Pak1stanFirst.com

Indo-US Strategic Partnership Threatening Regional Stability

Letter to Editor

Tuesday, 08 May 2012 07:59

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

Zaheerul Hassan

United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton on May 6, 2012 (Sunday) arrived in Kolkata on a three-day visit to India. The set agenda of meeting is: (one) to press India on Iran oil imports, (two) Indo-US dialogue on Afghanistan, (three) India to take up US’ U-turn on Saeed with Hillary Clinton, (four) meeting West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee for on foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail and finally US interest of playing her role in resolving Teesta Water Issue between India-Bangladesh.

In this regard we can say that Hillary apparently is going to make an effort to meet Banerjee just a day after her meeting with Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina – would raise the issue of the Teesta Water Treaty between India and Bangladesh, which was sent into cold storage to Banerjee’s opposition in 2011.  Treaty was proposed to be signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s trip to Dhaka of 2011 but its signatures ceremony was postponed when Bangladeshi opposition parties criticised Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for displaying soft corner for India during the talks and West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee objections on some of the salient of the treaty.

Interestingly, one has to find out that why US suddenly offered her services in resolving such like tiny issue in the presence of other major disputes like; Sino-India border issue, Kashmir issue, minority issue of India and including her domestic problems like brutality against  Maoists, minorities and Sikhs that are claiming for Khalistan. The answer could be that probably US is interested to drag Bangladesh in her Indo-US Strategic Block been mainly established against China, Pakistan, Iran and Sari Lanka.

US desire of putting India as her regional watchdog is an open secret now because she continuously backed and supported India in regional and international issues.  In this connection she refused to play any role in settlement of Kashmir issue which could become the flash point of next nuclear war. Theretofore, we can say that physically striking Iran, weakening Pakistan, and containing China from becoming major economic power, providing definite and permanent role to Israel in Middle East, acknowledging Indian supremacy in Asia and supporting her for contesting   permanent seat in Security Council and establishing American bases even after the implementation Obama’s exit strategy regarding Afghanistan are the only leading strategic objectives of this unholy alliance.

Other objectives could be; investing India for economic gain, assist Israel and providing her airbases whenever she attacks Iran, never let Russia to re-emerge as super power, confirming and maintaining   efforts of straightening bi-polar political system. In this context Israel is another country which is in fact the covert but real player of Indo-US strategic partnership. Actually, Indo-US-Israel collaboration is emerging the world most dangerous collaboration. In 2010 prior to Indian visit of Obama US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon while briefing reporters said that Obama intends the trip to be “a full embrace of India’s rise.” At this occasion Indian officials Shivshankar Menon endorsed that he doesn’t think that there’s an area of human endeavor in which we do not actually cooperate. Thus later one, President Barack Obama during his quoted visit has announced $10 billion trade deals with New Delhi and claimed that the deal will create 53,670 U.S. jobs. At that time he also brought some of the changes in export rules to make it easier for U.S. companies to do business with the nation of 1.2 billion people. US has also relaxed control on India’s purchase of “dual use” technologies that could be used for civilian or military purposes, have been top priorities for the business community. The Indian military’s plans of buying aircraft engines from General Electric; and preliminary agreement between Boeing and the Indian Air Force on the purchase of 10 C17s have also been materialized.

Anyhow, civil nuclear cooperation, regional security and importing oil from Iran by the Indian likely to be the key issues that Clinton is expected to discuss with external affairs minister SM Krishna during their meeting in New Delhi on May 8, 2012. She will also call on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh apart from holding talks with Krishna, during which they will also review progress made in their countries’ strategic partnership ahead of the India-US strategic dialogue to be held in Washington in coming June 13, 2012. The US, which has imposed sanctions against Tehran, has been kept on forcing India to restrict its import of crude oil from Iran.  Though; New Delhi overtly has been maintaining that it only accepts sanctions which are made by the United Nations but covertly now assured Washington that she will help US at the need of the hour.

