Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category India Promoting Subversion in Pakistan Via Afghanistan

False Flag Operations; Paving the Way for a Nuclear War by Ishaal Zehra

False Flag Operations; Paving the Way for a Nuclear War


Ishaal Zehra



The attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 – designated as 26/11 – left 162 people
dead in a traumatic event that some people described as India's 9/11. Extensive
media coverage has created the impression that all the relevant facts on this
audacious operation have been reported. Unfortunately, this impression is false, says
Elias Davidsson in his book on the 2008 attacks that occurred in Mumbai, India. The
book is entitled, The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence. “The book is
about the betrayal of the Indian nation by a corrupt, greedy and ruthless elite for
whom the lives of ordinary Indians are expendable when power and profit are at
stake,” enunciates the author.
Elias Davidsson was born in Palestine in 1941 to German-Jewish parents so there is a
slightest chance of him having any love lost for Pakistan. He has gained quite a fame
in the area of investigative journalism primarily after the publication of his books on
9/11 and the follow-up terrorist attacks that set the world on fire. “Hijacking
America’s Mind on 9/11″, followed by “Psychological Warfare and Social Denial: The
Legend of 9/11 and the Fiction of Terrorism” presented a narrative fairly different
from the official one.
The author very intriguingly uncovers the whole Mumbai attacks proceeds. He
critically evaluates the official narrative of 26/11, as reflected in court documents and
the news media, also the testimonies of those dozens of important witnesses whom
Indian courts ignored because they shed a radically different light on the events.
Besides, it also presents a detailed analysis of the benefits accrued by the powerful
constituencies of India and US from this mass murder. The conclusion of this detailed
assessment is devastating as they expose the unspoken truce between the leading
news media, the political class, the police and the judicial system to cover up the real
facts on 26/11 on the pretext of shielding the real offenders.
The Indian version of these attacks – the official story as narrated by the Indian
government – can be found at Wikipedia (which seldom strays from government
intelligence narratives) as: “The 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of attacks that
took place in November 2008, when 10 members of Lashkar-e- Taiba, an Islamic
militant organization based in Pakistan carried out a series of 12 coordinated
shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai.” For the record, both
Pakistan and Lashkar-e- Taiba denied responsibility for the attacks and, Davidsson
argues, they did so for good reasons.



Source: Bestanimations.com






The author also made clear how easy it was to get an abundance of funds and
equipment for the Mumbai police on the basis of such a narrative and why it was
possible for India’s armed forces to get an immediate 21% hike in her military
spending with promises of continuing increases in subsequent years.
To prove this a false flag operation, Davidsson gave a jillion arguments. One of them
was the fact that the Prime Minister of India, while the attack was still in progress,
implied that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by Pakistan.
Prof. Graeme McQueen of Global Research (Canadian think tank) explains that when
officials claim to know the identity of a perpetrator (individual or group) prior to any
serious investigation, this suggests that a false narrative is being initiated.
For example, Lee Harvey Oswald was identified by officials of the executive branch as
the killer of President John F. Kennedy–and as a lone wolf with no associates–on the
afternoon of the assassination day, long before an investigation and even before he
had been charged with the crime. Likewise, we had major news media pointing with
confidence, by the end of the day of September 11, 2001, to Osama bin Laden and
his group with no evidence at hand.
There were so many loose ends in the investigation process that leaves an inquisitive
mind in a state of total perplexity. Also, the assassination of ATS chief Hemant
Karkare makes the whole episode yet more dubious. Karkare was killed as he steered
the investigation of the 2008 Malegaon blasts and was on the verge of exposing the
BJP led Hindutva extremist forces who were fomenting terrorism in the name of
Indian Muslims. Davidsson also questions about the extreme secrecy and withholding
of basic information from the population, on the plea of national security.
The lone surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial. One lawyer who agreed to
defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated. The
confession of the suspect, on which the judge leaned heavily, was given in secret. No
transcript of this confession has been released to the public and the suspect later
renounced the confession, saying he had been under threat from police when he
gave it.
Interestingly, the public was told that there was extensive CCTV footage of the
attacks, despite the mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on
the days in question, the book reveals, but only a very small percentage of the
claimed footage was ever released and that too suffered from serious defects – two
conflicting time – stamps and signs of editing. Also, those 475 – 800 members of the elite
Indian commando unit that battled the eight terrorists were never allowed to testify
in court. Above all, the suspect, after being convicted and sentenced to death, was
presumably executed, but the hanging was done secretly in jail and his body, like the bodies of the other dead “terrorists,” was buried in a secret place which could not be
Davidsson correspondingly cast doubt on the grotesque failure by investigating
officials to follow proper procedures. Eyewitnesses to the crime differed on the
clothing and skin color of the terrorists, and on how many of them there were. At
least one eyewitness confessed she found it hard to distinguish “friends” from
terrorists but no probe was stimulated by this odd confusion. Weird enough, of the
“hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the CaféLeopold, Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi-Trident Hotel or Nariman House, “not a
single one testified to having observed any of the eight accused kill anyone”, the author
The number of contradictions and miracles present in the investigation report was
more offending. One victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his
testimony was essential to the point the finger at Pakistan. A second victim died in
two different places, while a third died in three places. No one in authority cared
enough to solve these difficulties. Moreover, the number of terrorists who
committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who
Another surprising question was raised when the forensic study of the attack at the
Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet while the common narration of
the attack claimed that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s. In addition, the crime
scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined. Also,
the Indian authorities declined to order autopsies on the dead at the targeted Jewish
center in Nariman House. The dead, five out of six of whom were Israeli citizens,
were instead whisked back to Israel by a Jewish organization based in Israel,
apparently for religious reasons.
The FBI showed great interest in the attacks from the outset. Interestingly, it actually
had a man on the scene during the attacks and sent an entire team directly after the
event. The Bureau was, remarkably, given direct access to the arrested suspect and
to his recorded confession (before he even had a lawyer), as well as to eyewitnesses.
The New York Police Department also sent a team after the conclusion of the event,
as did Scotland Yard and Israeli police.
Taking account of all the aspects, the author concludes that, “It is highly plausible
that major institutional actors in India, the United States and possibly Israel, were
complicit in conceiving, planning, directing and executing the attacks of 26/11, but
the evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger.” He is convinced that
India’s major institutions including the Central government, parliament, bureaucracy, armed forces, Mumbai police, intelligence services, judiciary, and media, have
deliberately suppressed the truth regarding 26/11 and continue to do so. Prof.
Graeme McQueen opines, there are two good reasons to pay attention to evidence
of a cover-up. First, to cover up a crime is itself a crime. Second, those covering up a
crime implicate themselves in the original crime. If they were not directly involved in
the commission of the crime, they are at least accessories after the fact.
India is in a habit of implicating Pakistan over false flag operations planned and
executed by herself. Adeela Naureen, while discussing the book by Davidsson, has
very rightly asked Pakistan to take India to ICJ for this indigenous false flag operation
conducted by RAW and western intelligence agencies. It is high time these false flags
must be exposed and ended downright. Or else the dangers of such false flag
operations in this highly nuclearized zone could develop into something beyond
the imagination of any.

