Refugees of A Refugee Camp
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NEW YORK TIMES
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — Before recounting how President Clinton burned alive dozens of Christians (this feint is known in the column trade as baiting the right), let me offer a quick historical quiz: What religion were Muhammad`s parents?
You might think that they, like most people in Arabia in the sixth century, probably worshiped tribal gods and idols. It might seem difficult for anyone to have been a Muslim before Muhammad.
If that`s what you think, bite your tongue — if you visit Pakistan.
Dr. Younus Shaikh, a teacher at a medical college, sits in a brick prison here, after being sentenced to death for blasphemy last year. I couldn`t interview him because the warden caught me trying to slip into the prison as a visitor (I didn`t look like a family member). But the issues are clear.
...more at
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=213153
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 21, 2002 02:19 pm
Watch What You SayBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NEW YORK TIMES
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — Before recounting how President Clinton burned alive dozens of Christians (this feint is known in the column trade as baiting the right), let me offer a quick historical quiz: What religion were Muhammad`s parents?
You might think that they, like most people in Arabia in the sixth century, probably worshiped tribal gods and idols. It might seem difficult for anyone to have been a Muslim before Muhammad.
If that`s what you think, bite your tongue — if you visit Pakistan.
Dr. Younus Shaikh, a teacher at a medical college, sits in a brick prison here, after being sentenced to death for blasphemy last year. I couldn`t interview him because the warden caught me trying to slip into the prison as a visitor (I didn`t look like a family member). But the issues are clear.
...more at
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=213153
The Perfect Murder
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NEW YORK TIMES
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — Before recounting how President Clinton burned alive dozens of Christians (this feint is known in the column trade as baiting the right), let me offer a quick historical quiz: What religion were Muhammad`s parents?
You might think that they, like most people in Arabia in the sixth century, probably worshiped tribal gods and idols. It might seem difficult for anyone to have been a Muslim before Muhammad.
If that`s what you think, bite your tongue — if you visit Pakistan.
Dr. Younus Shaikh, a teacher at a medical college, sits in a brick prison here, after being sentenced to death for blasphemy last year. I couldn`t interview him because the warden caught me trying to slip into the prison as a visitor (I didn`t look like a family member). But the issues are clear.
....more at
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=213153
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 21, 2002 02:19 pm
Watch What You SayBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NEW YORK TIMES
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — Before recounting how President Clinton burned alive dozens of Christians (this feint is known in the column trade as baiting the right), let me offer a quick historical quiz: What religion were Muhammad`s parents?
You might think that they, like most people in Arabia in the sixth century, probably worshiped tribal gods and idols. It might seem difficult for anyone to have been a Muslim before Muhammad.
If that`s what you think, bite your tongue — if you visit Pakistan.
Dr. Younus Shaikh, a teacher at a medical college, sits in a brick prison here, after being sentenced to death for blasphemy last year. I couldn`t interview him because the warden caught me trying to slip into the prison as a visitor (I didn`t look like a family member). But the issues are clear.
....more at
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=213153
Of Errant Politicians And The Kashmir Cause
Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 20, 2002 09:20 pm
Claude Arpi Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
Kashmir Fatigue
Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 20, 2002 09:20 pm
Claude Arpi Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
I am Ashamed and I Apologize
Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 20, 2002 09:20 pm
Claude Arpi Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
The Perfect Murder
Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 20, 2002 09:20 pm
Claude Arpi Homelands in Pakistan
One form of relaxation for me is watching sports programmes on television. On the same sports channel, Pakistan TV beams its daily news and very often I watch it for a short time. The music programmes and the serials, I must say, are not very different from Hindi serials aired on the Sahara channel. If a test were conducted and any foreigner asked which of the two countries a particular programme belonged to, very few would guess right.
The same holds true for the ads. This is no doubt normal for two nations which share 5,000 years (minus 50) of history.
But one thing is radically different and nobody can miss it: the news.
Whatever relaxation I may have enjoyed on the sports channel quickly fades away when I hear (and see) the systematic and constant anti-India propaganda. It seems that this nation (or at least its government) has had for the past 50 years only one obsession: India.
Within this obsession, there is another: Kashmir. You cannot watch a single news bulletin or debate without hearing about the `excesses of the Indian security forces` on the people of Kashmir `struggling for their self-determination`, though it is usually the same footage of security forces facing a mob during one of the Srinagar bandhs shown again and again.
Now, a new topic has recently appeared on PTV: the regrettable riots in Gujarat, which followed the Godhra incident. Since Gujarat saw an outburst of violence, PTV News seems full of delectation. The tone is, `did we not tell you that they would do this?` It is so excessive that it makes one feel Pakistan may not be fully innocent of the incident.
It is not only television but also other media who are enjoying this new occasion for India-bashing. For example, a Pakistani news Web site, Paknews.com, wrote an article titled Thank God we have Pakistan last month.
Not only did they declare that ``genocide against minorities is nothing new in India or in Indian-occupied areas``, but went one step further and announced a partition of India. For the purpose they quote some US media: ``This has led to vocal calls from Information Times, an American Media in Washington DC for the breakup of India into smaller countries where minorities are in the government and are able to protect their rights. This idea of partition has again come up after 55 years because the underlying argument of `Two-Nation Theory`, which was basis of creation of Pakistan, a home and safe haven for Muslims is once again valid and applicable on India. However, this time around, rather than creation of disparity in countries, India is eight times bigger than Pakistan, creation of smaller countries of equal area and resources should be carved out of India.
``In Pakistan as well as overseas, every Pakistani is praying for safety of fellow Muslims in India, and is thinking, `Thank God we have Pakistan`, `Thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`.``
While it is not certain that all Pakistanis are praying for the breakup of India, this article raises a very interesting point: is it not Pakistan which is on the brink of breaking up?
Recently, Fortune magazine published a long article entitled `Kidnapped Nation` by Richard Behar, which is an in-depth look into the catastrophic economic situation in Pakistan. There is no doubt that Pakistan is close to an economic collapse.
Behar was told in Quetta by one of the leaders of the jihadi outfit Sipah-e-Sahaba: ``Sept 11 was all the fault of Jews, God will destroy Bush.`` He also blamed Musharraf for the Taliban`s defeat and happily provided Fortune details about the cash, supplies and soldiers Sipah had slipped across the porous border to aid the Taliban.
Behar analysed: ``Pearl`s death and the mid-March bombing of a Protestant church in Islamabad are only the most visible signs of a dysfunctional nation -- call it Problemistan -- a country that professes to be an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but probably harbors more terrorists than any place on earth.``
This is only one of the many journalists who have begun to see that the best ally of the US in the region is in fact the largest nest of world terrorism and that Musharraf, despite all his declarations to the contrary, cannot do anything even if he wanted to (and it is not certain at all that he wants to).
