Who were the Untouchables in India?

Who were the Untouchables in India: Why They Became Untouchables? by Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Posted on March 11, 2008 by Moin Ansari

The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables?

RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | March 11, 2008  | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ | Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (April 14, 1891 – December 6, 1956) was a Buddhist revivalist, Indian jurist, scholar and Bahujan political leader who is the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. Born into a poor Untouchable community; he spent his life fighting against the system of Hindu untouchability and the Indian caste system. He is also credited for having sparked the Dalit Buddhist movement. Ambedkar has been honoured with the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award, given for the highest degree of national service.This article is the preface in the book The Untouchables Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? that was written by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

Why did Buddhism disappear from South Asia? Reviving Hindusism in Budhdist lands: The Hindu extremists use the Safron Swastika flag instead of the tri-colored flag of India. (see Hindu unity dot org)

By Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, January l, 1948, 1, Hardinge Avenue, New Delhi

This book is a sequel to my treatise called The Shudras-Who they were and How they came to be the Fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan Society which was published in 1946. Besides the Shudras, the Hindu Civilisation has produced three social classes whose existence has not received the attention it deserves. The three classes are:

(i) The Criminal Tribes who number about 20 millions or so;
(ii) The Aboriginal Tribes who number about 15 millions; and
(iii) The Untouchables who number about 50 millions.

The existence of these classes is an abomination. The Hindu Civilization, gauged in the light of these social products, could hardly be called civilization. It is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name would be infamy.

What else can be said of a civilization which has produced a mass of people who are taught to accept crime as an approved means of earning their livelihood, another mass of people who are left to live in full bloom of their primitive barbarism in the midst of civilization and a third mass of people who are treated as an entity beyond human intercourse and whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution?

In any other country the existence of these classes would have led to searching of the heart and to investigation of their origin. But neither of these has occurred to the mind of the Hindu. The reason is simple. The Hindu does not regard the existence of these classes as a matter of apology or shame and feels no responsibility either to atone for it or to inquire into its origin and growth.

Poverty in India

On the other hand, every Hindu is taught to believe that his civilization is not only the most ancient but that it is also in many respects altogether unique. No Hindu ever feels tired of repeating these claims.

That the Hindu Civilization is the most ancient, one can understand and even allow. But it is not quite so easy to understand on what grounds they rely for claiming that the Hindu Civilization is a unique one. The Hindus may not like it, but so far as it strikes non-Hindus, such a claim can rest only on one ground. It is the existence of these classes for which the Hindu Civilization is responsible. That the existence of such classes is a unique phenomenon, no Hindu need repeat, for nobody can deny the fact.

One only wishes that the Hindu realized that it was a matter for which there was more cause for shame than pride.

The inculcation of these false beliefs in the sanity, superiority and sanctity of Hindu Civilization is due entirely to the peculiar social psychology of Hindu scholars.

To-day all scholarship is confined to the Brahmins. But un-fortunately no Brahmin scholar has so far come forward to play the part of a Voltaire who had the intellectual honesty to rise against the doctrines of the Catholic Church in which he was brought up; nor is one likely to appear on the scene in the future. It is a grave reflection on the scholarship of the Brahmins that they should not have produced a Voltaire.

This will not cause surprise if it is remembered that the Brahmin scholar is only a learned man. He is not an intellectual. There is a world of difference between one who learned and one who is an intellectual. The former is class-conscious and is alive to the interests of his class. The latter is an emancipated being who Is free to act without being swayed by class considerations. It is because the Brahmins have been only learned men that they have not produced a Voltaire.

Why have the Brahmins not produced a Voltaire?

The question can be answered only by another question. Why did the Sultan of Turkey not abolish the religion of the Mohammedan World?

Why has no Pope denounced Catholicism?

Why has the British Parliament not made a law ordering the killing of all blue-eyed babies?

The reason why the Sultan or the Pope or the British Parliament has not done these things is the same as why the Brahmins have not been able to produce a Voltaire.

It must be recognized that the selfish interest of a person or of the class to which he belongs always acts as an internal limitation which regulates the direction of his intellect.

Dalits: Caste discrimination. Poverty stricken and destitute

The power and position which the Brahmins possess is entirely due to the Hindu Civilization which treats them as supermen and subjects the lower classes to all sorts of disabilities so that they may never rise and challenge or threaten the superiority of the Brahmins over them.

As is natural, every Brahmin is interested in the maintenance of Brahmanic supremacy be he orthodox or unorthodox, be he a priest or a grahastha, be he a scholar or not. How can the Brahmins afford to be Voltaires, A Voltaire among the Brahmins would be a positive danger to the maintenance of a civilization which is contrived to maintain Brahmanic supremacy.

The point is that the intellect of a Brahmin scholar is severely limited by anxiety to preserve his interest. He suffers from this Internal limitation as a result of which he does not allow his intellect full play which honesty and integrity demands. For, he fears that it may affect the interests of his class and therefore his own.

India as World Power 1 Extremist Hindus show power using the Swastika in triple entendre–as an ancient Hindu symbol, reverence for Hitler and sign of Anti-Western Indian power

But what annoys one is the intolerance of the Brahmin scholar towards any attempt to expose the Brahmanic literature. He himself would not play the part of an iconoclast even where it is necessary. And he would not allow such non-Brahmins as have the capacity to do so to play it. If any non-Brahmin were to make such an attempt the Brahmin scholars would engage in a conspiracy of silence, take no notice of him, condemn him outright on some flimsy grounds or dub his work useless.

As a writer engaged in the exposition of the Brahmanic literature I have been a victim of such mean tricks.

Notwithstanding the attitude of the Brahmin scholars, I must pursue the task I have undertaken. For the origin of these classes is a subject which still awaits investigation.

This book deals with one of these unfortunate classes namely, the Untouchables. The Untouchables are the most numerous of the three. Their existence iS also the most unnatural. And yet there has so far been no investigation into their origin.

That the Hindus should not have undertaken such an investigation is perfectly understandable. The old orthodox Hindu does not think that there is anything wrong in the observance of Untouchability. To him it is a normal and natural thing. As such it neither calls for expiation nor explanation. The new modern Hindu realizes the wrong. But he is ashamed to discuss it in public for fear of letting the foreigner know that Hindu Civilization can be guilty of such a vicious and infamous system or social code as evidenced by Untouchability.

But what is strange is that Untouchability should have failed to attract the attention of the European student of social institutions. It is difficult to understand why. The fact, however, is there.

This book may therefore, be taken as a pioneer attempt in the exploration of a field so completely neglected by everybody. The book, if I may say so, deals not only with every aspect of the main question set out for inquiry, namely, the origin of Untouchability, but it also deals with almost all questions connected with it. Some of the questions are such that very few people are even aware of them; and those who are aware of them are puzzled by them and do not know how to answer them.

To mention only a few, the book deals with such questions as: Why do the Untouchables live outside the village?

Why did beef-eating give rise to Untouchability? Did the Hindus never eat beef?

Why did non-Brahmins give up beef-eating? What made the Brahmins become vegetarians, etc.?

To each one of these the book suggests an answer. It may be that the answers given in tb book to these questions are not all-embracing. Nonetheless it will be found that the book points to a new way of looking at old things.

Superpower India Pt 2 Extremist Hindus revere Hitler and use the Swastika as the Indian flag

The thesis on the origin of Untouchability advanced in the book is an altogether novel thesis. It comprises the following propositions:

(1) There is no racial difference between the Hindus and the Untouchables;

(2) The distinction between the Hindus and Untouchables in its original form, before the advent of Untouchability, was the distinction between Tribesmen and Broken Men from alien Tribes. It is the Broken Men who subsequently came to be treated as Untouchables;

(3) Just as Untouchability has no racial basis so also has it no occupational basis;

(4) There are two roots from which Untouchability has sprung:
(a) Contempt and hatred of the Broken Men as of Buddhists by the Brahmins.
(b) Continuation of beef-eating by the Broken Men after it had been given up by others.

(5) In searching for the origin of Untouchability care, must be taken to distinguish the Untouchables from the Impure. All orthodox Hindu writers have identified the Impure with the Untouchables. This is an error. Untouchables are distinct from the Impure.

(6) While the Impure as a class came into existence at the time of the Dharma Sutras the Untouchables came into being much later than 400 A.D. These conclusions are the result of such historical research as I have been able to make. The ideal which a historian should place before himself has been well defined by Goethe who said:

“The historian’s duty is to separate the true from the false, the certain from the uncertain, and the doubtful from that which cannot be accepted Every investigator must before all things look upon himself as one who is summoned to serve on a jury.

How long to extripate penury from india? 300 years! India’s budget– fit for a superpower

He has only to consider how far the statement of the case is complete and clearly set forth by the evidence. Then he Draws his conclusion and gives his vote, whether it be that his opinion coincides with that of the foreman or not.”

There can be no difficulty in giving effect to Goethe’s direction vhen the relevant and necessary facts are forthcoming. All this advice is of course very valuable and very necessary. But Goethe does not tell what the historian is to do when he comes across a missing link, when no direct evidence of connected relations between important events is available.

I mention this because in the course of my investigations into the origin of Untouchability and other inter connected problems I have been confronted with many missing links. It is true that I am not the only one who has been confronted with them. All students of ancient Indian history have had to face them. For as Mount Stuart Elphinstone has observed in Indian history “no date of a public event can be fixed before the invasion of Alexander: and no connected relation of the natural transactions can be attempted until after the Mohamedan conquest.” This is a sad confession but that again does not help.

The question is: “What is a student of history to do?

Is he to cry halt and stop his work until the link is discovered?” I think not. I believe that in such cases it is permissible for him to use his imagination and intuition to bridge the gaps left in the chain of facts by links not yet discovered and to propound a working hypothesis suggesting how facts which cannot be connected by known facts might have been inter-connected. I must admit that rather than hold up the work, I have preferred to resort to this means to get over the difficulty created by the missing links which have come in my way.

Critics may use this weakness to condemn the thesis as violating the canons of historical research. If such be the attitude of the critics I must remind them that if there is a law which governs the evaluation of the results of historical results then refusal to accept a thesis on the ground that it is based on direct evidence is bad law.

Instead of concentrating themselves on the issue of direct evidence versus inferential evidence and inferential evidence versus Speculation, what the critics should concern themselves with is to examine:
(i) whether the thesis is based on pure conjecture, and
(ii) whether the thesis is possible and if so does it fit in with facts better than mine does?

On the first issue I could say that the thesis would not be unsound merely because in some parts it is based on guess. My critics should remember that we are dealing with an institution the origin of which is lost in antiquity. The present attempt to explain the origin of Untouchability is not the same as writing history from texts which speak with certainty. It is a case of reconstructing history where the are no texts, and if there are, they have no direct bearing on the question.

In such circumstances what one has to do is to strive to divine what the texts conceal or suggest without being even quit: certain of having found the truth. The task is one of gathering survivals of the past, placing them together and making them tell the story of their birth. The task is analogous to that of the archaeologist who constructs a city from broken stones or of the palaeontologist who conceives an extinct animal from scattered bones and teeth or of a painter who reads the lines of the horizon and the smallest vestiges on the slopes of the hill to make up a scene. In this sense the book Is a work of art even more than of history.

The origin of Untouchability lies buried in a dead past which nobody knows. To make it alive is like an attempt to reclaim to history a city which has been dead since ages past and present it as it was in its original condition. It cannot but be that imagination and hypothesis should pay a large part in such a work. But that in itself cannot be a ground for the condemnation of the thesis. For without trained imagination no scientific inquiry can be fruitful and hypothesis is the very soul of science. As Maxim Gorky has said 2:

“Science and literature have much in common; in both, observation, comparison and study are of fundamental importance; the artist like the scientist, needs both imagination and intuition. Imagination and intuition bridge the gaps in the chain of facts by ts as yet undiscovered links and permit the scientist to create hypothesis and theories which more or less correctly and successfully direct the searching of the mind in its study of the forms and phenomenon of nature. They are of literary creation; the art of creating characters and types demands imagination, intuition, the ability to make things up in one’s own mind”.