Pictorials Courtesy-defence.pk


Some attached the images of the document in their tweets, convinced that the document was official

Abid Khan said that India was funding the Taliban to engage Pakistan in terrorism
India is blamed for pursuing a policy of genocide against Muslims

, ,

No Comments

India’s bid to isolate Pakistan Asif Haroon Raja, Defence Analyst


India’s bid to isolate Pakistan

Asif Haroon Raja

Defence Analyst



After the false flag operation in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, India blamed Pakistan, ISI and Hafiz Saeed led Lashkar-e-Taiba for the attacks (1), and suspended composite dialogue with Pakistan that had been renewed in February 2004 as a consequence to Indo-Pakistan peace treaty and a commitment to resolve all disputes including Kashmir issue through talks. Since then, India pushed aside Kashmir dispute and made terrorism as the core issue. Without providing any proof, it forced Pakistan to arrest and punish the alleged culprits involved in Mumbai attacks. In fact, India cleverly built a narrative of terrorism against Pakistan from the time of engineered terror attack on December 13, 2001, in which the Indian Parliament in New Delhi was attacked by a handful of terrorists(1). After blaming Pakistan and Jaish-e- Muhammad, India deployed its entire military strength along its western border and remained in confrontation mode for next ten months.

Thereon, all terror attacks in India were put in the basket of Pakistan. The purpose of building this narrative was to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state and ISI a rogue outfit. Its strategic partners USA and Afghanistan substantiated Indian stance. Indian attitude became more aggressive after Narendra Modi took over power in June 2014. From August 2014 onward, the Indian military has kept the Line of Control and working boundary in Kashmir sector hot and hardly a day has passed without unprovoked firing by India. The upsurge in the uprising in IOK after the martyrdom of Burhan Wani in July 2016 was also placed at the doorsteps of Pakistan. Pakistan was blamed for the militants’ attacks in Udhampur and Pathankot airbase. The militant attack on Uri military camp in April 2016(1a) further incensed India and it started hurling threats of surgical strikes and limited war. Intruding Indian drone was shot down by Pakistan Army, while Indian submarine on a spying mission was forced to retreat by Pak Navy. 