Another example of the country`s bankruptcy is Musharraf`s dramatic speech on January 12 when he announced that jihadi groups would no longer be able to operate from Pakistani soil. To give his American mentors proof of his good faith, he arrested 2,000 militants (out of a few millions). Most of them are now free.
It appears that when the Lahore high court directed the Punjab government to furnish details of the records of cases against those who were picked up, the government was unable to substantiate the cases. For example, the leader of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Prof Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Public Order on charges of making inflammatory speeches, has been released as the MPO empowers the government to detain a person for only 90 days.
But more serious problems are in stock for Musharraf; he may pray for India`s breakup, but there are today strong possibilities that it may happen to Pakistan.
First, he has no control over very large regions of his territory, one of the worse being the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. A few of weeks ago, a news item reported the arrest of Osama bin Laden`s senior aide Abu Zubaydah in Faislabad. It appears that the US intelligence agencies had arrested some Pakistanis in Kabul, who tipped off the Americans about bin Laden`s aide.
Another story surfaced a couple of days later: bin Laden himself had been staying in the same house a day or so earlier and had just left (probably informed by one of his contacts in the ISI) when the combined raid by the Pakistani security forces and the Federal Bureau of Investigation flew down to Faislabad. One can imagine the situation in the border areas renowned for their porousness if bin Laden could hide in the heart of the Punjab! (By the way, Musharraf had been announcing for months that bin Laden was dead, but this time he did not comment.)
The district known as the Federally Administrated Tribal Agencies has had a long history of lawlessness. It dates even before the 19th century when the British were the masters of the subcontinent ... except for a piece of land: the land of the Pushtoons (or Pathans). But the empire was always resourceful: a senior British diplomat, Sir Mortimer Durand, was requested to divide this land into two. He did so with a pen and the Pushtoons found themselves in two different countries: Afghanistan and British India. But to this day, the Pushtoon tribes on both sides of Durand`s border do not accept the existence of this stroke of his pen. It is even said that the bonds of tribe and ethnicity amongst the Pushtoons are more important than their Islamic faith.
The division did not help the British much and they had no option but to grant autonomy to these areas. It did not deter the population from dreaming of a reunification of the Pushtoon land. In the first years after the independence of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan took up the matter with Pakistan through Washington, which first was in two minds about the validity of the Durand Line. But the US administration knew that if Kabul`s claims were accepted, it would be the end of Pakistan as a state; it was not in their strategic interests to do so.
Apart from the fact that Musharraf has very little control over the area, the return of King Zahir Shah in Kabul leaves very little doubt that the issue of Pushtoonistan will resurface. The struggle between the Northern Alliance mainly composed of Uzbeks and Tajiks (like Ahmed Shah Masoud) against the Pathan regimes in Kabul is also to be seen in this perspective. It was certainly one of the reasons why Islamabad had to `control` Kabul`s regime and why the ISI with the help of the CIA installed the Taliban.
After `Problemistan` and `Pushtoonistan`, the other headache for the Pakistani general is `Sindhistan`. Though a few days ago the Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain said he was `neutral` about the referendum proposed by Musharraf, he has not always been neutral and the separatist tendencies of Sindh are very much present today.
In September last year, Hussain delivered a fiery speech by telephone from London. He said he ``will launch a struggle for self-determination`` in Pakistan`s Sindh province. He was ready to approach ``the United Nations, United States, India and other democratic countries``.
For Hussain, 54 years ``under the colonial yoke of the Punjabi establishment were enough``. He declared that it was the mission of his life to free Sindh.
Hussain, who leads the Mohajirs -- about 20 million Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during and after Partition -- feels that his community has received no rights in Pakistan. ``We were deceived in the name of Islam.``
He accused the Punjabi establishment of regarding the Mohajirs, the Sindhis and the Baluchis as security risks when they get government positions and concluded: ``No one will grant you your rights, you will have to take it from the usurpers.``
On top of this, Pakistan has a very serious problem in the northern areas of occupied Kashmir. An announcement from the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported last week that the Khunjerab pass between Sinkiang and Pakistan will finally be reopened in May for the first time after September 11.
This pass is one of the most strategic regions in the world because of the old US-Pakistan-China axis. (One should not forget that it was Ayub Khan who battered the first Mao-Nixon meeting in the early 70s.) Soon after the destruction of the twin towers, it was reported that jihadi tribes had taken over the pass and no one was allowed to go through. The safest bet for China (and perhaps for Musharraf) was to close the pass.
Just before the Agra summit, the general had a series of consultations with political and religious leaders of Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but he did not invite any representative of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) for these discussions. The reason came to be known later: in June 2001, Gilgit and its surroundings were in a serious state of unrest due to protests from Sunni organisations over the decision of the local administration to introduce separate religious textbooks in the schools for the Shias (who are in a majority in Gilgit). Embarrassed by the incident, Musharraf stopped all movement between Gilgit and Pakistan and imposed very strict censorship.
In the ensuing riots thousands of activists from different political Sunni groups blocked the roads to the city of Gilgit to prevent Pakistani reinforcements from reaching the spot. They had finally to be rushed by helicopters and the demonstrators were ruthlessly removed. This is only one of many incidents that have occurred recently.
An attitude similar to the one adopted by Islamabad in Sindh and Baluchistan was noted by an Indian journalist who visited Gilgit in March. He was told by Ali Mardan, the editor of the local weekly Naqqara: ``If the government continues to ignore the grievances of the Northern Areas, it could even end up facing an armed struggle.`` He added: ``Pakistan does not trust the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. To date, we have never had a local chief secretary or police chief. They are either Punjabis or Pathans.`` One of the interviewed persons told the journalist: ``At least in your part of Kashmir, though he is a puppet, a Kashmiri Muslim is at the helm.``
For 50 years these areas have never been administrated by a Kashmiri and even the National Kashmir Committee, recently created by Islamabad under the chairmanship of Abdul Qayyum Khan, has very few Kashmiri members.
Certain quarters in Pakistan may continue to `thank God for the farsightedness of Iqbal and Jinnah for creating our homeland`, but the fact remains that there are today several `homelands` in Pakistan. One does not see how the general, even if he gets a five-year new lease as the master of Pakistan, will be able to contain the centrifugal forces with his cosmetic reforms and grandiloquent anti-India speeches.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26guest.htm
Kashmir Fatigue
The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
Kashmir: From earthly paradise to potential Armageddon The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Breaking News: Suicide Bomb in Karachi
Globalist
Pakistan: Mother of All Evil? By The Globalist
Imagine a country that is ruled by a military dictator, has plenty of nuclear bombs and is known to harbor vicious international terrorists. Surely, such a country would be a primary target in the U.S. war against terrorism. As unlikely as it may seem, Pakistan, a country that answers to all of the above characteristics, is actually a prime U.S. ally in the war.
Ever since the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded — or carved out of India — in August 1947, it has been in a precarious situation even in the best of times.