Murder of 10 million Indian girl babies:Before or right after birth. The media is silent.

It is therefore unnecessary for me to apologize for having resorted to constructing links where they were missing. Nor can my thesis be said to be vitiated on that account for nowhere is the construction of links based on pute conjecture. The thesis in great part is based on facts and inferences from facts. And where it is not based on facts or inferences from facts, it is based on circumstantial evidence of presumptive character resting on considerable degree of probability.

There is nothing that I have urged in support of my thesis which I have asked my readers to accept on trust. I have at least shown that there exists a preponderance of probability in favour of what I have asserted. It would be nothing but pedantry to say that a pre ponderance of probability is not a sufficient basis for a valid decision.

On the second point with the examination of which, I said, my critics should concern themselves what I would like to say Is that I am not so vain as to claim any finality for my thesis. I do not ask them to accept it as the last word. I do not wish to influence their judgement. They are of course free to come to their own conclusion. All I say to them is to consider whether this thesis is not a workable and therefore, for the time being, a valid hypothesis if the test of a valid hypothesis is that it should fit in with all surrounding facts, explain them and give them a meaning which in its absence they do not appear to have.

I do not want anything more from my critics than a fair and unbiased appraisal.

India Balkanizing? Naxalite insurrection widening cracks in deep cavaties
The 2nd world revolution (after Buddhism) from Nepal: Another threat to India

India’s Controversial New War Doctrine

Made in India sewer cover
(cc) Fire Monkey/flickr

Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor has attracted much attention with his suggestion at a training command seminar that India is preparing for a ‘two-front’ war with Pakistan and China, Harsh V Pant comments for ISN Security Watch.

By Harsh V Pant for ISN Security Watch

---

General Kapoor underlined that this was being done as part of the larger process whereby the Indian army was revising its old war-fighting doctrine and bringing it in sync with the emerging strategic scenario so as to be able to successfully firm up its ‘Cold Start’ strategy.

After strengthening its offensive capabilities vis-à-vis Pakistan by creating a new southwestern army command in 2005, India is now concentrating on countering China effectively in the eastern sector. The Indian army chief said that there was now “a proportionate focus towards the western and northeastern fronts.”

Pakistan reacted predictably by describing India’s move as reflecting a “hegemonistic and jingoistic mindset” as well as accusing India of “betraying hostile intent,” and urged the international community to take due notice of developments in India. Pakistani officials emphasized that their nation’s “capability and determination to foil any nefarious designs against the security of Pakistan” should not be underestimated. Pakistan’s reaction was expected, as the security establishment views this as an opportunity to once again press upon the Americans the need to keep Pakistani forces intact on the India-Pakistan border rather than fighting the Taliban forces on the border with Afghanistan.

China’s response, on the other hand, was more measured, and it chose not to address the issue directly. The controversy arose at a time when the two states were beginning a new phase in their defense ties by initiating a dialogue at the level of defense secretaries. But Chinese analysts have expressed concerns in recent years about India’s growing military ambitions and a purported shift in Indian defense strategy from a passive to an “active and aggressive” nature.

It was the Kargil conflict of 1999 that exposed Indian vulnerabilities as Pakistan realized that India did not have the capability to impose quick and effective retribution. The then-Indian army chief had famously commented that the forces would fight with whatever they had, underlining the frustration in the armed forces regarding their inability to procure the arms they needed. Only because the conflict remained largely confined to the 150-kilometer front of the Kargil sector did India manage to gain an upper hand by throwing the Pakistanis out of its side of the Line of Control (LoC). Then came the standoff between the Indian and Pakistani armies across the LoC after the Indian Parliament was attacked in 2001, and again India lacked the ability to impose any significant cost on Pakistan quickly and decisively because of the unavailability of suitable weaponry and night vision equipment needed to carry out swift surgical strikes.

The nuclear aspect is important because it is part of the reason that elements within the Pakistani security establishment have become more adventurous. Realizing that India would be reluctant to escalate the conflict because of the threat of it reaching the nuclear level, sections of the Pakistani military and intelligence have pushed the envelope on the sub-conventional front.

For India, this presents a structural conundrum: Nuclear weapons have made a major conventional conflict with Pakistan unrealistic, yet it needs to find a way to launch limited military action against Pakistan without crossing the nuclear threshold. Nuclear weapons have allowed Pakistan to shield itself from full-scale Indian retaliation as well as to attract international attention on the disputes in the sub-continent.

After Operation Parakram of 2001-02, the Indian army did try to evolve a new doctrine. This ‘Cold Start’ doctrine is basically an attempt to acquire the ability to fight limited wars under the nuclear umbrella. To resolve the dilemma confronting India post-1998, Indian strategists have focused on a military doctrine that might give them the ability to launch quick, decisive limited strikes against Pakistan to seize some territory before the international community could intervene, which can then be used as a post-conflict bargaining chip.

This doctrine is still evolving and its is not clear how effective it would be in making sure that the conflict remains limited as Pakistan might be forced to bring down its nuclear threshold to respond to this challenge. Moreover, the Indian army has found little support for this doctrine from the other two services, and the civilian government has shown no interest in this venture.

As a consequence, the ‘Cold Start’ doctrine has continued to be in the limelight as India’s national security establishment has searched for policy options vis-à-vis Pakistan. Yet this doctrine remains a work in progress. Execution of this doctrine would need the right kind of equipment, something India will have to acquire on a priority basis.

The army will need to upgrade its capabilities significantly if it is to implement this approach. And to do this it will have to surmount a number of entrenched problems in the defense procurement system.

The 1999 and 2001 crises forced the government to react by boosting defense expenditures, but political compulsions re-asserted themselves soon after. When the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government came to power in 2004, it ordered investigations into several of the arms acquisition deals of the previous government. A series of defense procurement scandals since the late 1980s have made the bureaucracy risk-averse, thereby delaying the acquisition process. The labyrinthine bureaucratic processes involved in military procurement have left the defense forces unable to spend a large proportion of their budgets.

While Pakistan has rapidly acquired US technology over the last several years through involvement in the war on terror and China’s military modernization has gathered momentum, the modernization of the Indian army has slipped behind by as much as a decade.

The Indian army chief stated the obvious recently when he talked of India preparing for a “two-front” war. It is the job of the Indian armed forces to prepare for such wars given the security threats that India faces from its neighbors, just as the Pakistani and Chinese military take into account the possibility of a future conflict with India. But it must be kept in perspective that unlike in Pakistan and China, strategic policymaking in India is the sole preserve of the political leadership and Indian policymakers are yet to sign on to this much talked about new doctrine.

---

Harsh Pant is a lecturer at King’s College London. His research interests include WMD proliferation, US foreign policy and Asia-Pacific security issues. He is also presently a Visiting Fellow at CASI, University of Pennsylvania.

Hard-Assed Brit General Insists That Acquiring the Upper Hand Must Precede Negotiations

Allies need upper hand for Taliban talks: British army chief

LONDON: International forces should only negotiate with the Taliban from a position of strength, and the terms of any deal should include a requirement that the group cut ties with Al Qaeda, Britain’s army chief said on Monday. “I think while this (negotiations) is always something we must entertain, it has to be done from a position of relative strength and the knowledge on their part that they could just lose. So it’s a matter of timing, not the principle,” General Sir David Richards said. He said the Inter-Services Intelligence ought to be involved in the contacts as part of a “team effort” but should not have sole control over the process.

CIA Hosts Drink and Dance Party For Pakistani Journalists at US Embassy Islamabad

In Pictures: CIA Hosts Drink and Dance Party For Pakistani Journalists at US Embassy Islamabad

CIA Public Relations at work? Do you expect this “Pakistani media” would tell you the truth and serves the interests of Islam and Pakistan? If you still believe that then may Allah help you and show you the righteous path before its too late for all of us.

Shaukat Paracha, Asma Shirazi, Meher Bukhari, Saima Mohsin are some of the names that were in attendance, in a Drink & Dance party hosted by the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W Patterson.

More photos from the event below:

Terrorism: How CIA Incapacitates Pakistan

An Open Letter To The Pakistani Media – How Far Will You Go?

Dr. Mahru Khalid

As I sit in my room writing this, I can hear Indian music playing on the television outside. I know that it is a Pakistani channel,and I can hear snatches of people singing praises of how wonderful Indian music and artists are. It has been going on for the last2 hours and may as well go on for another 2. This is what I have come to expect from my country’s media.

I refuse to go outside and watch that. Because, you see, I’m more intrigued by a news channel telling us how truckloads of Indian ammunition are being discovered by the Pak army in South Waziristan, by someone revealing how the Takfiri TTP are being financed by Indo-American (and other foreign) forces, and how names like Blackwater, Xe, DynaCorp., are raising their ugly heads andinfiltrating into the Pakistani society. Rather than watching Indian movies, I’m more entertained when I go on the internet and readstories of how Mumbai investigator Mr. Hemant Karkare was silenced forever because he could have spilled the beans that Mumbai was an inside job, how the militants who carried out that attack had stayed at a guest house called Nariman House for several days before the attack, and where they were provided food, ammunition, and arms in full knowledge of the Mumbai police, how the 40,000 strong Mumbai police was deliberately kept away from the scene of the shooting, as the terrorists went about their merry way killing people. All this from the pen of a respected Indian writer, Mr. Amaresh Mishra, for me, beats the most smoothly done Indian movieanyday!

I haven’t forgotten 26/11, and its aftermath, when your Indian counterparts didn’t bother to think rationally for a second, and pointed the finger squarely at us, how they threatened people like Adnan Sami Khan to leave or suffer the consequences, how Pakistani contestants were ejected from TV shows. I haven’t forgotten how united the Indian media and people were in their hate, or how vocal the media was with its hate-filled remarks, which were sometimes shocking in their intensity, and all on the basis of mere suspicion.  And then, with much regret, I haven’t forgotten the insensitive way you responded to this outburst. Some of you even went as faras to claim that Ajmal Qasab is indeed a Pakistani citizen from Faridkot, a claim that has now been refuted by Qasab himself.

Fake Evidence: Faridkot Residents Protest!

Video: Geo Tv Report on Ajmal Kassab – The Reality

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS: Close Down GEO TV and Everything Will be Fine

And now, a year later, I see my own country bleeding like it has never bled before. I remember the horror of Marriott, the shock of Lahore’s attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, the valour of the Shaheeds of Swat and Waziristan. This nation will never forget the innocent Shaheeds of GHQ, Peshawar, Parade Lane, Moon Market, and so many other places. Our innocent brothers, sisters, sons, daughters were this nation’s wealth, they were a part of its future, and a legacy of its past. We have lost some of our gems, but we will never lose the will to avenge each and every drop of innocent blood.

Now I ask you, Pakistani media, do you not see who is behind all this? Don’t the daily deaths mean anything to you? Do you not seethe huge gaping wound? I want to ask you, how far will you go in this Indian admiration of yours? I see morning shows competing with each other in getting the biggest Indian star on the show. I change the channel and I see a senseless but box-office rich Indian movie being shown. I go further and I see barely clad women dancing in a spot advertising the latest Indian awards. Can you not see anything beyond the mindlessness of Indian entertainment?

Can you see that they are out to destroy us from within, to eat our society up like termites eat wood? I can almost imagine them wringing their hands with contentment at our political and moral degradation, at how they maneuvered things until we were deprived of hosting any cricketing event on our soil. Why don’t you admire the smooth precision with which they accomplished these ugly goals?

