Dissing Ideologies
Zia Ahmed??
OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME ISRAELIS(JEWS) JUST AS THERE ARE SOME HINDIANS WHO ARE UNBIASED OPEN MINDED & UNPREJUDICED BUT ZIA AHMED IS TOO NAIVE TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
BY MOST CERTAINITY MAJORITY OF JEW (KAPLAN) & HINDIAN (LIKE KAK,WALLIA,SRINIVASAN,VARSHA..)ARE RABIDLY 24/7 ANTI- MUSLIM, ANTI -ISLAM & ANTI- PAKISTAN
Subject: INDO-PAK: TNR on ``The Bushies Bungle South Asia``
F
From D.A.M.N. - Dissecting American Media Now
Below is a cover story from The New Republic, a Washington policy weekly
about the US and India-Pakistan. Excerpt: ``The Bush administration has
been coddling Pakistan to prosecute its war on terrorism. Lawrence Kaplan
explains why it`s proving such a terrible idea.``
Reax?
The CASI paper mentioned by Bruce Riedel below about US diplomacy
during the Kargil crisis is available at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm and linked off
The New Republic
June 17, 2002
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020617&s=kaplan061702
THE BUSHIES BUNGLE SOUTH ASIA
Silent Partner
The Bush administration has been coddling Pakistan to prosecute its war on
terrorism. Lawrence Kaplan explains why it`s proving such a terrible idea.
By Lawrence F. Kaplan
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, it`s not true that September 11
changed everything. In the case of America`s relationship with its cold
war client Pakistan, it actually restored the status quo. In the months
before September 11, relations between Washington and Islamabad rapidly
soured as the Bush team became enthralled with India--a country that,
unlike Pakistan, offered a valuable market, a democracy, and a potential
strategic partner against China. Last summer Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage lumped Pakistan in with other ``rogue states``; announced
that our cold war friendship with the country was a ``false relationship``;
and worried about its nuclear program, while expressing no similar concern
about India`s. But September 11, and the need for Pakistani cooperation in
Afghanistan, moved the clock back to the cold war. Since then, President
George W. Bush has lauded Pakistani autocrat Pervez Musharraf as a ``leader
with great courage and vision``; Secretary of State Colin Powell has
praised his ``courage and foresight``; and State Department officials have
likened him to Ataturk.
They were closer to the truth the first time: In their rush to reembrace
Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, for months American
policymakers willfully disregarded evidence that Musharraf has been a
less-thanreliable partner. Hence, the Bush administration has greeted with
silence Musharraf`s rejection of its demand that he impose order along
Afghanistan`s lawless border. Pressed to account for that refusal last
month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lamely explained that Pakistan is
``a sovereign nation.`` Silence, too, has followed Musharraf`s refusal to
hand over the central suspect in the murder of Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Pearl and to provide American investigators full access to
Pakistani nuclear scientists believed to have had contacts with Al Qaeda.
And the Bush team barely uttered a peep when Musharraf rigged a referendum
extending his rule two months ago. But when it comes to Musharraf`s
refusal to stanch the flow of terrorists into Kashmir--a refusal that
explains why South Asia now teeters on the brink of war--the Bush
administration has been worse than mute. It has responded with
ostentatious praise.
You have to give him credit,`` Powell said of Musharraf`s effort to halt
Kashmiri terrorism in January; and in New Delhi one week later Powell
asked his Indian hosts to give the general a ``chance.`` Bush, too, has
pressed India to ``let Musharraf bring terrorists to justice,`` adding that
the Pakistani leader has been ``responding forcefully and actively to bring
those who would harm others to justice`` and ``cracking down hard`` on
terrorists. Or as a Pentagon official put it to The New York Times in
January, ``The United States thinks that Musharraf is for real and has
undertaken fundamental changes. We have been trying to persuade the
Indians to take `yes` for an answer.`` But ``yes`` was never Musharraf`s
answer at all. And by pretending for so many months that it was, the Bush
administration may have brought the two countries closer to war.
The claim that Musharraf has been ``cracking down hard`` on cross-border
terrorism was always a questionable proposition. After Pakistani
terrorists attacked the Indian parliament last December, prompting India
to mass troops along the Pakistani border in response, Musharraf heeded
the Bush team`s demands by arresting extremists at home and by condemning
terrorism in a nationally televised speech. But no sooner had the crisis
passed--and the parade of administration officials shuttling back and
forth between New Delhi and Islamabad came to a halt, as the Bush team
turned its attention to the Middle East--when the Pakistani dictator
reverted to type. The general has since released almost all the militants
he rounded up in January. He has refused to hand over to India 20
terrorists linked to the attack on its parliament, and he still touts his
support for ``the Kashmiri struggle for liberation.`` Most important,
administration officials concede that the flow of militants--which had
subsided when snow blocked infiltration routes from Pakistan during the
winter--has resumed with the spring thaw. In fact, just three weeks ago,
Pakistani-backed militants murdered 34 Indians at an army base in Kashmir.
If the Bush administration has averted its gaze to Pakistani malfeasance,
it hasn`t been for lack of warning by Indian officials. As early as last
December, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee complained bitterly
about being subjected to American ``sermons about restraint`` while
Washington turned a blind eye to Musharraf`s antics. On a trip to New
Delhi three weeks ago, Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was
ambushed by officials from India`s foreign ministry, who told her they
were exasperated by U.S. admonitions for restraint and were tired of
Washington`s ``double standards.`` One week later Indian Defense Secretary
Yogendra Narain conveyed the same message to Armitage and Rumsfeld. ``We
told them that our patience [had] almost come to an end, and what
Musharraf had promised in his January twelfth speech, he has not lived up
to it,`` Narain said after meeting with his American counterparts. ``We also
felt that the U.S. had not done enough to control or advise Pakistan on
this issue.`` And last week Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh went so far as
to declare that the presence of U.S. forces at Pakistani bases would not
be ``an inhibiting factor in [India`s] policy determinations.``
Brahma Chellaney, an Indian strategist with close ties to the government,
believes the present crisis might not have arisen had the Bush
administration responded more forcefully to ample evidence of Pakistani
misconduct. ``So eager has the Bush team been to win Musharraf`s
cooperation,`` says Chellaney, ``that until last week they did not press him
on the issue of cross-border terrorism against India.`` Hence, officials in
New Delhi reacted furiously when Rocca repeated Washington`s praise for
Musharraf last month. In fact, it was only after Rocca conveyed their
anger by telephone to Powell, who in turn informed the White House, that
the crisis received Cabinet-level attention--with Bush placing a call to
Vajpayee, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice phoning her
Indian counterpart, Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra.
The Indians particularly distrust Powell, who even members of the Bush
team admit has established a kinship of ``fellow generals`` with Musharraf.
The chumminess has been noticed in Delhi, too, particularly since Powell
has repeated Musharraf`s contention that Kashmir is the core issue in
Indo-Pakistani relations--something India denies. ``The Bush administration
and particularly Secretary of State Powell [have made] Musharraf feel that
they go to great lengths to please him,`` complains Gopalaswami
Parthasarathy, India`s former high commissioner to Pakistan. ``General
Musharraf was so sure of United States support that he blatantly rigged a
referendum and has continued to aid terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir.`` One
of the reasons the White House dispatched Rumsfeld to South Asia this week
rather than Powell was precisely, as one senior administration official
puts it, ``to show that we take this very seriously.``
The perception of American bias has been made worse by the reality of
American ineptitude. ``The administration doesn`t have a plan, just a
crisis management policy,`` says The Brookings Institution`s Stephen Cohen,
author of India: Emerging Power. ``They haven`t been engaged at all.`` After
meeting with Musharraf in February, Bush said, ``I hope we can facilitate
serious and meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan``--this, despite
the fact that India loudly opposes third-party intervention. The next day,
however, Rice said, ``[W]e don`t believe this is something that mediation
or facilitation is going to help.`` In a similar vein, the National
Security Council`s director for Asian affairs, Harry Thomas, announced in
March that Pakistan should either try suspected terrorists or hand them
over to India. A week later the State Department said that was a matter
for the countries themselves to decide.
Adding to the disarray, relations between the American Embassies in India
and Pakistan have become almost as tense as relations between the two
countries themselves. Wendy Chamberlain, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan,
and Robert Blackwill, the U.S. ambassador to India, have spent the last
few months bombarding Washington with cables--arguing, in Chamberlain`s
case, that Musharraf has done everything in his power to halt incursions
into Kashmir and, in Blackwill`s case, that he has done nothing of the
sort. According to one official, ``Their reporting completely distorts our
picture of what`s happening on the ground.`` And if the presence of
Chamberlain and Blackwill has confused administration policy, their sudden
absence could muddle the picture further: Chamberlain has just vacated her
post to join her children in the United States, and Blackwill--the subject
of a State Department inspector-general review for what an official called
in The Washington Post ``treat[ing] his staff like furniture``--may soon be
departing the region as well.
But this much is clear: The Bush team needs a new road map for South Asia.
U.S. officials readily concede that if war breaks out on the subcontinent
it will be because India invades to counter Pakistani provocations in
Kashmir. The obvious administration strategy, then, would simply be to
address the source of India`s complaint. After all, the Bush team knows
the charge has merit: ``Musharraf,`` says an official directly involved in
managing U.S.-Pakistani relations, ``could clamp down on infiltration in a
minute if he wanted to. He`s certainly done so before.`` Even the Clinton
team, which generally made a hash of South Asia policy, understood the
proximate cause of Kashmir`s woes. In a recent paper published by the
Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania,
Bruce Riedel, a special assistant to the president, recounts Bill
Clinton`s response when faced with the possibility of a nuclear exchange
over Kashmir in 1999. Reasoning that to do otherwise would reward
Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, Clinton placed the blame squarely where
it belonged--publicly demanding a Pakistani withdrawal from
Indian-controlled Kashmir; assuring Vajpayee that he was ``holding firm on
demanding the withdrawal [of Pakistani troops] to the [line of control]``;
and turning down repeated pleas to intercede with India on Islamabad`s
behalf. The Pakistanis backed down.
Today, of course, there is a new ingredient in the mix: America`s need for
Pakistan`s assistance in flushing out Al Qaeda forces. But that imperative
hardly justified the Bush team`s boundless solicitude for Musharraf.
