The Kashmiris have been marauded for generations now and the Indian subcontinent has limped along economically, compared to atheist China, for eg. This issue, that Indira Gandhi and Bhutto played marbles with, and is now at our doorsteps, needs urgent attention from the governments involved. Otherwise, the subcontinent is bound to spiral into further instability.
Let us remember the example of the EU - our most important friends are our neighbours.
#3 Posted by ballukhan on July 16, 2006 12:25:52 am
``The American school of treating terrorism as a war runs into the opposite problem of using a sledgehammer to whack a fly. ``
I do not think this is a correct statement of the type of strategies available to fight terrorism.
The fact is that terrorism is here to stay and it can NEVER be eliminated just as you can never eliminate any normal crime. Like any other deviant behaviour like murder and treason the ``permanency of terroism`` like any other deviant behaviour is rightly understood by the Americans. Till the religions remain important for people there would always be criminals ready to use religions for deviant political behaviour like terrorism.
So how do you counter it? We have to raise the degree of punishment in order to DETER these deviant persons from commiting these acts against innocent civilians. And No civilian has objected against raising the level of deterrence against these deviants in order to keep themselves protected. So this so called this ``sledgehammer to whack a fly`` is a PARODY of essentially the correct American thinking of maximum deterrence through collateral damage.
Now, Israel has also realized that in order to correctly ensure deterrence you have to avoid innocent civilians and go after the LEADERS of these deviant organizations if you have to be effective.
The question is what does a civilian government do in case these deviants are supported by an external State protecting these deviants behind a nuclear shield?
The only correct strategy is to use COVERT means and destroy these Jehadi leaders because then they would not confidently go around strategizing and planning their attacks. COVERT operations also makes the nuclear shield pregnable because the external state would not be able to claim these exursions as an act of war against it.
Pakistani Terrorists are not FLIES whom you can swat around !!! They require a correct approach . Once you target their bully leaders they would all hide in their rat holes.......
You cannot
I do not think this is a correct statement of the type of strategies available to fight terrorism.
The fact is that terrorism is here to stay and it can NEVER be eliminated just as you can never eliminate any normal crime. Like any other deviant behaviour like murder and treason the ``permanency of terroism`` like any other deviant behaviour is rightly understood by the Americans. Till the religions remain important for people there would always be criminals ready to use religions for deviant political behaviour like terrorism.
So how do you counter it? We have to raise the degree of punishment in order to DETER these deviant persons from commiting these acts against innocent civilians. And No civilian has objected against raising the level of deterrence against these deviants in order to keep themselves protected. So this so called this ``sledgehammer to whack a fly`` is a PARODY of essentially the correct American thinking of maximum deterrence through collateral damage.
Now, Israel has also realized that in order to correctly ensure deterrence you have to avoid innocent civilians and go after the LEADERS of these deviant organizations if you have to be effective.
The question is what does a civilian government do in case these deviants are supported by an external State protecting these deviants behind a nuclear shield?
The only correct strategy is to use COVERT means and destroy these Jehadi leaders because then they would not confidently go around strategizing and planning their attacks. COVERT operations also makes the nuclear shield pregnable because the external state would not be able to claim these exursions as an act of war against it.
Pakistani Terrorists are not FLIES whom you can swat around !!! They require a correct approach . Once you target their bully leaders they would all hide in their rat holes.......
You cannot
#2 Posted by ballukhan on July 15, 2006 10:20:10 pm
Re: # 50
Anti-Jehadi Funds :-
``....... what is stopping you from bombing muridke and mansoora and killing hafeez saeed and qazi hussain ? ........ these addresses are well know ............. trust me, if you did it nothing would happen - no escalation or nukes - musharraf is too busy rigging the next election ..... as a matter of fact most pakis would thank you after a show of public indignation ...... wimps !``
I fully endorse Hamidm..........come on Indians ...........stop talking BS and take action against these Jehadi leaders............pull in some money together, create an Anti-Jehadi Fund ........ put the ex-army men in charge of it and ask tehm to run it..let them recruit both Muslim as well as Hindus of all age............. infilterate them into Pakistan...........destroy the Jehadi targets and come back....................... the expenses would not be more than a few Crores ......... and Pakistanis would certainly celeberate this act......
Anti-Jehadi Funds :-
``....... what is stopping you from bombing muridke and mansoora and killing hafeez saeed and qazi hussain ? ........ these addresses are well know ............. trust me, if you did it nothing would happen - no escalation or nukes - musharraf is too busy rigging the next election ..... as a matter of fact most pakis would thank you after a show of public indignation ...... wimps !``
I fully endorse Hamidm..........come on Indians ...........stop talking BS and take action against these Jehadi leaders............pull in some money together, create an Anti-Jehadi Fund ........ put the ex-army men in charge of it and ask tehm to run it..let them recruit both Muslim as well as Hindus of all age............. infilterate them into Pakistan...........destroy the Jehadi targets and come back....................... the expenses would not be more than a few Crores ......... and Pakistanis would certainly celeberate this act......
#1 Posted by Kamath on July 15, 2006 3:11:35 pm
Hi:
Please read my post related to your previous article, ``With a Grain of Salt: Poor Tariq Ramadan`. Sorry I was late.
Kamath
Please read my post related to your previous article, ``With a Grain of Salt: Poor Tariq Ramadan`. Sorry I was late.
Kamath
Interact Index
Also by Bhaskar Dasgupta
Similar Articles
- A Weak Pakistan is a Threat to Neighbours Beena Sarwar
- Hotel Babylon: The Marriot Hotel Explosion Asif Naqshbandi
- September Morning Feroz Qutabshahi
- Aafia Siddiqui to Appear in Court Ali Hasan Cemendtaur
- Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience Lalit Vanshaj
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- hamidm2: chowk staff, .... please ban... Salt N Pepper
- nkg: Re: # 113 Manto lives.... "And... Living Gandhi and King
- nkg: Re: # 103 Majumder... "Harishbhai, MAJ (pbuh)... Living Gandhi and King
- BJ2: Re: # 98 Meira, you... Fathers and Daughters
- nkg: #125 #129 Arjun - India and... Living Gandhi and King
- nkg: Re: # 138 Ahmed... What Jinnah... Living Gandhi and King
- nkg: Majumder, BJ, Harish.... Gandhi was... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Harish mian, You are... Living Gandhi and King
Top 5 Articles This Week
- Popular
- Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
- Reforming Religious Fundamentalists
- MQM - History and Origins
- Fathers and Daughters
- A Weak Pakistan is a Threat to Neighbours