The meeting between Clinton and Indian leader’s gains significance as it comes when Pak-US relationship at its lowest point, Washington is not ready to seek pardon on the issue of attacking Slala Check Post and the crucial NATO summit in Chicago, where some important decisions are expected to be made on Afghanistan, US Presidential elections campaign is in progress, US economy is deteriorating and Israeli leaders gave open threat of attacking Iranian nuclear programme.

However, the entire gamut of bilateral strategic relationship between India and USA is threatening the regional and global stability due to obvious reason of Indian quest of piling up of armaments. According to Washington Post of April 19, 2012 many defence experts have said the Agni-V missile marks a significant improvement in India’s nuclear-deterrent capability and was clearly aimed at bolstering its defense against neighbouring China.

American leadership always has broadcasted underline messages to China and Pakistan whenever visited Asian region and tried to threatening Indian neighbouring countries while carrying out arms pacts with India. Recently, India has done a successful test of Agni–V missile Inter ballistic miles which is totally China specific.  At this occasion US never even tried to show her concern over this development.

As result of US open support to India, an arms race between India and china is now gaining prominence as New Delhi is building her weapon piles increasing day by day. Some analysts have also started to view India competing with China in an arms race rather than acquiring weapons merely for defensive purposes. It is also mentionable here that New Delhi has also launched major effort to develop laser weapons for military applications. Reportedly, Indian military is working on laser weapons for deploying on its submarines, destroyers, air force fighters and transport planes.

In short India happens to be one of the few countries in the world which do not have cordial ties with any of their neighbours. Backing and supporting India militarily in the name of Indo-US Strategic Relationship is posing great threat to the regional and global peace and would be viewed with concern   by peace believers.

The writer is a Retired Military Officer, writes for different papers and blogs including PakSoldiers.Com,  can be approached through This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Why Our Shia Citizens Are Suddenly Being Killed In Pakistan?

Letter to Editor

Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 20:41 Tuesday, 17 April 2012 20:34

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

By: Ahmed Qureshi

There is a sudden rise in sectarian attacks in Pakistan in recent weeks, especially focused on Karachi, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan.

The question that all Pakistanis should ask is this:

Who benefits from inciting sectarian conflict in three strategic locations: in Pakistan's business hub, in the province where the Iran gas pipeline will pass, and near our only land link to China ?

The timing is interesting. It comes when Pakistan rebuffed desperate US calls to reopen the military supply route from Karachi to Afghanistan.

Some of the players behind this mess, like terror group BLA in Balochistan, and two militant Pakistani political parties in Karachi, have links to the United States and India. The TTP enjoys safe havens in US-controlled Afghanistan.

Washington continues to allow the Afghan territory it controls to host TTP terrorists responsible for suicide attacks inside out cities. The same is true for BLA, with the additional Indian involvement in this joint venture with CIA.

This is the kind of hostile environment that we face. It provides context to the violence in Karachi, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan.

Pakistan faces one more thing: punishment for delaying the reopening of NATO supply route. This is where things get dirty.

As Pakistan continued to ignore US calls for a compromise after the deliberate US attack that killed 24 of our soldiers, pro-US Pakistani allies MQM and ANP, two militant parties that divide Pakistanis according to language, stepped up destabilization of Karachi. [President Zardari helped Asfandyar Wali, ANP leader, secretly meet then CIA director in Spring 2008 in Washington.]  In tandem with violence in Karachi, unknown elements launched assassinations of innocent Pakistani Hazara Shia citizens in Balochistan simultaneously with a similar campaign in Gilgit.

Make no mistake: Our enemies are using Pakistanis for this mayhem. So there is a foreign and a domestic element to this situation. But sectarian terror and groups were largely contained over the past decade. The sudden surge in sectarianism at three strategic Pakistani locations should raise alarm bells.

OUR SUNNIS & SHIAS

Internally, our state needs to come down with an iron fist on sectarian parties and militant political parties.

The Political Parties Act needs to be amended to ban any political group or party based on sectarian or linguistic agenda that seeks to divide Pakistanis and distract attention from real issues like prosperity, education and development.