Your silence is deafening, your silence on this geo-political war being waged on Pakistan, your silence when Ajmal Qasab said he’s just an Indian being directed in the greatest Indian drama ever played, your silence on the menacing involvement of Indian intelligence agencies in supporting terrorism in Pakistan. Your silence is truly deafening. Instead, you seem smitten by the very forces who want to see Pakistan on its knees.

Will you still go on dancing to their tunes? Will you still go on leading the people of this nation further into fools’ paradise? I just wonder, how far will you go?

‘Ready for talks with reconcilable Taliban’

* Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey vow to tackle terrorism in all its
forms, enhance indigenous capacities to that effect

ISTANBUL: The government is willing to talk to those Taliban who are ready to give up their way of life and are reconcilable, President Asif Ali Zardari said on Monday

Addressing a joint press conference with presidents Abdullah Gul of Turkey and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan at the conclusion of the fourth Trilateral Summit, President Zardari said, “Dialogue, development and deterrence were the three pillars of Pakistan’s 3-D policy.”

Answering the question as to whether the Pakistan government would enter into dialogue with any group, the president said, “We cannot distance ourselves from dialogue and talk about only war.”

He said, “If there are people who want to give up their way of life and are reconcilable, the government will talk to them.”

To another question, President Zardari said the Swat operation was an entirely indigenous operation carried out by the Pakistan Army, with no foreign soldiers or firepower involved.

Declaration: In a joint declaration after the parleys, the three countries reiterated their determination to tackle terrorism in all its forms and the importance of enhancing indigenous capacities to that effect.

Zardari was confident that the Trilateral Summit would yield desired results in enhancing cooperation among the three countries and to facilitate the restoration of peace and stability in Afghanistan. “The efforts of Turkish leaders to use their good offices to bring together Pakistan and Afghanistan to find a solution of their problems was commendable,” he said.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his government would be willing to enter into talks with those Taliban who are ready to lay down their weapons.

He said his government might also request the UN Security Council to remove such groups from the list of those identified for sanctions.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Tuesday’s Regional Summit involving Afghanistan and its six immediate neighbours was not a prelude to the forthcoming London conference on Afghanistan. “The two events are not related to each other but the organisers of the London moot could benefit from the discussions here”, he said.He said the Trilateral Summit would continue making tangible progress towards strengthening ties among the three countries and to broker a durable Pak-Afghan peace and harmony.

Pakistan intelligence offers key to Taliban

By Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

Published: January 26 2010 02:00 | Last updated: January 26 2010 02:00

Pakistan’s security establishment, which wields influence over the Afghan Taliban, says it is ready to facilitate talks to end the Afghanistan conflict in return for greater US backing in its competition with India for regional influence.

A former Pakistani intelligence officer familiar with the Taliban said: “If the world wants our very active involvement in not just bringing the Taliban to the table but keeping them at the table, our security challenges have to be acknowledged.”

General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, has said political contacts between the Kabul government and the Taliban might be the best way to end the conflict.

While most analysts say the prospect of high-level talks between Kabul and the Taliban is remote, his comments reflect a view gaining currency among US policymakers that some form of power-sharing might be the most viable exit strategy for the US. Robert Gates, US defence secretary, has said the Taliban is part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric.”

A federal minister in Islamabad echoed Pakistan’s fears that a fresh influx of 30,000 US troops might drive more Taliban fighters into Pakistan.

“We know they are not a popular force,” he said. “The Afghans will probably never give them a majority in parliament. But with Pakistan’s help and only with Pakistan’s help, the return of the Taliban to the political high table will be a far more stabilising development for Afghanistan than . . . [a US] surge.”

Renewed discussion of the possibility of a negotiated settlement presents an opportunity for Pakistan’s intelligence services, which were instrumental in the creation of the Afghan Taliban in the mid-1990s, to reassert their potential for US foreign policy objectives in the region.

Elements in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency are regarded as the gatekeepers to the Taliban leadership, believed to be based in Pakistan.

Pakistan has had an amb-iguous relationship with the US since 2001, allowing Nato supplies across its territory and extending tacit endorsement to strikes by US drones on its territory. But the military has resis-ted US pressure to broaden an offensive against its own militant groups to include Afghan insurgent groups based in Pakistan havens.

Pakistani security officials see the US tendency towards favouring negotiations as a way to leverage their country’s ties to the Taliban to wring greater concessions from Washington. Those would concern a range of policy issues, most notably its rivalry with India over Kashmir and for influence in Afghanistan.

Malik to be tried for contempt of court

SC says minister interfered in judicial issue; no written apology filed; summons AG on Feb 18; Malik says he had no intention of committing contempt

By Sohail Khan

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday ruled for initiating contempt of court proceedings against Interior Minister Rehman Malik for intervention in the court proceedings regarding a probe into Rs22 billion alleged corruption in state-owned Steel Mills.

A two-member bench of the apex court, comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice Ghulam Rabbani, was hearing a suo moto case against Rs22 billion alleged corruption in the Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM).

The apex court had issued a show- cause notice to the interior minister for transferring FIA Director General Tariq Khosa, terming it an act of interference in the court affairs, as he was investigating the loss of Rs22 billion in the state-owned Steel mills.

On Monday, in compliance with the court order, Interior Minister Rehman Malik submitted a written reply before the court. The court, however, expressed its dissatisfaction at his (interior minister’s) written reply to the contempt of court notice issued in the Pakistan Steel corruption case and declined to accept it.

The court, however, directed the attorney general to appear before it on February 18.The court ruled that no apology has been made in the written reply, submitted by Rehman Malik, thus giving adequate grounds to the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against him.

“This is not the way for submission, you have not shown any regret,” the chief justice observed. He said by submitting an explanatory note you (minister Malik) wanted to contest the case as you have not shown any ‘repentance’ in your written reply.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik submitted that he might have made a mistake but had not done so deliberately. He explained that he had no intention of committing any contempt of court.

The chief justice, however, said that contempt of court proceedings would be initiated against him (Malik) after the attorney general appears before the court on February 18.

During the course of proceedings, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the judiciary never interfered in administrative or legislative matters; however, the minister interfered in judicial issues, which will not be allowed.The chief justice while addressing Rehman Malik said you have no idea how much the Steel Mills corruption case suffered because of you. Malik informed the apex court that the FIA is not eligible to audit Steel Mills’ accounts; therefore, we are hiring a foreign firm.

On this, the chief justice said conducting audit of Steel Mills is not within the authority of the interior minister. The court adjourned the hearing till February 18 after Rehman Malik pleaded for engaging a lawyer.

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) presented a fresh report of investigation about corruption in the Pakistan Steel Mills, stating that the main suspect of the case, former chairman PSM Moeen Aftab, was in the custody whereas four more suspects are on bail; however, nine suspects are still at large.

The Supreme Court had taken suo moto notice on an article, published in the media regarding the corruption of Rs22 billion in the Pakistan Steel Mills.

It was said in the article that the government still does not know the exact losses, as there are varied figures. It’s the PSM management, which estimated the losses at Rs22 billion. However, the estimate given in the special report of the auditor-general gives a lower figure of Rs09 billion.

Pakistan Steel’s provisional financial documents for the period ended June 30, 2009, show that the Corporation faced a historical loss of Rs22.143 billion during the July-June of fiscal year 2008-2009 as compared to a Rs2.375 billion profit in fiscal year 2007-08. The current liabilities of the corporation mounted to Rs28.129 billion in 2009, which stood at Rs8.24 billion in fiscal year 2008.