Besides political, diplomatic and military posturing to overawe and isolate Pakistan, India has also been trying to ease out Pakistan from its membership of SAARC. The 19th SAARC summit scheduled at Islamabad in November 2016 had to be cancelled due to India refusing to attend it and Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan the following suit to boycott the summit. (2)     















After sabotaging the Summit, India also tried to halt the appointment of the New Secretary-General, Amjad Hussian B Sial. India justified its actions by stating that the nominee had to be ratified by the Council of Ministers conference in Islamabad. Something which could not take place due to the postponement of the Summit. (3)


Soon after the appointment of the New Secretary-General in March 2017, India hosted a meeting on March 21, 2017, of security chiefs from the seven member states of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) The meeting was a first for the BIMSTEC group, which includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.(4) This meeting focused on terrorism, cyber and maritime security challenges facing the region. It was decided at the meeting to establish a track 1.5 dialogue forum focused on security. Given the importance of cooperating on security-related matters, it was also decided to hold such meetings annually. It was no surprise that Pakistan was again left out of this meeting. (5)


Another meeting was held in the month of October 2017 in which India again tried to push back SAARC and attempted to boost the significance of BIMSTEC. In his remarks during the meeting, Foreign Secretary of India S. (6) In an implicit reference to Pakistan, he also said that “as one country” is not, and since the other seven-nation regional grouping BIMSTEC has members that are “broadly aligned” and “articulate similar aspirations”, and are connected to the other members of the South Asian regional bloc on the key issue of terrorism, it was unlikely that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could be revived.(7)


India has also tried to marginalize Pakistan on other forums as well. For instance, when Sushma Swaraj met SAARC foreign ministers in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in September 2017, India’s disinterest in the summit was evident. This added to the downgrading of the entire organization. With India-Pakistan bilateral relations on the downturn, the domino impact on the South Asian body has only worsened. (8)


During her speech, Swaraj did not refer to the uncertainties surrounding the SAARC Summit but stressed the primacy given to the removal of terrorism which in implicit terms was actually taking a jab at Islamabad: “Regional prosperity, connectivity and cooperation can take place only in an atmosphere of peace and security.(9) It, however, remains at serious risk in the region. It is necessary for our region’s survival that we eliminate the scourge of terrorism in all its forms, without any discrimination, and end the ecosystem of its support.”(10)


On January 2, 2018, India excluded Pakistan from the list of SAARC member countries with which it will be connecting its state-of-the-art National Knowledge Network (NKN) for sharing scientific databases and remote access to advanced research facilities.(11)


NKN will extend global research and education networks to six SAARC member states — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Pakistan is the only SAARC nation that has been left out of this initiative. (12)

NKN is a multi-gigabit pan-India network which facilitates the development of India’s communications infrastructure, stimulates research and creates next-generation applications and services. (13) This new initiative will enable collaboration among researchers from different educational networks such as TEIN4, GARUDA, CERN and Internet2. It also enables sharing of scientific databases and remote access to advanced research facilities.(14)

NKN will be connected from Afghanistan to Delhi or Mumbai, from Bangladesh to Kolkata or Delhi, from Bhutan to Kolkata or Delhi, from Nepal to Kolkata or Delhi, from the Maldives to Chennai or Mumbai and from Sri Lanka to Chennai or Mumbai. (15) A state-of-the-art management centre and network operations centre will also be set up to run the NKN network. The connection from Afghanistan, Maldives and Sri Lanka to India would be through a submarine cable for international connectivity. (16)


It is evident that it is not Pakistan that is creating hurdles in the way of successful implementation of SAARC’s agenda, but in fact, it is India which is trying to isolate Pakistan by using underhand tactics. India has used terrorism as a basis for suspension of official talks with Pakistan due to alleged terrorist attacks launched by groups from across the border. The chill in relations has spread out to other sectors such as research and scientific development as well – something, which negatively affects the entire region.


On the question of terrorism, it is again very clear that it is not Pakistan which is sponsoring terrorism. On the contrary, it is India funding radicalization in South Asia – especially in Pakistan. Kulbhushan Jadhav is a prime example of this.


India should also realize that it is not the only country in SAARC that can dominate all the other members. Instead, Delhi should remember the agenda of regional cooperation on which SAARC was formed and countries should use this forum for regional cooperation, not for a rivalry. SAARC should not be the organization to prolong the rivalry among regional states, rather it should serve for greater regional cooperation and economic integration. If the region is thrown into negativity, India will suffer along with the others as well. This is something Delhi needs to keep in mind. After all, what goes around comes around. India must also not forget that CPEC has taken off and sooner than later, SAARC members will gravitate toward this profit making project and leave India which is opposed to CPEC in a lurch.