Having created and sponsored the very government that harbored bin Laden,
Pakistan had little choice last fall but to cooperate with the United
States in the war on terror or face its wrath--a message Armitage bluntly
conveyed to Pakistan`s intelligence chief last September. To do otherwise
would have led to Pakistan`s international isolation, wrecked its already
spiraling economy, and--as Musharraf himself argued--drawn Washington and
New Delhi closer than ever. The logic still holds true. Rather than coddle
Pakistan, then, the administration might take New Delhi`s warnings a bit
more seriously. Alas, even today many in the administration suspect that
India`s current buildup is aimed merely at frightening them into applying
pressure on Pakistan. ``This is really a case of the boy who cried wolf,``
says a senior State Department official. ``[India`s] strategy ever since
September eleventh has been to prevent us from getting too cozy with
Pakistan, and so they`re always complaining about Musharraf and
threatening to take action if we don`t.`` But it really shouldn`t take a
war to get Washington`s attention.
Posted by
Glen
Jun 10, 2002 02:04 am
Zia Ahmed??
OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME ISRAELIS(JEWS) JUST AS THERE ARE SOME HINDIANS WHO ARE UNBIASED OPEN MINDED & UNPREJUDICED BUT ZIA AHMED IS TOO NAIVE TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
BY MOST CERTAINITY MAJORITY OF JEW (KAPLAN) & HINDIAN (LIKE KAK,WALLIA,SRINIVASAN,VARSHA..)ARE RABIDLY 24/7 ANTI- MUSLIM, ANTI -ISLAM & ANTI- PAKISTAN
Subject: INDO-PAK: TNR on ``The Bushies Bungle South Asia``
F
From D.A.M.N. - Dissecting American Media Now
Below is a cover story from The New Republic, a Washington policy weekly
about the US and India-Pakistan. Excerpt: ``The Bush administration has
been coddling Pakistan to prosecute its war on terrorism. Lawrence Kaplan
explains why it`s proving such a terrible idea.``
Reax?
The CASI paper mentioned by Bruce Riedel below about US diplomacy
during the Kargil crisis is available at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm and linked off
The New Republic
June 17, 2002
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020617&s=kaplan061702
THE BUSHIES BUNGLE SOUTH ASIA
Silent Partner
The Bush administration has been coddling Pakistan to prosecute its war on
terrorism. Lawrence Kaplan explains why it`s proving such a terrible idea.
By Lawrence F. Kaplan
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, it`s not true that September 11
changed everything. In the case of America`s relationship with its cold
war client Pakistan, it actually restored the status quo. In the months
before September 11, relations between Washington and Islamabad rapidly
soured as the Bush team became enthralled with India--a country that,
unlike Pakistan, offered a valuable market, a democracy, and a potential
strategic partner against China. Last summer Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage lumped Pakistan in with other ``rogue states``; announced
that our cold war friendship with the country was a ``false relationship``;
and worried about its nuclear program, while expressing no similar concern
about India`s. But September 11, and the need for Pakistani cooperation in
Afghanistan, moved the clock back to the cold war. Since then, President
George W. Bush has lauded Pakistani autocrat Pervez Musharraf as a ``leader
with great courage and vision``; Secretary of State Colin Powell has
praised his ``courage and foresight``; and State Department officials have
likened him to Ataturk.
They were closer to the truth the first time: In their rush to reembrace
Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, for months American
policymakers willfully disregarded evidence that Musharraf has been a
less-thanreliable partner. Hence, the Bush administration has greeted with
silence Musharraf`s rejection of its demand that he impose order along
Afghanistan`s lawless border. Pressed to account for that refusal last
month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lamely explained that Pakistan is
``a sovereign nation.`` Silence, too, has followed Musharraf`s refusal to
hand over the central suspect in the murder of Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Pearl and to provide American investigators full access to
Pakistani nuclear scientists believed to have had contacts with Al Qaeda.
And the Bush team barely uttered a peep when Musharraf rigged a referendum
extending his rule two months ago. But when it comes to Musharraf`s
refusal to stanch the flow of terrorists into Kashmir--a refusal that
explains why South Asia now teeters on the brink of war--the Bush
administration has been worse than mute. It has responded with
ostentatious praise.
You have to give him credit,`` Powell said of Musharraf`s effort to halt
Kashmiri terrorism in January; and in New Delhi one week later Powell
asked his Indian hosts to give the general a ``chance.`` Bush, too, has
pressed India to ``let Musharraf bring terrorists to justice,`` adding that
the Pakistani leader has been ``responding forcefully and actively to bring
those who would harm others to justice`` and ``cracking down hard`` on
terrorists. Or as a Pentagon official put it to The New York Times in
January, ``The United States thinks that Musharraf is for real and has
undertaken fundamental changes. We have been trying to persuade the
Indians to take `yes` for an answer.`` But ``yes`` was never Musharraf`s
answer at all. And by pretending for so many months that it was, the Bush
administration may have brought the two countries closer to war.
The claim that Musharraf has been ``cracking down hard`` on cross-border
terrorism was always a questionable proposition. After Pakistani
terrorists attacked the Indian parliament last December, prompting India
to mass troops along the Pakistani border in response, Musharraf heeded
the Bush team`s demands by arresting extremists at home and by condemning
terrorism in a nationally televised speech. But no sooner had the crisis
passed--and the parade of administration officials shuttling back and
forth between New Delhi and Islamabad came to a halt, as the Bush team
turned its attention to the Middle East--when the Pakistani dictator
reverted to type. The general has since released almost all the militants
he rounded up in January. He has refused to hand over to India 20
terrorists linked to the attack on its parliament, and he still touts his
support for ``the Kashmiri struggle for liberation.`` Most important,
administration officials concede that the flow of militants--which had
subsided when snow blocked infiltration routes from Pakistan during the
winter--has resumed with the spring thaw. In fact, just three weeks ago,
Pakistani-backed militants murdered 34 Indians at an army base in Kashmir.
If the Bush administration has averted its gaze to Pakistani malfeasance,
it hasn`t been for lack of warning by Indian officials. As early as last
December, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee complained bitterly
about being subjected to American ``sermons about restraint`` while
Washington turned a blind eye to Musharraf`s antics. On a trip to New
Delhi three weeks ago, Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was
ambushed by officials from India`s foreign ministry, who told her they
were exasperated by U.S. admonitions for restraint and were tired of
Washington`s ``double standards.`` One week later Indian Defense Secretary
Yogendra Narain conveyed the same message to Armitage and Rumsfeld. ``We
told them that our patience [had] almost come to an end, and what
Musharraf had promised in his January twelfth speech, he has not lived up
to it,`` Narain said after meeting with his American counterparts. ``We also
felt that the U.S. had not done enough to control or advise Pakistan on
this issue.`` And last week Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh went so far as
to declare that the presence of U.S. forces at Pakistani bases would not
be ``an inhibiting factor in [India`s] policy determinations.``
Brahma Chellaney, an Indian strategist with close ties to the government,
believes the present crisis might not have arisen had the Bush
administration responded more forcefully to ample evidence of Pakistani
misconduct. ``So eager has the Bush team been to win Musharraf`s
cooperation,`` says Chellaney, ``that until last week they did not press him
on the issue of cross-border terrorism against India.`` Hence, officials in
New Delhi reacted furiously when Rocca repeated Washington`s praise for
Musharraf last month. In fact, it was only after Rocca conveyed their
anger by telephone to Powell, who in turn informed the White House, that
the crisis received Cabinet-level attention--with Bush placing a call to
Vajpayee, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice phoning her
Indian counterpart, Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra.
The Indians particularly distrust Powell, who even members of the Bush
team admit has established a kinship of ``fellow generals`` with Musharraf.
The chumminess has been noticed in Delhi, too, particularly since Powell
has repeated Musharraf`s contention that Kashmir is the core issue in
Indo-Pakistani relations--something India denies. ``The Bush administration
and particularly Secretary of State Powell [have made] Musharraf feel that
they go to great lengths to please him,`` complains Gopalaswami
Parthasarathy, India`s former high commissioner to Pakistan. ``General
Musharraf was so sure of United States support that he blatantly rigged a
referendum and has continued to aid terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir.`` One
of the reasons the White House dispatched Rumsfeld to South Asia this week
rather than Powell was precisely, as one senior administration official
puts it, ``to show that we take this very seriously.``
The perception of American bias has been made worse by the reality of
American ineptitude. ``The administration doesn`t have a plan, just a
crisis management policy,`` says The Brookings Institution`s Stephen Cohen,
author of India: Emerging Power. ``They haven`t been engaged at all.`` After
meeting with Musharraf in February, Bush said, ``I hope we can facilitate
serious and meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan``--this, despite
the fact that India loudly opposes third-party intervention. The next day,
however, Rice said, ``[W]e don`t believe this is something that mediation
or facilitation is going to help.`` In a similar vein, the National
Security Council`s director for Asian affairs, Harry Thomas, announced in
March that Pakistan should either try suspected terrorists or hand them
over to India. A week later the State Department said that was a matter
for the countries themselves to decide.
Adding to the disarray, relations between the American Embassies in India
and Pakistan have become almost as tense as relations between the two
countries themselves. Wendy Chamberlain, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan,
and Robert Blackwill, the U.S. ambassador to India, have spent the last
few months bombarding Washington with cables--arguing, in Chamberlain`s
case, that Musharraf has done everything in his power to halt incursions
into Kashmir and, in Blackwill`s case, that he has done nothing of the
sort. According to one official, ``Their reporting completely distorts our
picture of what`s happening on the ground.`` And if the presence of
Chamberlain and Blackwill has confused administration policy, their sudden
absence could muddle the picture further: Chamberlain has just vacated her
post to join her children in the United States, and Blackwill--the subject
of a State Department inspector-general review for what an official called
in The Washington Post ``treat[ing] his staff like furniture``--may soon be
departing the region as well.
But this much is clear: The Bush team needs a new road map for South Asia.