Pakistan also needs to warn Iran against recruiting and financing Pakistani citizens of the Shia sect. The Shia-majority areas of Gilgit-Baltistan were peaceful until the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran which brought with it an Iranian policy of recruiting Shia citizens of neighboring countries. To be fair to Iran, it stopped this policy for more than a decade now but some hard-line elements in Iran continue to pump money and provide some training to extremist Shia groups in Pakistan. These extremist Shia groups do not represent all Pakistani Shia citizens but are better organized thanks to foreign backing.

Similarly, we should seek Saudi action against any private funding from Saudi sources to sectarian Sunni groups in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia ended that kind of support a decade ago but some Pakistani extremist Sunni groups could be receiving funding from private Saudi or other Gulf-based individuals and groups.

In short, both Tehran and Riyadh did limit their links to sectarianism in Pakistan over the past decade. But unfortunately some extremist elements in Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to fund Shia and Sunni extremists in Pakistan. If this is stopped, we can identify other terrorists, acting as Sunni or Shia, who are feeding sectarianism on orders from unknown elements in Afghanistan, a country where multiple countries are operating with different agendas. The Indians have a history of meddling in sectarianism during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. [The Americans are known to have used sectarianism as a policy tool in Iraq. Also, Israel appears to have links to a group called Jundullah, created as a Sunni group to hound Iran.]

STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Pakistan needs a strong federal government to deal with the external and domestic parts of this destabilization. Unfortunately, we are in the middle of a huge mess in our relations with a belligerent US, while a corrupt and discredited political elite is in power in Islamabad.

To put Pakistan on the right track, we need to get out of America's failed war [we can help them in all possible ways with their demands as they withdraw from Afghanistan on case-by-case basis but we should not be party to an American war of extermination against Afghan Taliban and Afghan Pashtuns.]

At the same time, Pakistan's federal and provincial structures need a revamp. The existing political parties are part of the problem and can't be part of a solution. Pakistan needs a break from general elections for a few years. The focus needs to shift from politics to moneymaking, education, arts. Parties need to be legally reorganized, by force if necessary, to allow new leaderships and new faces. We can reorganize Pakistan into smaller administrative units, each with its own elected chief executive and local parliament running local affairs, with a strong federal government in Islamabad. This would provide a good balance between local and federal governments, and forever end the politics of language and provincialism. Once this is done, we can embark on gradually reintroducing a new, stable and peaceful Pakistani politics and democracy in the country.

This kind of change is not possible through politics. It will need the cooperation of middle class patriotic Pakistanis, the judiciary and the armed forces. And whatever the reservations, we need the muscle of the armed forces to pull this through.

None of this should sound outlandish, not after the great transformations we have seen in places like Egypt and Tunisia. We have already wasted the first decade of the new century. We need to do something for our country and people before it is too late.

Saving Pakistan From Secularism

Letter to Editor

Last Updated on Thursday, 29 March 2012 22:29 Thursday, 29 March 2012 22:26

User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 

By Kulsoom Khan

There is a relatively new force that’s gaining quite a momentum recently, the force, however, is every bit as intolerant and extreme as the very ‘bogeyman’ it hopes to defeat and replace. The rise of secularism and it’s shameless promotion by the Pakistani media has not gone unnoticed in a society where religious sentiments run deep. In a country where the majority makes up 97% of the Muslim population, implementation of a secularist ideology does not sit well, not only does it contradict the basic tenets of the Islamic faith and tawheed, where the only recognized source of law and governence is Allah, but it also goes against the ideology that laid the groundwork for an Islamic state. Although Pakistan does not qualify as a Shariah-abiding state, it’s constitution does partially stem from Islamic laws. Which ironically also allows the freedom of religion, surprised? A hot topic among liberals and moderates. Arguably, since both ideologies allow the freedom of religion, this in itself should defeat the secular propaganda being meted out these days, however the rise of Islamic thought in the last decade has given a new spark to the age old ’secularism verses religion’ controversy. Today liberals are openly advocating a nationalist and secular disposition towards Pakistan on the media forefront, simultaneously giving a false illusion of what the religious sector wants, thus once again bringing the ‘mullah’s and the likes’ under the ugly lime light of intolerance and backwardness. The liberals argue, Pakistan should be at the top of our priorities, the Muslims however, have reserved that spot for something they argue is synonymous with Pakistan, the religion of Islam. It’s no secret our forefathers entered this land chanting the ever beloved slogan of, “Pakistan ka matlab, laa illaah illallaah”.