  • The News, December 14, 2001

(1a)       “Uri Attack: India, Pakistan’s Kashmir Dispute Flares Again.” Time. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://time.com/4498891/kashmir-uri-attack-india-pakistan-military-conflict/


 (2)       Baqir Sajjad Syed | Jawed Naqvi. “SAARC summit in doldrums after India pulls out.” DAWN.COM September 28, 2016. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://www.dawn.com/news/1286609

 (3)       Kathmandu Anil Giri Hindustan. “Appointment of SAARC secretary general hit by India-Pakistan tensions.” Times. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/appointment-of-SAARC-secretary-general-hit-by-india-pakistan-tensions/story-1b1wlC1CrEbquDvQRuQZkN.html

 (4)     Gurjar, Sankalp. “Is SAARC Doomed?” The Diplomat. April 01, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/is-SAARC-doomed/

 (5)     Ibid.

 (6)     Bagchi, Indrani. “Question mark over SAARC summit again” The Times of India. September 23, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/question-mark-over-SAARC-summit-again/articleshow/60801709.cms

 (7)     Ibid.

 (8)     Bagchi, Indrani. “Question mark over SAARC summit again .” The Times of India. September 23, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/question-mark-over-SAARC-summit-again/articleshow/60801709.cms

 (9)     Ibid.

(10)     Ibid.

 (11)       “India excludes Pakistan from SAARC initiative.” Pakistan Today. Accessed January 25, 2018.



 (12)       “India excludes Pakistan from a SAARC initiative.” The Economic Times. January 03, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-excludes-pakistan-from-a-SAARC-initiative/articleshow/62345991.cms

 (13)       Ibid.

 (14)       Ibid.

 (15)       “India excludes Pakistan from SAARC initiative”, Pakistan Today. Accessed January 25, 2018.


 (16)       “Modi Government excludes Pakistan from the list of SAARC nations for its State-of-the-Art National Knowledge Network Initiative.” Postcard. January 09, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://postcard.news/modi-government-excludes-pakistan-list-SAARC-nations-state-art-national-knowledge-network-initiative/



, , ,

No Comments

As India’s Muslims are lynched, Modi keeps silent By Nilanjana Bhowmick Washington Post

As India’s Muslims are lynched, Modi keeps silent

By Nilanjana Bhowmi


There is a silent but systematic slaughter against Muslims in progress in India. It’s not too late to call it out.



NEW DELHI — On June 23, three days before India celebrated Eid, 15-year-old Junaid Khan was stabbed to death by a group of men aboard a train. He was going home to Khandawli, a village in the north Indian state of Haryana, after shopping for new clothes in New Delhi, accompanied by his brother and a couple of friends. The mob mocked their skullcaps and taunted them for eating beef, before stabbing them.



Eid was sombre in Khandawli on Monday, as it was across the country. In a national first, scores of Muslims across the country offered their Eid prayers while wearing a black band, a symbol of protest against the killing of the teen as well as growing atrocities against Muslims in the country, which have been increasing since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office three years ago. In September 2015, a Muslim man, Mohammad Akhlaq, was lynched in Dadri near the Indian capital, over rumours that he had killed a local cow and stored its meat in his refrigerator. The month after that, 16-year-old Zahid Rasool Bhattdied when vigilante groups attacked his truck with a bomb in Udhampur. In March 2017, suspected cattle traders Muhammed Majloom and Azad Khan were hanged in Latehar. In May, traders were thrashed in Malegaon, Maharashtra for allegedly storing beef. In Jharkhand in May, 19-year-old Mohammed Shalik was tied to a pole and beaten to death, reportedly over a romantic relationship with a Hindu girl. In May, two more Muslim men, Abu Hanifa and Riazuddin Ali, were killed for allegedly stealing cattle in Assam. More recently, on June 7, a Muslim man was attacked in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, on suspicion of transporting beef to an Iftar gathering. Two more cases of lynching over cow slaughter rumours were reported earlier this week in eastern India.

The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.

On Sunday, before his first visit with President Trump, Modi addressed India through his radio program Mann Ki Baat (Heart-to-heart-talk). And while his monologue touched upon various topics, including yoga, toilets, sports, a meeting with the Queen, books as gifts and the … er … weather, Junaid Khan’s murder didn’t find a nano-second of air time.

Modi did not mention the more than a dozen cases of lynchings, mostly against Muslims, recorded in India since September last year, especially in states ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Modi also did not address the violence of the cow-vigilante groups, who often owe allegiance to the BJP or its ideological parent the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

And while the list grows longer every day, the violence against Muslims and cow-vigilante groups have not elicited a single tweet of condemnation from India’s social media savvy prime minister, who is quick to condemn atrocities all over the world. Modi’s silence, in fact, is beginning to feel like a redux of the Gujarat riots in 2002 which killed more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. For years he stayed silent, and when he spoke finally, he had compared the riots to a puppy being run over.

The Hindu Hitler

 Yogi Adityanath

The Hindu Hitler prepares to meet party leaders.