U.S. officials readily concede that if war breaks out on the subcontinent
it will be because India invades to counter Pakistani provocations in
Kashmir. The obvious administration strategy, then, would simply be to
address the source of India`s complaint. After all, the Bush team knows
the charge has merit: ``Musharraf,`` says an official directly involved in
managing U.S.-Pakistani relations, ``could clamp down on infiltration in a
minute if he wanted to. He`s certainly done so before.`` Even the Clinton
team, which generally made a hash of South Asia policy, understood the
proximate cause of Kashmir`s woes. In a recent paper published by the
Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania,
Bruce Riedel, a special assistant to the president, recounts Bill
Clinton`s response when faced with the possibility of a nuclear exchange
over Kashmir in 1999. Reasoning that to do otherwise would reward
Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, Clinton placed the blame squarely where
it belonged--publicly demanding a Pakistani withdrawal from
Indian-controlled Kashmir; assuring Vajpayee that he was ``holding firm on
demanding the withdrawal [of Pakistani troops] to the [line of control]``;
and turning down repeated pleas to intercede with India on Islamabad`s
behalf. The Pakistanis backed down.
Today, of course, there is a new ingredient in the mix: America`s need for
Pakistan`s assistance in flushing out Al Qaeda forces. But that imperative
hardly justified the Bush team`s boundless solicitude for Musharraf.
Having created and sponsored the very government that harbored bin Laden,
Pakistan had little choice last fall but to cooperate with the United
States in the war on terror or face its wrath--a message Armitage bluntly
conveyed to Pakistan`s intelligence chief last September. To do otherwise
would have led to Pakistan`s international isolation, wrecked its already
spiraling economy, and--as Musharraf himself argued--drawn Washington and
New Delhi closer than ever. The logic still holds true. Rather than coddle
Pakistan, then, the administration might take New Delhi`s warnings a bit
more seriously. Alas, even today many in the administration suspect that
India`s current buildup is aimed merely at frightening them into applying
pressure on Pakistan. ``This is really a case of the boy who cried wolf,``
says a senior State Department official. ``[India`s] strategy ever since
September eleventh has been to prevent us from getting too cozy with
Pakistan, and so they`re always complaining about Musharraf and
threatening to take action if we don`t.`` But it really shouldn`t take a
war to get Washington`s attention.
Lighting The Nuclear Fire
Real meaning of Vinash kale vipareeth buddhi!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<
One is under the influence of `wrong` intelligence
just before destruction.
Or to paraphrase:
cause of destruction is weong intelligence.
. ``vipareet`` means ``wrong``,
``anti`` .. et
So what Sanskrit is Indias language & This saying is from Vedas in Sanskrit ....
Parvez in URDU it is said Choote ke marne ke din jab aate haine tou usse Par nikal aate haine aur Sheher ke our Bhagte hai
May be its time for India to get her death wish since there has been so much talk & activities about Death & Mayheim starting with GujjRIOT by GUJJURATS
Pak. test-fires Ghauri missile
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fhttp://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002052603660100.htm
Pak. test-fires Ghauri missile
A Pakistan Television image showing the launching of the Ghauri missile on Saturday. ? AP
ISLAMABAD MAY 25. Pakistan successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile today.
``Pakistan today carried out a successful test-fire of its indigenously developed medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Hatf-V (Ghauri),`` an official statement said.
``This was the third test of the Ghauri missile system. According to the data collected from the test, all the design parameters have been successfully validated. The Ghauri can carry warheads with great accuracy,`` the statement said, adding that Pakistan`s last missile tests were in April 1999.
The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, ``has congratulated the scientists, engineers and all others involved with the programme on their outstanding success, which is a source of pride for the nation.
``The series of tests are a part of the research and development of Pakistan`s indigenous missile programme, which is an essential element of Pakistan`s policy of maintaining minimum deterrence in the interest of our security.
``It demonstrates Pakistan`s determination to defend itself, strengthen national security and consolidate strategic balance in the region,`` the statement said.
The missile was fired in northern Pakistan, a security officer said. ``The Hatf-V can be tipped with any warhead. Any ballistic missile can carry a nuclear warhead.``
The missiles have a range of between 1,500 and 2,000 km.
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20020525151310&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&rLink=0
Pak has developed two types of N-arms: Report
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PTI
NEW YORK: Pakistan has developed two types of nuclear arms while hundreds of scientists are labouring to design nuclear missiles in the Kahuta Khan Research Laboratories, a media report here said on Saturday.
``One is a smaller weapon that can be delivered by an aircraft. The other is bigger. One that was tested can be easily deployed on our Ghauri missiles,`` Abdul Qadeer Khan, director of the Kahuta plant and the man regarded as the architect of the country`s nuclear and missiles programmes, told The New York Times.
American intelligence agencies found ``disturbing evidence that the Pakistani were preparing their arsenals for possible deployment,`` according to a recent paper by Bruce O. Riedel, a former member of the Clinton administration`s National Security Council.
Despite claims by Pakistan that the late version of Ghauri missile was indigenously designed, the paper quoted experts and senior retired Pakistani officials as saying that Islamabad in fact obtained assistance from North Korea.
Under heavy pressure from Washington not to sell missiles to Pakistan, China instead reportedly financed North Korea to develop Pakistan`s missile programme, the daily said.
North Korea, in turn, agreed to provide Pakistan with components from its Nodong missile line, based on an old Soviet Scud. Pakistan was also assisted in its nuclear and missile programmes by Iran and Syria, it added.<
Posted by
Glen
May 26, 2002 03:56 pm
Real meaning of Vinash kale vipareeth buddhi!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<
One is under the influence of `wrong` intelligence
just before destruction.
Or to paraphrase:
cause of destruction is weong intelligence.
. ``vipareet`` means ``wrong``,
``anti`` .. et
So what Sanskrit is Indias language & This saying is from Vedas in Sanskrit ....
Parvez in URDU it is said Choote ke marne ke din jab aate haine tou usse Par nikal aate haine aur Sheher ke our Bhagte hai
May be its time for India to get her death wish since there has been so much talk & activities about Death & Mayheim starting with GujjRIOT by GUJJURATS
Pak. test-fires Ghauri missile
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fhttp://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002052603660100.htm
Pak. test-fires Ghauri missile
A Pakistan Television image showing the launching of the Ghauri missile on Saturday. ? AP
ISLAMABAD MAY 25. Pakistan successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile today.
``Pakistan today carried out a successful test-fire of its indigenously developed medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Hatf-V (Ghauri),`` an official statement said.
``This was the third test of the Ghauri missile system. According to the data collected from the test, all the design parameters have been successfully validated. The Ghauri can carry warheads with great accuracy,`` the statement said, adding that Pakistan`s last missile tests were in April 1999.
The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, ``has congratulated the scientists, engineers and all others involved with the programme on their outstanding success, which is a source of pride for the nation.
``The series of tests are a part of the research and development of Pakistan`s indigenous missile programme, which is an essential element of Pakistan`s policy of maintaining minimum deterrence in the interest of our security.
``It demonstrates Pakistan`s determination to defend itself, strengthen national security and consolidate strategic balance in the region,`` the statement said.
The missile was fired in northern Pakistan, a security officer said. ``The Hatf-V can be tipped with any warhead. Any ballistic missile can carry a nuclear warhead.``
The missiles have a range of between 1,500 and 2,000 km.
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20020525151310&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&rLink=0
Pak has developed two types of N-arms: Report
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PTI
NEW YORK: Pakistan has developed two types of nuclear arms while hundreds of scientists are labouring to design nuclear missiles in the Kahuta Khan Research Laboratories, a media report here said on Saturday.
``One is a smaller weapon that can be delivered by an aircraft. The other is bigger. One that was tested can be easily deployed on our Ghauri missiles,`` Abdul Qadeer Khan, director of the Kahuta plant and the man regarded as the architect of the country`s nuclear and missiles programmes, told The New York Times.
American intelligence agencies found ``disturbing evidence that the Pakistani were preparing their arsenals for possible deployment,`` according to a recent paper by Bruce O. Riedel, a former member of the Clinton administration`s National Security Council.
Despite claims by Pakistan that the late version of Ghauri missile was indigenously designed, the paper quoted experts and senior retired Pakistani officials as saying that Islamabad in fact obtained assistance from North Korea.
Under heavy pressure from Washington not to sell missiles to Pakistan, China instead reportedly financed North Korea to develop Pakistan`s missile programme, the daily said.
North Korea, in turn, agreed to provide Pakistan with components from its Nodong missile line, based on an old Soviet Scud. Pakistan was also assisted in its nuclear and missile programmes by Iran and Syria, it added.<
The Last Crusade
was named the paper`s chief television and media critic. He will write a
weekly column starting June 3, while continuing to be deputy editorial
features editor of the editorial page. Congrats to Tunku on his new
TUNKU (NOT HIS FAMILY OR REAL NAME)
India Abroad/PROFILE
The Magazine/cover story
Master of Controversy
Jeet Thayil says Wall Street Journal columnist Tunku Varadarajan enjoys
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
creating word-storms
Consider this: Late last year Tunku Varadarajan, the deputy editorial
features editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote a column titled
Parachute Journalism Redux: Thank goodness there are alternatives to
Christiane Amanpour. The article aimed to be a comparative study of
network television`s female war correspondents.
It sniped at Amanpour for everything from her clothes (=93flak-jackets and
other kinds of tough-girl raiment=94) to her accent (=93misinterpreted as
erudition by Americans=94) to her looks (=93thought to convey an anti-Barbi=
e
seriousness=94) to her alleged androgyny (=93a fearless she-man=94).
Varadarajan`s article snowballed into a word-storm three times its
original length. An assortment of commentators weighed in. One called him
=93a knuckle-dragging caveman=94 and =93freakin=92 laughable.=94 Another sa=
id he
was =93sexist, ranting=94 and =93vindictive.=94
The gossip pages of The New York Post labeled him =93mischievous.=94 CNN
president Walter Isaacson wrote to the WSJ in courtly defense of
Amanpour=92s =93tenacity and old-fashioned grit, dodging bullets...=94
MSNBC correspondent Ashleigh Banfield described Varadarajan as
=93despicable=94 and =93absolutely abysmal.=94 She even suggested that for
someone to =93sit behind a desk at the WSJ and criticize our hair, our
demeanor and our makeup=94 is akin to the Taliban=92s treatment of women.
What was Varadarajan doing meanwhile? He was sitting back and enjoying
the whole controversy. =93It was hilarious,=94 he recently told India Abroa=
d.