The humanitarian myth

Richard Seymour Richard Seymour, the author of The Liberal Defense of Murder, analyzes the propaganda manufactured to justify U.S. actions in Haiti after the earthquake. January 25, 2010 WITHIN DAYS of Haiti suffering an earthquake registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, the U.S. government had sent thousands of 82nd Airborne troops and Marines, alongside the super-carrier USS Carl Vinson. By this Sunday, a total of more than 20,000 U.S. troops were scheduled to be operating in Haiti, both on land and in the surrounding seas. “We are there for the long term,” explained Alejandro Wolff, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The justification for sending troops is that there is a “security” crisis, which soldiers have to deal with in order to facilitate the distribution of aid. The situation was and remains a needful one. The Haitian interior minister estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died as a result of the quake, and 2 million have been left homeless. Potable water is extremely scarce, and was so even before the quake. Only half a million have found the makeshift camps that provide some food and water, but have such poor sanitation that they are fostering diarrhea. Clinics are overwhelmed by the injured survivors, estimated to number a quarter of a million. Since the arrival of the troops, however, several aid missions have been prevented from arriving at the airport in Port-au-Prince, that the U.S. has commandeered. France and Caribbean Community have both made their complaints public, as has Médecins Sans Frontières on five separate occasions. UN World Food Program flights were also turned away on two consecutive days. Benoit Leduc, MSF’s operations manager in Port-au-Prince, complained that U.S. military flights were being prioritized over aid flights. Now, U.S. ships have encircled Haiti in order to prevent refugees escaping and fleeing to the United States. Not only has aid been obstructed and escape blocked, but what aid does arrive was at first not being delivered, and then only in small amounts. Some five days after the earthquake struck, BBC News reporter Nick Davis described how aid had just started “trickling through.” While aid was arriving in Haiti “in large amounts,” some “bottlenecks” prevented the bulk of it from being distributed. Asked why the U.S. was not using its air power to deliver aid to areas unreachable by road, Defense Secretary Robert Gates maintained that this would result in riots. The writer Nelson Valdes has described how U.S. and UN authorities advised aid workers not to distribute relief independently, as they would be subject to “mob attacks.” Eyewitnesses have repeatedly described how rescue workers are scarce on the ground, and relief nowhere to be seen. Hospitals that are functioning despite the wreckage complain of having no painkillers with which to operate on patients with serious injuries. Dr. Evan Lyon of Partners in Health explained that: [I]n terms of supplies, in terms of surgeons, in terms of aid relief, the response has been incredibly slow. There are teams of surgeons that have been sent to places that were “more secure,” where they have 10 or 20 doctors and 10 patients. We have a thousand people on this campus who are triaged and ready for surgery, but we only have four working [operating rooms], without anesthesia and without pain medications. And we’re still struggling to get ourselves up to 24-hour care. In effect, the U.S. has staged an invasion of Haiti, under the pretext of providing security for humanitarian aid, and in doing so has prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid. With Haitians in a desperate condition, and the UN-supervised government in dire straits, Washington has sent the International Monetary Fund to offer a $100 million loan, on the proviso that public wages be frozen. The “security” operation, meanwhile, proceeds apace. As well as U.S. troops, thousands more UN police have been sent to Haiti. Already, UN troops, alongside the Haitian police, have been responsible for several killings, as they have opened fire on starving earthquake survivors who dared to try to retrieve the means of survival from shops and other locations. The US has also insisted that the Haitian government pass an emergency decree authorizing curfews and martial law. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the decree “would give the government an enormous amount of authority, which in practice they would delegate to us.” This process has been facilitated by a flood of alarmist and often racist reporting about “mobs,” “looters” and “gangs” causing a “security crisis.” A “security crisis” validates a repressive response. The Haitian police have justified their brutal massacres of “looters”–those securing their right to life in desperate circumstances–by telling the media that thousands of prisoners have escaped from the country’s jails, and are running amok, posing a threat to vulnerable citizens. Police have been attempting to whip up fear among earthquake survivors, organising them into vigilantes to attack the escaped prisoners. However, as many as 80 percent of Haiti’s prisoners have never been charged with a crime. “Gangs”–in the vernacular of Washington, the White House press corps and Haiti’s business lobby, the Group of 184–happens to be a synonym for Lavalas activists. For all the headlines, moreover, there is strikingly little actual violence taking place. Most of the stories of violence center on episodes of “looting,” and most such instances involve desperate people procuring the means of survival. Aid workers also contradict the image of mobs on the attack purveyed by the media and U.S. officials. Abi Weaver, spokesperson for the American Red Cross, confirmed that “we haven’t had any security issues at all.” “There are no security issues,” said Dr. Evan Lyon. “We’ve been circulating throughout the city until 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning every night, evacuating patients, moving materials. There’s no UN guards. There’s no US military presence. There’s no Haitian police presence. And there’s also no violence. There is no insecurity.” In fact, Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, deputy commander of U.S. Southern Command, maintains that there is less violence in Haiti now than before the earthquake. So if there is no insecurity, and if the US military intervention is actually obstructing aid, what becomes of the pretext for the invasion? – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Humanitarian intervention Notwithstanding this extraordinary performance, many American commentators actually approve of the U.S. response. Jonathan Dobrer, of the American Jewish University in Bel Air, declared himself “almost sinfully proud of America.” Steven Cohen of Columbia University enthused on the liberal Huffington Post that “We Have Reason to be Proud of the American Response in Haiti.” New York Times op-ed contributor Jonathan M. Hansen called on the U.S. to go further, and use the Guantánamo gulag as a base for “humanitarian intervention” in Haiti. Indeed, the label “humanitarian” is regularly applied to U.S. actions in Haiti. It is important to recall, therefore, that the overthrow of Haiti’s elected government in 2004 and the subsequent occupation was itself originally cast as a humanitarian intervention of sorts. Aristide, so the story went, had governed incompetently, his rule characterized by such corruption and violence as to generate countrywide disturbances. In recognition of his inability to govern, he supposedly “resigned” and fled the country. Filling the gap created by the absence of legitimate authority, concerned members of the “international community” prevailed upon the United Nations to send troops into Haiti and facilitate the development of democratic institutions. Matters are a little more prosaic and grubby than this uplifting scenario would suggest. The U.S. had begun cutting aid programs to Haiti when Aristide was elected with an overwhelming mandate for his second term in 2000. The result was that the national budget was cut in half, and gross domestic product shrank by a quarter in the ensuing period. The pro-U.S. opposition group, Convergence Démocratique, declared that it would not accept the results and instead began to agitate against the incoming government. Paramilitary attacks, beginning in the summer of 2001, were carried out by former death squad members and organized criminals acting in association with Haiti’s business community. Former army personnel such as Guy Philippe, an admirer of Augusto Pinochet, were organized by the U.S. under the rubric of the Fronte pour la Libération et la Reconstruction Nationale (FLRN). By February 2004, a full-blown insurgency had been launched, and had begun to take control of large parts of the country. None of the Lavalas rulers had military experience, and they were not prepared to arm and mobilize the population. Aristide, far from being a violent or incompetent ruler as his critics suggest, was eventually defeated because he was not prepared to violently repress an opposition that was explicitly organizing for his overthrow. His administrations had actually been highly effective in a number of areas, despite considerable pressures from the U.S. and the Haitian ruling class. Lavalas can be credited with reducing infant mortality from 125 to 110 per thousand live births, bringing illiteracy down from 65 percent to 45 percent and slowing the rate of new HIV infections. It was obliged by the U.S. to accept “structural adjustment” programs, but did what it could to soften the blow by maintaining subsidies, implementing some land reforms, and promulgating certain social programs. It legislated against the exploitation of children as unpaid servants in wealthy homes. It reformed the notoriously labyrinthine judiciary and put several death squad members on trial. It also managed to extract some taxes from the rich, in the face of strenuous resistance. For these humanitarian accomplishments, Aristide had to go. Once the dregs of former genocidaires and the criminal fraternity had wrought sufficient destruction across the country, the U.S. Marine Corps abducted Aristide on September 29, 2004. The initial line given to the press by James Foley, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti, was that it was a rescue mission. The U.S. had stepped in, concerned for Aristide’s welfare, and he had resigned voluntarily. As soon as Aristide got hold of a telephone, however, he informed every news outlet that would listen that he had been kidnapped by U.S. forces. He was not permitted to return to Haiti, and an occupation began under a UN mandate, enforced by MINUSTAH troops. A new regime was imposed that locked up political activists and priests, and thousands were killed either by MINUSTAH soldiers directly or by gangs operating under their authority. A study published in The Lancet found that: [D]uring the 22-month period of the U.S.-backed Interim Government, 8,000 people were murdered in the greater Port-au Prince area alone. Thirty-five thousand women and girls were raped or sexually assaulted, more than half of the victims were children…Those responsible for the human rights abuses include criminals, the police, United Nations peacekeepers and anti-Lavalas gangs. Meanwhile, the democratic process that the UN was supposed to oversee has resulted in elections in which the country’s most popular political party, Lavalas, are not allowed to participate. The recent senatorial and congressional elections saw turnouts depressed to as little as 10 percent as a result. This shambolic process has made life easier for Haiti’s ruling class, and the multinationals operating in Haiti, but by no stretch of the imagination is it “humanitarian.” The point of highlighting this background is to note that, contrary to some short-sighted commentary–like Jonathan Dobrer: “We come, we help, and we don’t stay”–the U.S. has a bloody recent history in Haiti and a well-defined set of goals in the country, including the desire to finish off Lavalas and create a benevolent investment climate for business. The belief that the U.S. is behaving in a humanitarian manner in Haiti is at best myopic. At worst, it buys into the racist mythologies about Haiti that have been on prominent display in headlines and news copy for over a week now. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Paternalism and racism The paternalistic assumptions behind the calls for ‘humanitarian intervention’ have sometimes been starkly expressed. Thus, the conservative columnist Eric Margolis lauds the history of American colonial rule in Haiti: “[T]he U.S. occupation is looked back on by many Haitians as their “golden age.” The Marine Corps proved a fair, efficient, honest administrator and builder. This era was the only time when things worked in Haiti.” Purporting to oppose imperialism, Margolis insists that “genuine humanitarian intervention” is “different,” and calls for Haiti to be “temporarily administered by a great power like the U.S. or France.” He writes: “U.S. administration of Haiti may be necessary and the only recourse for this benighted nation that cannot seem to govern itself.” Similarly, right-wing New York Times columnist David Brooks, decrying the supposed “progress-resistant cultural influences” that he maintains holds Haiti back, calls for the U.S. to “promote locally-led paternalism.” “We’re all supposed to politely respect each other’s cultures,” he complains. “But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.” To overcome this cultural handicap, Brooks recommends finding gurus who would promote a culture of achievement and responsibility–as opposed to the irresponsible, chaotic, voodoo-ridden culture that he identifies as Haiti’s major problem. It is unnecessary to dignify such caricatures by considering them as empirical hypotheses. However, it should be noted that neither author gives the slightest consideration to the persistent efforts of the U.S. government to frustrate the rise of popular, democratic movements such as Lavalas, nor to the IMF-imposed programs which saw real wages fall by 50 percent between 1980 and 1990, and which resulted in overpopulated slums and a failing rural economy. Nor do they acknowledge the brutality of the UN occupation. While Margolis acknowledges that America’s colonial rule was “sometimes brutal,” his understatement is verging on euphemism when he omits to discuss the killing of 15,000 people as Haiti’s rebels, known as Cacos, were suppressed. Nor does he mention the humiliating system of forced labor that was imposed on Haitians under U.S. rule, or the fact that the gendarmerie built up under U.S. occupation became the organized basis for later dictatorships that would blight Haiti. In short, both writers bring to bear astonishingly little understanding of the country whose fate they are discussing so cavalierly. However, what is of interest in these caricatures is the genus of imperial ideology that they relate to. Margolis is an old-school conservative (he describes himself as an Eisenhower Republican). He recalls in his phrases the manifest-destinarianism of William McKinley, who argued that the conquest and colonization of the Philippines was justified since Filipinos “were unfit for self-government.” In the imperial language of the U.S. and Europe in this period, self-government was conceived of either as a cultural state that only white people had achieved, or as a technology that only white people could use. Woodrow Wilson, the invader of Haiti, explained that the Philippines could not be given self-government by the United States, since “it is a form of character and not a form of constitution.” Self-government is a cultural state attained after a period of discipline that “gives people self-possession, self-master, the habit of order.” For Wilson, only the “nobler races”–namely Europeans and white Americans–had achieved that state. Margolis would not be so explicitly racist, but his subtext is not the less subtle for that. Brooks, though, is a neoconservative. As such, he brings to bear that tradition’s paternalism, its concern with developing good patriarchal families, and particularly its culturalist reading of social institutions. In this view, government and other institutions reflect an accumulation of cultural practices that have survived through generations. Capitalism and liberal democracy are thus the result of cultural influences such as Judeo-Christian values. The ability to govern oneself as a society is also said to be a result of cultural attributes that are generally found to be lacking in America’s opponents. These discrete cultures do not necessarily correspond to older notions of ‘race’, but they perform an analogous function in permitting privileged U.S. commentators to applaud the conquest of other societies. Thus, at the height of the Vietnam War, the “godfather” of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, argued that it was correct for the U.S. to support a right-wing dictatorship since “South Vietnam, like South Korea, is barely capable of decent self-government under the very best of conditions.” Like the Black families that Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously diagnosed as suffering from a “tangle of pathologies,” these people lacked the exquisite cultural refinements that made white Americans so successful. These are exceptionally explicit commentaries. Most of those lauding American actions are unlikely to be as cynical or brazen as Brooks and Margolis. Yet when 20,000 U.S. troops arrive in a wrecked island country, and begin obstructing aid and beefing up “security” while people die in the wreckage of thirst and starvation, only the willfully purblind or those trapped in the assumptions of the “civilizing mission,” could construe it as a “humanitarian intervention.”

:: Article nr. 62555 sent on 25-jan-2010 19:04 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62555

Link: socialistworker.org/2010/01/25/the-humanitarian-myth

American Aristocrats Without Humanity

Delaying aid for a photo-op

Jesse Hagopian

Hillary Clinton stands beside Haitian president René Préval, speaking to reporters at the airport Janaury 25, 2010 Jesse Hagopian, a teacher from Seattle, was in Haiti with his wife (who works on HIV education in the country) and one-year-old son when the earthquake hit. Here, he looks at the U.S. government’s priorities on display in Haiti right now. EVERYTHING YOU need to know about the U.S. aid effort to assist Haiti in the wake of the catastrophic earthquake can be summed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s touchdown in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, January 16: they shut down the airport for three hours surrounding her arrival for “security” reasons, which meant that no aid flights could come in during those critical hours.

Powers to back truce with Taliban commanders: US envoy

AFP January 25, 2010 WASHINGTON — World powers meeting in London this week will back plans for a truce with local Taliban commanders in Afghanistan, provided the fighters renounce Al-Qaeda, US envoy Richard Holbrooke said Monday. The special US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan said 65 nations meeting in London on Thursday would back Kabul’s proposal to set up a reintegration fund to persuade Taliban fighters to lay down arms. “The reintegration program that President (Hamid) Karzai is announcing and the international community will support is an opportunity for people fighting at the local commander level to stop fighting, come in from the cold and rejoin Afghan society — if they renounce Al-Qaeda,” he said. The proposals come as the United States and other allies aim for an eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, after eight years of battling a brutal Islamist insurgency. But Holbrooke, who was speaking during a debate to be broadcast on German’s ARD television, angrily denied accusations that Washington was ready to negotiate terms with the Taliban in order to end the bloody war. “Reintegration is not a negotiation with the Taliban leadership,” he said. His comments came as US General Stanley McChrystal, the NATO military commander in Afghanistan, also voiced support for negotiated peace. “As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” US General Stanley McChrystal said in an interview with Britain’s Financial Times published Monday. Under a plan announced by US President Barack Obama in December, 30,000 US troops are to be deployed in Afghanistan this year — in addition to more than 70,000 already there — before US forces begin withdrawing in July 2011.

