Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by AghaSaad in DALER SIKH PAKISTAN'S PRIDE on July 24th, 2013
OPERATION BLUESTARFor decades, Pakistan has engaged in a proxy war against India. Much of that proxy war has been secretive, while many of those secrets have been exposed. At other times, Pakistan has made threats of taking war deep inside Indian territory, and Hamid Gul has openly voiced the disintegration of India. Pakistan’s proxy wars have extended from J&K and Punjab to the Northeast regions and the Maoist belt. Pakistani assistance for the Indian mujahedeen and homegrown Indian terrorists has arrived by way of Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh, infiltration across the LOC in J&K, and infiltration of the Punjab and Rajasthan borders. The smuggling of narcotics into Punjab is accompanied by small arms quickly stockpiled in sleeper cells and mosques across India. Pakistan is playing towards an endgame; in contrast, India reacts in knee-jerk fashion, rather than catching Pakistani action before the effect, and finds its own plays in Pakistan stymied by an ever-alert ISI.
Pakistan is playing towards an endgame; in contrast, India reacts in knee-jerk fashion, rather than catching Pakistani action before the effect…
For years, Pakistan has succeeded in suborning Indian military and government officers and politicians, while India has fallen flat in all such attempts. And even today, Pakistan finds sympathizers among a very large Indian population that would rather see Muslim and Pakistani rule in India rather than secular Indian rule. Given this internal shortcoming, India has enemies not only on its borders, but within, as well. This makes India’s task of maintaining its sovereignty all the more difficult. But fortunately for India, India’s massive population serves as a buffer to a lot of that action, thereby serving to mitigate and absorb the forces that would otherwise disintegrate India. But for India to bank on this strength alone would be unwise, for this bastion can easily break, just as it was broken for the past one thousand years before independence in 1947.
Pakistani has truly bled India by its proxy wars. Revenue income from J&K and the North East are much lower than potential. Narcotic distribution by Pakistan in Punjab has resulted in lackluster growth in Punjab’s GDP – for decades the most prosperous state in India. The Maoists have sucked revenue growth in nearly 40% of India’s land mass. That India should grow in real terms at 6% per year is simply amazing given these odds. What India could do if these hurdles and negative forces were absent would probably be nothing short of a miracle. It therefore seems appropriate to conclude that Pakistan is coming in the direct way of India’s miracle. Naturally, no rational Indian wants to see Pakistan continue to do so. Hence, the common Indian further concludes that Pakistan must either be stopped in its destructive actions against India by peaceful action, or be annihilated by force to cease and desist.
The former sees no chance of success: all the diplomacy over decades by the 800-strong Indian Foreign service has yielded nothing more than failures, four wars, and numerous smaller military actions, and daily incursions by Pakistan into India. This is not what can be called successful Indian diplomacy, no matter how smart the diplomats or what scores they earned in their IAS entrance exams. The real world of diplomacy consists of grenades and bullets, not roses and choice gardens. The real world offers injured and dead soldiers and widows, not posh bungalows in Lutyens’ Delhi. The real world sees blood, sweat, heat, cold, and tears in guarding the borders, not air conditioned rooms of rich parliamentarians in central and south Delhi. It is time to come with the wave, to understand mainstream India, to think like the Indians who earn less than $2 a day – mainstream India – which doesn’t get three square meals a day, and is pained to access medical assistance, and dies prematurely largely because there is an enemy that sucks India’s resources and kills its people from within. For Pakistan, it is a very intelligent way to succeed against a larger India; for India, it is the lamb being led to the slaughterhouse. And because mainstream India continues to carry an ever-increasing yoke, they are slowly turning against the governments that are supposed to look after them. Long gone is the time when the poor looked upon the government as mai-baap. The increased alienation of mainstream India from Indian government is a direct threat to India’s security and sovereignty. Aadhar and other such programs are scarcely going to lift the sense of alienation, no matter which government or coalition is at the center.