=93Over-the-top, hysterical, overheated, but amusing. I must have gotten
under (Banfield=92s) skin, I suppose.=94
It would not be an overstatement to say that Varadarajan craves the range
and intensity of response that piece generated. In fact, he would
probably be deeply disappointed if there were no reaction at all.
=93Believe it or not the most satisfying thing that can happen to a
journalist who writes a controversial article is to have a sort of
avalanche of hate mail,=94 he said. =93It=92s wonderful, much better than
getting letters saying =91I agree.=92=94
His =91Citizen of the World=92 column appears every Monday in The Wall Stre=
et
Journal. In them, he often comes across as a world-class curmudgeon. It
is a word he has been called more than once.
=93My friends think I=92m fairly curmudgeonly but I suppose old-fashioned i=
s
probably what I am,=94 he said. =93The problem with journalism is that too
many people are just too nice about too many things. If someone is
slightly curmudgeonly in America he or she tends to stand out. In Britain
people who write nice things are regarded as boring and those who are not
instinctive curmudgeons cultivate it.=94
Though he says his own curmudgeonly image is not deliberately cultivated,
it is one those who know him are well acquainted with. (=93I=92m not a
curmudgeon, lest you mistake me for one, and actually have good reason to
detest summer,=94 he wrote in a =91Citizen of the World=92 column last year=
=2E)
=93I hope never to be in a position where I have to defend Tunku,=94 said
Sreenath Sreenivasan, a Columbia School of Journalism professor. =93I
disagree with a lot of what he says.=94 Sreenivasan, who counts himself
among Varadarajan=92s =93friends and fans=94 and reads everything the colum=
nist
writes, said =93on a consistent basis (Varadarajan) is the subject of more
dinner-time conversation among desis than any other writer.``
=93Like many good writers he likes to write about things that annoy him,=94
said Max Boot, editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal and
Varadarajan=92s immediate boss. =93Luckily for our readers he is annoyed by=
a
fairly wide range of things and he likes to stir things up.=94
John Laxmi, a freelance journalist and South Asian Journalists
Association board member who has watched Varadarajan=92s New York career
from its beginnings, put it into his own perspevtive. Varadarajan was =93a
deliberate curmudgeon=94 who had =93rapidly evolved into a position of
influence,=94 he said.
Laxmi cited Varadarajan=92s articles attacking the singer Lata Mangeshkar
and the late author R.K. Narayan. =93Varadarajan appeared to be
deliberately provocative for the sake of being provocative, gaining
prominence and then using the prominence in ways that were more broadly
appealing,=94 said Laxmi. =93The question that arises is how heartfelt and
true his views are, or if he is being provocative just to make a splash.=94
Laxmi, a former investment banker with Morgan Stanley and Citigroup who
turned to freelance journalism, cited the view that an opinion writer had
no business writing unless he was being provocative. Sreenivasan would
agree with that view. He pointed out that Varadarajan=92s writing is the
single-most discussed topic on the SAJA discussion list. =93As an opinion
writer what more can you hope for?=94 Sreenivasan asked.
=93The downside is you never know if Varadarajan=92s views are authentic or
if he is stating them to make news,=94 said Laxmi. =93It is a question that
lingers since he writes well and is read widely for his writing style.=94
Born in Delhi in 1962, Patanjali (Tunku is a nickname) Varadarajan, a
British citizen, read law at Oxford University and returned there to
lecture in 1987. For six years he taught public international law,
constitutional and administrative law, and Roman law. Then, at the age of
32, he joined The Times of London as a trainee in the editorial
department. He says the switch from law to journalism was the result of
=93a standard mid-career crisis=94 and because he had been =93feeling bored=
and
underpaid=94 and =93was sick of undergraduates.=94
The Times sent Varadarajan as its bureau chief first to Madrid, then to
New York. In 1998 he quit The Times and for two years worked freelance,
writing for The New York Times, India Today and Outlook, among other
publications. In 2000 he joined The Wall Street Journal.
Varadarajan is married to Amy Finnerty, a writer for The New York Times
Magazine. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife, a small son and two
step-daughters. He and his wife are not the only journalists in the
family. A younger brother, Siddharth, is a senior editor at The Times of
India.
One of the advantages of being a journalist, Varadarajan told me, is that
you never stop working. It may also be =93a journalistic character flaw=94 =
to
constantly be looking at all events as news.
Varadarajan takes his work seriously enough to be involved in other
aspects of the job. I attended an =93Opinion Writing=94 workshop he conduct=
ed
at the SAJA 2001 annual convention. He told the class of aspiring
journalists that a good opinion piece takes research. =93Reporting, or
research as it is called in some countries, is the backbone of good
opinion writing,=94 he said.
He selected various articles from his own writings arrayed under five
significant headings: Full-Frontal Polemic, Taking on an Icon/Cherished
Institution, Over the Top/In Your Face Commentary, Against Prevailing
Sentiment, and Opinionated Reportage.
He said: =93Be blunt. Get to the point. Don=92t be mealy-mouthed.=94 A brie=
f
look at some of the titles of his WSJ columns would seem to be a lesson
in that dictum: The Reason for the Death Penalty, I Can=92t Stand
Lieberman, Clinton Would Have Conceded, In Praise of Louis Freeh,
Shareholders of the World Unite, The Monarchy is Worth Saving.=A0
At another occasion, a lecture to the Oxford Business Alumni Association
in December 2001, he said that after Sept. 11, the WSJ=92s =93self-imposed
diktat=94 was that all three editorials on the page would be about the war.
=93There was a vast amount of pressure not to repeat yourself.=94 Normalcy
would return to the page when one of its editorials would be about a
subject other than the war. But when should that be?
=93We agonized,=94 he said. =93Then one day in late October we ran a piece =
on
Michael Jordan=92s return (to basketball).=94
He mentioned some of the differences between British and American
journalism. British journalists are more attuned to =93producing words that
make waves=94 whereas Americans are more =93thoughtful and measured=94 and =
less
prone to writing for effect. =93I=92d rather have an American reporter than=
a
British one,=94 he said. =93They are more careful with facts.=94
Varadarajan grew up in New Delhi and Lucknow and was educated at Mayo
College in Rajasthan, London University=92s Dulwich College and Trinity
College, Oxford. Despite his citizen of the world tagline, he has stayed
true to his origins in some ways.
=93I have an Indian perspective about events in that part of the world,=94 =
he
said. =93I am very pro-Indian and religion has nothing to do with it.=94
He sees himself =93primarily as an Indian=94 even though he has lived in
Britain for as long as he has lived in India, is married to an American,
has American children, and cannot imagine living anywhere other than in
the United States. This self-image extends even to his facial hair.
For a period in his youth, Varadarajan sported a =93meesha,=94 or handlebar
moustache, in the style of the dacoit Veerappan, not to mention countless
Indian policemen and Bollywood villains. I asked why he took the
moustache off, wondering if it had something to do with his move to the
United States. It did not.
=93My wife didn=92t like it,=94 he said. =93It=92s as simple as that.=94 If=
left to
himself he said he would readily grow it back. After all, a manly
moustache is part of the wish list of the Indian man.=A0
Does he consider himself a secular Hindu, as the title of his
beliefnet.com column would have it? =93I take it as given that a proper
Hindu is a secular Hindu,=94 he said. =93When practiced properly it is a
tolerant religion. The intolerant fringe has given it a bad name which is
why it is important that secular Hindus should call themselves Hindu.=94
Varadarajan has commented on the 1999-2000 world democracy survey by
Freedom House and its observation that there is a strong correlation
between electoral democracy and Hinduism. Nepal, the only Hindu state, is
=93freer than most Muslim countries,=94 he said. So are India and Mauritius=
=2E
=93Islam seems to set up a political program which is hard to accommodate
with democracy. It is easy to shut democracy out of the context.=94
He said that it was possible to set up democracy in a Muslim country, but
countries such as Turkey and Bangladesh had done so by distancing
themselves from Islam. Freedom House=92s findings showed that the vast
majority of Muslim states were not free.
In recent columns Varadarajan has come out as a vociferous supporter of
India and an implacable critic of Pakistan=92s General Pervez Musharraf.
They have won him a new and approving audience among Indians,
particularly those supportive of the BJP.
=93If the United States is keen on bin Laden=92s capture it should grab
Musharraf by the scruff of his neck and read him the Riot Act,=94 he said.
=93India has lost its ability to respond effectively.=94 By not reacting to
provocation India had =93painted themselves into a corner.=94
He even spoke nostalgically of Indira Gandhi, saying if she were around
Pakistan would not be =93as bold as they are.=94
If Mohammed Jinnah, described as the founder of modern Pakistan, where to
see the country today =93he would not recognize it =96 he wanted a secular
democracy not jehadi lunacy,=94 said Varadarajan. India had reason to
expect war but nobody wanted one except the hawks.
=93I would be very sorry if a war were to happen,=94 he said.=A0
o o o o o
Posted by
Glen
May 23, 2002 01:19 am
Here is an update about SAJAer TUNKU VARADARAJAN of the WSJ. Last week, hewas named the paper`s chief television and media critic. He will write a
weekly column starting June 3, while continuing to be deputy editorial
features editor of the editorial page. Congrats to Tunku on his new
TUNKU (NOT HIS FAMILY OR REAL NAME)
India Abroad/PROFILE
The Magazine/cover story
Master of Controversy
Jeet Thayil says Wall Street Journal columnist Tunku Varadarajan enjoys
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
creating word-storms
Consider this: Late last year Tunku Varadarajan, the deputy editorial
features editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote a column titled
Parachute Journalism Redux: Thank goodness there are alternatives to
Christiane Amanpour. The article aimed to be a comparative study of
network television`s female war correspondents.
It sniped at Amanpour for everything from her clothes (=93flak-jackets and
other kinds of tough-girl raiment=94) to her accent (=93misinterpreted as
erudition by Americans=94) to her looks (=93thought to convey an anti-Barbi=
e
seriousness=94) to her alleged androgyny (=93a fearless she-man=94).
