Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence.

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Santosh Bhatt's Blog

It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908.

At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £ 3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion,

Gandhi made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.

A few days later, on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhi’s house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks.

They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhi’s life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims.

An example would help the reader to understand the matter. On 23rd December 1926, a Muslim assassin called Abdul Rashid stabbed Swami Shraddhananda to death, when the swami was ill and lying on his bed. The reader may recall that Swami Shraddhananda was a pracharak (whole time worker) of Arya Samaj and he started a Suddhai Yajna to bring the converted Muslims of this country back to Hinduism.

But his activity was detested by the Muslims. A couple of months earlier a Muslim woman came to the Swami and expressed her desire to return to Hinduism with her children. However her husband brought an allegation of abduction in the court of law against the Swami. But the court quashed the allegation and set the Swami free. The incident turned the Muslims extremely furious and within a few days Abdul Rashid assassinated him.

After a few days of this incident, Gandhi went to Gauhati to deliver his speech at the national conference of Indian National Congress. The atmosphere was depressed and gloomy due to unusual death of Shraddhananda.

But Gandhi made everyone dumbfounded and began his speech by addressing the assassin Abdul Rashid as “Bhai Abdul Rashid”. Without caring for the reaction of the listeners, he continued, “Now you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother,

and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another.” Thus he indirectly held Swami Shraddhananda responsible for his murder, as he was propagating hatred through his Suddhi Yajna.

Moreover, he wrote in the obituary note, “He (the Swami) lived a hero. He died a hero.” In other words, if a Hindu falls victim to the knife of a Muslim’s assassin, Hindus should consider it a heroic death.

It should be pointed out here that the said policy of Muslim appeasement originated by Gandhi, under the garb of (pseudo) secularism was responsible for the Partition of the country in 1947. Many of our countrymen, still today, firmly believe that Gandhi was against partition as in the public meetings, he used to say, “Vivisect me, before you vivisect India”.

When he was saying this in public meetings, he was expressing just the opposite view through his writings. The reader may recall that, on March 26, 1940, the leaders of the Muslim League raised the issue of creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for them. Hardly a couple of weeks later, supporting demand, Gandhi wrote, “Like other group of people in this country, Muslims also have the right of self determination.

We are living here as a joint family and hence any member has the right to get separated.” (Harijan, April 6, 1940). A couple of years later, he also wrote, “If majority of the Muslims of this country maintain that they are a different nation and there is nothing common with the Hindus and other communities, there is no force on the earth that can alter their view. And if on that basis, they demand partition that must be carried out. If Hindus dislike it, they may oppose it”, (Harijan, April 18, 1942).

The reader should also recall that the Congress Working Committee, in its session on June 12, 1947, decided to place the partition issue to be placed before the All India Congress Committee (AICC) for a debate and the AICC approved the issue in its session held on June 14-15, 1947.

In the beginning of the debate, veteran Congress leaders like Purusottamdas Tandon, Govindaballav Panth, Chaitram Gidwani and Dr S Kichlu etc. placed their very convincing speeches against the motiom. Then Gandhi, setting aside all other speakers, spoke for 45 minutes supporting partition. The main theme of his deliberation was that, if Congress did not accept partition (1) other group of people or leaders would avail the opportunity and throw the Congress out of power and (2) a chaotic situation would prevail throughout the country. Many believe that, in the name of ‘chaotic condition’, he tacitly asked the Muslims to begin countrywide communal riot, if the Congress did not accept the partition. Till then, Sardar Ballavbhat Patel was on the fence regarding the partition. But Gandhi’s speech turned him into a firm supporter of partition and he influenced other confused members to support the issue. In this way, Congress approved the partition issue (History of Freedom Movement in India, R C Majumdar, Vol-III, p-670).

It may appear to many that, up to partition, Gandhi’s policy of nonviolence and Muslim appeasement in the name of secularism indeed harmed the country a lot. But a close look will reveal, it has done severe damage even after partition, or to speak the truth, it is causing serious damage even today. During independence, the Muslim population in undivided India was 23 per cent and this 23 per cent Muslims, got 32 per cent land area as Pakistan. The most appropriate step after partition was to carry out population transfer, or send the entire Muslim population of the divided India to Pakistan and bring all Hindus from Pakistan to India. This population transfer was included in the proposal for Pakistan by the Muslim League and after communal riot in Bihar, M A Jinnah requested the Government of India to carry out population transfer as early as possible. But Gandhi was hell bent not to undertake out the process and said that it was an impractical and fictitious proposal.

Mount Batten, the then Governor General of India, was a staunch supporter of the said population exchange and advised Jawaharlal Nehru to do the same without delay. But Nehru submitted to the will of Gandhi and refrained from doing so. It is needless to say that, from the practical point of view, the said population exchange was urgently necessary and had it been carried out at that time, many problems of today would not have arisen. But due to the policy of Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, Muslims happily stayed back in this country, while Hindus had no alternative but to come to India as refugees or penniless beggars.

Many of us perhaps do not know that due to strong opposition by Gandhi, “Bande Mataram” could not be accepted as the National Anthem” of this country. In his early life, Gandhi had a great affinity for the song and while he was in South Africa, he wrote “It is nobler in sentiment and sweeter than the songs of other nations. While other anthems contain sentiments that are derogatory to others, Bande Mataram is quite free from such faults. Its only aim is to arouse in us a sense of patriotism. It regards India as the mother and sings her praise.” But later on when he could discover that the Muslims dislike the song, he at once stopped singing or reciting the same at public places. Hence ultimately the “Jana Mana Gana” was selected as the National Anthem. During the debate over the matter in the Constituent Assembly, Nehru argued that Bande Mataram is not suitable to sing along with military band while Jana Gana Mana is free from this difficulty.

In the present context, it should also be pointed out that Gandhi was not pleased with Tri Color, the National Flag of today’s India because the Muslims disliked the same. In this regard, Sri Nathuram Godse has narrated an incident in his “Why I Assassinated Gandhi”, which deserves to be noted in this context. During his Noakhali tour in 1946, a Congress worker put a tricolor over the temporary house where Gandhi was staying. One day an ordinary Muslim passer by objected to it and Gandhi immediately ordered his men to bring flag down. So, to please an ordinary Muslim, Gandhi did not hesitate to disgrace and dishonor the flag revered by millions of Congress workers. (pp-75-76). It should also be pointed out here that in his early life, Gahdhi was very fond of the Hindi language and used to say that it was the only language having the potentiality to play the role of the national language. But to please the Muslim, he, later on tried his best to make Urdu, under the garb of Hindustani, the National Language of India. (Koenrad Elst, Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, p – 89).