What is it that these secularists desire? Whose agenda does the media promote? Today, the country stands divided in two camps. The liberals, the politicians, the materialists, those who are still in awe of their western counterparts, and wish to entertain every demand of the Western leaders, from expanding drone coverage all over Pakistan, legalizing unrestricted debauchery in the name of freedom, granting full fledged freedom to our ‘allies’ to freely roam Pakistan, more freedom to infest the land with even more CIA spies, and even more freedom to root out ‘Islamists’ like Aafia Siddiqui (and in due time, Muslims deemed ‘too Muslim-ish’), ban madrassahs, religious parties and organizations, restrict Islamic school of thought, implement an American defined concept of democracy, where all rules and laws are regulated by the more progressive and enlightened West. Basically building a society where Islam is practised as an altered and watered down version, a part of life, but not life itself.

And then we have the religious right wingers, people who reject any and all interference by the American government and its allies, want a conservative society free from the ills affecting the decaying societies of the west, and want to form alliances based on Islamic brotherhood. These people come from all walks of life, different ethnicities, languages, rich and poor, domestic house workers, business men, teachers, sales men, doctors, writers, engineers etc. Yet the stubborness of the media personnel is astounding, the repetitive rhetoric of ‘jaahil mullahs’ has unfortunately crept into the public domain, where stones are cast and questions never asked. It’s a sorry state of affairs when people blindly start believing what the unfaithful media spews forth, in Pakistan’s case, the case of blaming all ills and violence on the mullahs, and more recently, blaming the religion of Islam, outright. The last time the media under the directive of Adolf Hitler pinned a country’s problem on an undeserving group of people, the world witnessed the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Looking at the past few years, most of the people dead, in the city of Karachi alone were victims of self-serving political parties. In July of last year, over a hundred people were killed, scores injured, under four days, solely for speaking a different language, for belonging to a different ethnicity, not religion. In the three month period, following March, 216 cases of politicial violence were recorded, with 600 dead and 1090 injured, within three months! Not to mention the growing violence inside universities. Isn’t it high time politicians and the media highlight the true terrorism plaguing Pakistan instead of repeating diatribes against the religious leaders and groups? Are these statistics normal for any state? Does it not qualify as terrorism? Would secularism eradicate this menace? How will secularism enable the Pakistanis to co-exist peacefully? Pakistan, a hotbed of multiple ethnicities, languages, cultures etc.?

A crucial fact secularists and liberals of the Pakistani society and media conveniently forget to address; In the 64 years since independence, how many “Islamist” governments have ruled Pakistan? Has an Islamic party ever ruled the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? We’ve had military rule, dictatorships, PPP-rule, PML(N)-rule etc., but exactly how many of these forces had an Islamic agenda? These parties and regimes were undoubtedly closer to a secular agenda than they were towards Islam. Religion has always been used as an accessory to appease the crowds and gather votes. This in itself should speak volumes, the people, the ordinary citizens, the tax-payers, the majority idolize Islam as the solution, and as the state religion, just like their predecessors, who chose to leave secular India for an Islamic Pakistan. If Pakistan was created on a secular basis, there is no reason why 7,226,000 Muslims would make hijrah to another secular land. Yet we still have controversies surrounding Pakistan’s creation.