Varadarajan`s article snowballed into a word-storm three times its
original length. An assortment of commentators weighed in. One called him
=93a knuckle-dragging caveman=94 and =93freakin=92 laughable.=94 Another sa=
id he
was =93sexist, ranting=94 and =93vindictive.=94
The gossip pages of The New York Post labeled him =93mischievous.=94 CNN
president Walter Isaacson wrote to the WSJ in courtly defense of
Amanpour=92s =93tenacity and old-fashioned grit, dodging bullets...=94
MSNBC correspondent Ashleigh Banfield described Varadarajan as
=93despicable=94 and =93absolutely abysmal.=94 She even suggested that for
someone to =93sit behind a desk at the WSJ and criticize our hair, our
demeanor and our makeup=94 is akin to the Taliban=92s treatment of women.
What was Varadarajan doing meanwhile? He was sitting back and enjoying
the whole controversy. =93It was hilarious,=94 he recently told India Abroa=
d.
=93Over-the-top, hysterical, overheated, but amusing. I must have gotten
under (Banfield=92s) skin, I suppose.=94
It would not be an overstatement to say that Varadarajan craves the range
and intensity of response that piece generated. In fact, he would
probably be deeply disappointed if there were no reaction at all.
=93Believe it or not the most satisfying thing that can happen to a
journalist who writes a controversial article is to have a sort of
avalanche of hate mail,=94 he said. =93It=92s wonderful, much better than
getting letters saying =91I agree.=92=94
His =91Citizen of the World=92 column appears every Monday in The Wall Stre=
et
Journal. In them, he often comes across as a world-class curmudgeon. It
is a word he has been called more than once.
=93My friends think I=92m fairly curmudgeonly but I suppose old-fashioned i=
s
probably what I am,=94 he said. =93The problem with journalism is that too
many people are just too nice about too many things. If someone is
slightly curmudgeonly in America he or she tends to stand out. In Britain
people who write nice things are regarded as boring and those who are not
instinctive curmudgeons cultivate it.=94
Though he says his own curmudgeonly image is not deliberately cultivated,
it is one those who know him are well acquainted with. (=93I=92m not a
curmudgeon, lest you mistake me for one, and actually have good reason to
detest summer,=94 he wrote in a =91Citizen of the World=92 column last year=
=2E)
=93I hope never to be in a position where I have to defend Tunku,=94 said
Sreenath Sreenivasan, a Columbia School of Journalism professor. =93I
disagree with a lot of what he says.=94 Sreenivasan, who counts himself
among Varadarajan=92s =93friends and fans=94 and reads everything the colum=
nist
writes, said =93on a consistent basis (Varadarajan) is the subject of more
dinner-time conversation among desis than any other writer.``
=93Like many good writers he likes to write about things that annoy him,=94
said Max Boot, editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal and
Varadarajan=92s immediate boss. =93Luckily for our readers he is annoyed by=
a
fairly wide range of things and he likes to stir things up.=94
John Laxmi, a freelance journalist and South Asian Journalists
Association board member who has watched Varadarajan=92s New York career
from its beginnings, put it into his own perspevtive. Varadarajan was =93a
deliberate curmudgeon=94 who had =93rapidly evolved into a position of
influence,=94 he said.
Laxmi cited Varadarajan=92s articles attacking the singer Lata Mangeshkar
and the late author R.K. Narayan. =93Varadarajan appeared to be
deliberately provocative for the sake of being provocative, gaining
prominence and then using the prominence in ways that were more broadly
appealing,=94 said Laxmi. =93The question that arises is how heartfelt and
true his views are, or if he is being provocative just to make a splash.=94
Laxmi, a former investment banker with Morgan Stanley and Citigroup who
turned to freelance journalism, cited the view that an opinion writer had
no business writing unless he was being provocative. Sreenivasan would
agree with that view. He pointed out that Varadarajan=92s writing is the
single-most discussed topic on the SAJA discussion list. =93As an opinion
writer what more can you hope for?=94 Sreenivasan asked.
=93The downside is you never know if Varadarajan=92s views are authentic or
if he is stating them to make news,=94 said Laxmi. =93It is a question that
lingers since he writes well and is read widely for his writing style.=94
Born in Delhi in 1962, Patanjali (Tunku is a nickname) Varadarajan, a
British citizen, read law at Oxford University and returned there to
lecture in 1987. For six years he taught public international law,
constitutional and administrative law, and Roman law. Then, at the age of
32, he joined The Times of London as a trainee in the editorial
department. He says the switch from law to journalism was the result of
=93a standard mid-career crisis=94 and because he had been =93feeling bored=
and
underpaid=94 and =93was sick of undergraduates.=94
The Times sent Varadarajan as its bureau chief first to Madrid, then to
New York. In 1998 he quit The Times and for two years worked freelance,
writing for The New York Times, India Today and Outlook, among other
publications. In 2000 he joined The Wall Street Journal.
Varadarajan is married to Amy Finnerty, a writer for The New York Times
Magazine. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife, a small son and two
step-daughters. He and his wife are not the only journalists in the
family. A younger brother, Siddharth, is a senior editor at The Times of
India.
One of the advantages of being a journalist, Varadarajan told me, is that
you never stop working. It may also be =93a journalistic character flaw=94 =
to
constantly be looking at all events as news.
Varadarajan takes his work seriously enough to be involved in other
aspects of the job. I attended an =93Opinion Writing=94 workshop he conduct=
ed
at the SAJA 2001 annual convention. He told the class of aspiring
journalists that a good opinion piece takes research. =93Reporting, or
research as it is called in some countries, is the backbone of good
opinion writing,=94 he said.
He selected various articles from his own writings arrayed under five
significant headings: Full-Frontal Polemic, Taking on an Icon/Cherished
Institution, Over the Top/In Your Face Commentary, Against Prevailing
Sentiment, and Opinionated Reportage.
He said: =93Be blunt. Get to the point. Don=92t be mealy-mouthed.=94 A brie=
f
look at some of the titles of his WSJ columns would seem to be a lesson
in that dictum: The Reason for the Death Penalty, I Can=92t Stand
Lieberman, Clinton Would Have Conceded, In Praise of Louis Freeh,
Shareholders of the World Unite, The Monarchy is Worth Saving.=A0
At another occasion, a lecture to the Oxford Business Alumni Association
in December 2001, he said that after Sept. 11, the WSJ=92s =93self-imposed
diktat=94 was that all three editorials on the page would be about the war.
=93There was a vast amount of pressure not to repeat yourself.=94 Normalcy
would return to the page when one of its editorials would be about a
subject other than the war. But when should that be?
=93We agonized,=94 he said. =93Then one day in late October we ran a piece =
on
Michael Jordan=92s return (to basketball).=94
He mentioned some of the differences between British and American
journalism. British journalists are more attuned to =93producing words that
make waves=94 whereas Americans are more =93thoughtful and measured=94 and =
less
prone to writing for effect. =93I=92d rather have an American reporter than=
a
British one,=94 he said. =93They are more careful with facts.=94
Varadarajan grew up in New Delhi and Lucknow and was educated at Mayo
College in Rajasthan, London University=92s Dulwich College and Trinity
College, Oxford. Despite his citizen of the world tagline, he has stayed
true to his origins in some ways.
=93I have an Indian perspective about events in that part of the world,=94 =
he
said. =93I am very pro-Indian and religion has nothing to do with it.=94
He sees himself =93primarily as an Indian=94 even though he has lived in
Britain for as long as he has lived in India, is married to an American,
has American children, and cannot imagine living anywhere other than in
the United States. This self-image extends even to his facial hair.
For a period in his youth, Varadarajan sported a =93meesha,=94 or handlebar
moustache, in the style of the dacoit Veerappan, not to mention countless
Indian policemen and Bollywood villains. I asked why he took the
moustache off, wondering if it had something to do with his move to the
United States. It did not.
=93My wife didn=92t like it,=94 he said. =93It=92s as simple as that.=94 If=
left to
himself he said he would readily grow it back. After all, a manly
moustache is part of the wish list of the Indian man.=A0
Does he consider himself a secular Hindu, as the title of his
beliefnet.com column would have it? =93I take it as given that a proper
Hindu is a secular Hindu,=94 he said. =93When practiced properly it is a
tolerant religion. The intolerant fringe has given it a bad name which is
why it is important that secular Hindus should call themselves Hindu.=94
Varadarajan has commented on the 1999-2000 world democracy survey by
Freedom House and its observation that there is a strong correlation
between electoral democracy and Hinduism. Nepal, the only Hindu state, is
=93freer than most Muslim countries,=94 he said. So are India and Mauritius=
=2E
=93Islam seems to set up a political program which is hard to accommodate
with democracy. It is easy to shut democracy out of the context.=94
He said that it was possible to set up democracy in a Muslim country, but
countries such as Turkey and Bangladesh had done so by distancing
themselves from Islam. Freedom House=92s findings showed that the vast
majority of Muslim states were not free.
In recent columns Varadarajan has come out as a vociferous supporter of
India and an implacable critic of Pakistan=92s General Pervez Musharraf.
They have won him a new and approving audience among Indians,
particularly those supportive of the BJP.
=93If the United States is keen on bin Laden=92s capture it should grab
Musharraf by the scruff of his neck and read him the Riot Act,=94 he said.
=93India has lost its ability to respond effectively.=94 By not reacting to
provocation India had =93painted themselves into a corner.=94
He even spoke nostalgically of Indira Gandhi, saying if she were around
Pakistan would not be =93as bold as they are.=94
If Mohammed Jinnah, described as the founder of modern Pakistan, where to
see the country today =93he would not recognize it =96 he wanted a secular
democracy not jehadi lunacy,=94 said Varadarajan. India had reason to
expect war but nobody wanted one except the hawks.
=93I would be very sorry if a war were to happen,=94 he said.=A0
o o o o o
The Last Crusade
http://sify.speedera.net/news.sify.com/news/images/bluearrow.gif Service
Astrology
Weather
Home Offbeat
Chennai sex workers make Rs 3.33 crore a month
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By our Chennai Correspondent
Mobile brothels manned by cell-phone toting operators are proving to be a hit in Chennai, according to a new study.
For those in the trade, running a mobile unit makes sound business sense as it cuts down on operational costs of renting a building and bribing the cops.
As for the client, it promises `pick and drop` facility of sex workers at a place of his choice.
More than 17 mobile units operate from cars in the city, according to Chennai-based NGO Indian Community Welfare Organisation (ICWO), which works with Commercial Sex Workers (CSWs).