A few months before the partition, when Hindu and Sikh refugees started to come from West Punjab in droves and crowding the refugee camps of Delhi, one day Gandhi visited a refugee camp and said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo their (Hindus’) existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely. … We are destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it?” (speech delivered on April 6, 1947

In a similar occasion he said, “The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who called upon me, asked me, “What about those who still remain in Pakistan?” I asked, why they all came here (Delhi)? Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief that we should stick to the place where we happen to live, even if we are cruelly treated, and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue.” He also said, “Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody? You should realize that even if they are killed, they have had a good and proper end” (speech delivered on November 23, 1947)

In this context, Gandhi also said, “If those killed have died bravely, they have not lost anything but earned something. … They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers.” (Shri Nathuram Godse, Why I Assassinated Gandhi, p-92,93; as quoted by Koenrad Elst in Gandhi versus Godse, Voice of India, p-121). In another occasion when he was talking to a group of refugees, said, “If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing (a single Muslim), Punjab will be immortal. Offer yourselves as nonviolent willing sacrifices.” (Collins and Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, p-385). There is no doubt that if someone reads all these utterances of Gandhi, he would take him either a fool or a lunatic, but we are worshiping him as a Mahatma or a Great Soul.

Gandhi believed that Muslims were brothers of the Hindus and hence they should never take arms or wage a war against the Muslims. He used to say that the foreign policy of independent India should always be respectful to Islam and the Muslims. Moreover, independent India should never invade a Muslim country like Arabia, Turkey etc. Gandhi also said that Rana Pratap, Guru Govinda Singh, Raja Ranjit Singh and Raja Shivaji were misguided patriots because they fought war with the Muslims. In his eyes Goerge Washington, Garibaldi, Kamal Pasha, D Valera, Lenin etc. were misguided patriots as they encouraged violence.

Gandhi’s utterances painting respected Hindu heroes as misguided patriots aroused widespread commotion among the Hindus. Most importantly, calling Raja Shivaji a misguided patriots put entire Maharastra on boil. Later on, Nehru could pacify their anger partially by begging apology on behalf of Gandhi.

The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrific their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.

Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that “He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister” (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).

From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said “Gandhi was really a Mohammedan” (D Keer, ibid, p-237)

Jehadi group’s trademark gets stolen Abdullah Khan

Lashkar-e-Tayyaba’s trademark has been stolen, and the irony is that the stolen trademark is now being used against Lashkar’s own support base. The recent attack on the Manawan Police Training School Lahore, after the previous attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in the same city, is the latest example of this peculiar development. India has been facing such attacks, usually referred to as ‘fidayeen attacks’, since 1999.

This terminology was also used by the Indian media in their news coverage immediately after the Mumbai attacks with headlines such as, ‘Mumbai under Fidayeen attack’. Although Lashkar-e-Taiba had denied involvement in these attacks, yet Indian, British, and Pakistani intelligence still hold this group, which is active in Kashmir against Indian occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, responsible for the Mumbai events in the light of their own investigations. Pakistan has taken more than half a dozen Lashkar commanders into custody, including Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, who is one of the four leaders on whom the United Nations had enforced sanctions on December 10, 2008, and had frozen their assets. Lashkar-e-Taiba had introduced the tactic of fidayeen attacks back in 1999 when the then prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, had announced the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and Kashmiri fighters from the mountains of Kargil in his Washington Declaration, which they captured in the winter of that year, and where a fierce and bloody battle had been fought in the months of May and June. During this battle, Pakistani forces had shot down two Indian war planes and had even captured the pilot of one of the aircrafts. The Indian army had faced such huge loss of life in this battle that it had had to hand out contracts to private firms for the mass manufacture of coffins for transportation of its dead soldiers from the frontlines. Corruption is rife to such an extent in India’s armed forces and its Ministry of Defense that kickbacks and commissions of millions of rupees were paid and received for the manufacture of these coffins. An inquiry was also initiated later regarding this sordid affair, but that is not what I am writing about today, although I do intend to write in detail about the widespread corruption in the Indian armed forces at some later date.

Lashkar-e-Taiba’s leadership had warned the then prime minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, through a press statement that ‘the second round of jihad had now begun’, which had meant that India should now expect fidayeen attacks on Indian forces in Kashmir. In the fidayeen style of attack anywhere from two to ten, or sometimes even more heavily armed fighters make a commando-style entry into the target facility and try their best to inflict heavy losses. If they achieve their desired goal, they try to escape from the location; otherwise they fight until death instead of surrendering. According to a report of the Indian Express which was published after the Mumbai events, the first fidayeen attack occurred at the Battalion Headquarters of the Indian BSF (Border Security Force) in Bandipora, in which three attackers had caused havoc at the BSF Headquarters.

Activities and operations of Indian forces deployed in the Kashmir valley are controlled from the headquarters of the 15 Corps which is located in the Badami Bagh area of Srinagar. But although this location is considered to be the safest place in terms of security for the Indian forces in Occupied Kashmir, yet three fidayeen of Lashkar-e-Taiba attacked this secure headquarters site on November 3, 1999, dressed in the uniforms of Indian troops and were able to infiltrate and mix with other soldiers by taking advantage of the pandemonium and confusion. These fidayeen were so daring and bold that they made their way to the office of the spokesman of the Indian forces, Maj. Parshotam, in the commotion and killed him, and then audaciously used his telephone to call the British news organization, the BBC, to accept responsibility for the attack. Moreover, two of the attackers were able to escape the premises in an Indian forces vehicle, while only one of them was killed. The success of this type of daring attacks raised the morale of this group tremendously with the result that in the year 2000, some attackers of this group left Kashmir and not only attacked the Red Fort based Indian army barracks in the heart of the Indian capital, New Delhi, but also defiantly accepted responsibility for the said attack. A Pakistani citizen, Muhammad Ashfaq, faces the death sentence in India for his involvement in this attack and his case is pending hearing in the Indian Supreme Court. Fidayeen attacks were therefore considered to be a hallmark of Lashkar-e-Taiba in the subcontinent, while other militant groups in the area also began copying Palestinian and Tamil militants and used suicide attacks as a tactic quite successfully in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lashkar, however, instead of moving towards suicide attacks, maintained its distinctive style of fidayeen attacks and with time, tried to perfect this technique further. Even though India blames the suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul on Lashkar, yet if one accepts this as truth, even then it would be a rare incident in Lashkar’s history of resistance.

American intelligence officials and experts on militancy had expressed fears after the Mumbai attacks that other militant groups, including Al Qaeda, may try to mimic this style of attack and those misgivings have turned out to be entirely true. Yet ironically, instead of India or America becoming a victim of this style of attack, as had been expected, the Pakistani province of Punjab and its capital, Lahore; considered to be the nexus of Lashkar sympathizers, has itself fallen prey to this particular style of attacks. The leadership of this group therefore, which had announced numerous times in the past that it will never carry out any militant activities on Pakistani soil, is deeply embarrassed and completely flabbergasted, to say the least, at this bizarre development, because after every attack which uses the Lashkar trademark style, the finger is immediately pointed toward this group due to its previous use of this style outside Pakistani soil. This group, which has enjoyed popular public support in Punjab, is extremely worried, understandably, under these circumstances, that if such attacks continue and its name keeps getting mentioned, it could turn out to be fatal for its popularity among the Pakistani populace.

What is interesting is that this group can neither register a case against the theft of its trademark in any court of law, nor can it have a notice issued to the stealers of its trademark under the Copyright Act.