“I advise you to guard against atheism and materialism. The biggest blunder made by Europe was the separation of Church and State. This deprived their culture of moral soul and diverted it to the atheistic materialism.” -Sir Allama Iqbal, a very beloved personality to Pakistanis, an intellectual who participated in the creation of an Islamic state for the Indian Muslims. The fact that he too, vouched for an Islamic state should solidify the reason for the country’s existence as an Islamic state. Pakistan’s founding father Mohammad Ali Jinnah, called Pakistan, a state for all people to freely practise their religion, does not discredit or undermine the Islamic priniciples, and definitely does not call for a ’secular’ state. A favorite statement liberals love to quote is from Jinnah’s address at the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1947; “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan.” But since when has Islam denied that right? It hasn’t. Nor has this right ever been violated by any Islamic organization. In any progressive, modern society, when a law is abused, you punish the aggressor, not the religion he belongs to. Today, India is the biggest democracy, and a favorite example quickly cited by the modernists, but how many of these people actually keep up with their neighbour’s flagrant abuse of human rights? The Christian burnings? Babri Masjid? A Hindu mob setting fire to Muslims? Hardcore Hindus skinning the ‘untouchables’ of their societies? Hindu fundamentalists roasting dozens of Muslim babies? Burning 5000 sikhs? Hindu terrorism can not be denied, and is as obvious as daylight. India is and has been witness to thousands of such incidents pre and post-partition. However, a thought to mull over for the secularists and the media personnel; When was the last time the ‘jaahil mullahs’ ever burned a minority alive? or set their churches on fire? or burned their babies? or skinned anyone alive?

Fact is, Pakistan has more violence stemming from political dissension and intolerance than they have from maulvis and the likes. Intolerance does not readily spell ‘religion’ as the media has made people subliminally believe, but today, the biggest sponsors of intolerance and bigotry are the liberal extremists themselves, who freely attack issues and personalities that Muslims hold dear, under the farce of democracy and freedom of speech. In a country of nearly 160 million Muslims, it is unfeasible, not to mention impractical, to promote a secular society. Such actions can only result in further polarizing the Pakistanis and give rise to further cause of dissension. The wisest course of action naturally dictates that politicians, NGOs, HRW groups, liberals, journalists instead focus their intellect and energies into making a stronger and more adhesive state. Instead of inciting hatred and intolerance towards the religious sector, these factions should work on building bridges, and solving the racial and political issues stigmatizing Pakistan as a violence-infested state. Pakistan is more threatened by ethnic violence, nationalists, politicians, greed, corruption, fedualism, tribalism etc. than it is by any other issue.

Robert Fisk: Madness is Not The Reason For This Massacre

Letter to Editor

Thursday, 29 March 2012 22:23

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

I’m getting a bit tired of the “deranged” soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was “deranged”. Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly “deranged” in Kandahar province.

“Apparently deranged”, “probably deranged”, journalists announced, a soldier who “might have suffered some kind of breakdown” (The Guardian), a “rogue US soldier” (Financial Times) whose “rampage” (The New York Times) was “doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness” (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn’t kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?

The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised – censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn’t forget – and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army’s top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of Allen’s words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.

Allen told his men that “now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday’s riots”. They should, he said, “resist whatever urge they might have to strike back” after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. “There will be moments like this when you’re searching for the meaning of this loss,” Allen continued. “There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are.”

Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to “take vengeance” on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I’ve met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.

Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the “experts” when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the “deranged” bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn’t know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.

We’ve all had our little massacres. There was My Lai, and our very own little My Lai, at a Malayan village called Batang Kali where the Scots Guards – involved in a conflict against ruthless communist insurgents – murdered 24 unarmed rubber workers in 1948. Of course, one can say that the French in Algeria were worse than the Americans in Afghanistan – one French artillery unit is said to have “disappeared” 2,000 Algerians in six months – but that is like saying that we are better than Saddam Hussein. True, but what a baseline for morality. And that’s what it’s about. Discipline. Morality. Courage. The courage not to kill in revenge. But when you are losing a war that you are pretending to win – I am, of course, talking about Afghanistan – I guess that’s too much to hope. General Allen seems to have been wasting his time.

Source:  Independent UK