The British Empire of Altaf Hussain–MQM

TERRORISM: Why MQM Terrorist Hajji Jalal killed?

Dec, 2009
Dr Shahid Qureshi


“When Azeem Ahmed Tariq Chainman of the MQM was killed in his house, it was allegedly ‘Syed Mustafa Kamal current ‘mayor’ Nazim of Karachi who opened the door for the killers’.  Azeem Ahemd Tariq use to call him ‘nephew”.

MQM gangster Hajji Jalal murdered on the road in broad day light while Altaf Hussain is in full control of Karachi? Hajji Jalal was in the inner circle of the self exiled British Citizen and London based leader of MQM Altaf Hussain. He was one of the criminals wanted in connection with the torture and kidnapping of Pakistan Army Major Kaleem and his companions.  He was killed with his two sons in suspicious circumstances and we did not see much of Altaf Hussain usual enthusiasm and performance asking for the arrest of the killers. Why no one from MQM higher command in Karachi attended his funeral and his wife allegedly blaming Altaf Hussain for the killing? He was a man with many secrets? Who ordered and benefited from his elimination?
According to news reports published on 9th July 2009, “Hajji Jalal senior member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), two of his sons and a passer-by were shot dead on 8th July 2009, within the limits of Landhi police station. The deceased include MQM leader Hajji Jalal, 60s, his sons Usman Jalal, Abdullah Jalal and a passer-by Adnan Sohail, while the injured were Ahad and Raja who were admitted with critical injuries. Jalal was elected a counsellor of Landhi 4 in 1987, and was a renowned leader of the MQM. Jalal had been detained in Central Jail Karachi for several years in the case of Major Kaleem”.
Altaf Hussain 52nd BdayHe was close ally of the self exiled leader now British asset Altaf Hussain? Then who killed him? Why MQM did not protest as they normally do and no senior leader attended his funeral? He died with lots of secrets with him? Was it an inside job? A source said that when Azeem Ahmed Tariq Chainman of the MQM was killed in his house, it was allegedly ‘Syed Mustafa Kamal current ‘mayor’ Nazim of Karachi who opened the door for the killers’.  Azeem Ahemd Tariq use to call him ‘nephew’. Well there are many mafia style skeletons in the MQM’s closet.
MQM terrorists and criminals who were charged and convicted in Major Kaleem case were Altaf Hussain, Saleem Shahzad, Dr Imran Farooq with Rs 50 Laks head money, Aftab Ahmed, Ashfaq Chief, Javed Kazmi and Hajji Jalal, are reportedly in London and frequently appear on TV screens in the meetings of inner circle of Altaf Hussain. The rest are Yousuf, Nadeem Ayubi, Ayub Shah, Ismail alias Sitara is town nazim in Karachi, Ashraf Zaidi in USA, Sajid Azad, Asghar Chacha Rehan Zaidi and Safdar Baqri.
On 5th February 1998 Advocate-General Shaukat Zubedi asked for a RE-TRIAL before a competent court, but the court didn’t agree with his contention and acquitted the appellants. Sind High Court acquitted them because the prosecution seemingly did not peruse the matter. Well if prosecution don’t persue the case under ‘political pressures’, defence is going to win but that does not mean justice has been done.
The incident happened on June 20, 1991 and the FIR of the incident was lodged on June 24. The accused in the case had been charged with kidnapping the army officers and torturing them. Trial before STA Court No. 3, began before judge Ghazanfar Ali Shah in March 1993 and the judgment was delivered on June 9, 1994 when Altaf Hussain was in London and not in Pakistan.
Major Kaleem and three other Pakistan Army officers were patrolling the Landhi area in civilian clothes in an army jeep when about 20-armed terrorists took them hostage after seizing their weapons. The army men were taken to a place called White House in Landhi a torture cell where they were allegedly tortured and kept for seven hours. They were rescued when the police reached the place.
It was Altaf Hussain and MQM who issued a memo to his workers saying,” if there was war between Indian and Pakistan, MQM workers will be remain neutral”. Why Altaf Hussain did issueKilled by MQM such treacherous instructions? Whose side is he on? He has already chosen to be a British Citizen.