:: Article nr. 62562 sent on 25-jan-2010 23:03 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62562

Nuclear Power and Money Bind Us All Together In the New World

Russia to build up to 8 nuclear reactors in West Bengal

Vinay Shukla

Moscow, Jan 22 (PTI) Russia hopes to build up to 8 nuclear reactors in West Bengal awarded to it to meet India’s growing energy demands, a top atomic energy official said.

“The Government of India has taken a decision and has awarded us the new site at Haripur in West Bengal. It means we will build at least six, maximum eight nuclear power reactors,” Chief of the State Nuclear Corporation – RosAtom Sergei Kiriyenko said.

RosAtom is currently building two nuclear power units at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu with the total capacity of 2000 MWe and is to build four more VVER-1000 reactor units under an agreement signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Moscow visit in December last.

“We are approaching the final stage in the construction of first and second units of Kudankulam.

The Copenhagen Compromise Makes Nuclear Power Cool

Copenhagen Onwards! Indo US Deal and Nuclear Infrastructure

Analysis by: Himadri Banerji

Summary

It is reported that a indigenously designed reactor in India has been commissioned thus adding to an existing fleet of eighteen reactors. As currently most important developing countries are understandingly reluctant to discuss binding limits in the energy sector because they are seen as inconsistent with their development, exemplary deals as involving nuclear technology in India will encourage new infrastructures and lower emissions. This news has far reaching implications post Copenhagen.

Analysis

In light of the failed talks in Copenhagen the news of the start of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project 5 and 6 comprises of two Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) of 220MW each is indeed welcome. Thus reinforces contention that India is surely and steadily taking full measures to meet its own national commitments related to climate change.

Though it foes beyond doubt that in order to address climate change on a global basis, the energy sectors of all major emitters will have to accept binding limits on their emissions of greenhouse gases, however the key to making these deals and others like them cost effective is an attention to situations where developing country interests align with developed country concerns regarding climate change.

It is in this context that one should view the developments in India post the signing of the U.S.-India nuclear partnership. This must be seen as a large infrastructure-changing deal that would put India on a path to lower emissions. To the extent that such deals encourage new infrastructures concurrently with lower emissions they will also make the process of international cooperation on climate change with the BRICs countries much easier because they will transform those negotiations from an effort to convince countries to take actions viewed as inconsistent with economic goals into the much easier task of reinforcing underlying sustained development patterns. Ideally, the financial incentives provided by carbon offsets along with other financial and diplomatic tools would encourage changes in behavior.

CIA Disinformation Agent Spins Fake Bin Laden Message On Fox News

[SEE:  CIA Agent Sees Dead People]

Why is Fox News hosting Scheuer to comment on bin Laden?

Despite his previous statement that-

“[t]he only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States,”

Fox News turned to Michael Scheuer to discuss a recently released audio message of bin Laden apparently endorsing the failed Christmas Day attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight. Scheuer has also previously suggested that President Obama is guilty of treason and that the Obama administration is “pro-terrorist.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Why is Fox News hosting Scheuer to c…“, posted with vodpod

US nuclear duplicity

[Both regional peace and security can be achieved once the hypocritical American double-dealing ends.  American control has always extended to maintaining a balance of terror, to be upset on American whims.  The American “Raj” has to come to an end, so that the human race can be liberated.  Nations who have become intoxicated with power, by submitting to American control, must be sobered up.  India has to shake-off this unrealistic belief that “nuclear war is survivable.”  The world is waking-up to the awful reality of Hindu beliefs in caste and seeing others as less than “human,” which creates the belief that one-half a billion collateral deaths is an “acceptable loss.”  Indian dreams of “greatness” stand in stark contrast to its delusional Zionist-infected beliefs that “democracy” can exist in a nation that holds entire classes of its citizens as cattle, or worse, “Goyim.”  Zionist ideas are a poison that conscientious citizens of the world will no longer voluntarily swallow.] By Asif Ezdi

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service The National Command Authority (NCA) had a well-publicised meeting on Jan 13 against the background of recent statements by India’s army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor that his country is capable of conducting conventional military strikes against Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella, and of fighting both Pakistan and China at the same time. The NCA meeting was also significant because it took place a week before the start of the 2010 session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), at which the commencement of negotiations on a treaty on limiting the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons will be the major issue of discussion. Kapoor’s statements reflect a dilemma that India has faced since the nuclear tests of 1998. While India established its claim to be a nuclear power, it also forced Pakistan to demonstrate its nuclear capability. The resulting nuclear standoff between the two countries made a resort to conventional warfare an extremely risky venture and had the effect of largely neutralising the advantage in conventional weapons capability that India enjoys over Pakistan. But India is unwilling to accept this reality. As the reputed US journal Arms Control Today wrote in its issue of July/August 2009, “Indian military planners foolishly believe they can engage in and win a limited conventional conflict without triggering a nuclear exchange, even though the Pakistani army’s strategy relies on nuclear weapons to offset India’s overwhelming conventional superiority.” It is this thinking that lies behind India’s offensive military doctrines like “Cold Start,” and statements such as those made by Kapoor. These warnings are not only “foolish” but they also become highly dangerous when they come from a senior official of a major foreign power, such as the declaration by US defence secretary Robert Gates last week that if there was a repeat of the Mumbai incident, India should not be expected to show the same restraint that it exercised last time. This statement can only be characterised as highly irresponsible. It is also illogical, because Gates acknowledged that the terrorist threat came from non-state actors outside the control of the Pakistani authorities. Not only that, he also tried to convince the Pakistani leadership in Islamabad that the country did not face any threat on its eastern borders. The defence secretary evidently does not seem to have realised the inherent contradiction between these two stances. The uneasy peace that the region has enjoyed in recent years rests mainly on the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. That is why the proposed Fissile Material Treaty (FMT), which could significantly affect the future nuclear programmes of Pakistan and India, is of such vital interest. The CD broke an 11-year impasse in May last year by agreeing on a work programme for negotiating the treaty. But the commencement of negotiations was held up because of differences over the implementation of the work programme. Pakistan insisted that progress on the FMT should proceed in tandem with the other core issues before the CD. Largely because of Pakistani objections, the CD could not commence its work on the FMT last year. At the opening session of the CD this year (Jan 19), the Pakistani delegation proposed that the conference should also consider conventional arms control at the regional level and negotiate a global regime on all aspects of missiles. Because of the lack of agreement on this proposal, the adoption of the agenda has been delayed. Behind these procedural questions, there are important substantive differences. There is no agreement yet on the fundamental question whether the treaty should only prohibit future production or deal also with existing stocks of fissile material. Pakistan has pointed out that freezing the existing asymmetries would undermine its security. The Pakistani delegation has also underlined that for Pakistan the issue is linked to the decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), taken in 2008 at US initiative, to allow nuclear trade with India, while continuing the embargo on Pakistan. This deal, as Pakistan has maintained, would enable India to produce substantial additional quantities of fissile material for nuclear weapons and consequently upset strategic balance in the region. The NCA underlined in its press release that during consideration of the FMT by the CD, Pakistan would not accept any discriminatory measures that perpetuate regional instability or are prejudicial to its national security. This is absolutely right. But the question remains whether the procedural tactics being employed by our delegation to stall the work of the CD on the FMT are the best means of achieving our goals. The alternative would be to take part in the negotiations and work for a treaty which is in keeping with our national interests. Failing that, we could withhold our signatures from it. This is the course India has taken. New Delhi has reservations on halting the production of fissile material and has declared that it will not accept obligations that hinder its nuclear weapons programme. But it has not obstructed negotiations on the treaty. After the procedural moves made by our delegation in Geneva, Washington and other supporters of the FMT may be expected to make diplomatic demarches urging Islamabad to withdraw its objections to the proposed CD agenda. And if the past is any guide, our Government will not be able to stand up to U.S. pressure. Our fundamental problem is that our national security policies are largely determined by domestic political considerations. Our response to the India-US nuclear deal is a striking example of this attitude. After it was made public in July 2005, the Musharraf regime made some noises in public expressing its unhappiness but, as Undersecretary of State William J Burns indicated in a meeting with the press in December 2006, Musharraf let it be known privately that he was “not unhappy” with the deal. Musharraf was clearly not prepared to jeopardise US support for his rule. Musharraf’s policies on this issue have been followed under Zardari – and for the same reasons. He has not taken up the question of Pakistan’s access to civilian nuclear technology in any of his meetings with US leaders. Nor has Gilani or Foreign Minister Qureshi. Also, Nawaz Sharif has not raised it in any of his public speeches or his meetings with visiting leaders from the US administration or Congress. Our “sovereign” parliament has not discussed it either. In July 2008, several retired ambassadors of Pakistan called upon the government to make civil nuclear cooperation a high-priority issue in our agenda with the United States and other leading NSG members. Later, in September 2009 some former ambassadors wrote in an open letter to Obama that if Pakistan continues to be denied access to civilian nuclear technology on the same terms as India, our partnership with US in the global effort to eradicate terrorism would remain fragile and Pakistan would not be in a position to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the FMT. Gilani occasionally complains to the media about the double standards of US policy on international civilian nuclear cooperation. He recently brought up this matter with a US congressional delegation. Someone needs to tell him that it is not to the media and US congressmen but the US president and heads of government of other leading NSG countries to whom he should be addressing himself. In a letter to Zardari last November, Obama offered an expanded strategic partnership to Pakistan. If Gilani is serious, he should now write to the US president to emphasise that if this partnership is to be meaningful, it must include access for Pakistan to civilian nuclear technology. The prime minister should also urge Obama to take the lead in getting Pakistan a waiver from NSG guidelines similar to that given to India. This issue should be made a priority item of the bilateral agenda, starting with the talks being hosted by Hillary Clinton in Washington next month. Gilani should similarly take it up with other leading NSG members. The writer is a former member of the Foreign Service. Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com

The Lessons Learned from Israel: In Secret War the Aggressor Is Always the Victim

[Always berate your opponent for copying your own behavior.  Hypocrisy is the hallmark of “counter-insurgency.”

“Pakistan keeps pursuing its strategy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India. There is little reason to believe that Pakistan will abandon that low-cost, minimum risk but high returns terror enterprise either now or in the foreseeable future.”]

American doublespeak

Rajiv Dogra

It was and remains a practiced part of the American routine to say in India what goes down well with the Indian media. However, as soon as Americans are on Pakistani soil, they recraft what they said in India. That’s precisely what US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has done

Alas, we are easy to please. Otherwise we would have known that what they say here isn’t how they reassure there. Like the British during the days of the Empire, Americans feel that they now have the international licence to pontificate. By and large the world too falls in line; with the exception of China which has recently taken to hitting them back with equal vehemence.

But turning back to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ recent visit, just look at the ecstatic response he got from us when he said in New Delhi that “India would find it difficult to show the kind of restraint it did after 26/11 if there was another attack from the Pakistani soil”. We failed of course to recognise that it was a practiced part of the American routine to say in India what goes down well with the media here.

However, as soon as they are on the Pakistani soil they nuance that same statement differently. There, they are under intense scrutiny, and not just by the media. According to Dawn, after addressing Pakistan’s National Defence University Mr Gates commented that his statement in India had been misunderstood.