…a proxy war by Pakistan in two Indian provinces merely affects less than 10% of all Indian provinces, a proxy war by India in two Pakistani provinces can affect 40% of Pakistan.
Thus, in this thesis, the actions that detract from Indian economic growth must be neutralized, and foremost among these is Pakistani proxy wars and interference in India. So, short of an invasion of Pakistan, an Indian proxy war inside Pakistan must be expanded. Whereas a proxy war by Pakistan in two Indian provinces merely affects less than 10% of all Indian provinces, a proxy war by India in two Pakistani provinces can affect 40% of Pakistan. By its sheer size, Pakistani resilience can be less, and Pakistani response to Indian proxy wars can be less effective. In addition, the effect of proxy wars on the Pakistani economy can be much more to Pakistan than a proxy war on India by Pakistan. Nevertheless, Pakistan did not learn the lesson that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Pakistan never thought that two could play the game; or else, they thought they could disintegrate India before India woke up. Well, that was not the case. India plans to take proxy wars into Pakistani territory, and pay Pakistan back in its own coin. But let’s analyze how a proxy war may succeed within Pakistan.
Requisite Principles of Proxy Wars
As experience around the world has shown, a successful proxy war that is able to disaffiliate a part of a territory or initiate regime change in a country must consider four major parameters:
We can study a few examples to illustrate that all the above four must be present in appropriate proportions for the rebellion to succeed. Requisites 1, 2, and 4 should be as high as possible, while requisite 3 should be as low as possible.
In 1971, the Mukti Bahini had rebels in large numbers, and received a large volume of Indian military supplies, advisors, and Bengali soldiers from the Indian army, thus fulfilling requisites 1 and 2 above. However, Pakistan had about one corps plus two divisions spread over all parts of Bangladesh to suppress all uprisings in all parts of East Pakistan, thereby demonstrating Pakistani resolve to hold on to East Pakistan, thereby fulfilling requisite 3 above. But then, as anyone can understand, without Indian military action that invaded East Pakistan, no one thinks that Bangladesh would have been created. Hence, Mukti Bahini resistance would have been resisted by Pakistani forces till doomsday, even if it meant that the economy would go to ruin and all East Pakistanis would die. Therefore, the liberation of Bangladesh would have been impossible without direct Indian military intervention.
…the effect of proxy wars on the Pakistani economy can be much more to Pakistan than a proxy war on India by Pakistan.
Look now at how the Americans fought off the Russians in Afghanistan. The Americans benefitted from a very large numerical rebel force in the shape of the mujahedeen, supplied effective firepower to them, such as the stinger missiles that succeeded in bringing down the vast majority of the Russian helicopter and air fighting fleet, and supplied military and CIA advisors on the ground. These fulfilled requisites 1 and 2 above. Russian resolve began to weaken after American weaponry began to take a toll on their military, thereby assuring that requisite 3 did not continue as a major criterion in the rebel action. Finally, Pakistani forces were lined up along the entire Durand line to offer physical support to the mujahidin, impart physical training and logistics in executing rebel action, and stood as a solid front to dissuade a Russian invasion of Pakistan, while standing as a threat of possibly intervening in Afghanistan should the situation call for it with American blessings. This requisite 4 was present in this long drawn battle that eventually saw success by the rebels.
Later, in Kosovo, NATO bombing was so devastating and overwhelming that internal resolve to resist was wiped out. But, even with a small numerical size of the rebel army, the out-of-proportion external military intervention via aerial bombing carried the day, and Kosovo was set on the path of independence.