A senior analyst said, “Altaf Hussian of MQM is becoming a headache for the British Government. His so-called International Secretariat in London is centre of criminal activities. Police would be interested to know who is funding this secretariat and are there any mafia links? Altaf and his cronies allegedly own quite a few properties in London worth millions. Well then what is Serious Fraud Office in Scotland Yard doing about it as it was reported in a London weekly newspaper? Well for Serious Fraud Office properties are allegedly worth Millions and there is no reason for SFO not to investigate if they are not doing already?” A senior British parliamentarian said to me, “I am living here for many decades and I cannot afford these kinds of properties”.
Some one said, ‘in an ideal situation if British Government treat MQM and its leader by law without protecting with legal loopholes, like every one else and not as an ‘asset’, the whole so called Mafia den would be closed down in minutes?  Surely security services and GCHQ have records of all the coded communications, speeches?
It seems Altaf Hussain soon will be questioned in local police station under caution for inciting hatred, racism, money laundering, and financial corruption. His passport may be confiscated and travel restrictions might be imposed.
Can someone like (Altaf Hussain) be tried under Race Hate crimes in Britain, (keeping in view his inflammatory speeches), I asked senior British lawyer Amjad Malik?
He said, “I must say that if some one in Britain used his oratory in a negative way and target his audience to create hatred against any other class in that society which results in violent activities against those group or community and/or results in killings and entails acts committed at any time as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attacker including  offences such as murder, blackmailing, targeted killing in revenge and to create terror, torture, rape, severe deprivation of liberty, enforced disappearance of persons, damage to property or Genocide, Terrorist activities, or organised crimes to advance political aims, or he incites racial and religious hatred by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour  the answer is yes, that person may be investigated and later charged under section 18 of Public Order Act 1986 and further for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing , sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting under section 4(a) Public Order Act 1986.In my opinion those oratory intimidation and criminal behaviour will be considered racially aggravated offences if racially motivated under section 28(1)a of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which confirms ‘that at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victims membership or (presumed membership) of a racial group; or b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group’.
Incitement for racial hatred is similar to incitement of race and religious hatred which we see under section 29-a and b) of Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. I will give example the case of Abu Hamza here as an example as in similar situation one can be investigated by UK police under Police and Criminal Evidence Act and may be asked to attend an interview under caution to see if there is a satisfactory response to the allegations of incitement to racial hatred and as a result of that investigation may be charged by the State if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and one can be tried in UK under existing national laws, and if one is foreign national and/or naturalised, he can be stripped off his nationality and may be extradited to the State where he originally belongs and where those crimes actually take effect subject to some conditions and human rights provisions. In all circumstances Britain will offer a fair trial to the accused”.
There is a possibility that Altaf Hussain and his gang might be extradited to Pakistan under Interpol ‘Red Warrant’ after the nullification of National Reconciliation Ordinance which some people called ‘National Robbers Ordinance’.
Altaf Hussain should be sacked from the leadership, brought to justice and MQM must elect a new local Pakistan based leader if they are a political party and not a mafia. MQM need to be ‘disarmed’ as soon as possible to save more innocent lives in Karachi and in London. Many people in Karachi have grievances against Altaf Hussain’s gang for killings of their relatives. He should be brought to justice before some one brought ‘gang war on the streets of London’.