The ICWO estimates the volume of sex business in the city at Rs 3.33 crore per month in its latest study.
According to the study, there are 6,300 women sex workers operating from all over the city, around the year. ``They are spread over in all parts of the city,`` says A J Hariharan, secretary, ICWO.
The sex workers have been broadly classified as family girl, street worker, brothel based, and mobile. Family girls form the majority of the lot, numbering 4500. There are 350 street workers, and 90 mobile workers, according to the study.
It was found that 55 percent of the sex workers came from Andhra Pradesh, 24 percent from Tamil Nadu and 11 percent from Kerala. The study identified 150 full time brokers and an estimated 4500 part time brokers.
It has been found that clients are serviced at `normal houses`, besides brothels, hotels and lodges. These houses are used for short-term stay and rent is paid for the hours used. At least 91 such houses exist in the city.
According to the study, an estimated 11,111 paid sexual encounters take place in the city.
It was found that 93 percent of the CSWs were into the trade out of compulsions and not out of choice. 78 percent of the respondents said they would not allow their children to enter the profession.
It was found that 68 percent of the respondents used condoms regularly during sex. The 32 percent who did not use condoms on a regular basis gave different reasons for not using them.
Thirty percent said they couldn`t use condoms with regular clients. Another 30 percent said they would forget to wear it at times and 10 percent felt that condom usage would prolong sexual activity.
Another 10 percent said some clients would object to it. About 20 percent said they knew better techniques to avoid infection!
As for reasons why they chose to be sex workers, 31 percent respondents said they entered the profession due to family debts and 29 percent said their husbands deserted them. About 29 percent said their lovers had ditched them.
Clients were asked why they visited sex workers. 21 percent said their wives had health problems. At least 17 percent said they came for oral sex and 10 percent said their wives were not interested in sex.
Seven percent said they had grown up children at home and six percent said their wives refused to have sex with them. Eleven percent came for a change, for 22 percent it had become a regular practice, and for six percent, sex was a passion.
The objective of the study was to map areas in the city where commercial sex workers operated and to ``understand the sex industry`` in Chennai. The Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society supported the study with the intention of using the information to frame suitable strategy for HIV/AIDS intervention programs.
About 43 percent of the sex workers who were interviewed for the survey were in the 26-35 age group. 26 percent was in the 19-25 age group. About 20 percent was in the 36-40 age group and 10 percent was in the above-40 age group.
The team interviewed 300 women sex workers. Among the 300, 180 belonged to the family category, 80 street workers, 30 brothel based, and 10 from the mobile units. Twenty pimps, 20 lodge/house owners, and 20 hotel room boys were also interviewed.
Posted by
Glen
May 21, 2002 07:48 pm
More Quotes..http://sify.speedera.net/news.sify.com/news/images/bluearrow.gif Service
Astrology
Weather
Home Offbeat
Chennai sex workers make Rs 3.33 crore a month
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By our Chennai Correspondent
Mobile brothels manned by cell-phone toting operators are proving to be a hit in Chennai, according to a new study.
For those in the trade, running a mobile unit makes sound business sense as it cuts down on operational costs of renting a building and bribing the cops.
As for the client, it promises `pick and drop` facility of sex workers at a place of his choice.
More than 17 mobile units operate from cars in the city, according to Chennai-based NGO Indian Community Welfare Organisation (ICWO), which works with Commercial Sex Workers (CSWs).
The ICWO estimates the volume of sex business in the city at Rs 3.33 crore per month in its latest study.
According to the study, there are 6,300 women sex workers operating from all over the city, around the year. ``They are spread over in all parts of the city,`` says A J Hariharan, secretary, ICWO.
The sex workers have been broadly classified as family girl, street worker, brothel based, and mobile. Family girls form the majority of the lot, numbering 4500. There are 350 street workers, and 90 mobile workers, according to the study.
It was found that 55 percent of the sex workers came from Andhra Pradesh, 24 percent from Tamil Nadu and 11 percent from Kerala. The study identified 150 full time brokers and an estimated 4500 part time brokers.
It has been found that clients are serviced at `normal houses`, besides brothels, hotels and lodges. These houses are used for short-term stay and rent is paid for the hours used. At least 91 such houses exist in the city.
According to the study, an estimated 11,111 paid sexual encounters take place in the city.
It was found that 93 percent of the CSWs were into the trade out of compulsions and not out of choice. 78 percent of the respondents said they would not allow their children to enter the profession.
It was found that 68 percent of the respondents used condoms regularly during sex. The 32 percent who did not use condoms on a regular basis gave different reasons for not using them.
Thirty percent said they couldn`t use condoms with regular clients. Another 30 percent said they would forget to wear it at times and 10 percent felt that condom usage would prolong sexual activity.
Another 10 percent said some clients would object to it. About 20 percent said they knew better techniques to avoid infection!
As for reasons why they chose to be sex workers, 31 percent respondents said they entered the profession due to family debts and 29 percent said their husbands deserted them. About 29 percent said their lovers had ditched them.
Clients were asked why they visited sex workers. 21 percent said their wives had health problems. At least 17 percent said they came for oral sex and 10 percent said their wives were not interested in sex.
Seven percent said they had grown up children at home and six percent said their wives refused to have sex with them. Eleven percent came for a change, for 22 percent it had become a regular practice, and for six percent, sex was a passion.
The objective of the study was to map areas in the city where commercial sex workers operated and to ``understand the sex industry`` in Chennai. The Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society supported the study with the intention of using the information to frame suitable strategy for HIV/AIDS intervention programs.
About 43 percent of the sex workers who were interviewed for the survey were in the 26-35 age group. 26 percent was in the 19-25 age group. About 20 percent was in the 36-40 age group and 10 percent was in the above-40 age group.
The team interviewed 300 women sex workers. Among the 300, 180 belonged to the family category, 80 street workers, 30 brothel based, and 10 from the mobile units. Twenty pimps, 20 lodge/house owners, and 20 hotel room boys were also interviewed.
The Last Crusade
http://www.telegraphindia.com/national.htm#
HEROIN HAUL
FROM M.R. VENKATESH Chennai, May 19: Within a week of the Centre extending the ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, sleuths of the Central Narcotics Bureau made one of the largest seizures of heroin in recent months.
The 56-kg consignment ? much of it Lanka-bound ? is valued at Rs 56 crore in the international market. The seizures were made in three different operations over the past three days, said bureau director Sankar Jilwal.
The haul has brought to the fore the trend of Chennai re-emerging as a key transit point in drug trafficking, with Sri Lanka its final destination via Tuticorin.
Though the latest haul has not been linked to the LTTE, the militant organisation had earlier been accused of bartering drugs for arms.
The bureau has arrested 11 people ? six Lankans and a Canadian. A bulk of the haul, 45 kg, was seized from a vehicle near Maturantakam, about 55 km from here. A man from Gujarat was allegedly heading for the Kanyakumari coast with the ?consignment?.
Another 5 kg of the narcotic was detected in a city lodge after it arrived by train from Madhya Pradesh. This ?consignment? is believed to have originated in Rajasthan, the bureau said.
The Geneva-bound Canadian citizen was arrested from the Chennai International Airport in the third operation. He had 5-kg ?high-grade? heroin concealed under the false bottom of his suitcase.
Jilwal said they were determined to find out who had ?contacts in Geneva? and from where they were sourcing the ?high-grade heroin?. Heroin of this quality ?cannot be sourced in India?, he added
Posted by
Glen
May 21, 2002 01:38 pm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/national.htm#
HEROIN HAUL
FROM M.R. VENKATESH Chennai, May 19: Within a week of the Centre extending the ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, sleuths of the Central Narcotics Bureau made one of the largest seizures of heroin in recent months.
The 56-kg consignment ? much of it Lanka-bound ? is valued at Rs 56 crore in the international market. The seizures were made in three different operations over the past three days, said bureau director Sankar Jilwal.
The haul has brought to the fore the trend of Chennai re-emerging as a key transit point in drug trafficking, with Sri Lanka its final destination via Tuticorin.
Though the latest haul has not been linked to the LTTE, the militant organisation had earlier been accused of bartering drugs for arms.
The bureau has arrested 11 people ? six Lankans and a Canadian. A bulk of the haul, 45 kg, was seized from a vehicle near Maturantakam, about 55 km from here. A man from Gujarat was allegedly heading for the Kanyakumari coast with the ?consignment?.
Another 5 kg of the narcotic was detected in a city lodge after it arrived by train from Madhya Pradesh. This ?consignment? is believed to have originated in Rajasthan, the bureau said.
The Geneva-bound Canadian citizen was arrested from the Chennai International Airport in the third operation. He had 5-kg ?high-grade? heroin concealed under the false bottom of his suitcase.
Jilwal said they were determined to find out who had ?contacts in Geneva? and from where they were sourcing the ?high-grade heroin?. Heroin of this quality ?cannot be sourced in India?, he added
The Aga Khani
``.....I suppose the catholicity of his beliefs makes the devotees supra-Islamic.....``
CATHOLOCITY ??????
Catholics are the most unforgiving christians as far as divorce ,abortion ,& inter religous marriage is concerned
This is not Varsey the Agha Khani speaking nor Farzana a muslim speaking but brain wash of, unadulterated pure indias Convent, blindly english WORSHIPPING ,anglican indian urbanite could be punjabi, bengali maharashtrian
Posted by
Glen
Apr 28, 2002 01:32 pm
``.....I suppose the catholicity of his beliefs makes the devotees supra-Islamic.....``
CATHOLOCITY ??????
Catholics are the most unforgiving christians as far as divorce ,abortion ,& inter religous marriage is concerned
This is not Varsey the Agha Khani speaking nor Farzana a muslim speaking but brain wash of, unadulterated pure indias Convent, blindly english WORSHIPPING ,anglican indian urbanite could be punjabi, bengali maharashtrian
America’s Responsibility
http://member.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20020123%2F110715463.htm&sc=1107&s=0&n=25
Belgians to Rule on Sharon Case
By CONSTANT BRAND BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - A Belgian appeals court heard closing arguments Wednesday from lawyers representing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon against claims he should stand trail for war crimes in the 1982 massacre at Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
The court is expected to rule March 6.