—The writer is an expert on regional security issues and Indo-Pakistan relations.

A novel way to tackle Pakistan

COMMENT By Sreeram Chaulia

A new study entitled "World at Risk" by a bipartisan American Congressional commission reveals that if one were to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) today, then "all roads would intersect in Pakistan". It warns that the next attacks on America might originate from Pakistan and urges the US president to take steps on a priority basis "securing" Islamabad's biological and nuclear weapons. Paraphrasing the report, the New Yorker magazine commented that Pakistan as a "nation itself is a kind of WMD".

Coming on the heels of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, which were planned and organized by Pakistani fundamentalists, the American warnings reflect a major dilemma facing international
policymakers - how to make the world safe from Pakistan? The nature and extent of this challenge has been summed up by former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, "Pakistan has everything that gives you an international migraine. It has nuclear weapons, it has terrorism, extremists, corruption [and is] very poor ... "

What options does the world have to counter the multiple threats to international security and peace being posed by a dysfunctional and dangerously adrift country? Should a country that is itself a WMD be allowed to possess actual WMDs, which are not only liable to fall into the "wrong" hands but also be used by the "right" hands for emotional blackmail?

Irfan Hussain, a leading Pakistani newspaper columnist, recently bemoaned that "Pakistan was the only country in the world that negotiates with a gun to its own head. Our argument goes something like this: If you don't give us what we need, the government will collapse and this might result in anarchy, and a takeover by Islamic militants. Left unstated here is the global risk these elements would pose as they would have access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal." A state which threatens to explode and destroy everyone else on the planet unless it is pampered is akin to a suicide bomber whose message to his enemies is to change their policies "or else".

The issue to ponder for world leaders is whether an "international migraine" and "suicidal" state should be allowed to possess WMDs or, for that matter, be self-governing? Sovereignty, as an organizing principle of world affairs, is not merely a bestower of rights but also comes with certain responsibilities towards one's own people and to other sovereign countries. Pakistan's track record is one of waving the red flag and screaming SOS to assert its rights as a sovereign country, without fulfilling the corollary obligations.

While many developing countries may have failed to live up to the expectations of their populations to improve living standards and governance, Pakistan has the extra cachet of exporting terrorism and extremist religious values to other countries. The controversial call for "international humanitarian intervention" over the failure of a state to protect its own people from grave human rights abuses is premised on what is happening within a country. To be fair, Pakistan has not fared worse than many other developing countries on domestic human development indices. Albright's mention of corruption and poverty as causes for concern about Pakistan is not relevant as these are not unique failings.

What stands Pakistan apart, though, is its ability to breed terrorism, extremist ideology and nuclear fecklessness and project these outwards at the rest of the world. The correct international response to this should not a "humanitarian intervention" but one based on global collective will, represented by the United Nations. Given the sui generis mixture of threats presented by Pakistan, an equally novel response is warranted. Since Pakistani sovereignty has been misused to impair the sovereignty of its neighbors - Afghanistan to the west and India on the east - the first strategy of an international collective will should be to circumscribe the country's sovereignty and place it under custodianship.

After World War I, when a transfer of colonies occurred between the losing German and Turkish empires to the victorious European ones, a mechanism called "mandate" was introduced at the League of Nations. Mandated territories were deemed unfit for self-rule by the victors of the war and taken over as de facto colonies "until such time as they are able to stand alone". After World War II, successors of the League mandates were rechristened "Trust Territories" and passed on to the UN to be "prepared for independence and majority rule".

Although mandates were thinly disguised veneers for colonial aggrandizement, they contain the germs of an idea for application to the now universally acknowledged "Pakistan problem". Both mandates and trusts were believed by practitioners at the time to be temporary waiting phases before a land could earn the spurs of a fully sovereign state. Although the judgement of whether these wards had the attributes of sovereign states was left to imperialist calculations, the notion that an international legal agreement could decide when and whether a country should be allowed to be sovereign is informative.

For Pakistan to be rid of its WMDs, hate preachers, terrorists and their infrastructure, only a handover of its sovereignty to a UN-designated custodian authority will be effective. Since sovereignty is closely associated with nationalism, such a grand experiment will undoubtedly meet fierce resistance within the Pakistani establishment and society. But there is no other way for the country's Augean Stables to be cleaned. Washington's pressure and protestations from Kabul or New Delhi have come and gone in vain for years without any concrete change in Pakistan's behavior.
A spell of international custodianship over Pakistan is the only feasible means for long-term transformation of the sub-continent's problem child. Those representatives of the Pakistani state who wish to strengthen moderation will benefit from a handover of sovereignty to the UN because the move promises to enhance civilian power and demilitarize policymaking. For Pakistani civil society, which has been struggling to counter what Harvard University professor Jessica Stern called the "jihad culture", a decade or so of international custodianship would open the space needed to rebuild the country with the cement of civic consciousness and religious tolerance. Pakistani activists should welcome coming under a UN trust and ally with like-minded forces pressing for this solution.

Besides Pakistani nationalism, an international campaign to bring the country under UN custodianship is bound to run into two stumbling blocks. The 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is likely to vote as a bloc in the UN General Assembly to stymie efforts to constrict the foreign and domestic powers of one of its members. Pakistan is no ordinary member of the OIC because of its possession of the so-called "Islamic bomb" and losing a nuclear-armed Muslim power will rankle with the OIC.
The other hurdle is China, for which the temporary loss of Pakistan's sovereignty will be a big blow to its strategic vision of dominating Asia by tying down India. The Chinese veto has been used sparingly in the UN Security Council, but it will definitely come down with a thump on the table if Pakistan is proposed to be delivered to international custodianship.

Can the OIC and China be convinced by a determined international movement to vest Pakistan's sovereignty in the UN's trust? Can Pakistan as a nation come around to accepting this bitter medicine as a necessary prelude to renaissance? These questions need to be answered soon for the sake of world peace. The longer the delay in legal takeover of Pakistan, the greater the chances are that the "WMD nation" will explode.

Sreeram Chaulia is a researcher on international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs in Syracuse, New York.

"Throw the bat and seize the sword and instead of hitting six or four, cut the throats of the Hindus and the Jews"--Jihadis motivate Pakistanis

Days before the terror attack in Lahore, the powerful pro-Taliban cleric Sufi Mohammad lashed out at cricket, describing it as a distraction that needed to be curbed.

Tuesday’s attack likely had little to do with cricket or Sri Lanka. Its purpose was to demonstrate to the Pakistani state and civil society the costs of confronting the increasingly-powerful jihadist groups.

But the attack focusses attention on one of the more peculiar preoccupations of the jihadist movement in Pakistan: a loathing of cricket, which elements of the religious right claim is part of a plot to destroy Islam.

In the wake of the 2004 India-Pakistan cricket series, which generated enormous popular goodwill in both countries, the Lashkar-e-Taiba magazine Zarb-e-Taiba set about explaining that the sport was objectionable. The British, Zarb-e-Taiba argued in its April 2004 edition, gave Muslims the bat, snatched the sword and said to them: “You take this bat and play cricket. Give us your sword. With its help we will kill you and rape your women.”