(Dr Shahid Qureshi is award winning journalist and writer on foreign policy & security based in London)

Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent

Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs

without consent

Israel has admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend.

The admission, by the former head of the country’s forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called “antisemitic”.

The revelation, in a television documentary, is likely to generate anger in the Arab and Muslim world and reinforce sinister stereotypes of Israel and its attitude to Palestinians. Iran’s state-run Press TV tonight reported the story, illustrated with photographs of dead or badly injured Palestinians.

Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab MP, said the report incriminated the Israeli army.

The story emerged in an interview with Dr Yehuda Hiss, former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic who released it because of the row between Israel and Sweden over a report in the Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet.

Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: “This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer.”

Hiss said: “We started to harvest corneas … whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family.”

However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.

She was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that while Palestinians were “by a long shot” not the only ones affected, she felt the interview must be made public, because “the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, [is] something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered.”

Israel demanded that Sweden condemn the Aftonbladet article, calling it an antisemitic “blood libel”. Stockholm refused, saying that to so would violate freedom of speech in the country. The foreign minister then cancelled a visit to Israel, just as Sweden was taking over the EU’s rotating presidency.

Hiss was removed from his post in 2004, when some details about organ harvesting were first reported, but he still works at the forensic institute.

Israel’s health ministry said all harvesting was now done with permission. “The guidelines at that time were not clear,” it said in a statement to Channel 2. “For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law.”

• This article was amended on 21 December 2009. The headline was changed as it did not reflect accurately the contents of the story. Nancy Scheper-Hughes’s name was misspelled as Nancy Sheppard-Hughes in the original text.

False flag operations from Amman to Zambia

False flag operations from Amman to Zambia

Fake party

Many countries carry out false flag operations.

The Dutch secret service, BVD, carried out a false flag operation when it set up the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands, a fake communist party.

This party was used to trick people into handing over intelligence. (Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands )

According to former UK foreign Secretary Robin Cook, Al-Qaidawas the computer file of people recruited and trained with help from the CIA. (Cached).

Al Qaeda is therefore, reportedly, part of a false flag operation.

Reportedly, Israelis have a long history of carrying out false flag operations

Zambian copper mine

1. The Zambian bridge plot. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

According to The Washington Post, 9 November 1966, Jay Aubrey Elliott and Rolf Dunbier, plotted to blow up the Kafue River bridge in Zambia. They were arrested in new York.

This bridge was vital to Zambia’s Copperbelt.

Violet Elliott (Elliott’s wife), Efraim Ronen, Benjamin Edoui, Yitzhak Markovitch, and Raphael Tseriano were arrested in Israel.

The plotters wanted to blow up the Zambian bridge in order to drive up the world’s copper price and make a huge profit.

Jay Elliott had visited Israel to recruit explosive experts.

Beirut by August Hänninen

2. John Gunther Dean (John Gunther Dienstfertig )

Reportedly, Israel would like to take over Southern Lebanon, in order to get its water supplies.

In 1982, in Beirut, agents attempted to assassinate the US ambassador, John Gunther Dean.

Dean’s parents were both Jewish, but Dean was opposed to Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

The idea of the attack was to make it look as if the Lebanese were to blame.

The attack involved a light tank shell, which bounced off the ambassador’s car.

Reportedly, the Lebanese intelligence found the shell casing and traced it to Israel. ( Source)

“Dean apparently mused to himself on the irony of an American ambassador being subjected to an Israeli assassination attempt with American weapons supplied to Israel for defense.” – (Cached)

Fotograph of Cairo: Martin Steiger

3. US Library in Cairo

In 1954, Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon organized a terrorist attack on the U.S. Information Service library in Cairo.

The idea was to give the USA an excuse for its policy of trying to undermine the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser.

4. US Embassy in Amman

In November 1968, King Hussein of Jordan reportedly discovered that Israel was behind the Kateb al Nasr commando group that attacked the U.S. embassy in Amman with the deaths of 29 civilians and security personnel.

The idea was to turn Americans against Jordanians and other Arabs. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

5. French Police

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal) claims that Mossad killed two French police agents and a Lebanese informant in 1975.

Carlos said Mossad was trying to frame him for the murders. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

Berlin by Bleppo


A documentary broadcast by German public television presented compelling evidence that some of the main suspects in the 1986 Berlin disco bombing, the event that provided the pretext for a US air assault on Libya, worked for American and Israeli intelligence. (German TV exposes CIA, Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing)

According to the TV programme, at least one of the Berlin disco plotters, Musbah Eter, worked for the CIA over many years.