And just to make things amply clear to the American visitor, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reportedly told him, “Pakistan is itself facing Mumbai like attacks almost every day and when we cannot protect our own citizens, how can we guarantee that there wouldn’t be any more terrorist hits in India.”

This of course should not come as a surprise because from the very beginning Pakistan has perfected ‘denial’ into an art form. And when cornered, as it nearly was after 26/11, it pretends injured innocence. No wonder then that time and again Pakistan has been let off the hook by the international community.

Thus emboldened, Pakistan keeps pursuing its strategy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India. There is little reason to believe that Pakistan will abandon that low-cost, minimum risk but high returns terror enterprise either now or in the foreseeable future.

If Pakistan has been consistent in its approach, so it seems are we. Ours, however, is the uniformity of the timid.

Despite Mr Shashi Tharoor’s withering view of aspects of Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policy, it will be hard to disagree with Nehru’s observations on a policy file at the height of tensions in Kashmir in December 1947. After sketching out Pakistan’s aggression, he reflected on India’s response, “It seems to me that our outlook has been defensive and apologetic, as if we were ashamed of what we were doing and we are not quite sure of how far we should go. I see nothing to apologise for and a defensive way of meeting raiders seems to me completely wrong.”

Then, as now, his assessment rings true. Had Nehru been alive today, wouldn’t he have written similarly on the policy files of Ministry of External Affairs?

Essentially our response remains the same; tepid, just along the lines of Nehru’s lament. Be it the terrorist attack on Parliament when we lined up troops futilely along the border, or the Kargil war when we refrained from crossing the LoC, or 26/11 when for long we kept insisting that it was the work of non-state actors; the essence of our response remains half-hearted and apologetic.

But having written what he wrote in 1947, would Nehru have handled any of these situations differently; a bit more firmly?

Nehru himself provides a clue as to how he may have reacted. In that same note of December 1947 he goes on to add, “Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious course is to strike at these concentrations and lines of communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable… This involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the present operations are continuing on either side.”

This was no moralistic running commentary. It was hard headed realism, yet he held back. The point at issue is not war, but the nature of our response. Why was it that having diagnosed correctly and having made the right prescription, Nehru refrained from taking the action that he had advocated? Doesn’t that signal weakness? Isn’t this a major reason why deterrence is not seen by others as a part of our armoury?

Call it complacence, fatalism or supine acceptance or whatever else you wish; but one thing is clear. This lack of an effective response on our part has nothing to do with the caste, creed or belief. It is simply a product of the benign Indian soil. Any one of our one billion would probably be equally soft and forgiving. Perhaps, this attitude has more to do with a deeply ingrained desire not to displease the other.

The confidence that we will not strike back, and hurt, is a major reason why India has suffered foreign rulers for over a thousand years. While our response, or lack of it, has remained static others have diversified.

The nature of aggression has changed; terror has been added as an important new dimension to war since that first invasion of Kashmir in 1947. State and non-state actors are coordinating their strategy brazenly; look for instance at the frustrating way Pakistan keeps asking India for more, and yet more evidence, when everything that happened in 26/11 was planned on the Pakistani soil. The nature of targets has changed too. It is no longer simply a case of conquest of territory. Pakistan uses to the full its capacity to befuddle the west, with consequent pressure on India to accommodate and concede.

A manifestation of this tactic is the rumours afloat currently that India will initiate the dialogue. There is also the increasingly frequent talk that autonomy for Kashmir is a matter of time. But others warn grimly that autonomy would be the thin end of the Pakistani wedge. They doubt that Pakistan’s gameplan is limited to Kashmir; otherwise the targets of its terror would not have principally included India’s economic centres.

That it should be so is natural, because the world over there is growing recognition that India is poised at the edge of economic greatness. But prosperity, and economic heights, cannot be sustained in isolation. To remain truly great, a country must be powerful and should be perceived as so by its enemies. It is a historical fact that financially rich, but militarily weak, nations are tempting targets; just as India was so often in the past.

Therefore, it will be simplistic to presume that goodwill alone will safeguard our prosperity. Or that conceding demands like autonomy will be the end of our troubles with Pakistan. In fact it may mark a new beginning of them; for the simple reason that while India has consistently used democracy as a tool for nation building that has not been the case on the other side.

Pakistan’s birth was based on the ideology of exclusion. To complicate matters further its leaders have consistently reared Pakistani people on a diet of envy. Till Pakistan gets over that envy and its hatred of India, we are condemned by our benignity to live by its whims.

— The writer is a former Ambassador.

Heavy firing at India-Pakistan border in J and K, Army on alert

Heavy firing at India-Pakistan border in J&K, Army on alert

The Indian Army was put on alert following heavy exchange of fire at the India-Pakistan border in Jammu and Kashmir early on Tuesday following a major infiltration bid, defence sources said on Tuesday as the country celebrated its 61st Republic Day.

The firing, at the Kanachak sector near Akhnoor, 30 km northwest from Jammu, started at 2 am and went on four hours. Officials said Pakistani Rangers provided covering fire to a group of infiltrators. The BSF men retaliated and the guns fell silent around 6 am.

The Indian Army has been put on alert along the border, where the first line of defence is provided by the BSF.

Army sources said troops were put on alert after the fire started from Pakistani side. They described the firing as heavy and said it was a clear attempt by Pakistan to push terrorists into India on Republic Day.

The exchange of fire was heavy for about two hours initially. “Thereafter, it was intermittent firing that lasted till 6 am,” Director General of Police Kuldeep Khoda told reporters.

It was the 15th ceasefire violation incident and infiltration attempt from across the border this month.

“Pakistan is desperate to push terrorists to the Indian side,” a senior army official said, adding that they wanted to strike on India’s national day and were unhappy with the peace in Jammu and Kashmir.

When the Guns Fizzed and the Gizmos Fizzled

25 Jan, 2010 Moin Ansari

All the “Daisy Cutters”, Nuclear tipped bombs, and the finest drones on the planet could not stand up to the raw grit of those that opposed occupation. All the kings horses and the all the kings men could not put humpty back together or subdue the fierce fighters of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are clear signs of operationalization of the peace plan in Kabul. The surge was simply to assuage the hawks in the Republican Party–the real Afghan reassessment was to get American boys out of the treacherous Hindu Kush. Defeat is a clichéd word–there are no winners in war. Victory is exaggerated concept. Absolute defeats have never been able to quell the resistance. Absolute victories have always lead to future wars–be it Sparta, Versailles or Kabul. Mr Holbrooke the consumate ‘Ugly American’ Gates confirms Blackwater in Pakistan. Resign Mr. Malik Frank talks: Pat down of Gates continues in Pakistan When the Guns Fizzed and the Gizmos Fizzled US ignores Incian concern on drones for Pakistan As Shakespeare would say “when the hurly burly’s done, and the battle is lost and won“–there is time to make a fresh start. When a country is not able to impose its will and might–it is some sort of defeat. The Americans today need a face saving exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Taliban, Pakistan and all other countries of the world should assist the US in a phased, expeditious and honorable withdrawal from Afghanistan. Over the past several years, we have predicted that the US will exit Afghanistan in 2011 right before the US elections. The tell tale signs of the operationalization of this policy is writ in large all over the billboards called newspapers. There are numerous indications confirming our well calculated predictions: the polite decline to Delhi on their exuberance to begin training the Afghan forces; the offering of Shadow drones to Pakistan; the peace talks with the Afghan Taliban; the mood and the statements of the big boys in preperation of the Afghan Conference on January 28th, 2010; the acceptance of the Pakistani point of view on halting further operations in FATA; the usage of Pakistani mediators in back channel diplomacy to include the Taliban in the current Kabul government; the offer of further US military and financial aid to Pakistan. The carrots offered to Pakistan are not for free–Milton Friedman was right “that ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. Pakistan is being offered new toys and more Dollars for her assistance in helping the American extricate themselves out of the Afghan quagmire. America had a decision to make. Stick with General McChrystal’s policy of more soldiers, more mercenaries and more war–supplemented with more drone bombing and more targeted murders (drones and otherwise). More war has always created more enemies. This has never been more true than in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. Washington’s other choice was less war, less soldiers and less enemies. President Obama hedged his bets with the first option, and then is pursuing the 2nd option aggressively. While some may claim that the Great Game is over–and Pakistan won. However, this is not the time for crowing from the rooftops. This is the time to let loose the doves from the allow them to to fly into the sun. There are many steps between the lips and cup. There are many impediments to peace in the Panshir and tranquility in Waziristan. We believe that the right steps are being taken. A show of strength followed up with massive financial aid and assistance will yield the right results. Once the troops begin leaving, the civilian surge, accompanied with suitcases full of Dollars will persuade the warlords to switch sides (just like the Northern Alliance switched sides in 2001). There are huge dangers to he peace deal. Bharat (aka India) keenly aware of its sagging influence in Central Asia (specially after the ignominious eviction from Tajikistan) may play the chagrined loser, and stage another Mumbai type of false flag, and try to wage war on Pakistan. This would derail the peace plan. Some of Bharati (Indian) surrogates in Baluchistan and the TTP may be allowed to torpedo peace in the Khyber Pass by assassinating another Pakistani leader, in trying to create ethnic strife in Pakistan. Other international powers may have vested interests in ensuring that the Taliban do not come into power or even share the government in Kabul. Both Israel and Iran are scared of the Talibs. If President Obama is able to pull this off–it will be a miracle. He has to keep the Indians at bay by selling them toys (double advantage, dollars and Peace); he has to appease the Pakistanis so that they continue their assistance in achieving peace; he has to browbeat Iranian resistance through sanctions and threats; he has to assuage the Chinese that Afghan venture is over with no threat to Beijing; and he has to keep the Russians cool so that they do not think that Central Asia has been taken from them. If he can do this tap dance, the US corporations can make huge profits. Delhi needs Viagra to prove its manhood. The US can offer the blue pills in many forms–obsolete nuclear plants declared unsafe for America, stripped down F-16s (with lots of spare parts and services), and tons of below quality equipment that the Indians would love to plunk down hard cash for. After all the business of America is doing business. If the US can figure out how to sell billions of Dollars of machines (which will rust in a few years) to Delhi that would be a great achievement. If the US can make a profit out of the Afghan war to recuperate some of its losses, it will be a happy camper. Bharat will smile if the blue pills come in the shapes of iron and steel. No matter if many more Bhopals happen–as long as the corrupt politicians can fill their Swiss bank accounts. While much attention is paid to the corruption in Pakistan, a recent statistic from Zurich showed that 80% of the Swiss accounts belong to Indians. Why are they putting their money there–must be hiding something. One major reason for the massive failure of indigenous Indian defense projects is the fact that the corrupt military and political leaders make a lot more money from foreign military purchases. General Kapoor is a prime example of the corruption that infests the Indian military. However unlike Pakistan where these things are dicussed and there is a NRO–albeit a broken and politicized system, in Bharat most of the corruption under the radar. The few exception like Bofars etc. are the tip of the iceberg. Actually the politicization of the NRO keeps the opposition honest and has led to some persecution but a lot of prosecution and also. Delhi thrown out of Tajikistan, sequestered of out Central Asia, and locked in a tough battle of wits and territory with Chin and Pakistan now gets the consolation prize of fumes, jets, and nuclear plants from America–sugar coated with state dinners and eulogies on how big the Indian “democracy” is. One must hand it to the US marketing teams–they make it seem like the US is doing Bharat (or Pakistan for that matter) by selling it obsolete equipment. One is reminded of the Cherokees who were done a favour by the Yanks when they sold them blankets. It has now been scientifically proven that the blankets had small-pox infestations– Native Americans claim that the small pox was deliberately infused into the blankets. The US sanctions in the 90s made Pakistan self sufficient in nuclear and missile technology. After the first squadron of JF-17 Thunder was operationalized, the Pakistanis are working closely with the Chinese to build the FC-20s and also the J-144 which shows the technological independence of Asia. With America leaving, Pakistan will not have free reign in Afghanistan. The sway will be curtailed by local opposition and guarantees from China and Russia so that the terrible days of the Taliban cannot be resurrected. After the withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan, they had set up the structure in a manner that the Najibullah’s government survived in Kabul for three years. The Karzai government allied with the Taliban will survive less than a year. There will be civil war in Afghanistan again—but it will come to an end eventually. The only sane solution is the inevitable confederation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moin Ansari is a seasoned political scientist, investigative historian and strategic defense analyst with special focus on International Relations in South and West Asia. His columns appear in various publications, including the Opinion Maker. He is the Editor in Chief of Rupee News and Pakistan Ledger

RAW In Balochistan

BLA-BRP: A threat to international peace: “The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran & Afghanistan”. Expose on RAW babies

by Moin Ansari

BLA – BRP–A threat to international peace: “The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran and Afghanistan“. Expose on RAW. The chief of the Baloch Republican Party (BRP), Brahmdagh Bugti, has become the chief protagonist.