The creation of a new nation as a homeland for India’s Muslims was Muhammed Ali Jinnah`s historic feat. When he died in 1948, however, he had not succeeded in creating the nation’s identity.
Social antagonism
Millions of refugees poured in from India after partition. They did not make themselves popular by quickly taking over key positions in Pakistan’s government, military and infrastructure.
Pakistan’s level of corruption and the lack of accountability of its institutions provided a perfect breeding ground for bin Laden and his likes.
Many of them — current President Pervez Musharraf’s family included — came from Northern India, were better educated and had been in similar positions under the British already.
The “other” Pakistanis were simpler folks. Their field of expertise was in agriculture or business — but not in administration. To add insult to injury, the newcomers quickly imposed Urdu as the national language on the reluctant speakers of Punjabi or Sindhi.
Regional antagonism
Not that life was rosy for the Punjabis or Sindhis before the arrival of the “Indians.” Punjabi landlords always had an iron grip on their people. Bonded labor still exists in all but name — and a handful of powerful families have always controlled the province and its politics.
Discover more:
• Mohammed Ali Jinnah
• Pakistan`s History
• Madrassas
Sindh, on the other hand, has been marred by movements which want to see the province — which is Pakistan’s economic foundation — autonomous, if not independent.
Political antagonism
Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. In 1958, President Iskander Mirza suspended the constitution with the help of the army, only to be forced into exile 20 days later. General Mohammad Ayub Khan then became Pakistan’s first military leader.
What followed was a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments peppered with the occasional assassination, political murder and mysterious accident which have made Pakistani politics so lively.
Woman power?
Benazir Bhutto, who became the country’s first female prime minister and everybody’s darling in the West in 1988, turned out to be a major disappointment.
From the start, there were allegations that she somehow had a hand in the death of her predecessor, military ruler Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who was killed in an airplane crash along with 28 senior military officers and the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.
Pakistani politics are a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments — peppered with the occasional assassination or mysterious accident.
Zia had been responsible for the execution of Benazir’s father, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in 1979. Benazir herself now lives in exile in Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates. Her husband Asif Ali Zardari — nicknamed ``Mr. Ten Percent`` — languishes in jail in Pakistan.
He has been accused of taking bribes, pocketing money from government contracts and for planning ``extrajudicial killings`` in Karachi, where Mrs. Bhutto`s rivals had been killed by police.
All this seemed poised for a change for the better when, ironically, yet another general — Pervez Musharraf — ousted Benazir Bhutto’s successor Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — a Zia protege — in 1998. Pakistanis welcomed the bloodless coup and argued that ever since Jinnah had died 50 years earlier, everything had gone downhill.
Resurfacing problems
The terrorist attacks, however, brought back to the surface what has plagued Pakistan since it was founded. An atmosphere which over 50 years ago first discouraged cohesion and national identity subsequently encouraged corruption, lack of respect for any government or its representatives, cronyism and hidden, uncontrollable powers.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only reasonably stable institution in Pakistan. The events following the terrorist attacks, however, might even threaten this last vestige of law and order in the country.
Islamization
Mr. Musharraf`s shilly-shallying over Kashmir and his inability — or unwillingness — to risk cracking down on the militants, have emphasized the foul compromises of Pakistan’s society even more.
Much of it became worse during the time of Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. In order to secure his grip on power, Zia introduced “Islamization” in the early 1980s.
In Pakistan, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
This represented a U-turn away from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had been accused of attempting to radically westernize Pakistan.
“Islamization” was to become a watershed for the region. Why? Neighboring Afghanistan was fighting against Soviet occupation. The U.S. government at the time provided financial aid for Pakistan, which had to cope with millions of Afghani refugees.
At the same time, both military and financial help for Afghani resistance fighters was channeled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Institutions let loose
In order to facilitate training, camps were built in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clandestine operations bolstered the role of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
With official and unofficial backing the ISI developed into a state within a state. So much so that after Zia’s death in 1988, nobody could really figure out who was in charge.
This is now part of the problem in Kashmir. Despite continuous denial by various Pakistani governments, it is almost certain that the ISI supports militants there on its own account.
Given the lack of control, the agency can easily orchestrate any kind of terror act against Indian authorities without the knowledge of the Pakistani administration. On top of that, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
Teaching extremism
In addition, much of the period of “Islamization” contributed to the growth of religious extremism. Madrassa is a form of religious schools which sprung up all over the country. Originally conceived as welfare set-ups, many went out of control.
When Jinnah died, he had not succeeded in creating Pakistan’s national identity.
Major funding came not only from Zia’s “Islamization” schemes but also from abroad, notably from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
The numbers
By now, it is estimated that 10-15% of the 45,000 religious schools are affiliated with extremist religious or political groups. During the occupation of Afghanistan, they served as recruiting bases and training centes for fighters. Students also fought in conflicts in Kashmir and Chechnya.
Another worrying trend is that up to 50% of students are thought to come from abroad — from as far away as Indonesia and the Philippines. Once they return to their home countries, they often spread the extreme views taught in such schools.
Thus, the teaching of the Quran quickly went hand in hand with training in partisan warfare to be undertaken against the Soviet infidels in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, ties between Afghani Taliban fighters and Pakistan remained close.
So close, that Pakistan was one of only a few countries ever to formally recognize the Taliban government. In fact, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had expressed his admiration for how law and order had been restored in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover.
No quiet retirement
With much of Pakistan’s old North West Frontier virtually autonomous, it is no wonder then that local tribes are suspected of harboring old friends — al Qaeda fighters. These fighters have not gone into early retirement. Rather, they are prepared to continue their jihad everywhere.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only stable institution in Pakistan.
Given the close proximity of the North West Frontier to Kashmir, it is little wonder that India is particularly concerned about the potential new militant recruits. That is also why it feels justified when it speaks of al Qaeda terrorism and its troubles with Kashmir separatists in one breath.
This is where the whole story comes full circle again. Pakistan`s current troubles have a long and complex history. The al Qaeda terrorist network was — and is — able to take advantage of the muddled situation. From India`s point of view, things are quite clear: the troubles started with the partition of mother India and the creation of Pakistan — the ``Mother of All Evil.``
The question is whether the Pakistani government will gain sufficient control of its internal situation so that the rest of the world will not — sooner or later — come to view Pakistan in the same negative light as the Indians do now.
June 13, 2002
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/richter/2002/06-13-02.shtmlGlobalist
Pakistan: Mother of All Evil? By The Globalist
Imagine a country that is ruled by a military dictator, has plenty of nuclear bombs and is known to harbor vicious international terrorists. Surely, such a country would be a primary target in the U.S. war against terrorism. As unlikely as it may seem, Pakistan, a country that answers to all of the above characteristics, is actually a prime U.S. ally in the war.
Ever since the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded — or carved out of India — in August 1947, it has been in a precarious situation even in the best of times.