Look next at Libya: a large rebel base, especially in East Libya, was granted weapons by NATO while CIA advisors guided strategy and tactics on the ground. American army teams provided clandestine field medical facilities. The Libyan army had already been reduced to ineffectiveness by Gaddafi because he feared they may launch a coup against him just as he did against King Idris, so the ability of the Libyan army to resist was reduced. Gaddafi had to procure mercenaries from neighboring Male who had mixed loyalties and so took Gaddafi’s money till the going was good, but then abandoned him when the going got tough. Finally, NATO warplanes such as the Eurofighter and Rafale delivered the coup d’etat to Libyan forces for over weeks of prolonged fighting. Again, we see that all four requisites in our criteria were present to favorable degrees for the regime change to succeed through a proxy war.
Rupert Murdoch’s investment in Pakistani media channels goes unnoticed
Islamabad : Jul 16, 2013
News Corp Chief Rupert Murdoch
The proverbial cat is out of the bag and Pakistan’s populist Supreme Court has announced its decision on the Report of Media Commission. As expected, the court in its ruling made public on its website has chosen not to touch the sensitive parts of the report. The most sensitive is dubious interest of foreigners in Pakistan’s electronic media.
There are two most sensitive issues mentioned in the report:
– Pakistan Broadcasters’ Association alleged that entertainment channel Urdu 1 was owned by Rupert Murdoch [Unlink] and two Afghan brothers (Mohsini brothers), who were based in Dubai. This channel (Urdu 1) was granted landing right much before it went on air anywhere in the world. The trail of dubious grant of license can be traced to Musa Gilani, son of former prime minister and Faryal Talpur, sister of the sitting president.
– Media watchdog, PEMRA informed the commission a couple of media houses are reported to have received large grants in the form of advertising contracts from overseas sources. It is said that one such grant is 20 million British pounds. Any attempt by PEMRA to probe such matters immediately leads to claims that there is an attempt to curb freedom of the media and there is always the recourse to obtaining a stay order if an inquiry is held. Most of the funds are channeled through the cover of a Norwegian nongovernmental organization named“Friends without Borders” but it was found the footprints of this funding lead to Indian sponsors including the Indian state television, the Doordarshan.
Who is Keith Rupert Murdoch and why the Indians send their money to one Pakistani channel? If the influence of Murdoch and Indians was not checked in Pakistan, then PEMRA was in breach of trust and an accomplice in the crime of allowing foreigners making inroads into Pakistani airwaves through their money.
Keith Rupert Murdoch is an Australian American media mogul. In July 2011, he faced allegations that his companies, including the News of the World, owned by News Corporation, had been regularly hacking the phones of celebrities, royalty and public citizens. He faces police and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British government and FBI investigations in the US. On July 21, 2012, Murdoch resigned as a director of News International.
The allegation of PEMRA that one channel (GeoTV) received huge amounts in the name of sponsorship is most disturbing. That the amounts were actually sent by Indians should have rung alarm bells in the courtroom and media watchdog taken to task but the Supreme Court did not utter a single word in its order. The Supreme Court could do was to order an investigation. But this very serious breach of trust on the part of PEMRA escaped the attention of the court which strengthens the perception that the said channel is enjoying strong influence in the courtroom.
What are the services that Geo is delivering for India? Numerous. From showing excessive Indian contents to bashing Pakistan’s ISI and armed forces for anything happening anywhere in the world. This was the first channel which blamed in unison with Indian media that Mumbai Attacks in November 2008 were perpetrated by ISI. Not only that, it helped Indian establishment’s line that Pakistanis were involved in the attacks when it prepared a package and informed the world that Ajmal Kassab belonged to a Pakistani town Faridkot. Now when this line of propaganda has been questioned in India with Indian security officials blaming their own government, the cover of this channel has been blown off.
Why this channel bashes ISI and armed forces? Because ISI and armed forces must be weakened at the point in time when they are fighting India’s proxies in FATA, Balochistan and even in Karachi. This is something enemy does to pressurize the security establishment of the rivals and break their resolve to fight. The Pakistani channel is doing exactly the same and earning millions of dollars of Indian money it has received. The security establishment should realize that even this channel is an Indian proxy and needs to be fought. The Supreme Court owes its popularity to this channel and may not take any action or utter any word to displease it.