Baloch Republican Party (BRP) is another RAW sponsored terror outfit that kills the innocent and murders women and children

Brahmdagh is one of the most prominent faces of the ongoing Baloch insurgency sponsored by Delhi. Mr. Bugti is the grandson of Baloch politician Akbar Khan Bugti, a former chief minister and governor of Balochistan, who was killed during a military operation on August 26, 2006.

While another of Nawab Bugti’s grandsons, Mir Aali Bugti, has been nominated as the sardar of the Bugti tribe, Brahmdagh has reportedly taken command of separatist Baloch fighters. The Pakistani government has blamed India for supporting the 28-year-old guerrilla commander through Afghanistan, where he is currently rumoured to be in hiding.

Bharat has been making a big hullabaloo about Mumbai, and doesn’t want to talk about the RAW sponsored LTTE attack on the Lankans in Lahore. The Delhi establishment tries to score points about terror in Bharat, but forgets to mention that Delhi armed, trained and supported the Mukti Bahni in East Pakistan, and then tried to rule Bangladesh with the Rakhi Bahni (run by a serving Indian general). Mr. Singh shouts about Pakistan from the rooftops, admits the Delhi involvement in Balauchistan, but then reneges on the admission and doesn’t stop the RAW support to the terrorists in Baluchistan. The expose on the BLA has been written by Mr. Baloch and the article on RAW has been written by regular Rupee News columnist Isha Khan from Dhaka Bangladesh.

The BLA was a relic of the cold war. During the USSR-USA war it was supported, financed and armed by the Soviet Union. When the USSR imploded, so did the BLA. With the massive development in Baluchistan happening, Baluchistan had two decades of peace. Mir Balaach Marri, the head of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), was killed on 20 November 2007.

All of a sudden the six Indian consultates started training the exporting these people to create mayhem in Pakistan. Jundullah was also unleased to create issues in Iranian Sistan-Balauchistan.

“The Balochistan Liberation Army has been listed as an organisation that funds, and promotes terrorism in the United Kingdom The group has also been listed a terror group by MIPT Terrorism Knowledge base, an organzation funded by the US Dept. for homeland Security” Wikipedia

For a detailed history of Baluchistan there are several articles on this site.

RAW agent # 1: The chief of the Baloch Republican Party (BRP), Brahmdagh Bugti

The arrest of Faiz Baluch and Hyrbyair Marri by British Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command from north-west and west London on 4 December 2007, on the charges of “commissioning, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism”, clearly shows the seriousness of UK in their fight against terror. Both of them were held on two accounts under Terrorism Act of 2000: firstly, inciting people to commit an act of terrorism, and secondly, possessing “a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing” contrary to the Firearms Act. During the raids on the homes and offices, the police recovered large quantities of documents, DVDs, computer files and a cash of £4,000.

The two London residents are senior commanders of Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) – an international terrorist group that is banned in Britain by the then home secretary John Reid in July 2006. The BLA has been responsible for attacks on the infrastructure such as gas pipelines, power stations, electric pylons as well as bomb blasts where innocent civilian have been victims. Due to targeted military operation aganist the armed militants in Balochistan, many BLA activists sought political asylums or refuge in the European countries. These political asylum seekers under the garb of “aggrieved party” are sponsoring the foreign-based organizations of Pakistani origin responsible for committing acts of terrorism inside Pakistan.

14 Bharati “Consulates” are RAW terror centers spreading sabotage across the border in Pakistan. ‘Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.’ (Gen Stanley McChrystal)

Hence, they pose an alarming threat to the international peace and stability. Realizing its threat, the British police have apprehended the miscreant element which is a welcome sign. This will provide an impetus to other European countries to check the activities of BLA in their respective countries. It will be pertinent to mention here, that the western societies, being the proponent of human liberties and human rights should be careful in granting political asylums or refuge to those individuals having false account. When they escape to a new country, the credibility of the asylum seekers must be established and police of the concerned country be also consulted. The duo arrested was granted asylum in Britain in 2002, despite of the fact that the account forwarded by these two incumbents was false and exaggerated.

The BLA has claimed responsibility for most of the attacks in reaction to the ongoing developmental activities in the province meant to improve the life-style of the common people. Look at the education, health, and other social indicators in the province. These essential amenities are embarrassingly low compared to other even less developed areas of the country. The Government is trying its level best to bring the area into socio-economic mainstream so that fruits of progress trickle down to the common man. But, few ego-centric sardars with the help of BLA want to disrupt developmental process by attacking vital installations.

The story of resistance in the area is a long one. First, Balochs have grievances against the federal Government which relate to exploitation of natural resources, in particular Sui gas, without adequate compensation. Second, the Baloch people also fear that the mega projects, in particular the Gwadar port city, would invite an influx of population from other provinces reducing the ethnic Baloch to a minority at some stage. Third, building of cantonments in the three most sensitive areas of Balochistan, is perceived as an attempt to control the resources. It is to say, if they have some genuine grievances against the policies of the Government, they should raise it at the forum of national assembly instead of going to streets. It is beyond comprehension that how few feudal sardars without backing of the general masses can make the country ‘hostage’.

The multi-billion dollar deep sea port in the coastal district of Gwadar, being built by the Chinese contractors, has provided myriads of opportunities to the Baloch people. The political analysts say that such paradoxical interpretations of the phenomenon by the “vested group” would only impede any solution to the Balochistan problem. The solution to the people’s issues lies in the distribution of the dividends of development equitably. The attacks on important national installations orchestrated by “miscreants,” has only alienated people and created new problems that only affected the poor people, further squeezing their opportunities for sustainable livelihoods.

The international terrorism, no matter when, by whom, where, and in what form, is a grave threat to the world peace and security. It has shown that the world is not peaceful, so it is extremely necessary to strengthen international cooperation. Every country should take same position on condemning and fighting terrorism resolutely. Any person who carries out acts of terrorism should be punished and terrorist activities should be cracked down. All the foreign-based organizations consisting of nationals of Baloch origins, supporting/funding the asylum seeker miscreants should be taken to the task by the counter-terrorism authorities of the respective country.

All the Balochi websites operating in western countries responsible of fanning anti-Pakistan sentiments, are tantamount to inciting people to commit acts of terrorism, should also be precluded.

The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran and Afghanistan. In the larger interest, the effective counter-terrorism requires Indian support and cooperation with Pakistan authorities to help create an environment of peace and tranquillity.

India’s Military Base in Tajikistan

The Train of Terror from Delhi, Dushambe to Dera Ghazi Khan

Terrorism can be beaten when moderate forces mobilize themselves to isolate and defeat its perpetrators. Therefore, it is ripe time that the rebel tribesmen should disarm themselves as a first pre-condition before a “meaningful dialogue” process takes place. The Government, in its turn, must take measures to dispel the feelings of alienation of the Baloch, bring the nationalists into mainstream politics, create local stakeholders in the province’s development, and to assuage their overall grievances. BLA – A threat to international peace by Ahmad Shah Baloch

پاکستاني بھایوں سے گزارش ھے کہ ان دھشتگردون کے خلاف خط لکھین

، president@bluehost.com, webmaster@bluehost.com, support@bluehost.com domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM

India’s intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (R.A.W.), created in 1968, has assumed a significant status in the formulation of the country’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly the latter. Working directly under the prime minister, it has over the years become an effective instrument of India’s national power. In consonance with Kautilya’s precepts, R.A.W.’s espionage doctrine is based on the principle of waging a continuous series of battles of intrigues and secret wars. (Kautilya, or more popularly, Chânakya, was an ancient Indian political theorist.)Since its creation, R.A.W. has been a vital, though unobtrusive, actor in the Indian policy-making apparatus. But it is the massive international dimensions of R.A.W. operations that merit a closer examination.

To the credit of this organization, it has in a very short span of time mastered the art of spy warfare. Credit must go to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970’s gave it a changed and much more dynamic role. To suit her much publicized Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine), Gandhi specifically asked R.A.W. to create a powerful organ within the organization that could undertake covert operations in neighboring countries. It is this capability that makes R.A.W. a more fearsome agency than the superior K.G.B., C.I.A., M.I.6, B.N.D., or Mossad.Its internal role is confined only to monitoring events that have a bearing on the external threat. R.A.W.’s boss works directly under the prime minister. An Additional secretary to the government of India, under the director of R.A.W., is responsible for the Office of Special Operations, intelligence collected from different countries, internal security (under the director general of security), the electronic/technical section, and general administration.

The additional secretary as well as the director general of security is also under the director of R.A.W. The director of security has two important sections: the Aviation Research Center and the Special Services Bureau. The joint director has specified desks with different regional divisions/areas (countries): area one, Pakistan; area two, China and Southeast Asia; area three, the Middle East and Africa; and area four, other countries.

The Aviation Research Center (A.R.C.) is responsible for interception, monitoring and jamming of a target country’s communication systems. It has the most sophisticated electronic equipment and also a substantial number of aircraft equipped with state-of-the-art eavesdropping devices. A.R.C. was strengthened in mid-1987 by the addition of three new aircraft, all Gulf Stream-3s. These aircraft can reportedly fly at an altitude of 52,000 feet and have an operating range of 5,000 kilometers. A.R.C. also controls a number of radar stations located close to India’s borders. Its aircraft also carry out oblique reconnaissance, along the border with Bangladesh, China, Nepal, and Pakistan.Having been given virtual carte blanche to conduct destabilization operations in neighboring countries inimical to India, R.A.W. seriously undertook restructuring of its organization accordingly. R.A.W. was given a list of seven countries—Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Pakistan, and Maldives—that India considered its principal regional protagonists.

It very soon systematically and brilliantly crafted covert operations in all these countries to coerce, destabilize, and subvert them in consonance with the foreign policy objectives of the Indian government.R.A.W.’s operations against the regional countries were conducted with great professional skill and expertise. Central to the operations was the establishment of a huge network inside the target countries. It used and targeted political dissent, ethnic divisions, economic backwardness, and criminal elements within these states to foment subversion, terrorism, and sabotage. Having thus created conducive environments, R.A.W. stage-managed future events in these countries in such a way that military intervention appears a natural concomitant of the events. In most cases, R.A.W.’s hand remained hidden, but more often than not target countries soon began unearthing this “hidden hand.” A brief expose of R.A.W.’s operations in neighboring countries, “Open Secrets: India’s Intelligence Unveiled ” by M. K. Dhar (Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2005), revealed the full expanse of its regional ambitions to suit the India Doctrine.