The creation of a new nation as a homeland for India’s Muslims was Muhammed Ali Jinnah`s historic feat. When he died in 1948, however, he had not succeeded in creating the nation’s identity.
Social antagonism
Millions of refugees poured in from India after partition. They did not make themselves popular by quickly taking over key positions in Pakistan’s government, military and infrastructure.
Pakistan’s level of corruption and the lack of accountability of its institutions provided a perfect breeding ground for bin Laden and his likes.
Many of them — current President Pervez Musharraf’s family included — came from Northern India, were better educated and had been in similar positions under the British already.
The “other” Pakistanis were simpler folks. Their field of expertise was in agriculture or business — but not in administration. To add insult to injury, the newcomers quickly imposed Urdu as the national language on the reluctant speakers of Punjabi or Sindhi.
Regional antagonism
Not that life was rosy for the Punjabis or Sindhis before the arrival of the “Indians.” Punjabi landlords always had an iron grip on their people. Bonded labor still exists in all but name — and a handful of powerful families have always controlled the province and its politics.
Discover more:
• Mohammed Ali Jinnah
• Pakistan`s History
• Madrassas
Sindh, on the other hand, has been marred by movements which want to see the province — which is Pakistan’s economic foundation — autonomous, if not independent.
Political antagonism
Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. In 1958, President Iskander Mirza suspended the constitution with the help of the army, only to be forced into exile 20 days later. General Mohammad Ayub Khan then became Pakistan’s first military leader.
What followed was a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments peppered with the occasional assassination, political murder and mysterious accident which have made Pakistani politics so lively.
Woman power?
Benazir Bhutto, who became the country’s first female prime minister and everybody’s darling in the West in 1988, turned out to be a major disappointment.
From the start, there were allegations that she somehow had a hand in the death of her predecessor, military ruler Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who was killed in an airplane crash along with 28 senior military officers and the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.
Pakistani politics are a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments — peppered with the occasional assassination or mysterious accident.
Zia had been responsible for the execution of Benazir’s father, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in 1979. Benazir herself now lives in exile in Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates. Her husband Asif Ali Zardari — nicknamed ``Mr. Ten Percent`` — languishes in jail in Pakistan.
He has been accused of taking bribes, pocketing money from government contracts and for planning ``extrajudicial killings`` in Karachi, where Mrs. Bhutto`s rivals had been killed by police.
All this seemed poised for a change for the better when, ironically, yet another general — Pervez Musharraf — ousted Benazir Bhutto’s successor Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — a Zia protege — in 1998. Pakistanis welcomed the bloodless coup and argued that ever since Jinnah had died 50 years earlier, everything had gone downhill.
Resurfacing problems
The terrorist attacks, however, brought back to the surface what has plagued Pakistan since it was founded. An atmosphere which over 50 years ago first discouraged cohesion and national identity subsequently encouraged corruption, lack of respect for any government or its representatives, cronyism and hidden, uncontrollable powers.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only reasonably stable institution in Pakistan. The events following the terrorist attacks, however, might even threaten this last vestige of law and order in the country.
Islamization
Mr. Musharraf`s shilly-shallying over Kashmir and his inability — or unwillingness — to risk cracking down on the militants, have emphasized the foul compromises of Pakistan’s society even more.
Much of it became worse during the time of Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. In order to secure his grip on power, Zia introduced “Islamization” in the early 1980s.
In Pakistan, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
This represented a U-turn away from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had been accused of attempting to radically westernize Pakistan.
“Islamization” was to become a watershed for the region. Why? Neighboring Afghanistan was fighting against Soviet occupation. The U.S. government at the time provided financial aid for Pakistan, which had to cope with millions of Afghani refugees.
At the same time, both military and financial help for Afghani resistance fighters was channeled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Institutions let loose
In order to facilitate training, camps were built in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clandestine operations bolstered the role of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
With official and unofficial backing the ISI developed into a state within a state. So much so that after Zia’s death in 1988, nobody could really figure out who was in charge.
This is now part of the problem in Kashmir. Despite continuous denial by various Pakistani governments, it is almost certain that the ISI supports militants there on its own account.
Given the lack of control, the agency can easily orchestrate any kind of terror act against Indian authorities without the knowledge of the Pakistani administration. On top of that, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
Teaching extremism
In addition, much of the period of “Islamization” contributed to the growth of religious extremism. Madrassa is a form of religious schools which sprung up all over the country. Originally conceived as welfare set-ups, many went out of control.
When Jinnah died, he had not succeeded in creating Pakistan’s national identity.
Major funding came not only from Zia’s “Islamization” schemes but also from abroad, notably from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
The numbers
By now, it is estimated that 10-15% of the 45,000 religious schools are affiliated with extremist religious or political groups. During the occupation of Afghanistan, they served as recruiting bases and training centes for fighters. Students also fought in conflicts in Kashmir and Chechnya.
Another worrying trend is that up to 50% of students are thought to come from abroad — from as far away as Indonesia and the Philippines. Once they return to their home countries, they often spread the extreme views taught in such schools.
Thus, the teaching of the Quran quickly went hand in hand with training in partisan warfare to be undertaken against the Soviet infidels in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, ties between Afghani Taliban fighters and Pakistan remained close.
So close, that Pakistan was one of only a few countries ever to formally recognize the Taliban government. In fact, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had expressed his admiration for how law and order had been restored in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover.
No quiet retirement
With much of Pakistan’s old North West Frontier virtually autonomous, it is no wonder then that local tribes are suspected of harboring old friends — al Qaeda fighters. These fighters have not gone into early retirement. Rather, they are prepared to continue their jihad everywhere.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only stable institution in Pakistan.
Given the close proximity of the North West Frontier to Kashmir, it is little wonder that India is particularly concerned about the potential new militant recruits. That is also why it feels justified when it speaks of al Qaeda terrorism and its troubles with Kashmir separatists in one breath.
This is where the whole story comes full circle again. Pakistan`s current troubles have a long and complex history. The al Qaeda terrorist network was — and is — able to take advantage of the muddled situation. From India`s point of view, things are quite clear: the troubles started with the partition of mother India and the creation of Pakistan — the ``Mother of All Evil.``
The question is whether the Pakistani government will gain sufficient control of its internal situation so that the rest of the world will not — sooner or later — come to view Pakistan in the same negative light as the Indians do now.
June 13, 2002
Dissing Ideologies
Globalist
Pakistan: Mother of All Evil? By The Globalist
Imagine a country that is ruled by a military dictator, has plenty of nuclear bombs and is known to harbor vicious international terrorists. Surely, such a country would be a primary target in the U.S. war against terrorism. As unlikely as it may seem, Pakistan, a country that answers to all of the above characteristics, is actually a prime U.S. ally in the war.
Ever since the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded — or carved out of India — in August 1947, it has been in a precarious situation even in the best of times.
The creation of a new nation as a homeland for India’s Muslims was Muhammed Ali Jinnah`s historic feat. When he died in 1948, however, he had not succeeded in creating the nation’s identity.
