We The Proud Pakistanis

A execelent account of what is goin on in this country which has been taken over by corruption.

vicky #45

Thanks for noticing and pointing out an interesting coincidence. Hmmmmmm.... :-)

``Because someone is listening ?? ;-)``

All of us desis are a very hopeful type of people :-).

As someone remarked `kahene mein kya jaata hai`

Regards,

Sadhana

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2000524144211.htm

Washington Times

Kashmir`s escalating violence

Amos Perlmutter

On May 14, Ghulam Hassan Bhat, minister of state for power, and four others were killed in a powerful explosion in Srinagar, Kashmir.

The chairman of pro-Pakistan Hizbul Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the assassination. The Indian Home Secretary, L.K. Advani, claimed that Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was

behind the assassination.



It is no secret that Pakistan`s intelligence services are actively engaged in terrorizing India in Kashmir and elsewhere. According to Robert Marquand of the Christian Science Monitor, quoted in The Washington Times May 20, there is a new type of jihad warfare in Kashmir. This time, teen-age boys have become new recruits to Islamic militancy.

``Moreover, the new militancy is incubating in a valley where — regardless of whether individual Kashmiris support violence, and many do not —the anti-Indian sentiment is nearly total.`` In the 10 years since the uprising in Kashmir, close to 60,000 lives have been taken. That, in fact, is more than U.S. troop deaths in Vietnam.



The recent assassination is part of a chain of events that includes the December 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines passenger plane flying from Katmandu, Nepal to Delhi. The assassination represents a new development among the different mujahideens. The group calls itself Jais-a-Mohammed (the army of Mohammed), and is led by an old Pakistani revolutionary, Azhar Maulana Mohd Masood. Mr. Masood was a professor at the Islamic University in Karachi, was imprisoned as a result of a 1993 operation in Pakistan, and has now been released in exchange for hostages in the Indian Airline hijacking. Now that he is free, Mr. Masood has combined two radical Islamic groups into a new party called Harkatul-Ansar.

This new type of militancy presents a serious problem for Indian society. The introduction of teen-agers who become suicide bombers is increasing the level of violence in Kashmir. Many of these children are students in Islamic schools whose parents are devout Muslims, which makes the situation more sensitive to deal with for the Indians.

Most of Azar Masood`s group are Afghanis who were trained by the CIA to fight against the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large number of them were trained by Pakistani intelligence, the ISI. We see here a tacit coalition between the Afghan Taleban and the radical Islam of Pakistan. This is a brew that can explode in the Indian Subcontinent and the rest of Central Asia. The State Department publication ``Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999,`` published last month, analyses, among other things, ``Areas of Concern.`` According to the report, Islamic terrorism has moved from the Middle East to South Asia. There, the major terrorist threat comes from Afghanistan, ``which continues to be the primary safe haven for terrorists.`` ``While not directly hostile to the United States, the Taleban, which controls the majority of Afghan territory, continues to harbor Osama Bin Laden and a host of other terrorists loosely linked to Bin Laden, who directly threaten the United States and others in the international community.

According to the report, Pakistan continues to send ``mixed messages`` on terrorism. The report is not clear on what ``mixed messages`` means, but according to the New York Times on April 30, South Asia has become a major terror hub. Michael A. Sheehan, the State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, argues that, ``Pakistan was not added [as a terrorist state]`` because although its record badly needs improvement, he said, ``it is a friendly state that is trying to tackle the problem .``

This is diplomatic gobbledygook. Mr. Sheehan`s statement contradicts the facts. What happened during the last year in Kashmir refutes his claim that Pakistan ``is trying to tackle the problem.`` So long as the U.S. government is hostage to a Cold War mentality that Pakistan is our ally and refuses to include Pakistan in the list of terrorist-sponsoring governments, it is doubtful that the Pakistani government will take American anti-terrorism concerns seriously.