Bangladesh: Indian intelligence agencies were involved in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, beginning in the early 1960’s. Its operatives were in touch with Sheikh Mujib for quite some time. Sheikh Mujib went to Agartala in 1965. The famous Agartala case was unearthed in 1967. In fact, the main purpose of raising R.A.W. in 1968 was to organize covert operations in Bangladesh. As early as 1968, R.A.W. was given a green light to begin mobilizing all its resources for the impending surgical intervention in erstwhile East Pakistan.

When in July 1971 General Manekshaw told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that the army would not be ready until December to intervene in Bangladesh, she quickly turned to R.A.W. for help. R.A.W. was ready. Its officers used Bengali refugees to set up the guerilla force Mukti Bahini. Using this outfit as a cover, the Indian military sneaked deep into Bangladesh. The story of Mukti Bahini and R.A.W.’s role in its creation and training is now well known. R.A.W. never concealed its Bangladesh operations. (See Asoka Raina’s “Inside R.A.W.: the story of India’s Secret Service, Vikas Publishing House of New Delhi.)The creation of Bangladesh was masterminded by R.A.W. in complicity with the K.G.B. under the covert clauses of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (adopted as the 25-Year Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1972). R.A.W. retained a keen interest in Bangladesh even after its independence. Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Dal member of Parliament, a close associate of Morarji Desai, said that Rameswar Nath Kao, former chief of R.A.W., and Shankaran Nair were upset about Sheikh Mujib’s assassination and chalked a plot to kill Gen.

Ziaur Rahman. However, when Desai came to power in 1977 he was indignant at R.A.W.’s role in Bangladesh and ordered operations in Bangladesh to be called off; but by then R.A.W. had already gone too far. General Zia continued in power for quite some time but was assassinated after Indira Gandhi returned to power, though she denied involvement in his assassination (Weekly Sunday, Calcutta, Sept. 18, 1988). R.A.W. was involved in training of Chakma tribes and Shanti Bahini, who carried out subversive activities in Bangladesh.

It also unleashed a well-organized plan of psychological warfare, created polarization among the armed forces, propagated false allegations of the use of Bangladesh territory by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, created dissension among the political parties and religious sects, controlled the media, denied the use of river waters, and propped up a host of disputes in order to keep Bangladesh under constant political and socio-economic pressure (See “R.A.W. and Bangladesh” by Mohammad Zainal Abedin, November 1995, and “R.A.W. in Bangladesh: Portrait of an Aggressive Intelligence,” written and published by Abu Rushd, Dhaka).

Sikkim and Bhutan: Sikkim was the easiest and most docile prey for R.A.W. Indira Gandhi annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim in the mid-1970’s. The deposed King Chogyal Tenzig Wangehuck was closely followed by R.A.W.’s agents until his death in 1992.Bhutan, like Nepal and Sikkim, is a land-locked country totally dependent on India. R.A.W. developed links with members of the royal family as well as top bureaucrats to implements its policies. It cultivated agents from among Nepalese settlers and put itself in a position to create difficulties for the government of Bhutan. In fact, the king of Bhutan has been reduced to the position of merely acquiescing to New Delhi’s decisions and goes by its dictates in the international arena.

Sri Lanka: Post-independence Sri Lanka, despite having a multi-sectoral population, was a peaceful country until 1971 and was following an independent foreign policy. During the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, despite heavy pressure from India, Sri Lanka allowed Pakistan’s civil and military aircraft and ships to stage through its air and seaports with unhindered refueling facilities. It had also permitted Israel to establish a nominal intelligence presence and permitted the installation of a high-powered transmitter by Voice of America, which was resented by India.It was because of these “irritants” that Indira Gandhi planned to bring Sri Lanka into the fold of the so-called Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine). Kao was told by Gandhi to repeat their Bangladesh success. R.A.W. went looking for militants it could train to destabilize the regime. Camps were set up in Tamil Nadu and old R.A.W. guerrilla trainers were dug out of retirement.

R.A.W. began arming the Tamil Tigers and training them at centers such as Gunda and Gorakhpur. As a sequel to this ploy, Sri Lanka was forced into the Indian power web when the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was singed and the Indian Peacekeeping Force landed in Sri Lanka.The Ministry of External Affairs was upset at R.A.W.’s role in Sri Lanka as they felt that R.A.W. was continuing negotiations with Tamil Tiger leader Parabhakaran in contravention to the Indian government’s foreign policy.

According to R. Swaminathan, (former special secretary of R.A.W.) it was this outfit that was used as the intermediary between Rajib Gandhi and Tamil leader Parabhakaran. Former Indian high commissioner in Sri Lanka J. N. Dixit even accused R.A.W. of having given 10 million rupees to the L.T.T.E. (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). At a later stage, R.A.W. built up the E.P.R.L.F. (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front) and E.N.D.L.F. (Eelam National Democratic Liberation Front) to fight against the L.T.T.E., which made the situation in Sri Lanka highly volatile and uncertain later on.

Maldives: Under a well-orchestrated R.A.W. plan, on Nov. 30, 1988, a 300- to 400-strong well-trained force of mercenaries armed with automatic weapons, initially said to be of unknown origin, infiltrated in boats and stormed the capital of Maldives. They resorted to indiscriminate shooting and took high-level government officials hostage. At the Presidential Palace, the small contingent of loyal national guards offered stiff resistance, which enabled President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to move to a safe place where he issued urgent appeals for help from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Britain, and the United States.

Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reacted promptly and about 1,600 combat troops belonging to the 50th Independent Para-Brigade in conjunction with Indian naval units landed at Male, the capital of Maldives, under the code name Operation Cactus. A number of Indian air force transport aircraft, escorted by fighters, were used for landing personnel, heavy equipment, and supplies. Within hours of landing, Indian troops flushed out the attackers from the streets and hideouts. Some of them surrendered to Indian troops, and many were captured by Indian naval units while trying to escape with their hostages in a Maldivian ship, Progress Light. Most of the 30 hostages, including Ahmed Majtaba, Maldives’ minister of transport, were released.

The Indian government announced the success of Operation Cactus and complimented the armed forces for a good job done.The Indian defense minister, while addressing air force personnel at Bangalore, claimed that the country’s prestige had been raised because of the peace-keeping role played by Indian forces in Maldives. The international community in general and South Asian states in particular, however, viewed with suspicion the over-all concept and motives of the operation. The Western media described it as a display by India of its newly acquired military muscle and its growing role as a regional police force. Although the apparent identification of two Maldivian nationals among the mercenaries, at face value, link it with previous such attempts, other converging factors indicative of external involvement could hardly be ignored. That the mercenaries sailed from Manar and Kankasanturai in Sri Lanka, which were in complete control of the Indian Peacekeeping Force, and the timing and speed of India’s intervention proved its involvement beyond any doubt.

Nepal: Since the partition of the subcontinent, India has openly meddled in Nepal’s internal affairs by contriving internal strife and conflicts through R.A.W. to destabilize the successive legitimate governments and prop up puppet regimes that would be more amenable to Indian machinations. Armed insurrections were sponsored and abetted by R.A.W. and later requests for military assistance to control these conflicts were managed through pro-India leaders. India has been aiding and inciting the Nepalese dissidents to collaborate with the Nepali Congress. For this they were supplied arms whenever the king or the Nepalese government appeared to be drifting away from India’s dictates and impinging on India’s hegemonic designs in the region. In fact, under the garb of the so-called democratization measures, the Maoists were actively encouraged to collect arms and resort to open rebellion against the legitimate Nepalese governments. The contrived rebellions provided India an opportunity to intervene militarily in Nepal, ostensibly to control the insurrections, which were masterminded by R.A.W. itself.

It was an active replay of the Indian performance in Sri Lanka and Maldives a few years earlier. R.A.W. is particularly aiding the people of Indian origin and has been providing them with arms and ammunition. R.A.W. has also infiltrated the ethnic Nepali refugees who have been extradited by Bhutan and taken refuge in eastern Nepal. R.A.W. can exploit its links with these refugees whenever either country goes against Indian interests. Besides, the Nepalese economy is totally controlled by Indian moneylenders, financiers, and business mafia. (See “R.A.W.’s Machinations in South Asia” by Shastra Dutta Pant, Kathmandu, 2003.)

Afghanistan: Since December 1979, throughout the Afghan War, the K.G.B., K.H.A.D. (W.A.D.) (a former Afghan intelligence outfit), and R.A.W. stepped up their efforts to concentrate on influencing and covertly exploiting the tribes on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There was intimate coordination between the three intelligence agencies not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan, where destabilization was sought through a subversion and sabotage plan related to Afghan refugees and mujahideen in the tribal belt and inside Pakistan.

They jointly organized spotting and recruitment of hostile tribesmen and trained them in guerrilla warfare, infiltration, subversion, sabotage, and the establishment of saboteur forces/terrorist organizations in the pro-Afghan tribes of Pakistan in order to carry out bombings in Afghan refugee camps in the Northwest Frontier province (NWFP) and Baluchistan to threaten and pressure them to return to Afghanistan. They also carried out bomb blasts in populated areas deep inside Pakistan to create panic and hatred in the minds of locals against Afghan refugee mujahideen to pressure Pakistan to change its policies on Afghanistan.

Pakistan: Pakistan’s size, strength, and potential have always overawed India. It has always considered Pakistan to be the main opponent to its expansionist doctrine. India’s animosity toward Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable. India’s 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, are just two examples.R.A.W. considers Sindh province to be Pakistan’s soft underbelly. It has made it the prime target for sabotage and subversion. R.A.W. has enrolled an extensive network of agents and antigovernment elements and is convinced that with a little push restless Sindh will revolt.

Taking full advantage of the agitation in Sindh in 1983, and the periodic ethnic riots, which have continued to today, R.A.W. has deeply penetrated Sindh and cultivated dissidents and secessionists, thereby creating hard-liners unlikely to allow peace to return to Sindh. R.A.W. is also similarly involved in Baluchistan.R.A.W. is also being blamed for confusing the ground situation is Kashmir so as to keep the world’s attention away from the gross human rights violations in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (I.S.I.), being almost 20 years older than R.A.W. and having acquired a much higher standard of efficiency in its functioning, has become the prime target of R.A.W.’s designs. The I.S.I. is considered to be a stumbling block in R.A.W.’s operations and has been made a target of massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns. The tirade against I.S.I. continues unabated. The idea is to keep I.S.I. on the defensive by alleging that it has had a hand in supporting the Kashmiri mujahideen and the Sikhs in Punjab. R.A.W.’s fixation on I.S.I. has taken the shape of I.S.I.-phobia, as in India everyone traces the origin of all happenings and shortcomings to the I.S.I.

Whenever and wherever there is a kidnapping, a bank robbery, a financial scandal, a bomb blast, or what have you, the I.S.I. is deemed to have had a hand in it. (See “R.A.W.: Global and Regional Ambitions” edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005).In summary, R.A.W. over the years has admirably fulfilled its tasks of destabilizing target states through the unbridled export of terrorism. The Indira Doctrine spelt out a difficult and onerous role for R.A.W. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished its assigned objectives due to the endemic weakness in the state apparatus of these nations and the failures of their leaders. R.A.W.: An Instrument of Indian Imperialism Isha Khan Dhaka, Bangladesh September 12, 2007

RAW in China. Indian RAW hand in TIbet

The interference in Tibet is well known and very deep. Indian mechanation against China.

XINJIANG: Xinjiang and Kashmir

CHINA AND INDIA: Chine scolds India at 2 am: Deep chill in Indo-Chinese relations

The BLA is a terror organizatیon declared a terrorist outfit by Pakistan, the US and the UK. The civilized world should write to president@bluehost.com, webmaster@bluehost.com, support@bluehost.com to shut down balochvoice.com which is run by a terror organization.،domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.