Social antagonism
Millions of refugees poured in from India after partition. They did not make themselves popular by quickly taking over key positions in Pakistan’s government, military and infrastructure.
Pakistan’s level of corruption and the lack of accountability of its institutions provided a perfect breeding ground for bin Laden and his likes.
Many of them — current President Pervez Musharraf’s family included — came from Northern India, were better educated and had been in similar positions under the British already.
The “other” Pakistanis were simpler folks. Their field of expertise was in agriculture or business — but not in administration. To add insult to injury, the newcomers quickly imposed Urdu as the national language on the reluctant speakers of Punjabi or Sindhi.
Regional antagonism
Not that life was rosy for the Punjabis or Sindhis before the arrival of the “Indians.” Punjabi landlords always had an iron grip on their people. Bonded labor still exists in all but name — and a handful of powerful families have always controlled the province and its politics.
Discover more:
• Mohammed Ali Jinnah
• Pakistan`s History
• Madrassas
Sindh, on the other hand, has been marred by movements which want to see the province — which is Pakistan’s economic foundation — autonomous, if not independent.
Political antagonism
Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. In 1958, President Iskander Mirza suspended the constitution with the help of the army, only to be forced into exile 20 days later. General Mohammad Ayub Khan then became Pakistan’s first military leader.
What followed was a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments peppered with the occasional assassination, political murder and mysterious accident which have made Pakistani politics so lively.
Woman power?
Benazir Bhutto, who became the country’s first female prime minister and everybody’s darling in the West in 1988, turned out to be a major disappointment.
From the start, there were allegations that she somehow had a hand in the death of her predecessor, military ruler Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who was killed in an airplane crash along with 28 senior military officers and the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.
Pakistani politics are a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments — peppered with the occasional assassination or mysterious accident.
Zia had been responsible for the execution of Benazir’s father, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in 1979. Benazir herself now lives in exile in Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates. Her husband Asif Ali Zardari — nicknamed ``Mr. Ten Percent`` — languishes in jail in Pakistan.
He has been accused of taking bribes, pocketing money from government contracts and for planning ``extrajudicial killings`` in Karachi, where Mrs. Bhutto`s rivals had been killed by police.
All this seemed poised for a change for the better when, ironically, yet another general — Pervez Musharraf — ousted Benazir Bhutto’s successor Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — a Zia protege — in 1998. Pakistanis welcomed the bloodless coup and argued that ever since Jinnah had died 50 years earlier, everything had gone downhill.
Resurfacing problems
The terrorist attacks, however, brought back to the surface what has plagued Pakistan since it was founded. An atmosphere which over 50 years ago first discouraged cohesion and national identity subsequently encouraged corruption, lack of respect for any government or its representatives, cronyism and hidden, uncontrollable powers.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only reasonably stable institution in Pakistan. The events following the terrorist attacks, however, might even threaten this last vestige of law and order in the country.
Islamization
Mr. Musharraf`s shilly-shallying over Kashmir and his inability — or unwillingness — to risk cracking down on the militants, have emphasized the foul compromises of Pakistan’s society even more.
Much of it became worse during the time of Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. In order to secure his grip on power, Zia introduced “Islamization” in the early 1980s.
In Pakistan, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
This represented a U-turn away from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had been accused of attempting to radically westernize Pakistan.
“Islamization” was to become a watershed for the region. Why? Neighboring Afghanistan was fighting against Soviet occupation. The U.S. government at the time provided financial aid for Pakistan, which had to cope with millions of Afghani refugees.
At the same time, both military and financial help for Afghani resistance fighters was channeled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Institutions let loose
In order to facilitate training, camps were built in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clandestine operations bolstered the role of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
With official and unofficial backing the ISI developed into a state within a state. So much so that after Zia’s death in 1988, nobody could really figure out who was in charge.
This is now part of the problem in Kashmir. Despite continuous denial by various Pakistani governments, it is almost certain that the ISI supports militants there on its own account.
Given the lack of control, the agency can easily orchestrate any kind of terror act against Indian authorities without the knowledge of the Pakistani administration. On top of that, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
Teaching extremism
In addition, much of the period of “Islamization” contributed to the growth of religious extremism. Madrassa is a form of religious schools which sprung up all over the country. Originally conceived as welfare set-ups, many went out of control.
When Jinnah died, he had not succeeded in creating Pakistan’s national identity.
Major funding came not only from Zia’s “Islamization” schemes but also from abroad, notably from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
The numbers
By now, it is estimated that 10-15% of the 45,000 religious schools are affiliated with extremist religious or political groups. During the occupation of Afghanistan, they served as recruiting bases and training centes for fighters. Students also fought in conflicts in Kashmir and Chechnya.
Another worrying trend is that up to 50% of students are thought to come from abroad — from as far away as Indonesia and the Philippines. Once they return to their home countries, they often spread the extreme views taught in such schools.
Thus, the teaching of the Quran quickly went hand in hand with training in partisan warfare to be undertaken against the Soviet infidels in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, ties between Afghani Taliban fighters and Pakistan remained close.
So close, that Pakistan was one of only a few countries ever to formally recognize the Taliban government. In fact, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had expressed his admiration for how law and order had been restored in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover.
No quiet retirement
With much of Pakistan’s old North West Frontier virtually autonomous, it is no wonder then that local tribes are suspected of harboring old friends — al Qaeda fighters. These fighters have not gone into early retirement. Rather, they are prepared to continue their jihad everywhere.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only stable institution in Pakistan.
Given the close proximity of the North West Frontier to Kashmir, it is little wonder that India is particularly concerned about the potential new militant recruits. That is also why it feels justified when it speaks of al Qaeda terrorism and its troubles with Kashmir separatists in one breath.
This is where the whole story comes full circle again. Pakistan`s current troubles have a long and complex history. The al Qaeda terrorist network was — and is — able to take advantage of the muddled situation. From India`s point of view, things are quite clear: the troubles started with the partition of mother India and the creation of Pakistan — the ``Mother of All Evil.``
The question is whether the Pakistani government will gain sufficient control of its internal situation so that the rest of the world will not — sooner or later — come to view Pakistan in the same negative light as the Indians do now.
June 13, 2002
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/richter/2002/06-13-02.shtmlGlobalist
Pakistan: Mother of All Evil? By The Globalist
Imagine a country that is ruled by a military dictator, has plenty of nuclear bombs and is known to harbor vicious international terrorists. Surely, such a country would be a primary target in the U.S. war against terrorism. As unlikely as it may seem, Pakistan, a country that answers to all of the above characteristics, is actually a prime U.S. ally in the war.
Ever since the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded — or carved out of India — in August 1947, it has been in a precarious situation even in the best of times.
The creation of a new nation as a homeland for India’s Muslims was Muhammed Ali Jinnah`s historic feat. When he died in 1948, however, he had not succeeded in creating the nation’s identity.