It is sad, the magazine caustically noted, that Pakistanis are committing suicide after losing cricket matches to India. But they are not sacrificing their lives to protect the honour of the raped Kashmiri women. “To watch a cricket match, we would take a day-off from work. But for jihad, we have no time!”

By contrast, Zarb-e-Taiba pointed to the case of the Islamists’ arch-foe Israel. Israel, it observed, is a very tiny country. “[But] It does not play cricket. Therefore, it is progressing. We should throw the bat and seize the sword and instead of hitting six or four, cut the throats of the Hindus and the Jews.”

Zarb-e-Taiba sternly added that the sports of a mujahid are archery, horse-riding and swimming. Apart from these sports, every hobby is un-Islamic. The above are not just sports but exercises for jihad. Cricket is an evil and sinful sport. “Under the intoxication of cricket, Pakistanis have forgotten that these Hindu players come from the same nation that had raped our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives and daughters-in-law.”

Islamists have often found occasion to rail against cricket in the years since that article appeared. Last year, the weekly al-Qalam attacked Pakistan’s plans to reform the madrasa programme which, among other things, envisaged the initiation of an inter-seminary cricket tournament. It described the proposed tournament as evil. “We, the ulema of the Deoband school will have nothing to do with this tournament,” al-Qalam’s editors asserted in the April 17, 2008, issue.

The West, al-Qalam went on, is promoting obscenity in Pakistan by promoting sports among girls’ educational institutions. “It is a matter of shame for us that our daughters are playing cricket, hockey, football, and so on. The conspiracy is to change madrasas into regular schools and colleges. These conspiracies have been hatched by the enemies of Islam.”

Many seminaries claiming to adhere to the Deoband school of theology prohibit their students from playing cricket, as well as a welter of other sports. Others only forbid girl students from engaging in sporting pursuits.

Pro-cricket Islamists

Most Islamists, though, have embraced cricket and the nationalist fervour which goes with it. Jamaat-e-Islami politician Qazi Husain Ahmed, for example, is an ardent supporter of the game or so his party’s press releases suggest.

In the wake of a Pakistani victory in a one-day match in New Delhi, for example, the Jamaat-e-Islami leader said the nation is standing in pride on this grand victory [sic].

However, Ahmed warned that General Pervez Musharraf (then President) could use the popular euphoria generated by the victory to slip from the principled national stance on Kashmir. He expressed fear that the General might give in on the Kashmir issue to save New Delhi from the humiliation of defeat in cricket.

During its years in power, Afghanistan’s Taliban regime also embraced cricket although subject to rules which forbade the crowd from cheering and competitors from sporting short-sleeved shirts (women were barred from either playing or watching the game). In May 2001, an Afghan team toured Pakistan; the Taliban later unsuccessfully applied for membership of the International Cricket Council.

Indeed, Pakistan’s jihadists are known to have several ardent cricket fans in their ranks. Hafiz Mohammad Younus, a Dera Ghazi Khan resident who was killed while he was staging an attack on the Islamabad airport in 2007, was reported to have been an enthusiast.

Terrorists push Pakistan to breaking point

PAKISTAN is a country in chaos. The extremist threat is growing, the grip of the fragile democratic government loosening, and the economy is in tatters. The army — a nest of nationalist suspicion over the aims of nuclear rival India — is severely compromised. There are very real worries the country could soon collapse.

This attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore is the latest marker of Pakistan's downward spiral.

Like the bomb that flattened the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September, or the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the year before, yesterday's strike is a clear sign that Pakistan is the world's most dangerous hot spot. But the tangle of problems inside Pakistan has an enormous impact on the wider region — indeed, the world.

The rampage in India's commercial capital, Mumbai, in November was blamed on militants abetted from across the border. The terrorist cell that struck London's transport network in 2005 trained in Pakistan — and the Taliban in Afghanistan have carved out a haven in Pakistan's restive tribal lands.

Finding the culprit behind yesterday's attack is no easy task. With so many conflicts swirling around both the targets and the location, the accusations will be fierce.

Suspicion will naturally fall on the Tamil Tigers, fighting for an independent homeland in Sri Lanka but facing annihilation after recent military setbacks.

It would be an act of extreme desperation for the Tigers to attack the national team, let alone in Pakistan, said to be a source of arms for the rebel movement. Nor have the Tigers typically carried out attacks abroad, barring the 1991 assassination of former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Others will reach into Pakistan's murky political scene to find blame, pointing the finger at supporters of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's former prime minister. Lahore is a Sharif stronghold, and only last week he was again banned from holding office. Sharif blames the ruling on President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Bhutto and a bitter political rival.

The spectre of Lashkar-e-Taiba — the most notorious Islamist group in the region and blamed for the shootings in Mumbai — will also hang in the air. But most likely, the so-called Pakistan Taliban will be the focus of concern.

The malignant spread of this extremist movement is the greatest threat to Pakistan's stability. It springs from capricious efforts over decades by hardliners in the Pakistan military to exploit Islamist ideology to fight proxy wars, against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir or in an attempt to control Afghanistan.

Now the extremists have turned against the Government in Islamabad.

Sensitivity over US missile attacks against suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda hide-outs in the border lands near Afghanistan fuels their rage.

The Pakistan Taliban are not yet a co-ordinated movement guided by a single objective, but they will attack when and where the opportunity presents.

Claude Rakisits is an Australian-born security specialist based in Geneva who has spent the past fortnight in Pakistan talking with officials and academics. He has watched Pakistan over many years, and says there is now a real sense of political crisis in the country. "All these attacks also confirm that the Pakistan security apparatus is not managing to deal effectively with the security situation," Mr Rakisits says.

"The aim of the Taliban militants is to destabilise the Pakistani state. Unfortunately, they are being assisted indirectly by the politicians who are too busy fighting among each other."

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith last week called Pakistan one of the most strategically important countries in the world. He is right. But the world needs to appreciate that Pakistan is a country perilously close to breaking down.

Islamic Terrorists unite under Taliban to fight US forces

Three rival Pakistani Taliban groups have agreed to form a united front against international forces in Afghanistan in a move likely to intensify the insurgency just as thousands of extra US soldiers begin pouring into the country as part of Barack Obama's surge plan.

The Guardian has learned that three of the most powerful warlords in the region have settled their differences and come together under a grouping calling itself Shura Ittihad-ul-Mujahideen, or Council of United Holy Warriors.

Nato officers fear that the new extremist partnership in Waziristan,Pakistan's tribal area, will significantly increase the cross-border influx of fighters and suicide bombers - a move that could undermine the US president's Afghanistan strategy before it is formulated.

The unity among the militants comes after a call by Mullah Omar, the cleric who leads the Afghan Taliban, telling Pakistani militants to stop fighting at home in order to join the battle to "liberate Afghanistan from the occupation forces".

The Pakistani Taliban movement was split between a powerful group led by the warlord Baitullah Mehsud and his bitter rivals, Maulvi Nazir and Gul Bahadur. While Mehsud has targeted Pakistan itself in a campaign of violence and is accused of being behind the assassination of the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, Nazir and Bahadur sent men to fight alongside other insurgents in Afghanistan.