Some of the alleged plotters did not appear in court, reportedly because they are being protected by Western intelligence services.

At least one of those, Mohammed Amairi, is an agent of Mossad, the Israeli secret service.

In 1986, Libyan Information Minister Mohamed Sharafeddin said that Mossad agents were conducting terrorist attacks in western Europe against U.S. targets so that Libya would be blamed.

He said that Israel was hoping that the U.S. Sixth Fleet would strike Libya in retaliation. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

7. US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

It is suspected that the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which become the justification for US missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, may have been the work of Mossad and the CIA. (Questions mount in Kenya, Tanzania bombings – US government …)

8. Jordan

Reportedly Israeli agents conducted false flag operations in Jordan in 1997.

The Israeli agents were discovered to be using Canadian passports.

As a result, Canada withdrew its ambassador from Israel. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

9. Gaza

Israeli agents, using Canadian passports, conducted false flag operations in Gaza in 2002.

10. Chad

In 1991, Mossad secretly armed and trained a group of Libyan guerrillas in Chad.

Mossad arranged for Saudi Arabia to finance the operation. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

11. Syria

Reportedly, in 1997, an Israeli agent, Yehuda Gil, produced false reports about the Syrian “threat.”

These were passed by Netanyahu to Washington. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

12. CIA document

Reportedly, a classified CIA document on the Mossad captured by Iranian militants who took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and later published in full, outlined Mossad’s activities around the world, including “false flag” tactics and the blackmailing of U.S. officials. (The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the market.)

World War II, Korea veterans join anti-war protests in Carson City

World War II, Korea veterans join anti-war protests in Carson City

Few young people express opposition to war


Korean War veteran Bill McCord of Carson City rallies for peace last month in front of the state’s Legislative Building. McCord, an 80-year-old retired Methodist minister, is among a group of about a dozen senior citizens who have been protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for three years, usually two hours each Monday.
Photo by Cathleen Allison/Special to the Las Vegas Review-Journal

CARSON CITY — Neither rain, nor sleet, nor gloom of night have prevented a group of four to 12 senior citizens from turning out every Monday afternoon in front of the Legislative Building to protest America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They might not have as good a record as the U.S. Postal Service — they have missed two Mondays when they decided against standing in deep snow — but they’re pretty close.

They have been protesting the wars for three years, usually two hours each Monday.

“We are here because the war is still on and we are opposed to it,” said Bill McCord, an 80-year-old retired Methodist minister. “We will be here until the war is over.”

McCord is a former Marine and combat veteran of the Korean War.

Fellow protester Jim Knister, 82, is a Navy veteran of World War II.

On one recent Monday afternoon they stood along busy Carson Street with Mary Ann Jennings, a retired state employee, and Knister’s wife, Jackie.

They held signs that read “Honor Warriors, Not War” and “Support Our Troops, End the War.”

Most passing motorists honked their horns, flashed the peace sign or waved in support. Once in a while, a driver would give them the one-finger salute.

They estimate that 75 percent of those who drive by support their cause.

“We aren’t naive,” Knister said. “Some people think we are crazy. I wish we were in a position to send 30,000 trained teachers to Afghanistan, not 30,000 more troops. Our problem is not the al-Qaida. It is ignorance and poverty.”

Their opposition to the war is based mainly on religious reasons. As much as they protest, they realize the U.S. military might be stuck in the Middle East for many more years.

Still they remain optimistic. The war will end, and the economy will improve.

“Yesterday after church somebody said it is getting worse,” McCord said. “Look at it in Jesus’ time? Slavery was accepted. What place in the world is slavery accepted today?”

Tim Tetz, executive director of the state Office of Veterans Services, knows McCord well, recognizes his right to protest, but supports the war on terrorism.

“Bill McCord is an absolutely sincere, decorated hero of the Korean War. It was what he experienced in Korea that made him choose his career as a pastor,” Tetz said.

He said there are groups, although not as visible, that support the troops in pro-war marches in the capital city.

“At the end of the day, we all served so we can give these folks the right to free speech and the ability to protest,” Tetz said.