Photograph: Manish Swarup/AP

Amnesty International  released a statement Wednesday evening, calling the situation “deeply worrying” and accused Modi and other BJP leaders of not condemning the attacks and in fact to have “even justified the attacks at times.” Aakar Patel, executive director of Amnesty International India, said in a statement, “The Indian Prime Minister, senior BJP leaders and Chief Ministers must break their silence and unequivocally condemn the attacks.”

A soon-to-be-published report by the Mumbai-based Centre for Study of Society and Secularism and the U.K.-based Minority Rights Group International notes there has been a notable increase in hostility towards India’s religious minorities since the BJP government, led by Modi, came to power in May 2014 and began to actively promote Hindu nationalism.

According to the report, the volatile state of Uttar Pradesh in north India, site of the disputed Ayodhya Ram temple and where India witnessed one of its worst communal riots in 1992, saw a spike in communal violence since the BJP came to power in the state this year. The appointment of Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu hard-liner known for his controversial anti-Muslim views, as the chief minister of the state dismayed many at the time.

Modi’s silence over these attacks, the report says, has emboldened extremist right-wing groups. Recently, in another first, no BJP ministers attended the traditional Iftar gathering that the president of India hosts every year.

There is a silent but systematic slaughter against Muslims in progress in India. It’s not too late to call it out.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Pakistan’s Foreign Policy and Current Challenges By Asif Haroon Raja

Pakistan’s Foreign Policy and Current Challenges

Asif Haroon Raja


Pakistan has, since birth, been faced with one crisis after another. The tense geopolitical environment created by hostile India and unfriendly Afghanistan was the motivating factor which impelled our leaders to accord preference to security over developing institutions and strengthening the economy. Security concerns governed our foreign policy.

Pakistan joined Western pacts mainly to find an umbrella to mitigate its security concerns. But the US never became a trustworthy and sincere ally, as was the case of former the Soviet Union with India. The western pacts proved elusive when Pakistan was truncated in 1971.

India had been working upon East Bengal since 1948 with the aim of subverting the minds of Bengalis and poisoning their minds against people of West Pakistan through an orchestrated subversion plan. It wanted to disprove Two-Nation theory. India in collusion with the former-the Soviet Union and supported by several other countries hatched the gory plan of the dismemberment of Pakistan. After nine months insurgency, Indian military jumped in to cut Pakistan to size and create Bangladesh. Indira Gandhi chortled that Two-Nation theory had been sunk into the Bay of Bengal.

In the aftermath of 9/11, another international conspiracy was hatched to dismember Pakistan. This time the conspiracy was much larger in scope and more dangerous in intent. Pakistan was to be befriended and then cut into four quasi-states. In this, India is being supported by USA, Afghanistan, Britain, Israel and the West in general. The tools in use are TTP, BLA, BRA, BLF, MQM and segment of media bolstered by bloggers, foreign paid NGOs and international media. Daesh is the latest group added to their arsenal.   

The goals are to destabilize, de-Islamise, denuclearize and balkanize Pakistan using covert means and psychological operations.






Pakistan was made to fight terrorism on its soil, then accused of harboring terrorists in safe havens in FATA and aiding cross border terrorism in Afghanistan, occupied Kashmir and India, and then constantly pressed to do more. The terrorist groups in FATA, Baluchistan were funded, equipped and trained to fight and exhaust Pak security forces. MQM was funded and its militants trained in India to make Karachi lawless.

India and Afghanistan were projected as victims of terrorism and Pakistan as an incubator of terrorism. The covert war launched from Afghan soil in 2002 has incurred a loss of 60,000 fatalities, injuries to tens of thousands, destruction of property, $ 118 billion financial loss and immense social trauma.

Pakistan has come under a foreign debt of $70 billion.  

The US imposed War on Terror has heightened ethnicity, sectarianism, extremism, provincialism, political instability, economic fragility and moral degeneration of society as a whole.

As a result of these frailties, Pakistan which is a nuclear power with robust armed forces that are second to none has abundant resources and resilient manpower, it has become vulnerable to foreign coercion, manipulation, and aggression.

Of all the crisis faced by Pakistan in its 70 years history, the present one is perhaps the most dangerous, both in terms of its nature and its possible consequences. Without a doubt, Pakistan is in the vortex of grave dangers and the country today stands at the cusp of survival and disaster. The Titans that have marked Pakistan as a target are impatient to fragment it. 

Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

Having given the background and overall geopolitical environment, I shall now discuss the five stages through which Pakistan’s foreign policy has moved forward to confront multiple challenges.

Quaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah had spelled out Pakistan’s foreign policy soon after the birth of Pakistan in these words:

 “Our objective should be peace within and peace without. We want to live peacefully and maintain cordial and friendly relations with our immediate neighbors and with world at large. We have no aggressive designs against any one. We stand by the United Nations Charter and will gladly make our contribution to the peace and prosperity of the world.” 