Social antagonism
Millions of refugees poured in from India after partition. They did not make themselves popular by quickly taking over key positions in Pakistan’s government, military and infrastructure.
Pakistan’s level of corruption and the lack of accountability of its institutions provided a perfect breeding ground for bin Laden and his likes.
Many of them — current President Pervez Musharraf’s family included — came from Northern India, were better educated and had been in similar positions under the British already.
The “other” Pakistanis were simpler folks. Their field of expertise was in agriculture or business — but not in administration. To add insult to injury, the newcomers quickly imposed Urdu as the national language on the reluctant speakers of Punjabi or Sindhi.
Regional antagonism
Not that life was rosy for the Punjabis or Sindhis before the arrival of the “Indians.” Punjabi landlords always had an iron grip on their people. Bonded labor still exists in all but name — and a handful of powerful families have always controlled the province and its politics.
Discover more:
• Mohammed Ali Jinnah
• Pakistan`s History
• Madrassas
Sindh, on the other hand, has been marred by movements which want to see the province — which is Pakistan’s economic foundation — autonomous, if not independent.
Political antagonism
Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. In 1958, President Iskander Mirza suspended the constitution with the help of the army, only to be forced into exile 20 days later. General Mohammad Ayub Khan then became Pakistan’s first military leader.
What followed was a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments peppered with the occasional assassination, political murder and mysterious accident which have made Pakistani politics so lively.
Woman power?
Benazir Bhutto, who became the country’s first female prime minister and everybody’s darling in the West in 1988, turned out to be a major disappointment.
From the start, there were allegations that she somehow had a hand in the death of her predecessor, military ruler Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who was killed in an airplane crash along with 28 senior military officers and the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.
Pakistani politics are a bizarre alternation between military rulers and civilian governments — peppered with the occasional assassination or mysterious accident.
Zia had been responsible for the execution of Benazir’s father, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in 1979. Benazir herself now lives in exile in Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates. Her husband Asif Ali Zardari — nicknamed ``Mr. Ten Percent`` — languishes in jail in Pakistan.
He has been accused of taking bribes, pocketing money from government contracts and for planning ``extrajudicial killings`` in Karachi, where Mrs. Bhutto`s rivals had been killed by police.
All this seemed poised for a change for the better when, ironically, yet another general — Pervez Musharraf — ousted Benazir Bhutto’s successor Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — a Zia protege — in 1998. Pakistanis welcomed the bloodless coup and argued that ever since Jinnah had died 50 years earlier, everything had gone downhill.
Resurfacing problems
The terrorist attacks, however, brought back to the surface what has plagued Pakistan since it was founded. An atmosphere which over 50 years ago first discouraged cohesion and national identity subsequently encouraged corruption, lack of respect for any government or its representatives, cronyism and hidden, uncontrollable powers.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only reasonably stable institution in Pakistan. The events following the terrorist attacks, however, might even threaten this last vestige of law and order in the country.
Islamization
Mr. Musharraf`s shilly-shallying over Kashmir and his inability — or unwillingness — to risk cracking down on the militants, have emphasized the foul compromises of Pakistan’s society even more.
Much of it became worse during the time of Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. In order to secure his grip on power, Zia introduced “Islamization” in the early 1980s.
In Pakistan, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
This represented a U-turn away from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had been accused of attempting to radically westernize Pakistan.
“Islamization” was to become a watershed for the region. Why? Neighboring Afghanistan was fighting against Soviet occupation. The U.S. government at the time provided financial aid for Pakistan, which had to cope with millions of Afghani refugees.
At the same time, both military and financial help for Afghani resistance fighters was channeled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Institutions let loose
In order to facilitate training, camps were built in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clandestine operations bolstered the role of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
With official and unofficial backing the ISI developed into a state within a state. So much so that after Zia’s death in 1988, nobody could really figure out who was in charge.
This is now part of the problem in Kashmir. Despite continuous denial by various Pakistani governments, it is almost certain that the ISI supports militants there on its own account.
Given the lack of control, the agency can easily orchestrate any kind of terror act against Indian authorities without the knowledge of the Pakistani administration. On top of that, nobody has full control over the militants who often take matters into their own hands without consulting well-meaning ISI officers.
Teaching extremism
In addition, much of the period of “Islamization” contributed to the growth of religious extremism. Madrassa is a form of religious schools which sprung up all over the country. Originally conceived as welfare set-ups, many went out of control.
When Jinnah died, he had not succeeded in creating Pakistan’s national identity.
Major funding came not only from Zia’s “Islamization” schemes but also from abroad, notably from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
The numbers
By now, it is estimated that 10-15% of the 45,000 religious schools are affiliated with extremist religious or political groups. During the occupation of Afghanistan, they served as recruiting bases and training centes for fighters. Students also fought in conflicts in Kashmir and Chechnya.
Another worrying trend is that up to 50% of students are thought to come from abroad — from as far away as Indonesia and the Philippines. Once they return to their home countries, they often spread the extreme views taught in such schools.
Thus, the teaching of the Quran quickly went hand in hand with training in partisan warfare to be undertaken against the Soviet infidels in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, ties between Afghani Taliban fighters and Pakistan remained close.
So close, that Pakistan was one of only a few countries ever to formally recognize the Taliban government. In fact, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had expressed his admiration for how law and order had been restored in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover.
No quiet retirement
With much of Pakistan’s old North West Frontier virtually autonomous, it is no wonder then that local tribes are suspected of harboring old friends — al Qaeda fighters. These fighters have not gone into early retirement. Rather, they are prepared to continue their jihad everywhere.
The sad fact is that the army has been the only stable institution in Pakistan.
Given the close proximity of the North West Frontier to Kashmir, it is little wonder that India is particularly concerned about the potential new militant recruits. That is also why it feels justified when it speaks of al Qaeda terrorism and its troubles with Kashmir separatists in one breath.
This is where the whole story comes full circle again. Pakistan`s current troubles have a long and complex history. The al Qaeda terrorist network was — and is — able to take advantage of the muddled situation. From India`s point of view, things are quite clear: the troubles started with the partition of mother India and the creation of Pakistan — the ``Mother of All Evil.``
The question is whether the Pakistani government will gain sufficient control of its internal situation so that the rest of the world will not — sooner or later — come to view Pakistan in the same negative light as the Indians do now.
June 13, 2002
Dissing Ideologies
Globalist
Pakistan: Ally Or Enigma? By The Globalist
Pakistan is a paradox. Carved out of India to become a homeland for that country`s Muslim minority in 1947, it is a nation founded on religion. At the same time, with a population of 145 million, it has struggled to be a secular Muslim country. Democratic governments have regularly traded places with military dictators. The latest regime is led by Pervez Musharraf, who continues to impress world leaders. Our new Read My Lips feature examines his position — and that of the country which he has led since 1999.