The spread of Islamic militancy to the former Soviet Union states of Central Asia is not referred to in the government report on terrorism. And yet, Kyrgyzstan has been influenced by Taleban and by revolutionary parties from Pakistan. In fact, Kyrgyzstan is well on its way to becoming the next hotbed of Islamic militancy in Central Asia. Next will be Uzbekistan, followed by Kazakhstan.



The rise of Islamic militancy in Central Asia will seriously impact the future of oil and gas business in the littoral states of the Caspian Sea. This should be a major strategic concern for the United States, which is deeply involved in the security and economics of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea states. We cannot dismiss the significance of the spread of Islamic education that is financed by Saudi Arabia and others. Islamic militancy is not a serious military force, but terrorism can discourage business groups and bring down fragile governments. Islamic terrorism is not an international conspiracy, but its rapid growth and development will seriously challenge American, Western, Indian and other states that are friendly to the United States in that area.



We should awaken to the fact that the Cold War is over and that Pakistan no longer behaves as an ally does. We had a common enemy with Pakistan in fighting Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. That is a matter of the past. There is no Soviet Union, India is no longer dominated by Jawaharlal Nehru`s bureaucratic socialism, and Pakistan is dominated by a military leader who is not necessarily in control of his senior advisers, especially in the intelligence services. The fight against global terrorism must take into account state-sponsored terrorism, as in Pakistan, and the emergence of Islamic militancy that are of vital strategic and economic concern for the United States, Turkey and other allies.



Amos Perlmutter is a professor of political science and sociology at American University and editor of the journal of Strategic Studies.

Rafay Alam

I see that you too have read Stanley Wolpert`s Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan .... masterly work I must say ....

Yeah I do know about the whole Ayub Khan, Nusrat Bhutto Nancy Cowasjee story .... interesting how taking back Nusrat Bhutto would be so distressing for Bhutto ....

DL ... no where have I given being 19 as an excuse .... I merely said that you might tend to discredit my opinion because I am 19 .....I totally believe in what I said ....maybe by the same logic you will explain me how ``nationalization`` of banks was done for a nefarious purpose ......

sadna #9

Chowk May 22:

`` ...... to have uniform legitimacy, a leader must at least constantly assert himself in recognising and representing every sub-group or sub-interest in the population, not just a chosen few. ``

Musharaff May 25:

http://www.dawn.com/2000/05/26/top1.htm

`` ...Adding, the chief executive said he would never meet anybody from a position of weakness but on equal footing. ``I will meet the politicians, the traders, the religious groups, I want to take everybody along.``

`` ...... But why am I saying this :-(? ``

Because someone is listening ?? ;-)

http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0602/nat.india.html

AsiaWeek

The Man Who Never Was

After 26 years, Pakistan releases an Indian spy

By RITU SARIN New Delhi

November 1974. The check-posts in Punjab, along Pakistan`s border with India, are enveloped in a thick blanket of fog, preventing the group of Indian infiltrators from spotting the patrolling Pakistani Rangers. The leader of the Indians is caught red-handed with papers he is planning to hand over to Pakistani collaborators. The Indian government imposes a news blackout on the incident, but the Pakistanis reveal they are holding 30-year-old master spy Rooplal Sahariya.

April 2000. A Pakistani International Airways flight lands at New Delhi`s Indira Gandhi International Airport. From it steps a lanky, gray-bearded man. He is quickly surrounded by cameramen. Now 56 years old, Rooplal Sahariya embraces his daughter, Sunita, who was just one when he was captured. He has spent nearly half his life in cramped prison cells in Pakistan, surviving a stroke and a death sentence.