Sharon was Israeli defense minister in 1982 when 800 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chatilla camps south of Beirut were slaughtered by a Lebanese Christian militia allied to the Israelis.
The Israeli premier is facing complaints before Belgian courts under laws introduced in 1993 and 1999 that allow for the prosecution of war crimes wherever they are committed.
On Wednesday, Sharon`s lawyers gave their closing arguments. The lawyers of the Palestinian survivors who launched the claims wrapped up their case in late December.
Sharon lawyer Adrien Masset said he argued that his client enjoyed diplomatic immunity and that an Israeli inquest had already been held into the massacre.
``Belgian law has no jurisdiction ... it is not applicable,`` he said. ``There is no link between Sabra and Chatilla and Belgium.``
An Israeli inquiry into the massacre found Sharon indirectly responsible, and he resigned as defense minister.
If the Belgian appeals court decides to accept the case and Sharon is found guilty, he could technically be arrested if he enters Belgium.
01/23/02 11:07 © Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Posted by
Glen
Jan 23, 2002 06:12 pm
NASAH & other human being interested hunting Israelis war criminals .They cant out live & outlast us ......http://member.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20020123%2F110715463.htm&sc=1107&s=0&n=25
Belgians to Rule on Sharon Case
By CONSTANT BRAND BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - A Belgian appeals court heard closing arguments Wednesday from lawyers representing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon against claims he should stand trail for war crimes in the 1982 massacre at Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
The court is expected to rule March 6.
Sharon was Israeli defense minister in 1982 when 800 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chatilla camps south of Beirut were slaughtered by a Lebanese Christian militia allied to the Israelis.
The Israeli premier is facing complaints before Belgian courts under laws introduced in 1993 and 1999 that allow for the prosecution of war crimes wherever they are committed.
On Wednesday, Sharon`s lawyers gave their closing arguments. The lawyers of the Palestinian survivors who launched the claims wrapped up their case in late December.
Sharon lawyer Adrien Masset said he argued that his client enjoyed diplomatic immunity and that an Israeli inquest had already been held into the massacre.
``Belgian law has no jurisdiction ... it is not applicable,`` he said. ``There is no link between Sabra and Chatilla and Belgium.``
An Israeli inquiry into the massacre found Sharon indirectly responsible, and he resigned as defense minister.
If the Belgian appeals court decides to accept the case and Sharon is found guilty, he could technically be arrested if he enters Belgium.
01/23/02 11:07 © Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
The King’s Gambit: Chapter 2 (The Soldier)
17-year-old kills mother for haranguing
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
him over studies
HT Correspondent
(New Delhi,
A 17-year-old bludgeoned his mother to death in Mehrauli in south Delhi on Monday. Reportedly, his mother would harangue him over his poor academic performance and his girlfriend.
The boy had failed to clear the IIT screening on December 30. Ever since, his 43-year-old mother Ranjana Choudhary had been criticising him for not studying enough and spending time with his girlfriend instead. She also used to threaten to ground him. The night before the murder, she is reported to have beaten him up with a broom.
The next morning, the boy sneaked up behind her in the kitchen while she was making breakfast and struck her on the head with a hammer.
Later, he washed the blood stains off his kurta and the hammer and hid the two in his cupboard. Then he called up the police who registered a case of murder.
Joint Commissioner (Southern Range) Amod Kanth said, ``Initially he misled us and said that around 8.30 am a lady had come to meet his mother whom she did not want to meet. Then he also introduced a florist to the scene. But since he was continuously giving contradictory statements, we decided to search the house and thus found his kurta and hammer.``
However, it was only after the police questioned the domestic help and the chauffeurs and searched the house and found the bloody kurta that the boy confessed.
The boy`s father and 13-year-old sister were also in the house at the time of the murder, but claim they heard nothing.
Police said the boy belongs to an affluent family. His father Gautam owns a leather business.
The boy has been remanded in a juvenile home. Kanth said, ``The Juvenile Justice Act is very liberal and in most such cases children are let off
Posted by
Glen
Jan 21, 2002 08:38 pm
17-year-old kills mother for haranguing
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
him over studies
HT Correspondent
(New Delhi,
A 17-year-old bludgeoned his mother to death in Mehrauli in south Delhi on Monday. Reportedly, his mother would harangue him over his poor academic performance and his girlfriend.
The boy had failed to clear the IIT screening on December 30. Ever since, his 43-year-old mother Ranjana Choudhary had been criticising him for not studying enough and spending time with his girlfriend instead. She also used to threaten to ground him. The night before the murder, she is reported to have beaten him up with a broom.
The next morning, the boy sneaked up behind her in the kitchen while she was making breakfast and struck her on the head with a hammer.
Later, he washed the blood stains off his kurta and the hammer and hid the two in his cupboard. Then he called up the police who registered a case of murder.
Joint Commissioner (Southern Range) Amod Kanth said, ``Initially he misled us and said that around 8.30 am a lady had come to meet his mother whom she did not want to meet. Then he also introduced a florist to the scene. But since he was continuously giving contradictory statements, we decided to search the house and thus found his kurta and hammer.``
However, it was only after the police questioned the domestic help and the chauffeurs and searched the house and found the bloody kurta that the boy confessed.
The boy`s father and 13-year-old sister were also in the house at the time of the murder, but claim they heard nothing.
Police said the boy belongs to an affluent family. His father Gautam owns a leather business.
The boy has been remanded in a juvenile home. Kanth said, ``The Juvenile Justice Act is very liberal and in most such cases children are let off
The Significant Unit of War
re: dost-mittar
well-said...every argument pakistanis put forth, can be shot down very, very easily...and you will rarely find a pakistani willing to respond then...
MAY BE PAKISTANIS DONT THINK OF YOU IMPORTANT ENOUGH AFTER PRESENTING THERE CASE IN UNO DIRECTLY WHERE IT MATTERS.SILENCE IS NOT ADMISSION OF GUILT .
1) hold a plebiscite
- with the valley cleansed of non-muslim kashmiris, how fair can a goddamn plebiscite be? and will pakistan go and take Chinese-occupied Kashmir so there can be one there too?
NO BODY IS STOPPING PUNDITS TO COME BACK FOR LEGITIMATE PLEBESCITE.TRYING TO USE EXCUSE OF CIVIL WAR GOING ON IS LIKE MUSLIM SAYING WE ARE 70,OOO (ATRITION,DEAD)LESS VOTE & IF YOU TAKE THERE OFF SPRING IN 13 YRS WOULD BE 18 IN ANOTHER 5 YEARS.BUT ARGUING LIKE THAT IS SEEN AS CHARACTERSISTIC OF ATTITUDE WHICH IS THE REASON OF CIVIL WAR .
2) india took kashmiri land
- but it`s OK for pakistan to give some to China?
SO BY THAT ARGUMENT INDIA TOOK FROM PORTUGAL GOA HYDERABAD FROM NIZAM,SIKKIM JUNAGARH.. .DO YOU HAVE CLAIM TO POK ? IF NOT THEN ITS NOT INDIAS BUSINESS.YOUR ARGUMENT IS ALWAYS CLAIMING LARGE VALLEY FOR FEW MILES OR THOUSAND PUNDIT MIGRATION FOR NAGATING MILLIONS OF KASHMIRIS VOTES .I UNDERSTAND IT, HOPE YOU TOO.
3) human rights violations in kashmir
- you start a war by sending terrorists, and complain about human rights violations? ... why were people vacationing in kashmir 15 years ago in relative peace? ... why was there no army there? ... stop the terror, and the army wil go home too ... it`s that simple.
THE HINDUTVA INFLUENCE STARTED IT IN 89.THAT WAS THE TIME WHEN BJP WAS NOT IN POWER BUT BUILDING ITS POSITION TO TAKE OVER GOVT WHICH NOW THEY HAVE.BABRI INCIDENT WAS IN 92 ALL PRECIPITATED BY SANGH PARIVARS & LIKE MINDED GOV.SAXSENA (hope u r just nick or not related to him),jAGmOHON ,ETC.ETC.
4) india got independence from britain, so should kashmir
- britain did not have a 15% indian population like india has a 15% muslim population. if those muslims can be indian, so can kashmiris.
I dont understand .kashmir was not union of india .it was princely state riyasate kashmir .you must be out of your mind to equate indian muslim with kashmir .what azam garh muslim or mumbai muslim have to do with kashmiri muslim.THE REASON KASHMIR WANT PLEBESCITE NOT BECAUSE ITS MUSLIM.ALTHOUGH BEING MUSLIM ETHNIC PUNJABI PAKHTOON etc like they are connected to those north west frontier provinces.
THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN MUSLIMS OF KERALA WITH KASHMIRIS .what are you saying 500 million muslims in indian subcontinent are similar ,despite the fact that Pakistan is only where muslims were 80-90% It was the % PERCENTAGE -criteria NOT muslim criteria .EVEN IF BENGAL WAS 60% muslim it did not beconme Pakistan because only overwhelmingly area with 90% population muslims became pakistan........to be contd...
Posted by
Glen
Jan 14, 2002 09:25 pm
RSaxenare: dost-mittar
well-said...every argument pakistanis put forth, can be shot down very, very easily...and you will rarely find a pakistani willing to respond then...
MAY BE PAKISTANIS DONT THINK OF YOU IMPORTANT ENOUGH AFTER PRESENTING THERE CASE IN UNO DIRECTLY WHERE IT MATTERS.SILENCE IS NOT ADMISSION OF GUILT .
1) hold a plebiscite
- with the valley cleansed of non-muslim kashmiris, how fair can a goddamn plebiscite be? and will pakistan go and take Chinese-occupied Kashmir so there can be one there too?
NO BODY IS STOPPING PUNDITS TO COME BACK FOR LEGITIMATE PLEBESCITE.TRYING TO USE EXCUSE OF CIVIL WAR GOING ON IS LIKE MUSLIM SAYING WE ARE 70,OOO (ATRITION,DEAD)LESS VOTE & IF YOU TAKE THERE OFF SPRING IN 13 YRS WOULD BE 18 IN ANOTHER 5 YEARS.BUT ARGUING LIKE THAT IS SEEN AS CHARACTERSISTIC OF ATTITUDE WHICH IS THE REASON OF CIVIL WAR .
2) india took kashmiri land
- but it`s OK for pakistan to give some to China?