Courtesy: Pakistan Express
Posted by Mahi Ali in FREEDOM FOR INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR on July 19th, 2013
Mohammed Afzal. Photograph: Prakash Singh/AFP/Getty Images
Question 1: For months before the attack on parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that parliament could be attacked. On December 12 2001, the then prime minister, AB Vajpayee, warned of an imminent attack. On December 13 it happened. Given that there was an “improved security drill”, how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?Question 2: Within days of the attack, the Special Cell of the Delhi police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said the attack was led by a man called “Mohammad” who was also involved in the hijacking of flight IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, “I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.” If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?Question 4: Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?Question 5: A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had “incontrovertible evidence” of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal’s “confession”, extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the “incontrovertible evidence”?Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages and landmines were being planted in their fields?Question 8: In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?Question 10: Is it plausible that organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to “Mohammed” and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?Question 12: On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?Question 13: Why is it that we still do not know who the five “terrorists” killed in the parliament attack are?
Posted by admin in MALALA YOUSUFZAI on July 19th, 2013
REFERENCE
Posted by Rana Tanveer in INDIAN GOVTS LIES EXPOSED on July 19th, 2013
Kolkata: Mehboob Elahi is happy that his old prison mate Asif Ali Zardari is coming to India but is crestfallen that he will not get to meet the Pakistani president during his short visit Sunday. Elahi, a former Indian spy, was Zardari’s jail mate at the Karachi Central Jail for a few months between 1986-87.
Elahi had decided that if he gets to meet Zardari he would request the Pakistani president to release all the Indian prisoners of war in Pakistani jails.
Elahi had served two decades in several Pakistani prisons from 1977-1996 on the charge of spying for India. He was Zardari’s prison mate along with several leaders of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in the Karachi Central Jail in 1986-87.
Mehboob Elahi, a former Indian spy, was Zardari’s jail mate at the Karachi Central Jail for a few months between 1986-87.
“I had been serving in the same prison along with Zardari and Benazir Bhutto during the military rule in Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq. We used to meet Zardari on Sundays in the courtyard of the jail,” Elahi said in an exclusive interview.
Elahi, a seasoned spy of the late 60s and 70s, had twice crossed over to Pakistan – once via East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and once via the western border. He recollected how he had developed a good rapport with Zardari in prison.
“He (Zardari) used to talk about the political situation in Pakistan, and the misrule and suppression of Zia. He had a strong following inside the jail,” he recalled.
According to Elahi, Zardari was sympathetic to the plight of Indian prisoners.
“Zardari was quite influential and he was sympathetic to Indian POWs. The Indian POWs used to wash the clothes of Pakistani prisoners and do menial chores for them. They would also do it for Zardari, but Zardari was sympathetic to them. He would speak to them, buy them soap and sweets,” said Elahi.
Initially, Elahi spent nearly 10 years in Pakistan from 1968 to 1977 after spying in various government organisations, including the Pakistani army and police.
He regretted that neither the Indian government nor the Indian Army has done enough to bring the “real heroes” back home.
Elahi had written to the Pakistani High Commission in India seeking an appointment with Zardari during his six-hour visit to India, but did not receive a reply.
“I didn’t get a reply from Pakistan high commission. But the sad thing is that I had also written to the Indian president ( Pratibha Patil), but she too didn’t reply. I am disheartened by this indifference of both the countries towards the POWs.”
Since his release in 1996, Elahi has been a voracious campaigner for release of Indian POWs and prisoners. During the BJP-led NDA rule he sat on a demonstration in New Delhi and even threatened to commit suicide in front of parliament. The then defence and foreign minister Jaswant Singh had assured him that the Indian government was consistently taking up the issue with Pakistan.
Elahi is upset that in India “most Muslims are viewed with suspicion”.
“Muslims are patriots. They should not been seen with an eye of suspicion. Muslims are ready to die for their motherland,” said Elahi.