In Sunita`s house, located in a busy district of West Delhi, Sahariya`s homecoming is still in the air weeks after his return. The former prisoner, who is wearing the kurta-pyjama stitched at the Kot Lakhpat jail store in Lahore, is playing with his three grandchildren. His right arm is frozen as a result of the stroke, but his words flow freely enough. ``I was not captured once, but several times,`` he says. ``You see, it was a dangerous life I was leading. The only difference the last time in Punjab was that the entire Pakistani ring was also caught, and they named me during an identity parade. The game was up.``

Sahariya says he met three other Indian spies in prison. They had converted to Islam. ``They became Muslims to get better facilities in jail,`` he says. ``If and when they come back, they will become Hindus again. They wanted me to convert as well so that I wouldn`t be able to tell people in India about their hypocrisy. But I never agreed.`` He says he saw other Indian prisoners of war in detention in Sialkot, Multan, Sahiwal and Lahore. ``There are around 50 such prisoners, called pagal [mad] Indians, most of whom have lost their mental balance due to years of physical torture. Even if their terms have ended, they cannot be sent home because they don`t remember their addresses.`` The Indian government believes 54 prisoners captured by Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh war are still being held.

Sahariya, who was apparently released on health grounds, is now trying to get used to being a free man in a large city. His wife, Sashiwala, re-married soon after his capture, and he remains bitter that the authorities offered her no help in adapting to his sudden absence. While he may have been lionized by the Indian media, the man who never was has been largely ignored by the Indian government - apart from being debriefed at the airport by intelligence officials. He is a lonely, aging spy, looking for support and compensation for his lost years. He may get neither.

Re ylh # 38

You have gotten your history a little mixed up on the Cowasjee/Bhutto friendship.

If I am not mistaken, Ardeshir Cowasjee was introduced to Bhutto in 1953. At that time, Bhutto was still a practicing lawyer, and was working for the firm that represented the Cowasjee shipping interests. As Cowasjee explains it, Bhutto made it clear in the first few minutes of conversation, that he wanted to be the Foriegn Minister of Pakistan. A friendship was forged.

The falling out has little to do with the the nationalisation of the shipping industry. Cowasjee`s wife, Nancy, now, sadly not with us, was good friends with Ayub Khan`s daughter. When Bhutto threw wife Nusrat out of his house (she was complaining about his filandering), Nusrat went to Nancy and asked to be taken to Ayub Khan. When Ayub found out what had happened, he called Bhutto the next day and gave him the following ultimatum: Take Nusrat back or I`ll find another Foreign Minister. (This is all recollection from Stanley Wolpert`s Zulfie Bhutto of Pakistan). My reading of it was that Bhutto never forgave Cowasjee for ``betraying`` him to Ayub.

However, Cowasjee disagrees. He says that Bhutto and he remained on cordial relations until the mid-seventies, when Bhutto had Cowasjee imprisoned for 75 days without charge under the infamous Maintenance of Public Order Act. To this day, Cowasjee doesn`t know why he was incarcerated, but he thinks it may have been becuase of some comment he passed at a social gathering.

Now, ylh, I admire your enthusiasm, but blind devotion is not productive: It leads to a situation where you cannot question and challenge authority. I too am a great admirer of Bhutto`s, and the only reason I joined Lincoln`s Inn was because Jinnah ate there. However, I have also learned the defiencies of these great men: It makes them rounder and more believable and, I think, it teaches me not to make the same mistakes they did.

Rafay

ylh: 40/38

Being 19 is no excuse for the dangerous road to narrow minded arrogance you seem to be bent on treading. And it does not rank right up there with youthful naive passion - more condescending indulgence on this forum notwithstanding.

As familiar as you allegedly are with the lives and times of Bhutto and Jinnah, you cannot have missed the role played by their intrinsically human ego`s and as manifested upon the pages of subcontinental history. Which is not to say the people around them had any less than their share. We dont need any more `leaders` in Pakistan willing to subjugate the brilliance of their vision to the desires of their own arrogance.