SO BY THAT ARGUMENT INDIA TOOK FROM PORTUGAL GOA HYDERABAD FROM NIZAM,SIKKIM JUNAGARH.. .DO YOU HAVE CLAIM TO POK ? IF NOT THEN ITS NOT INDIAS BUSINESS.YOUR ARGUMENT IS ALWAYS CLAIMING LARGE VALLEY FOR FEW MILES OR THOUSAND PUNDIT MIGRATION FOR NAGATING MILLIONS OF KASHMIRIS VOTES .I UNDERSTAND IT, HOPE YOU TOO.
3) human rights violations in kashmir
- you start a war by sending terrorists, and complain about human rights violations? ... why were people vacationing in kashmir 15 years ago in relative peace? ... why was there no army there? ... stop the terror, and the army wil go home too ... it`s that simple.
THE HINDUTVA INFLUENCE STARTED IT IN 89.THAT WAS THE TIME WHEN BJP WAS NOT IN POWER BUT BUILDING ITS POSITION TO TAKE OVER GOVT WHICH NOW THEY HAVE.BABRI INCIDENT WAS IN 92 ALL PRECIPITATED BY SANGH PARIVARS & LIKE MINDED GOV.SAXSENA (hope u r just nick or not related to him),jAGmOHON ,ETC.ETC.
4) india got independence from britain, so should kashmir
- britain did not have a 15% indian population like india has a 15% muslim population. if those muslims can be indian, so can kashmiris.
I dont understand .kashmir was not union of india .it was princely state riyasate kashmir .you must be out of your mind to equate indian muslim with kashmir .what azam garh muslim or mumbai muslim have to do with kashmiri muslim.THE REASON KASHMIR WANT PLEBESCITE NOT BECAUSE ITS MUSLIM.ALTHOUGH BEING MUSLIM ETHNIC PUNJABI PAKHTOON etc like they are connected to those north west frontier provinces.
THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN MUSLIMS OF KERALA WITH KASHMIRIS .what are you saying 500 million muslims in indian subcontinent are similar ,despite the fact that Pakistan is only where muslims were 80-90% It was the % PERCENTAGE -criteria NOT muslim criteria .EVEN IF BENGAL WAS 60% muslim it did not beconme Pakistan because only overwhelmingly area with 90% population muslims became pakistan........to be contd...
An Indian salute for President Musharraf
pullu
Harish and the doves,
Your article was more adulatory than a critical or even a casual analysis. It was written by a mesmerized fan who hears only half the things and the rest is filled by colorful imagination.
Going by past records, Pakistan’s present promises are no better than promises made in Tashkent or shimla.
Why India is NOT responsible for there failure .Is it b/c you have 1 billion mouth shouting for you here & all other CHOWK on internet ????
If resounding defeats could not alter their course, how much can a mere threat of war do? Musharraf is good at wriggling out of situations. What he is trying to stop now are exactly the things he stopped elected govts. from doing. India must not let its guard down. After years of baffling quietness by Indian govts. this is the first time India has stood for itself. It should not let go off its enemy because of a mere televised address.
Only irresponsible drunk high on drugs flippant callous HINDIANS is capabnle of talking .I have heard it million times.YOU THINK YOU LAND MINES IN THE BORDER & MERRY GO ROUND OF SOLDIERS GOING IN CIRCLE AROUND BORDER WAS THREATENING.I SAY INDIANS HAVE NO GUTS TO CROSS THE BORDER .NOT ONLY YOU CAN NEVER KEEP YOURSELF INSIDE THE BORDERS BUT CONSEQUENCESES ARE DISATEROUS FOR YOU AS WELL AS FOR PAKISTAN,BUT PAKISTAN WILL HAVE THE VICTIM SYMPATHY & WRONGED SPIRIT TO INFLICT THE LIONS KILL AS CAT BEING CORNERED.
I am quiet confident nothing much is going to change. Yes, it they walk one step towards peace we`ll walk two. And the same towards a war.If Kashmir runs in Pakistani bloods, then it runs more in ours. It is we who are facing it all directly. They are facing only its consequences. It is time to remind them (Pakistanis) that meddling with Kashmir will come at a cost. And we will decide the price and when they will have to pay.
``WE`LL WALK TWO STEP`` is ofcourse nice sound byte of bollywood jingle ....
WHO THE HELL MADE PULLU FROM SOUTH REPRESENTATIVE OF KASHMIR VALLEY PEOPLE.dream on reincarnating in 2nd life as pahari .Not in this life DUDE.
Pullu
Posted by
Glen
Jan 14, 2002 12:30 am
#: 24 pullu
Harish and the doves,
Your article was more adulatory than a critical or even a casual analysis. It was written by a mesmerized fan who hears only half the things and the rest is filled by colorful imagination.
Going by past records, Pakistan’s present promises are no better than promises made in Tashkent or shimla.
Why India is NOT responsible for there failure .Is it b/c you have 1 billion mouth shouting for you here & all other CHOWK on internet ????
If resounding defeats could not alter their course, how much can a mere threat of war do? Musharraf is good at wriggling out of situations. What he is trying to stop now are exactly the things he stopped elected govts. from doing. India must not let its guard down. After years of baffling quietness by Indian govts. this is the first time India has stood for itself. It should not let go off its enemy because of a mere televised address.
Only irresponsible drunk high on drugs flippant callous HINDIANS is capabnle of talking .I have heard it million times.YOU THINK YOU LAND MINES IN THE BORDER & MERRY GO ROUND OF SOLDIERS GOING IN CIRCLE AROUND BORDER WAS THREATENING.I SAY INDIANS HAVE NO GUTS TO CROSS THE BORDER .NOT ONLY YOU CAN NEVER KEEP YOURSELF INSIDE THE BORDERS BUT CONSEQUENCESES ARE DISATEROUS FOR YOU AS WELL AS FOR PAKISTAN,BUT PAKISTAN WILL HAVE THE VICTIM SYMPATHY & WRONGED SPIRIT TO INFLICT THE LIONS KILL AS CAT BEING CORNERED.
I am quiet confident nothing much is going to change. Yes, it they walk one step towards peace we`ll walk two. And the same towards a war.If Kashmir runs in Pakistani bloods, then it runs more in ours. It is we who are facing it all directly. They are facing only its consequences. It is time to remind them (Pakistanis) that meddling with Kashmir will come at a cost. And we will decide the price and when they will have to pay.
``WE`LL WALK TWO STEP`` is ofcourse nice sound byte of bollywood jingle ....
WHO THE HELL MADE PULLU FROM SOUTH REPRESENTATIVE OF KASHMIR VALLEY PEOPLE.dream on reincarnating in 2nd life as pahari .Not in this life DUDE.
Pullu
An Indian salute for President Musharraf
WHILE WORLD WILL APPLAUDE PAKISTAN,THATS WHAT IT MATTERS.
PAKISTAN SHOULD BE SEEN AS A VULNERABLE TO INDIAN HAEGONOMY WITH RESPECT TO BEING PUSHED AROUND BY GREATER POPULATION & SIZE OF BHARAT.
LET INDIA BEHAVE ARROGANTLY.
INTERNATIONAL
Pakistani Leader Pledges to Bar Any Groups Linked to Terror
Gen. Pervez Musharraf pledged that his country would not be
used as a base for terrorism of any kind and announced a
broad ban on militant groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/international/asia/13STAN.html?todaysheadlines
-----
Posted by
Glen
Jan 14, 2002 12:30 am
WHILE WORLD WILL APPLAUDE PAKISTAN,THATS WHAT IT MATTERS.
PAKISTAN SHOULD BE SEEN AS A VULNERABLE TO INDIAN HAEGONOMY WITH RESPECT TO BEING PUSHED AROUND BY GREATER POPULATION & SIZE OF BHARAT.
LET INDIA BEHAVE ARROGANTLY.
INTERNATIONAL
Pakistani Leader Pledges to Bar Any Groups Linked to Terror
Gen. Pervez Musharraf pledged that his country would not be
used as a base for terrorism of any kind and announced a
broad ban on militant groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/international/asia/13STAN.html?todaysheadlines
-----
An Indian salute for President Musharraf
TODAY`S HEADLINES
The New York Times on the Web
Sunday, January 13, 2002
QUOTE OF THE DAY
``We will take strict action against any Pakistani who is
involved in terrorism inside the country or abroad.``
-PRESIDENT PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, of Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/international/asia/13STAN.html?todaysheadlines
Posted by
Glen
Jan 14, 2002 12:30 am
FROM OBSCURE DICTATOR ,RIDICULED & DISPARAGED BY INDIANS,MISLEAD WEST BY INDIAS PROPOGANDA NETWORK MUSHARAFF HAS NOW BEEN QUOTED IN N.Y. TIMES .NEXT TIME INDIANS SAY ANYTHING ASK THEM TO SHATTAP.YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG FAR TOO MANTY TIMES DUDES!!TODAY`S HEADLINES
The New York Times on the Web
Sunday, January 13, 2002
QUOTE OF THE DAY
``We will take strict action against any Pakistani who is
involved in terrorism inside the country or abroad.``
-PRESIDENT PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, of Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/international/asia/13STAN.html?todaysheadlines
An Indian salute for President Musharraf
``BRITTAIN IS THE GEAREST DEN IN THE WORLD FOR TERRORISTS``.....Who said this .....Muammar Ghadaffi still alive ..stil ticking....while Reagan is in La La Land alternating with nightmares with paranoia of ALHZM.
U.S. Holding British Subject in Detention at Cuba Base
The United States has notified Britain that a British
subject is one of the 20 detainees from Afghanistan being
held at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/international/13MILI.html?todaysheadlines
Posted by
Glen
Jan 14, 2002 12:30 am
``BRITTAIN IS THE GEAREST DEN IN THE WORLD FOR TERRORISTS``.....Who said this .....Muammar Ghadaffi still alive ..stil ticking....while Reagan is in La La Land alternating with nightmares with paranoia of ALHZM.
U.S. Holding British Subject in Detention at Cuba Base
The United States has notified Britain that a British
subject is one of the 20 detainees from Afghanistan being
held at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/international/13MILI.html?todaysheadlines
- Glen
- Interacts: 88
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 273
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Dec 16 2001
- Last signin: Dec 1 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