E-mail this story
to a friend
Print this story
What was President Musharraf`s message to the U.S. government following the September 11 terrorist attacks?
``I wish to assure President Bush and the U.S. government of our unstinted cooperation in the fight against terrorism.``
(President Musharraf, September 2001)
Why was he so quick to offer his support?
``Either Pakistan cooperates — or Pakistan becomes a target.``
(Barnett Rubin, Afghanistan expert at New York University, September 2001)
``I thought ten times about putting my hand into the beehive of religious extremism.``
(Pakistan`s President Musharraf, January 2002)
Did Musharraf`s policy meet with general international approval?
``As a good Jewish boy, I would have never dreamed that I would pray for the safety of General Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan.``
(Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister, October 2001)
What do most Pakistanis think of religious extremism?
``Sectarian terrorism has been going on for years. Everyone of us is fed up with it.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
Why then is the relationship to India so difficult?
``India, after the United States, is a leading force in IT [Information Technology]. But for Afghanistan and Pakistan, their IT is international terrorism.``
(Lalit Mansingh, India`s Ambassador to the United States, March 2001)
What does Pakistan think about its powerful neighbor?
``Pakistanis are a responsible and peace-loving nation — but let there be no illusion that in case of any aggression we will respond with complete national will and resolve.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
``In Pakistan, taxes have yet to join death as one of life`s inevitabilities.``
(Barry Bearak, New York Times correspondent, May 2000)
What is the Indian point of view on that?
``Pakistan cannot be on one border saying `We are against terrorism` and on the other border saying that `We support terrorism.```
(Senior Indian diplomat, November 2001)
Why do some feel obliged to fight?
``If Allah had chosen me to die, I would have been in paradise eating honey and watermelons and grapes and resting with beautiful virgins, just as it is promised in the Koran.``
(Pakistani pharmacist, January 2002)
What was the reaction in Pakistan to the cancellation of U.S. aid at the end of the Cold War?
``We were left high and dry — and it started to settle in on the people that we were ditched.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
Is there a lack of government authority on taxation?
``In Pakistan, taxes have yet to join death as one of life`s inevitabilities.``
(Barry Bearak, New York Times correspondent, May 2000)
``Either Pakistan cooperates — or Pakistan becomes a target.``
(Afghanistan expert at New York University, September 2001)
But how did domestic politics worsen the economic problem?
``The bureaucracy doesn`t want our taxes; they want our bribes.``
(Umer Sailya, restaurant owner in Pakistan, May 2000)
What is Musharraf`s government doing about it?
``We are trying to inculcate a culture of tax-paying. It is a defining moment for our nation.``
(Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan`s Finance Minister, May 2000)
How is Pakistan planning to achieve this revolution?
``All taxpayers are warned that a comprehensive tax survey is being launched soon in which your concealed income and assets will be unearthed.``
(Ad in Pakistani newspaper, May 2000)
Will the war in Afghanistan change the country`s economic plight?
``Pakistan stands in a better position than before the American strikes began because Pakistan is no longer isolated from the world community. Long-term, Pakistan will be a winner.``
(Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor at Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, November 2001)
``For Afghanistan and Pakistan, their IT is International Terrorism.``
(Lalit Mansingh, India`s Ambassador to the United States, March 2001)
What is the main challenge for President Musharraf?
``Musharraf is trapped. He must do a difficult job without damaging the army`s image. He has to balance the perception of the army as being pro-people with the need to use military authority for a change.``
(Pakistani political analyst, June 2000)
Has Musharraf realistically calculated the risks of extremism?
``I thought ten times about putting my hand into the beehive of religious extremism.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
And finally, what is Musharraf`s view of his democratically-elected predecessors?
``What kind of people are they? They have plundered this nation and they want to come back and plunder it again.``
(President Musharraf, April 2002)
April 30,2002
Prepared by Peter Schwarzer
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/readlips/2002/04-30-02.shtmlGlobalist
Pakistan: Ally Or Enigma? By The Globalist
Pakistan is a paradox. Carved out of India to become a homeland for that country`s Muslim minority in 1947, it is a nation founded on religion. At the same time, with a population of 145 million, it has struggled to be a secular Muslim country. Democratic governments have regularly traded places with military dictators. The latest regime is led by Pervez Musharraf, who continues to impress world leaders. Our new Read My Lips feature examines his position — and that of the country which he has led since 1999.
E-mail this story
to a friend
Print this story
What was President Musharraf`s message to the U.S. government following the September 11 terrorist attacks?
``I wish to assure President Bush and the U.S. government of our unstinted cooperation in the fight against terrorism.``
(President Musharraf, September 2001)
Why was he so quick to offer his support?
``Either Pakistan cooperates — or Pakistan becomes a target.``
(Barnett Rubin, Afghanistan expert at New York University, September 2001)
``I thought ten times about putting my hand into the beehive of religious extremism.``
(Pakistan`s President Musharraf, January 2002)
Did Musharraf`s policy meet with general international approval?
``As a good Jewish boy, I would have never dreamed that I would pray for the safety of General Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan.``
(Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister, October 2001)
What do most Pakistanis think of religious extremism?
``Sectarian terrorism has been going on for years. Everyone of us is fed up with it.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
Why then is the relationship to India so difficult?
``India, after the United States, is a leading force in IT [Information Technology]. But for Afghanistan and Pakistan, their IT is international terrorism.``
(Lalit Mansingh, India`s Ambassador to the United States, March 2001)
What does Pakistan think about its powerful neighbor?
``Pakistanis are a responsible and peace-loving nation — but let there be no illusion that in case of any aggression we will respond with complete national will and resolve.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
``In Pakistan, taxes have yet to join death as one of life`s inevitabilities.``
(Barry Bearak, New York Times correspondent, May 2000)
What is the Indian point of view on that?
``Pakistan cannot be on one border saying `We are against terrorism` and on the other border saying that `We support terrorism.```
(Senior Indian diplomat, November 2001)
Why do some feel obliged to fight?
``If Allah had chosen me to die, I would have been in paradise eating honey and watermelons and grapes and resting with beautiful virgins, just as it is promised in the Koran.``
(Pakistani pharmacist, January 2002)
What was the reaction in Pakistan to the cancellation of U.S. aid at the end of the Cold War?
``We were left high and dry — and it started to settle in on the people that we were ditched.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
Is there a lack of government authority on taxation?
``In Pakistan, taxes have yet to join death as one of life`s inevitabilities.``
(Barry Bearak, New York Times correspondent, May 2000)
``Either Pakistan cooperates — or Pakistan becomes a target.``
(Afghanistan expert at New York University, September 2001)
But how did domestic politics worsen the economic problem?
``The bureaucracy doesn`t want our taxes; they want our bribes.``
(Umer Sailya, restaurant owner in Pakistan, May 2000)
What is Musharraf`s government doing about it?