It seems such a shame to betray ones intelligence and hard earned education with such petty tirades. It doesn`t bode well for the future of Pakistan either.

ylh:

Should I say, `I rest my case` or is my grasp of the English language faultier than I thought it was - the following seems like a contradiction in terms:

``We are well aware that Bhutto was for an Agro-Based Economy based on reality ofcourse ... Dont you think that the Banks wouldnt consider large land owners risky investment anyway ... thus the nationalization of Banks would not in anyway greatly help the Feudal class in anyway.``

I do not remember denying Bhutto`s `remarkable` contributions to the history of Pakistan and the subcontinent in general. While I would love to get into a long drawn out discussion with you on the `joys of the Bhutto era` ... t`will have to wait.

cheers

dL

I understand where you coming from Krashid ... many people have blamed Imran Khan for declaring the innings at that point .... however people who know Imran Khan well ... and people who have followed his career see that he was very careless about his own records too .... to him winning mattered ... Imran Khan actually spoke about that incident and was quite apologetic but many times he would declare the innings when he was about to get a century himself and he could have if he cared about records gotten a few test records himself or atleast improved his already impeccable test record .... obviously Imran Khan`s commitments to the Pakistani Cricket team and to the cause of victory are beyond a shadow of doubt ...the man was a true fighter and saying that he was cunning enough to do what he did is in my opinion innaccurate ... as inaccurate as saying Bhutto nationalized the banks for a ``nefarious`` purpose ... Whereas Imran Khan might not be an astute Politician like Bhutto ... in my opinion of the politicians we have he is the closest to him .. with BB out of the running and indeed only a shadow of ZAB ..... who is our other option Maja Saja NS????

Imran Khan`s commitment to Pakistan is undeniable....

You can ofcourse wait 20 years by the time I get into Politics and then I assure you ... you will have a Politician who will be reminiscent of Jinnah and Bhutto... ofcourse I will learn from their Mistakes and not make them again :) ....you know any Political parties I can join??? Right now I am committed to Tehreek e Insaaf and the Millat Party

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

YlH!

I might disagree with you on Imran Khan. Just a matter of choice. I have many reasons. First a person who was so cunning that he declared his teammate Javed Miandad on 280 runs when he was poised to make triple century (a rare feat in test cricket). Whatever way he passed his life as a cricketer. During his election campaign when he was coming out of helicopter and a poor man approached him he slapped that man. These and other incidences speak a volume against a person`s character.

There is no dearth of politicians who have throughout their life worked for people and have fought against the establishment. This later fact is more important. Because a person becoming part and parcel of establishment is very risky for common man. If you understand that why Nawaz Sharif was popular even when people knew of his corruption as Chief minister and prime minister. It is when he started taking Press and Supreme Court etc that people disapproved him.

Also the vision which is needed, like Bhutto is almost non existent and Imran Khan is mainly run by Jemaima`s money and Mairaj Mohammed Khan`s advise.

As far as your remarks on Hoodbhoy and Z A Suleri etc are concerned. That is to gag their voice. I totally disagree. There is no single vision which is optimal for all segments of society. And through interaction, people change their opinions with time to reach at a consensus. Prime example is Irshad Ahmed Haqqani of Jang fame. A purely religious person with a vision of Islamic revolution has changed into a person of people`s right. Or for that matter even Jamat-e-Islami which has changed its stance from one of Islamic dictatorship and support for landlord-industrialist to a party striving for democratic struggle and active stance against landlord-industrialist.

I myself and many leftist parties including Bhutto had realized the importance of Islam in people`s life etc etc.

As far as Nationalization by Bhutto. I see in two context. 1- Either it was an attempt by him for development as was the norm in those days of Communist Revolutions. Or 2- It was an attempt to break the power of Capital and break the alliance of Industrialist-Landlord cum Army cum Beaureaucracy.

And off course he thought that beaureaucracy should work for people and people means him.(he equated himself with people like Altaf Bhaijan equate himself with Mohajir)

To Rafay Alam ....

Yes thats what I mean inheritor of shipping empire .... interesting how he was friends with Bhutto before he nationalized his shipping empire .....

and then Cowasjee turned completely against Bhutto ....