The move potentially provides short-term relief in Pakistan but imperils Nato forces, especially those stationed in southern and eastern Afghanistan, including the British, close to the Pakistani border.

"It's of concern to us when we see a grouping like that," said a western security official in Pakistan. "This can't be ignored."

Fears of an increase in fighting come as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned yesterday that civilians would face the brunt of any increase in violence in Afghanistan. Ordinary Afghans were now more at risk from the fighting than at any time since the start of the war in 2001, said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the ICRC.

Violence in Afghanistan intensified last year with some 5,000 people killed, including more than 2,100 civilians, a 40% increase on the previous year, the UN reported last month.

Pakistan was already under intense western pressure to act against extremists based in its tribal area. A western military adviser, also based in Pakistan, said a Pakistani Taliban alliance would cement the grip of the militants over Waziristan. The region is also home to Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida, who use Waziristan and other parts of the tribal area as a haven to regroup and launch attacks against Afghan and Nato forces.

"No insurgency has ever been destroyed as long as the sanctuaries are still alive. If the sanctuaries are gaining more strength, that certainly worries Nato," said the military adviser.

The Obama administration in Washington has announced 17,000 extra troops for Afghanistan. American forces will concentrate on areas close to the Pakistani border, which are seen as the most troublesome. Obama is pressing European countries to also boost their troop numbers.

In an apparent response to the augmented US challenge, Mullah Omar has directed Pakistani militants in Waziristan to halt attacks on Pakistani forces.Baitullah Mehsud is feared in Pakistan, having led an assault on his own country since 2007, killing hundreds of soldiers, policemen and ordinary Pakistanis through suicide attacks and other bombings. But his tactics, influenced by al-Qaida, were controversial even within the Taliban.

"If anybody really wants to wage jihad, he must fight the occupation forces inside Afghanistan," Mullah Omar told Pakistani militants in a letter. "Attacks on the Pakistani security forces and killing of fellow Muslims by the militants in the tribal areas and elsewhere in Pakistan is bringing a bad name to mujahideen and harming the war against the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan."

The Pakistani Taliban recognise Mullah Omar, founder of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, as their ultimate leader, although operationally they work independently.

"Baitullah Mehsud is now taking on the Americans," said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general turned analyst. Baitullah Mehsud has recently called off his fighters in two key battles inside Pakistan, with ceasefires declared in Swat valley, in the North West Frontier Province, and Bajaur, another tribal area. While Pakistani forces claim to have "won" in Bajaur, they show no appetite for taking the war to Waziristan.

Controversially, the Pakistani government has acceded to the militants' demand for Islamic law in Swat. Under two secret peace deals signed by Pakistani authorities with the militants last year, covering north and south Waziristan, a truce exists there.

While western countries want to see the Pakistani army take the fight to Waziristan, Pakistani forces have been repeatedly defeated there. Major General Athar Abbas, chief spokesman for the Pakistan army, said that there was "no plan" to start operations in Waziristan. "It's the government that decides these things," he added.

To stem terror in Pakistan, US looks beyond military

Washington is seeking to build the Pakistani state and its economy as a way to wean the country from Islamic extremism.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 2, 2009 edition

• E-mail a friend
• Print this
• Letter to the Editor
• Republish
• ShareThis
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS

Reporter Howard LaFranchi discusses how the US might be able to leverage financial aid to Pakistan into better results on the ground in the war against the Taliban.

Washington - In an admission that its dependence on the Pakistani military has yielded few results against the Taliban, the United States is now seeking to change its relationship with Pakistan – the world's sole Muslim nuclear power and home of Al Qaeda's leadership.

President Barack Obama's first budget, released last week, proposes significant increases in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. In addition, two influential senators are expected to file legislation in the coming days that would triple nonmilitary US aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year and include $5 billion to stave off an imminent economic crisis.

The shift is part of an increasing awareness within the Beltway of Pakistan's precarious position – beset by economic collapse, political weakness, and a spreading insurgency – and that more than military operations will be needed to build a stable state capable of beating back Islamic extremism in the long term.

"If we fail, we face a truly frightening prospect: terrorist sanctuary, economic meltdown, and spiraling radicalism, all in a nation with 170 million inhabitants and a full arsenal of nuclear weapons," said Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts last week, while releasing a report about Pakistan.

Along with Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, Senator Kerry is a key supporter of the expected new legislation on Pakistan. It mirrors a plan that Vice President Joe Biden proposed last year when he was still a senator. Then, as now, it is a thinly veiled criticism of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, which focused aid and relations on ousted military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Pentagon on board

Last week, Pentagon officials emerged from a meeting in Washington with Pakistan's Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani to say they supported a more "comprehensive" strategy for US relations with Pakistan – albeit one that encompassed smarter and more effective military assistance. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded a similar note when she met with Pakistani and Afghan officials last week.

She announced that trilateral US-Afghanistan-Pakistan talks will become a regular feature of the Obama administration's plan for region. It further points to the Obama administration's desire to look beyond the military alone for solutions to the conflict spanning the Afghan-Pakistan border – an area he and others consider the epicenter of global terrorism.

Transforming the US-Pakistani relationship from a personal relationship with a military leader to a long-term relationship with an elected Pakistani government will require patience, says James Dobbins, a South Asia analyst at RAND Corp., a security consultancy in Arlington, Va.

"This transformation won't change the relationship with [Pakistan] as quickly as we'd like," he says. "But both the increase in aid and a new direction are necessary for the stability of Afghanistan and critical for Pakistan itself."

The change in direction comes as the Obama administration gets its first taste of the complexities of Pakistan. The president's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, offered unvarnished words for Pakistan's recent decision to bow to Taliban demands and cede a strategically important swatch of the nation to Islamic law. Mr. Holbrooke said the accord leaves the Swat Valley – not far from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad – in the hands of "murderers, thugs, and militants."

The Swat Valley accord has been met with deep skepticism among analysts, who note that such attempts to win over a moderate part of the militancy by working with it have only given extremists time and space to regroup.

"The history of these deals does not lead to a great deal of optimism," says Shuja Nawaz, director of Atlantic Council's South Asia Center in Washington.

The accord does not mean the Pakistani leadership is giving up the fight, says Mr. Nawaz. It is part of General Kayani's mission to secure better equipment like helicopters, detection devices, and night-vision goggles to take on "the hard-core militants," he adds.

But it does reflect a desire to separate moderate Islamists from the hardened jihadists, Nawaz says.

Pakistan vs. Iraq

The design mirrors counterinsurgency strategy the US employed with the Sunni population as part of the "surge" of troops in Iraq. Despite that basic similarity, however, the differences in the two cases are stark, says Mr. Dobbins, the RAND analyst.

"We never agreed to the application of sharia [Islamic] law in Sunni areas," he says, "and we insisted those areas had to remain integrated into the Iraqi state and under Iraqi law."