Our foreign policy is one of the friendliness and goodwill towards all the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the principle of honesty and fair-play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.” 
Pakistan opened diplomatic relations with all the countries of the world except Israel owing to Palestinian dispute.  Successive regimes made concerted efforts to normalize relations with India but failed because of unresolved Kashmir dispute and India not reconciling to the existence of Pakistan. In its desire to become the unchallenged big power of South Asia, India whipped up a frenzy against all its neighbors. It applied multiple pressures on Pakistan and went to war thrice so as to force Pakistan to accept its hegemony and become its vassal state.

Pakistan in search of security and recognition

Pakistan started its journey as a nonaligned nation and remained the member of Non-Aligned Movement from 1947 till 1954. In the first 15 years of Pakistan’s life, the founding leaders remained deeply engrossed in establishing credentials of Pakistan’s statehood in the face of massive propaganda of India that Pakistan was a monstrosity. It was described as a transient phenomenon and Indian economic wizards had given six months life to Pakistan. International recognition was sought and obtained in those agonizing years. 

In its formative years, Pakistan attached importance to relations with Muslim countries and championed Muslim causes. Its efforts to build Muslim unity couldn’t make any headway. It cultivated special ties with Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan joined Western pacts

Aggressive posturing of India, its expansionist designs and intentions to absorb Kashmir, together with Afghanistan’s enmity, former USSR’s heavy tilt towards India, deepening economic crisis in early 1950s, sense of isolation, and the UN and Commonwealth failing to resolve the Kashmir dispute were some of the reasons which impelled Pakistan to join the US created SEATO and Baghdad Pact/CENTO in 1954/55. Thereon, its foreign policy was governed by the US interests.

Pakistan became part of the US defensive arc stretching to Iran and Turkey to contain the spread of communism in South Asia and the Middle East. Pakistan did so despite the fact that it had no direct clash with USSR, and had to pay a heavy price for it. When Pakistan acted as a conduit in 1971 to bring China closer to the USA, it further antagonized Moscow and it decided to teach Pakistan a lesson.

Alignment with the USA however, helped Pakistan in improving its economy and defense capability phenomenally during the 10-year Ayub’s golden era.

Tilt towards China

After the Indo-Sino border clash in 1962, in the wake of Moscow, Washington and the West providing arms to India at the cost of disturbing the regional military balance, Ayub Khan started tilting towards China and Russia. This move was seen as an act of defiance by the USA and it decided to penalize him. The US discriminatory attitude was discernible in the 1965 War with India when it stopped extending economic and military assistance including the supply of spare parts, whereas Russia kept supplying arms to India.

It is believed that both ZA Bhutto and Sheikh Mujib were cultivated to trigger agitations in both the wings to bring down Ayub regime and then pave the way for the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971.

Southwestern Asian Identity and policy of Bilateralism

After the 1971 tragedy, ZA Bhutto scrapped SEATO pact and membership of Commonwealth stating that those had proved worthless. He then tried to carve out Southwest Asian identity so as to draw economic strength and security from oil rich Arab States. This tilt towards the Gulf States brought in financial bonanza and job opportunities for Pakistan in the 1970s and also gave an opportunity to Pak military to make inroads into the GCC States. Saudi Arabia never hesitated to extend financial support to Pakistan in its testing times.

Another change in Pakistan’s foreign policy was affected by the Simla agreement in 1972 which led to the policy of bilateralism and non-alignment. Ceasefire line in Kashmir was renamed as LoC and Kashmir issue put on the back burner. India however, maintained its belligerent policy and carried out the nuclear test at Pokhran in August 1974, which impelled ZA Bhutto to go nuclear.

Afghan war (1980-1989)

Pakistan-US relations nosedived when Pakistan under Gen Ziaul Haq was put under sanctions in April 1979 by Carter regime on account of suspicion that it was pursuing nuclear program covertly. However, the Afghan war in the 1980s once again made Pakistan a close ally of USA and was bestowed with $3.5 billion assistance and F-16 jets.

Pakistan had to face Russo-Afghan-India nexus and Al-Zulfiqar terrorism (militant wing of PPP). The Afghan war brought Pakistan coolness in Pak-Iran relations but brought Afghanistan under Mujahideen very close to Pakistan. Both talked of providing strategic depth to each other.

Pakistan’s challenges in Post-cold war era

After the breakup of USSR in 1991 and end of Cold War era, Pakistan was faced with multiple foreign policy issues. The US abandoned Pakistan, imposed sanctions on it under Pressler Amendment and befriended India.

Pakistan was up against Indo-US-Israeli nexus geared toward destroying Kahuta plant.

The other issue was the fallout effects of the Afghan war in the form of Kalashnikov and drug cultures, the load of 3.5 million refugees, the radicalization of the society and sectarianism fomented by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The other was the armed uprising in occupied Kashmir which forced India to pump in 750,000 security forces to quell the insurgency and to propagate that Pakistan was abetting it.