Knister and McCord come from families where sons from each generation dating back to the Civil War served in the military.

Jennings’ children and grandchildren were veterans or National Guard members.

They do not oppose all wars. To them, World War II was a justified war. But the wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan are not.

“We go to war when we are attacked, directly attacked,” McCord said. “What happened at the World Trade Center was a terrorist act by Osama bin Laden. It was not attacking or creating a war against the United States. It was fulminating terrorism.”

Bin Laden should be captured, but his capture should be done through the Navy Seals and commandos, spies and intelligence, McCord said.

What you don’t see on Monday afternoons are young people, teenagers and those in their 20s.

McCord attributes that to the fact that the draft ended after Vietnam. Today there is an all-volunteer military service.

What disturbs him is the perceived mistreatment of the American military.

He has talked with a young man who served six tours in Iraq. Others have done tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

During Vietnam, soldiers served a year and went home. Too often the soldiers today are coming home with delayed-stress syndrome and receive inadequate medical help, McCord said. He sees them every Sunday in church.

The military presence in Afghanistan is not going to deter many farmers there from growing poppies or stop discrimination against women, Knister said. He is embarrassed that many of those poppies end up as heroin purchased by American drug addicts.

McCord is concerned about anti-Islam feelings spreading.

“I see Islam as a peaceful religion,” said McCord, a Methodist minister for 43 years and still a chaplain for the Sheriff’s Department and veterans groups in Carson City. “But you have fundamentalists in both Islam and Christianity. People read the Scriptures in ways to justify wars and killing people. I don’t.”

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at or 775-687-3901.


[Is this the piece of paper that commissioned the creation of the Tehreek Taliban Pakistan (TTP)?]



Washington, DC
June 28, 2005

1. The United States and India have entered a new era, We are transforming our relationship to reflect our common principles and shared national interests. As the world’s two largest democracies, the United States and India agree on the vital importance of political and economic freedom, democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, and opportunity around the world. The leaders of our two countries are building a U.S.-India strategic partnership in pursuit of these principles and interests.

2. Ten years ago, in. January 1995, the Agreed Minute on Defense Relations Between the United States and India was signed. Since then, changes in the international security environment have challenged our countries in ways unforeseen ten years ago. The U.S.-India defense relationship has advanced in a short time to unprecedented levels of cooperation unimaginable in 1995. Today, we agree on a new Framework that builds on past successes, seizes new opportunities, and charts a course for the U.S.-India defense relationship for the next ten years. This defense relationship will support, and will be an element of, the broader U.S.-India strategic partnership.

3. The U.S.-India defense relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and seeks to advance shared security interests. These interests include;

— maintaining security and stability;

— defeating terrorism and violent religious extremism;

— preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and associated materials, data, and technologies; and

— protecting the free flow of commerce via land, air and sea lanes.

4, In pursuit of this shared vision of an expanded and deeper U.S.-India strategic relationship, our defense establishments shall:

A, conduct joint and combined exercises and exchanges;

B. collaborate in multinational operations when it is in their common interest;

C. strengthen the. capabilities of our militaries to promote security and defeat terrorism;

D. expand interaction with other nations in ways that promote regional and global peace and stability;

E. enhance capabilities to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

F. in the context of our strategic relationship, expand two-way defense trade between our countries. The United States and India will work to conclude defense transactions, not solely as ends in and of themselves, but as a means to strengthen our countries’ security, reinforce our strategic partnership, achieve greater interaction between our armed forces, and build greater understanding between our defense establishments;

G. in the context of defense trade and a framework of technology security safeguards, increase opportunities for technology transfer, collaboration, co-production, and research and development;

H. expand collaboration relating to missile defense;

I. strengthen the abilities of our militaries to respond quickly to disaster situations, including in combined operations;

J. assist in building worldwide capacity to conduct successful peacekeeping operations, with a focus on enabling other countries to field trained, capable forces for these operations;

K. conduct exchanges on defense strategy and defense transformation;

L. increase exchanges of intelligence; and

M. continue strategic-level discussions by senior leadership from the U.S. Department of Defense and India’s- Ministry of Defence, in which the two sides exchange perspectives on international security issues of common interest, with the aim of increasing mutual understanding, promoting shared objectives, and developing common approaches.