``We are trying to inculcate a culture of tax-paying. It is a defining moment for our nation.``
(Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan`s Finance Minister, May 2000)
How is Pakistan planning to achieve this revolution?
``All taxpayers are warned that a comprehensive tax survey is being launched soon in which your concealed income and assets will be unearthed.``
(Ad in Pakistani newspaper, May 2000)
Will the war in Afghanistan change the country`s economic plight?
``Pakistan stands in a better position than before the American strikes began because Pakistan is no longer isolated from the world community. Long-term, Pakistan will be a winner.``
(Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor at Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, November 2001)
``For Afghanistan and Pakistan, their IT is International Terrorism.``
(Lalit Mansingh, India`s Ambassador to the United States, March 2001)
What is the main challenge for President Musharraf?
``Musharraf is trapped. He must do a difficult job without damaging the army`s image. He has to balance the perception of the army as being pro-people with the need to use military authority for a change.``
(Pakistani political analyst, June 2000)
Has Musharraf realistically calculated the risks of extremism?
``I thought ten times about putting my hand into the beehive of religious extremism.``
(President Musharraf, January 2002)
And finally, what is Musharraf`s view of his democratically-elected predecessors?
``What kind of people are they? They have plundered this nation and they want to come back and plunder it again.``
(President Musharraf, April 2002)
April 30,2002
Prepared by Peter Schwarzer
The Perfect Murder
The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
Kashmir: From earthly paradise to potential Armageddon The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
The Perfect Murder
The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
Kashmir: From earthly paradise to potential Armageddon The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Lighting The Nuclear Fire
The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 19, 2002 12:29 pm
Kashmir: From earthly paradise to potential Armageddon The Arizona Republic
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0618thomas18.html
June 18, 2002
Just before the sun dipped below the horizon, it touched the surface of Dal Lake, turning it into molten gold.
A fragrant breeze rolled off the pavilions and cascading waterfalls of the mountaintop Hanging Gardens of Kashmir and ruffled the placid surface, releasing a million shards of light and sending a ripple through the floating fields of lotus blossoms.
No wonder Mughal Emperor Jahangir had said, ``If there is paradise on Earth it is this, it is this, it is this.``
I remember the scene as if it was yesterday. I was 16 and Kashmir was a pristine paradise. Today it is an armed camp, teetering on the brink of nuclear war with roadblocks, rumbling army trucks, Indian commandos in black, suicide bombers, a dying economy and shell-shocked civilians. How did paradise turn into potential Armageddon?
Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, each holding their positions at the Line of Control.
Today a fourth war - perhaps even a nuclear war - seems to be looming large. Apart from the damage it would do to the two countries (estimates range from 12 million dead from a direct hit, to a 100 million in peripheral damage from fires, starvation and disease) it would break the international taboo of using weapons of mass destruction. Ideally these are only a deterrent, not weapons of choice.
It is estimated that India has about 25 nuclear weapons and that Pakistan has about half that many. This imbalance is inherently dangerous; military strategists predict that the losing side in a conventional war would be tempted to use nuclear weapons to reverse the advantage.
The two countries have been fighting over Kashmir since 1947, when India achieved freedom from British rule and the new state of Pakistan was formed from parts of India. The Hindu maharaja of Kashmir opted at the time to sign an instrument of accession to join the Indian Union - though the population of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim - and not Pakistan. Ever since, a relentless campaign to ``liberate`` Kashmir from India has been waged from across the Indian border.
Janak Singh, a native of Kashmir and a former bureau chief of the Times of India, says, ``Extremist organizations operating under the guidance of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI, are engaged in staging relentless acts of violence all over India. Trained militants continually cross over the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.``
In winter 2000 I met with the Pakistani high commissioner to India. While waiting in his New Delhi embassy, I noticed a number of pro-Islamic, anti-Indian brochures neatly stacked on a shelf.
I asked, ``Does Pakistan support Muslim militants operating in India?`` ``No, no, that is just Indian propaganda,`` the commissioner replied. When I indicated the brochures, he said, ``Oh, they (fundamentalists) just leave those here.``
According to Singh, intelligence sources reveal that there are about 30,000 Pakistani operatives in India. It is widely known that in the past the ISI has had a cozy relationship with Muslim fundamentalists, but it now seeks to distance itself from the stigma of terrorism.
About 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir, according to the Kashmiri Overseas Association USA. They wait for someone to restore peace to Kashmir, so they can return to their ``Paradise on Earth`` as the destitute Muslim population of Kashmir awaits the same ephemeral peace.
Mantoshe Singh Devji is a Phoenix writer whose new book is ``The Mad Messiah - Osama bin Laden, and the Seeds of Terror.`` She was born in Lahore, which is now Pakistan, and is of Indian origin. She has lived in the United States for 35 years.
Breaking News: Suicide Bomb in Karachi
By SETH MYDANS
ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.
High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.
But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.
In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.
If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.
``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.
``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``
Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.
The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.
India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.
``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``
As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.
India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.
But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.
``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.
Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.
``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``
Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.
If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.
To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.
A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.
As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.
The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.
Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.
Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.
If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.
In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 16, 2002 10:59 pm
Toehold on a Long Trek to Heal India-Pakistan RiftBy SETH MYDANS
ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.
High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.
But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.
In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.
If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.
``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.
``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``
Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.
The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.
India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.
``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``
As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.
India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.
But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.
``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.
Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.
``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``
Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.
If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.
To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.
A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.
As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.
The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.
Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.
Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.
If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.
In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html
Dissing Ideologies
By SETH MYDANS
ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.
High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.
But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.
In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.
If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.
``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.
``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``
Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.
The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.
India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.
``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``
As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.
India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.
But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.
``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.
Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.
``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``
Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.
If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.
To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.
A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.
As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.
The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.
Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.
Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.
If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.
In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 16, 2002 10:59 pm
Toehold on a Long Trek to Heal India-Pakistan RiftBy SETH MYDANS
ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.
High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.
But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.
In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.
If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.
``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.
``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``
Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.
The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.
India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.
``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``
As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.
India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.
But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.
``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.
Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.
``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``
Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.
If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.
To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.
A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.
As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.
The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.
Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.
Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.
If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.
In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html
The Perfect Murder
By SETH MYDANS
ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.
High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.
But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.
In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.
If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.
``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.
``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``
Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.
The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.
India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.
``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``
As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.
India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.
But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.
``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.
Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.
``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``
Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.
If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.
To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.
A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.
As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.
The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.
Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.
Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.
If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.
In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html
Posted by
cutandpaste
Jun 16, 2002 10:59 pm
Toehold on a Long Trek to Heal India-Pakistan RiftBy SETH MYDANS
ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.
High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.
But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.
In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.
If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.
``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.
``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``
Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.
The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.
India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.
``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``
As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.
India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.
But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.
``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.
Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.
``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``
Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.
If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.
To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.
A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.
As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.
The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.
Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.
Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.
If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.
In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html
- cutandpaste
- Interacts: 476
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 424
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Jan 4 2001
- Last signin: Nov 22 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list