Pakistan had to bear with the domino effect of Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).

And lastly, nuclear explosions by the two arch rivals in May 1998. Pakistan’s external climbed up. These challenges made the democratic era weak and uninspiring. Despite being repeatedly betrayed, Pakistan didn’t deem it fit to diversify its foreign policy and kept its hopes alive to get into the good books of USA.

Impact of 9/11

9/11 changed the global politics and Pakistan was once again befriended by the USA and made a coalition partner to fight the global war on terror as a frontline state. Pakistan for a second time shifted all its eggs in the basket of USA.

Between 2004 and 2008, Indo-Pak relations improved as a result of the peace treaty and resumption of dialogue, giving rise to optimism that core disputes will be resolved. Euphoria died down after the Mumbai attacks in November 2008 when India blamed Pakistan. Indo-Pak relations have hit rock bottom after Modi led BJP regime espousing Hindutva came to power in June 2014.

Ongoing fast changing global dynamics and ever growing strategic partnership between USA and India has impelled Pakistan policy makers to revisit the foreign policy and suitably modify it to meet the future challenges.

Pakistan’s current challenges

India has not reconciled to the existence of Pakistan and strives to reduce it to the status of a Satellite State.

India is a strategic partner of the US, Israel, Afghanistan and is the darling of the west. The trio is pursuing common objective of destroying Pakistan.

India is making concerted efforts to destabilize Pakistan through covert war, encircle Pakistan by consolidating its presence in Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics (CARs), building North-South Corridor linking Mumbai with Bandar Abbas; and connecting Chabahar with Afghanistan-CARs.

India is working hard to isolate Pakistan by tarnishing its image and spoiling its relations with Afghanistan, Iran, Gulf States and the US.

Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute but India stubbornly maintains that it is its integral part well knowing that the Kashmiris hate Indians and want freedom at all cost.

To keep Pakistan on the defensive and force it to forget Kashmir, India is playing terrorism card, Baluchistan and Sindh cards, and water terrorism to bend Pakistan on its knees.

India’s Cold Start doctrine is aimed at offsetting Pakistan’s strategic nuclear doctrine and executing it at a time when the bulk of Pak forces had got pinned down in designated restive areas.

The upturn of Pakistan’s sunk economy and its image, control over energy crisis and terrorism coupled with development works and fast progressing CPEC have increased the anxieties of India. To give vent to its frustrations, it is carrying out unprovoked firing across the LoC and working boundary in Kashmir relentlessly.

For all practical purposes, Pakistan has fallen from the grace of USA and time is not far when it will be once again be ditched and put under harsh sanctions.

Indo-US-Israel agenda of disabling Pakistan’s nuclear program, or as a minimum curtailing its minimum deterrence capability remain unchanged.

Afghanistan under Hamid Karzai remained aligned with India and hostile to Pakistan. Afghan Unity government under Ghani-Abdullah is far worse.

Pak-Iran relations are frosty and practically, Iran is more close to India and Afghanistan.

Net outcome in 2017

Pakistan foreign policy makers are faced with perpetually hostile India, near hostile Afghanistan, and the changed attitude of the US. Washington has callously whipped Pakistan under its ‘do more’ policy and is now hurling warnings. It’s heavy tilt towards India is a matter of anxiety for Pakistan.

Iran nurtures grouses on account of Pakistan’s closeness with Saudi Arabia, and for sending Gen Raheel to Riyadh to head 41-member Sunni Muslim States Alliance.

Warmth in a relationship with the GCC States has diluted because of Pakistan not agreeing to send troops to Saudi Arabia to ward off the threat from Yemen. Saudi-Qatar tiff is another challenge faced by Pakistan since it cannot afford to take sides.

Pakistan has been deliberately kept politically unstable by making it play the game of ladder and snake so that it remains economically dependent. It was pulled down whenever it grew economically strong. That is why it has been lurching from one crisis to another in its 70 years checkered history.

Pakistan can ill-afford political disharmony and disunity at this critical juncture when black clouds are hovering over its horizon.

Geopolitical realities

Pakistan is faced with multiple threats of Indo-US-Afghan covert war, India’s Cold Start Doctrine, the US Af-Pak doctrine, and Hybrid war and all these threats have now become menacing.

The threat to its security has heightened after the signing of three Indo-US defense agreements in 2016 and the US openly expressing its enmity against Pakistan and love for India.

India is getting unnerved on account of high-intensity freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir, which is slipping out of its hands and is endangering the unity of India. India has no other choice except to keep persecuting the Kashmiris ruthlessly, keep the LoC on fire and to diplomatically place Pakistan on the back foot.