5. The Defense Policy Group shall continue to serve as the primary mechanism to guide the U.S,-India strategic defense relationship. The Defense Policy Group will make appropriate adjustments to the structure and frequency of its meetings and of its subgroups, when agreed to by the Defense Policy Group co-chairs, to ensure that it . remains an effective mechanism to advance U.S.-India defense cooperation.

6. In recognition of the growing breadth and depth of the U.S.-India strategic defense relationship, we hereby establish the Defense Procurement and Production Group and institute a Joint Working Group for mid-year review of work overseen by the Defense Policy Group,

— The Defense Procurement and Production Group will oversee defense trade, as well as prospects for co-production and technology collaboration, broadening the scope of its predecessor subgroup the Security Cooperation Group.

— The Defense Joint Working Group will be subordinate to the Defense Policy Group and will meet at least once per year to perform a midyear review of work overseen by the Defense Policy Group and its subgroups (the Defense Procurement and Production Group, the Joint Technical Group, the Military Cooperation Group, and the Senior Technology Security Group), and to prepare issues for the annual meeting of the Defense Policy Group.

7. The Defense Policy Group and its subgroups will rely upon this Framework for guidance on the principles and objectives of the U.S.-India strategic relationship, and will strive to achieve those objectives.

Signed in Arlington, Virginia, USA, on June 28, 2005, in two copies in English, each being equally authentic.

Secretary of Defense                                                   Minister of Defence

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF                                     FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE                               THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                 REPUBLIC OF INDIA

U.S.-India agreement is about a military alliance

U.S.-India agreement is about a military alliance

By Gwynne Dyer
March 5, 2006

Chances are you didn’t hear a single word about U.S.-Indian military links in the mainstream media’s reporting about Gorge Bush’s first visit to India last week. For months the media in both countries have been encouraged to speculate about whether a deal on U.S.-Indian cooperation on civilian nuclear power would be ready in time for the president’s visit, but that deal is just the quid pro quo. The actual “quo” was a de facto military alliance between India and the United States, but we don’t talk about that in front of the children.

“The largest democracy in the world and the oldest democracy in the world are becoming strategic partners, and that is a very consequential development in international politics,” said Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns on Feb. 24 after a visit to New Delhi. “Consequential” is the right word. The two countries that will have the world’s second-and third-largest economies a generation from now have made an alliance against the country that will have the biggest economy, China – but hardly anybody in the media seems to have noticed.

It’s not secret. The joint U.S.-Indian military training exercises of the past few years and the arms sales that are now eagerly awaited by the American defense industry are public knowledge (but only if you have been paying close attention). Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee went to Washington in person last June to sign the ten-year agreement on military cooperation and joint weapons production with the United States. It’s just that talking too loudly about all this would upset the Chinese, and it would upset some people in the United States, too. Not everybody in Washington welcomes the idea of a military alliance to “contain” China.

So let’s pretend our priorities are elsewhere, and send the press chasing off down the wrong path. Happily, there is a different issue that they can be persuaded to believe is important, because New Delhi’s defiant series of nuclear weapons tests in 1998, which were followed by a series of Pakistani nuclear tests, triggered not only U.S. sanctions against the two countries but broader sanctions by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.

Since then, India has faced serious obstacles in importing nuclear fuel and technology for its ambitious civil nuclear power program, because everybody suspected that the sensitive material would end up in India’s nuclear weapons program. This mattered less in practice than it did in theory, since India obviously had nukes already – but international acceptance of a nuclear-armed India is still seen as a prize worth having in New Delhi. So Washington had leverage.