TO COWASJEE AND PEOPLE LIKE ZULERI AND HOODBHOY

WE, the people of Pakistan, have had enough of your venomous poison ..... your time is over ... all of you should retire ... and Hoodbhoy stick to Physics, Politics is not your game .....

let us now go and claim our manifest destiny ...

Right and the left ... these Pseudo Intellectuals are found in every sphere....

I have no respect for these people ...

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani .....

I never said Bhutto was free of his faults ....therefore I dont have a blind eye to what was wrong ... but to say that the nationalization of the banks was for a nefarious purpose is wrong ...

Your post seems to suggest that the nationalization was done to benefit any one related to the agricultural field including big feudals ... and land owners .... now I maybe 19 and just a passionate admirer of Bhutto (as I am of Quaid e Azam Jinnah and more recently of Imran Khan) ..... and correct me if I am wrong but ...the whole problem with Banks was that they considered small farmers risky investment ......and they preferred to give loans to Industrialists. We are well aware that Bhutto was for an Agro-Based Economy based on reality ofcourse ... Dont you think that the Banks wouldnt consider large land owners risky investment anyway ... thus the nationalization of Banks would not in anyway greatly help the Feudal class in anyway.

Are you denying all that Bhutto did for our country .... and for the Islamic World????????

He was our greatest Leader since Jinnah ......

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani ....

In response to pk (Reply # 30)

Dear pk:

Your statement: “. . . we must not forget that the common man has himself let others snatch away his rights. this is because the common man has not been bold enough to voice his opinion or to raise his concerns. this may have been due to nearsighted or corrupt individuals, but the fact remains that had the masses been educated, the situation would have been much better.”

Comment: I see three important parts of your statement. First, when you assert that “we must not forget that the common man has himself let others snatch away his rights.” Second, when you explain the root cause of the common people’s plight, suggesting that “the common man has not been bold enough to voice his opinion or to raise his concerns.” Third, when you suggest that the acquiescence of the common people is due a general lack of education.

pk, I tend to agree with all three parts of your statement. I should rather say, well said! I nonetheless believe that only education is not sufficient (though it is necessary) to inculcate a sense of citizenship and civic consciousness. In support of my thesis, I would like you to look at the role of the so-called educated Pakistanis. What kind of people in which part of Pakistan raise their voice most to what degree? This question requires some serious understanding and analysis.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Great article. Let us never refer to the people of Pakistan as ``the common man``, ``the masses`` and so forth. These are the true owners of Pakistan, despite what the politician scumbags may think. And let us never refer to the two-bit politicians or landlords or anyone else as VIP or VVIPs and so forth. People who think they are VIPs should be WHIPPED, and those who consider themselves VVIPs should be DOUBLE WHIPPED, until they learn who their true masters are: the people of Pakistan.

PROUD PAKISTANIS,

In case some one has missed out on this news to be proud of, from jung

Pakistan protests over Philippine`s terrorism warning

MANILA: The Pakistan embassy has protested against a Philippine immigration warning that Pakistanis were suspected to be supporting terrorism, the Foreign Department said on Wednesday.

Pakistan`s ambassador to Philippine, Hasan Sarmad delivered a diplomatic protest to the concerned department, conveying Islamabad`s ``deep dismay`` over careless remarks made by Immigration Commissioner, Rufus Rodriguez.

Rodriguez had reportedly ordered his agents to keep a close watch on Pakistani immigrants, because the United States had allegedly listed Pakistan among countries sponsoring international terrorism.

Sarmad however, clarified that the US report did not include Pakistan among alleged sponsors of terrorism.He said Rodriguez had ``maligned`` Pakistan and demanded the department to issue a public statement denying the allegation.

The department In response, issued a statement saying ``Pakistan is not on the list of

suspected states sponsoring terrorism and had cooperated with the Philippines in fighting terrorism.`` The Philippine government has been on high alert in recent weeks after an upsurge in Muslim insurgency in the south.