Nawaz warns that Pakistan could face economic collapse this year, and he says the kind of emergency financial aid Senator Kerry is proposing is needed fast. But he says that the longer-term need is for broader trade – in textiles, for example – among the US, Europe, and Pakistan. That will create jobs and stabilize Pakistani society, he says. Such a transformation in relations with Pakistan won't be easy, he adds, at a time of rising Western unemployment.

Pakistan's Peril

A deal with the Taliban provides a measure of the challenge facing the Obama administration.

Monday, March 2, 2009; Page A16

EVEN AS the Obama administration races to develop a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, bad news has been pouring in from the region. U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are up sharply so far this year compared with 2008. Pakistan's political system is being pulled apart by conflicts between the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari and rival political movements, even as the economy swoons. But from Washington's point of view, the most alarming development is the Taliban takeover of large stretches of territory in the Swat Valley, less than 100 miles from Islamabad. It's not just that Islamic extremists have succeeded in defeating the Pakistani army's attempts to retake control of the region; it's that government and military leaders are arguing that their best option lies in acquiescence to a cease-fire that ratifies the imposition of sharia law.

In meetings in Washington last week, Pakistan's foreign minister and army commander have been contending that the deal is not as bad as it sounds. The Swat region is distinctive, they say; a mild version of sharia will be applied; extremists who have been beheading local officials and demolishing girls schools will be reined in. More convincingly, they point out that the army has been losing both battles on the ground and hearts and minds across the western part of the country. A truce might be welcomed by the terrorized population of Swat while giving the government time to regroup.

The problem with these arguments is that they are premised on a theory that has been repeatedly disproved by Pakistani truces in other regions. The deals have not succeeded either in preventing the imposition of extreme Taliban-style rule or in separating Pakistani Islamists from the Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda. By agreeing to the Taliban demand for sharia justice, Mr. Zardari's government will be allowing a rupture with the rule of law that could quickly spread to other areas. It could also allow the creation of a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives seeking safety from the U.S. airstrikes that have killed a number of senior operatives in areas closer to Afghanistan.

The Obama administration, which has been publicly skeptical of the Swat accord, faces the daunting challenge of persuading Pakistan's military commanders and civilian leaders to squarely face the Islamic threat. Rhetorically, those leaders say that they know the danger of the Taliban's growing strength; in practice the bulk of Pakistan's army continues to be deployed against India, and little has been done to train or equip it for counterinsurgency.

Yet the United States does have leverage: Pakistani officials have asked for major new infusions of American military and economic aid. The aid should be provided but carefully conditioned on the adoption of a concerted military-political strategy for reasserting government control over the western part of the country and defeating extremist forces. In the meantime, the administration should continue U.S. air attacks on militant leaders. Unfortunately, those strikes are, for now, the only solid blows being dealt to al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.

Why India Can't 'Do A Gaza' On Pakistan...?

Five Reasons Why India Can't 'Do A Gaza' On Pakistan

Tunku Varadarajan, 01.05.09, 12:00 AM EST

Israel has far fewer restrictions.

Over the last week, many Americans (and Indians) have asked me why India does not "do a Gaza" on Pakistan, referring, of course, to an emulation of Israel's punitive use of force against Hamas-run Palestine, a territory from which rockets rain down on Israeli soil with reliable frequency (if not reliable destructiveness ... but that is not for want of Hamas intent).

My answer, given with the heavy heart that comes always with a painful grip on reality, is simple: India does not because it cannot.

Article Controls

EMAIL

PRINT

REPRINT

NEWSLETTER

COMMENTS

SHARE

YAHOO! BUZZ

Here are five reasons why:

1. India is not a military goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel's foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan's trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)

2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for "doing a Gaza" is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force--Hamas--that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can-- and does--contend that Pakistan's government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities-- which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists--would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.

3. As our columnist, Karlyn Bowman, writes Israel enjoys impressive support from the American people, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state--apart, perhaps, from Britain--evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted "Israel lobby" (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast--while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan--enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel's "pull" in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.

4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack--no matter how surgical--by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India--and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a "strategic space," it would--right now--settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts. (Seven U.S. citizens were killed in Mumbai: Under U.S. law, those responsible--and this should include Pakistani intelligence masterminds--have to be brought to justice.)

Comment On This Story

5. My last, and meta-, point: Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations--and pretensions.

Tunku Varadarajan, a professor at the Stern Business School at NYU and research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, is opinions editor at Forbes.com, where he writes a weekly column.

My comments....There is only one reason....Indian leaders are the the biggest IMPOTENTS on this earth.

Pak paying a huge price for US friendship'- Hamid Gul- The Chief Terrorist of ISI