After 9/11, the United States immediately offered to lift sanctions on Pakistan in return for General Pervez Musharraf’s cooperation in the “war on terror.” Logically, that meant that sanctions against India should be lifted too, but since Washington did not need India’s cooperation in the same urgent way – the terrorists who attack India are not the same as those who attack American targets – it could demand a political price from India for ending sanctions. The biggest part of that price was a military alliance with the United States.

It will never formally be called that, in deference to India’s old non-aligned tradition, but the neo-conservatives who run American foreign policy under Bush are determined to build a ring of alliances around China. With the aid of lavish promises about access to next generation American weapons systems, military co-production agreements, shared intelligence, joint exercises, and general American support for India’s aspirations as a great power, the deal was done – except that the United States could not keep its promise to provide India with nuclear fuel and technology unless it could satisfy the Nuclear Suppliers Group that they would not end up in weapons.

The 44 members of the group have promised not to supply such materials to any country that does not accept strict International Atomic Energy Agency controls and inspections. In view of the Bush administration’s current campaign against an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program, it would not go down well with the IAEA, the American Congress, or the other members of the United Nations Security Council if the United States just started supplying nuclear materials to India. It needs some political cover.

All the negotiations of the past few months have been about finding some way of disentangling India’s peaceful nuclear power program from its military program, so that it can accept IAEA safeguards on the former and become eligible for U.S. supplies while keeping the latter free from intrusive foreign inspections. Since the two Indian programs have been thoroughly entangled for the past thirty years, that is taking a lot of time – and this is the problem that journalists covering Bush’s visit have been encouraged to focus on. It distracts attention from the military aspects of the relationship, and it creates the impression that both sides are behaving responsibly.

They are not. They are building an alliance that is bound to alarm the Chinese, who cannot fail to see it as directed against them. There is absolutely no evidence for aggressive Chinese intentions toward India or anywhere in South Asia, but Washington and New Delhi are laying the foundations for a new Cold War in Asia.

Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.

Mumbai Began In Chicago

[All sorts of bad things get started in Chicago, not just the Obama curse.]

Headley case: India as a soft sate

By B.Raman

(December 21, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) In protecting its national interests and national security, India is perceived as a soft state not only by large sections of its population, but also by intelligence and security professionals in many countries of the world. Many Governmental and non-Governmental professionals in different countries of the world strongly believe that India has not been able to deal effectively with the problem of terrorism of foreign origin because of the lack of security consciousness in large sections of our administration and political class and the permissive nature of our administration. Terrorists such as David Coleman Headley, mafia leaders such as Dawood Ibrahim and intelligence agencies such as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are aware of this and take full advantage of it.

During the investigation into the Mumbai blasts of March,1993, orchestrated by the ISI with the help of Dawood Ibrahim, it came to notice through intercepted telephone conversations that the members of Dawood’s gang used to get logistics help for their stay during their visits to Delhi through the Personal Assistant to a senior member of the Cabinet of Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister. This PA had helped an associate of Dawood stay in the New Delhi guest house of a public sector corporation.

Another glaring example of the way we function in national security related matters relates to the air dropping of arms and ammunition to some extremists or terrorists by an aircraft piloted by a British pilot in December,1995, in the Purulia area. The moment this pilot was approached by the unidentified extremists for his help in the air drop, he immediately informed the British Defence Ministry through the headquarters of the Royal Air Force. After consulting the Indian authorities, the British asked the pilot to keep passing on information about the air drop to enable the Indian authorities to lay a trap. He reportedly did, but the Indian authorities botched up the operation so badly that the air drop could not be prevented. The extremists managed to collect the air-dropped arms and ammunition and disappear. Till today, we have not been able to identify them though the crew of the aircraft were arrested and prosecuted.

The Headley case is yet another glaring example of the permissive nature of our Administration. It will only confirm the already widely prevalent impression in the professional world that India is a soft state. The massacre of 166 persons— 141 of them Indian citizens— by the 10 terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) between 26 and 29 November of 2008 was the culmination of a conspiracy, which had two places of origin—- the Pakistan end from where the actual executioners were selected, trained and launched and the Chicago end from where the collection of all pre-attack information which made the terrorist attack possible was orchestrated by Headley, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, who used to live and work in Philadelphia as a Muslim under his original name of Daood Gilani and shifted to Chicago and started living there under the changed Christian-sounding name of David Coleman Headley.He shifted from Philadelphia to Chicago in February,2006, after getting his name changed before a Philadelphia court and applied in the Indian Consulate in Chicago for a visa on June 30,2006.

When a person changes his name and applies for a new passport, his new passport is supposed to carry an endorsement to the effect that “this person previously travelled under the name with the passport No “. If the Indian Consulate-General in Chicago had carefully scrutinised his passport and his visa application as they were supposed to under the rules, they might have noticed the following things: Firstly, he had changed his residence from Philadelphia to Chicago just before applying for an Indian visa. Secondly, he had changed his name and obtained a new passport just before applying for an Indian visa. Thirdly, his father was a Muslim with a Muslim-sounding name even though the visa applicant himself had a Christian-sounding name.

This should have immediately resulted in a personal interview with the applicant in order to question him on these points. We know how many of the applicants for foreign visas before missions in India are called for a personal interview and grilled because of suspicious circumstances coming to notice during the scrutiny of their passports.

Anyone who changes his name in order to obtain a new passport is immediately viewed as a suspect by the consular and immigration authorities of all countries of the world. Hard States , which give no quarters to terrorist suspects, have two specific columns in their papers which are to be filled by the applicants: Question No.1: Have you ever travelled by another passport? If so, give particulars. Question No.2: Have you ever travelled under a different name? If so, give particulars. The moment the answers to these questions create any suspicion he has to face an interview.

It is immaterial whether Headley is a Pakistani citizen or an American citizen born in Pakistan or an American citizen born in the US. The most incriminating evidence at the very starting point of this conspiracy is the fact that he changed his name in order to conceal his Muslim background. This could have been found out only in Chicago, the starting point of his journey, and not in India after his arrival.

Even if he is an American citizen born in the US that should not prevent us from questioning him. We saw the way Shah Rukh Khan, the film actor, was questioned for nearly an hour by the US immigration. The fact that he is an honoured Indian citizen and that the US has close relations with India did not inhibit them from questioning him.

All applicants for visas—tourist or business— are required to submit certain documentation along with their passport. These include a to and fro air ticket, particulars of the cities he intended visiting and the places where he will be staying and a letter of sponsorship from someone in India knowing him—whether he be a friend or a relative or a corporate house. Without this documentation, no visa can be given unless the applicant is personally known to the Consul-General and he is in a position to vouch for his reliability.

The scrutiny of the additional documentation is more strict when the applicant applies for a business visa.

The Chicago end of the conspiracy, which led to the massacre of 166 persons by the terrorists, started on the day Headley walked into the Consulate-General with a changed name to conceal his Muslim identity and a new passport with which he had not travelled anywhere before and applied for a business visa. All the papers relating to his visa become important material evidence to reconstruct this conspiracy. The moment the FBI informed the Government of India about the arrest of Headley and his travels in October the MEA should have asked the Consulate-General to put all his papers in a sealed cover and send them to Delhi for scrutiny by the investigating agency. It is surprising this was not done for nearly two months.

We are now given an unconvincing story about the difficulties of retrieving applications from the archives of Indian missions abroad. I had worked as a visa officer abroad for eight years. It should not take more than a few minutes to take out the papers and send them to Delhi. You take out the visa register, find out the number under which the visa was issued to him and take out the application and other papers with the help of that number.

Apart from investigating the circumstances under which the visa application of Headley was processed, the relatives of those killed by the terrorists should consider suing the MEA for acts of alleged negligence which enabled Headley to come to India and set in motion the conspiracy. It was reported that after the 1988 Lockerbie tragedy, in which a Pan-Am aircraft was blown up by the terrorists over Europe, relatives of some of those killed sued the State Department for perceived acts of omission and commission, which resulted in the deaths of their relatives. This had a salutary effect.

It is time for us to have such victim activism in India.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: )