By Fasihur Rehman Khan, Correspondent Published: January 03, 2009, 00:14

Islamabad: The former chief of Pakistan's top spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General (retired) Hamid Gul, believes that the Mumbai attacks are part of a greater conspiracy to discredit the body for being an extension of the Pakistan Army, and eventually the country's nuclear programme by declaring it unsafe. "Eventually they [US and India] are targetting the ISI being an extension of the Army, and once the Army and the ISI are demolished - they already stand discredited in the era of [former president] Musharraf as we are engaged in fighting our own people [in the tribal areas] in someone's else war - then they will reach out to our nuclear capability saying it is not is safe hands. "Our excuse and pretext so far has always been that this [nuclear arsenal] is in safe hands, and what we mean is that there is a strong institution like the Army, and there is a strong protection force like the ISI which takes good care that this [nuclear assets] does not fall in wrong hands," Gul told Gulf News in an exclusive interview at his Rawalipindi residence. "The ultimate goal of the game being played with Pakistan is to declare us an ungovernable state that should not posses the nuclear arsenal. "This scenario will give security to Israel, weaken China, and give relief to India for becoming a dominant power of the region and establish its hegemony. Only Pakistan is holding India from establishing its hegemony in the region," he says. The former master spy has his own thinking on what he terms as a great game being played in this region. "Who is providing security to Nepal and Bangladesh? Amazingly, it is Pakistan. Around 60 per cent of the world's trade passes through the Indian Ocean. The Indians believe they should have hegemony not only over Pakistan but the entire Indian Ocean. That means the Arabs will suffer, Iran will suffer and Gulf oil, bound for China and Japan, will be under the shadow of India's sole nuclear power," he said. Gul says Pakistan provides a balance of power in the region unconventionally. "Conventionally, we can't aim to provide a balance of power. Therefore, it is in the interest of the region and Pakistan that there should be a balance of power between the South Asian neighbours. But Americans and Israel is and hell-bent that India should be given pre-eminence in the region." It was his stint at the helm of ISI that earned Gul fame in and outside Pakistan. He was considered a hawk in uniform, an outspoken supporter of the Afghan mujahideen and Kashmiri militants. An advocate of jihad then, the general remained chief of the most dreaded spy agency of the region from 1987-89. Even after putting away his uniform and living a retired life, he is a vocal supporter of the Taliban resistance against the US occupation in Afghanistan, and Iraqi resistance fighters, on public forums. Once considered a "good friend" of the Americans, he is blamed by Indians and Americans for starting the Kashmir militant struggle in 1989, and for flaming the Khalistan movement in mid-1980s. But it was the abandoning of Afghan mujahideen by the US as soon as the Russians left, that really turned Gul against the Americans who had by then become the sole super power. Till date a section of Pakistani opinion blames Gul and people of his ilk for going too far in weakening the USSR and creating a unipolar world by default. Retired 20 years ago as head of ISI, he still makes headlines in Pakistani and international media. He was recently told by Pakistani officials that the US has put his name on the terror watchlist for being a strategist for the Taliban and Lashkr-e-Taiba, but Gul says he has been threatened to be placed on the sanctions list. President Asif Ali Zardari recently termed him as 'political ideologue of terror", but former spy chief takes it lightly, saying he instead sees himself as a "political ideologue of jihad". The general has a history of bitter relations with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) under the slain Benazir Bhutto during his ISI days largely because the deceased former prime minister believed he was the architect of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) that gave stiff political resistance to Bhutto in the 1988 elections and eventually defeated her in the 1990 elections when former prime minister and her then arch rival Nawaz Sharif became prime minister with the full backing of the military establishment. "What to talk of Zardari sahib...if he had said that I am an ideologue of jihad, then this would have been valid. But when he says that I am an ideologue of terror, then he does not understand this. So one can only forgive him for this." Progressive and secular Pakistanis may hate his political jihadi thoughts, but a sizeable number of right wing elements dominant in the middle and lower middle classes of Pakistani society, praises Gul, and his predecessors like General Akhtar Abdur Rehman, for their services. Analysts believe events like Mumbai and its aftermath reinforces those people who think Pakistan and India cannot co-exist peacefully. "I am a political idealogue of jihad, but that is an injunction from the Quran, it is not my dogma. And it is absolutely in line with Article 3 of the UN Charter that oppressed and enslaved nations have a right to rise in arms," he says. "I support the Afghan jihad in this sense and every Muslim should support it. We don't want to conquer anyone, this is purely self defence. Every human being has been given the right of self-defence by Allah and the UN charter," he says. The general charges that the Zardari-led government has taken over power on the basis of a deal. "Those who think that this PPP government has come on the basis of elections, are simply unaware. "No... it came as a deal which had earlier taken place. and so these people had been handed down an agenda. They are moving in accordance to that agenda. "Zardari has come through a deal, Nawaz Sharif at least didn't strike a deal - it seems so. Americans are still angry with him [Sharif] for conducting the nuclear tests in 1998. They will keep him on ice and when they will think Zardari is failing, they will give Nawaz a chance." Surprisingly, Gul was named in a letter written on October 16, 2008 and sent to the then President Pervez Musharraf by the slain former premier Benazir Bhutto as she feared General Gul was also part of a conspiracy to assassinate her. Two days later, on October 18, on the eve of her return Bhutto narrowly survived a huge bomb attack which killed dozens from amongst thousands of supporters that had gathered in Karachi to greet her return after 10 years in self-imposed exile. ISI and Indian Muslims General Gul says it has been a cardinal principle in ISI and Army not to do anything in India that will flare the passions of militant Hindus against the Muslims. "I left the ISI 20 years ago but I think the principal still stand good. They Indian Muslims are already downtrodden, miserable, living a wretched life. Every now and then, hardline Hindus fall upon them, kill them, massacre them, rape their women, throw their children into fire. We are very sensitive about the Indian Muslims." Asked what should be Pakistan's best course of action in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks, he said: "We have to clean the house from inside, but that does not mean we crackdown only on Lashkar-e-Taiba and call them non-state actors. There are non-state actors like the American CIA operating freely in Pakistan. I don't know what game they are playing. For all you know, they may have used their clout here, trained some people and launched them in Mumbai. The Special Service group, Spider group, India's RAW [Research and Analysis Wing], Israeli Mossad - everybody is playing their games here. We also have Blackwater here to train us. You think they will only train our people or train some people who act on their behalf too. Who has gained from Mumbai aftermath?" ISI and civilian head Commenting on a recent report of a US working group set up by President elect Barak Obama which suggests that ISI should have a civilian head, Gul said when they removed him in 1989 as head of the spy agency and installed Lt Gen Kalu (Shamsur Rehman), they had the same agenda then - ISI had to be clipped, ISI had to be cut to size. "This is because ISI protects Pakistan, protects our nuclear programme, protects many things. Armies fight once in a while but ISI is constantly at work, it is part of our defensive system and when you scuttle the ISI, weaken it, or you confuse its state of mind, then actually your defence system is weakened and that's what they [US and west] are aiming at. "They might say one day that head of the Army should be a civilian because this army is a rogue Army so a civilian should head it. This is a strange demand regarding ISI and I think we are paying a huge price of our friendship with America." Great regional game American neoconservatives, Gul says, believe that India has to be made the bulwark in this area to provide protection to the state of Israel. "That is the role that they have in their mind for India," he says. Pakistan, he acknowledges, cannot match India in conventional weapons. "That why the Americans want our unconventional power to cease to exit. "That's why India, for the first time, has broken its neutrality and inducted 6000 troops into Afghanistan. But America wants more Indian commitment in Afghanistan. This agenda has been set by the neocons and Zionists, that Pakistan must not possess nuclear capability". Obama and Afghanistan Gul thinks the US is undergoing an economic meltdown. "In my assessment, by late 2009, Obama would realise that either he has to abandon his agenda of change or find a way out for disengagement from external commitments [military operations]. Not entirely but partially."

New disclosures link LeT to Mumbai, Pakistan under pressure to act

31 Dec 2008, 2008 hrs IST, IANS

Print   EMail   Discuss  Share  Save  Comment    Single page view Text:

NEW DELHI/CHANDIGARH/ISLAMABAD: With indications that Pakistan may be close to admitting the links of militants operating from its territory to the Mumbai mayhem, India on Wednesday renewed its call to Islamabad to take action against the perpetrators of the carnage.  At the same time, India ruled out a military attack against Pakistan and reaffirmed its policy of using diplomatic channels to get Islamabad to hand over those involved in the terror strikes.  New Delhi's renewed assertion came amid reports that an independent probe by Pakistan's intelligence agencies has revealed “substantial links” between the Mumbai attackers and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned Pakistani terrorist outfit that is suspected of having masterminded the 26/11 carnage.  The US also mounted pressure on Pakistan to prosecute two top LeT leaders, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah, who were said to be in the forefront of hatching the Mumbai conspiracy to destabilize India.  Shah has confessed to his involvement in the Mumbai carnage to Pakistan's intelligence agencies, CNN-IBN news channel said, quoting unnamed sources in the Pakistani prime minister's office.  “The United Nations Security Council has told Pakistan to take firm action against the perpetrators and various terror outfits flourishing there,” Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma told reporters in Chandigarh.  “Under international law, it is obligatory for Pakistan to act accordingly if they are provided with sufficient evidence," Sharma pointed out.  Asked if India is sharing evidence related to the Mumbai attacks with Pakistan, Sharma said: "In the past also we have shared enough evidence with Pakistan, but unfortunately our neighbouring country is living in a state of denial. However, this time also we will share all the evidence with them and see to it that they do the needful."  Responding to a statement by Pakistani National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani Tuesday night in which he did not rule out the possibility of captured terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab being a Pakistani national, Sharma said: "This evidence is adequate to indicate that they are already under pressure. Pakistan had made several assurances to Indian government in the past and now it is high time for them to meet those assurances."  Sharma ruled out any military action against Islamabad and argued that India was a mature democracy and military strikes did not make any sense when diplomatic channels were available to make Pakistan fall in line.  "Answering through military action is not child's play when we are a part of a globalised world. We want to resolve all our differences in a peaceful manner. Nevertheless, our security agencies are capable enough to meet any eventuality," Sharma told reporters here.  "This fact is known to the entire world that Pakistan is supporting terrorists. Therefore, instead of denying, they should take appropriate steps against terrorists and those who provide them financial assistance in their country," Sharma pointed out.  Home Minister P Chidambaram, too, asked Pakistan to act instead of persisting in denial by repeatedly asking India for evidence. Refuting Pakistan's allegations that India had not shared evidence with it on the 26/11 Mumbai mayhem, Chidambaram wondered what more evidence was required after Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab's father had owned up to him on a Pakistani television channel.  “If anyone is in state of denial, then anything we give is denied,” Chidambaram said at a press conference in New Delhi.  Kasab was the lone terrorist to be captured alive by the security agencies during the Nov 26-29 attacks when a group of 10 militants allegedly from Pakistan stormed Mumbai and killed over 170 people. Nine terrorists were gunned down in operations that lasted for over 60 hours.  "The investigations into the Mumbai attack are in progress and are proceeding on right track," Chidamabaram said.  Pressure also mounted on Pakistan to act, with damning disclosures published in a leading US daily that established a link between Pakistani militants and the Mumbai attack.  Zarar Shah, a top LeT leader captured in a raid earlier this month in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, has confessed the group's involvement in the attack as India and the US have alleged, a senior Pakistani security official told the Wall Street Journal.  "He is singing," the WSJ quoted the security official, who declined to be identified, as saying.  “The disclosure could add new international pressure on Pakistan to accept that the attacks...originated within its borders and to prosecute or extradite the suspects,” the daily added.  “That raises difficult and potentially destabilising issues for the country's new civilian government, its military and the spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence - which is conducting interrogations of militants it once cultivated as partners," it added.  The admission, the official said, was backed up by US intercepts of a phone call between Shah and one of the attackers at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel, the site of a 60-hour gunbattle with Indian security forces.  The report comes on the day a Pakistani newspaper said Islamabad was under tremendous US pressure to extradite to India Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks.  "The Americans are believed to have given Pakistan a taped conversation Lakhvi allegedly had with the gunmen involved in the attacks," the Dawn newspaper said in a dispatch from Washington, quoting US and diplomatic sources.  The sources said that American audio experts had checked the tape and concluded that it was genuine and that the speaker was Lakhvi.  Lakhvi and Shah were picked up during a crackdown following the ban imposed by the UN on the Jamat-ud Dawa, as the LeT was renamed after it was banned in the wake of the Dec 13, 2001, attack on the Indian parliament that New Delhi blamed on the militant group. The Pakistani government now says it is unaware of Lakhvi's whereabouts.  According to the WSJ, a second person familiar with the investigation said Shah had implicated other LeT members and had broadly confirmed the story Kasab told to Indian investigators that the 10 assailants trained in Pakistani Kashmir and then went by boat from Karachi to Mumbai.  Islamabad, however, predictably rubbished the report. “No staff of the prime minister secretariat was involved in providing these reports,” the prime minister's office reacted in Islamabad.  The government officials also termed the report as “baseless”.  However, as the year drew to a close, the civilian and military leadership in Pakistan met to discuss Islamabad's options in view of growing international pressure to prosecute the Mumbai attackers.  Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani held important but separate meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani. Kayani also briefed the president on the situation on the western and eastern borders. Home Minister P Chidambaram, too, asked Pakistan to act instead of persisting in denial by repeatedly asking India for evidence. Refuting Pakistan's allegations that India had not shared evidence with it on the 26/11 Mumbai mayhem, Chidambaram wondered what more evidence was required after Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab's father had owned up to him on a Pakistani television channel.  “If anyone is in state of denial, then anything we give is denied,” Chidambaram said at a press conference in New Delhi.  Kasab was the lone terrorist to be captured alive by the security agencies during the Nov 26-29 attacks when a group of 10 militants allegedly from Pakistan stormed Mumbai and killed over 170 people. Nine terrorists were gunned down in operations that lasted for over 60 hours.  "The investigations into the Mumbai attack are in progress and are proceeding on right track," Chidamabaram said.  Pressure also mounted on Pakistan to act, with damning disclosures published in a leading US daily that established a link between Pakistani militants and the Mumbai attack.  Zarar Shah, a top LeT leader captured in a raid earlier this month in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, has confessed the group's involvement in the attack as India and the US have alleged, a senior Pakistani security official told the Wall Street Journal.  "He is singing," the WSJ quoted the security official, who declined to be identified, as saying.  “The disclosure could add new international pressure on Pakistan to accept that the attacks...originated within its borders and to prosecute or extradite the suspects,” the daily added.  “That raises difficult and potentially destabilising issues for the country's new civilian government, its military and the spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence - which is conducting interrogations of militants it once cultivated as partners," it added.  The admission, the official said, was backed up by US intercepts of a phone call between Shah and one of the attackers at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel, the site of a 60-hour gunbattle with Indian security forces.  The report comes on the day a Pakistani newspaper said Islamabad was under tremendous US pressure to extradite to India Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks.  "The Americans are believed to have given Pakistan a taped conversation Lakhvi allegedly had with the gunmen involved in the attacks," the Dawn newspaper said in a dispatch from Washington, quoting US and diplomatic sources.  The sources said that American audio experts had checked the tape and concluded that it was genuine and that the speaker was Lakhvi.  Lakhvi and Shah were picked up during a crackdown following the ban imposed by the UN on the Jamat-ud Dawa, as the LeT was renamed after it was banned in the wake of the Dec 13, 2001, attack on the Indian parliament that New Delhi blamed on the militant group. The Pakistani government now says it is unaware of Lakhvi's whereabouts.  According to the WSJ, a second person familiar with the investigation said Shah had implicated other LeT members and had broadly confirmed the story Kasab told to Indian investigators that the 10 assailants trained in Pakistani Kashmir and then went by boat from Karachi to Mumbai.  Islamabad, however, predictably rubbished the report. “No staff of the prime minister secretariat was involved in providing these reports,” the prime minister's office reacted in Islamabad.  The government officials also termed the report as “baseless”.  However, as the year drew to a close, the civilian and military leadership in Pakistan met to discuss Islamabad's options in view of growing international pressure to prosecute the Mumbai attackers.  Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani held important but separate meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani. Kayani also briefed the president on the situation on the western and eastern borders.