Muslim Pakistan, laced with nuclear/missile power and now getting economically strong due to CPEC is unacceptable to USA, India, and Israel. The trio may go to any extent to disrupt CPEC.

Pakistan is faced with the threat of two-front war from east and west, inauspicious southwestern backyard, vulnerable seacoast, not so friendly Gulf States, together with the internal war on terror and internal war on terror

Pakistan’s viable nuclear cum missile capability deters India from waging an open war.

Nuclear factor has compelled India to resort to indirect strategy to weaken Pakistan from within through unrelenting covert war, discredit and isolate it through propaganda and diplomacy, extract its nuclear teeth clandestinely, and then apply the military instrument through Cold Start doctrine.

Having tried out all possible means short of war, the only other option left with enemies of Pakistan is to create political chaos and logjam, paralyze the government machinery and then trigger civil war as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Many are suspecting a game plan behind the current political imbroglio.

The success of $21 trillion One-Road-One-belt projects of China hinges on successful completion of CPEC. In view of China’s ambition to become leading economic power and its heavy economic stakes in CPEC, it is bound to come to the aid of Pakistan whenever its security is threatened.

Pakistan is a target and not an ally of USA. Earlier Pakistan gets out of the enchantment of USA, better it will be.


Any expectation of goodwill and empathy from India, Afghanistan under Ghani and USA, which in pursuit of their common objectives have been inflicting tens of thousands of cuts on the body of Pakistan and its people, will be foolhardy.

The newly appointed Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif in consultation with the new PM Khaqan Abbasi, CJCSC Gen Zubair Hayat, and Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa need to revisit the foreign policy at the earliest to make appropriate changes after correctly identifying friends and foes and accordingly diversifying the policy to meet the upcoming challenges.

Foreign policy instead of being defensive, apologetic and reactive, should be infused with dynamism and pro-activeness.

The change in foreign policy should not be abrupt, but gradual and orderly without violent fluctuations. The change should be akin to autumn changing into winter, or winter into spring.

While maintaining a working relationship with the USA, Pakistan should draw closer to China, Russia, Central Asia, SCO, and ASEAN.

Pakistan should work hard to bring Iran in the loop of China-Russia peace-talks initiative, possibly draw in Turkey and conjointly work to restore peace in war torn Afghanistan.

Pakistan must strive to establish a friendly regime in Kabul.

Surging Afghan Taliban and not the corrupt and inept unity government in Kabul toeing Indo-US agenda should be kept in the loop.

Pakistan should continue to play a mediatory role in the Iran-Saudi ideological rivalry and in Saudi-Qatar tiff to narrow down their differences and also allay the misperceptions of Gulf States on account of Yemen crisis. It will be unwise to call back Gen Raheel and detach Pakistan from 41-member Muslim Alliance.

CPEC should be made use of as a strong magnet by our foreign policy makers to attract as many nations from Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East, Africa and Europe to ward off Indian inspired threat of isolation.

Gwadar-Chahbahar economic rivalry should be converted into an opportunity to complement each other’s strength.

Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan. Comprehensive and pragmatic Kashmir policy should be devised to keep the cause of Kashmir alive.

Conclusion. While many developing countries have raced ahead, Pakistan is still struggling and has neither become an Asian tiger or a secure country. Political parties are behaving irresponsibly and are advised to shun politics of agitation and division and promote the concept of “Unity in Diversity”. Strong and united home front is the best defense against internal and external challenges.


The writer is a retired Brig, a war veteran, defense and security analyst, columnist, author of five books. He is Director Measac Research Centre, Vice Chairman Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Editor-in-chief “Better Morrow’ magazine, editor of website group ‘The Patriots’. asifharoonraja@gmail.com

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Video Confession of Indian Spy Gulbhushan Yadav


Video Confession of Indian Spy Gulbhushan Yadav









ISLAMABAD: The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) released on Tuesday a confessional video statement of Indian spy agent Kulbushan Jadhav admitting to foment terrorism in Balochistan and Karachi.

He was arrested red-handed by law-enforcement agencies in the first week of the current month while infiltrating into Pakistan from the Saravan border area of Balochistan with Iran.









Following is the full text of his voluntary confession shown at a press conference jointly addressed by Minister for Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage Senator Pervaiz Rashid and ISPR Director General Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa at the Press Information Department.

“My name is Commander Kulbushan Jadhav and I am the serving officer of Indian Navy. I am from the cadre of the engineering department of Indian Navy and my cover name was Hussein Mubarak Patel, which I had taken for doing some intelligence gathering for Indian agencies.”

“I joined the National Defence Academy in 1987 and subsequently joined Indian Navy in Jan 1991 and subsequently served in the Indian Navy till around December 2001 when the Parliament attack occurred and that is when I started contributing my services towards gathering of information and intelligence within India.”

“I live in the city of Mumbai in India. I am still the serving officer in the Indian Navy and will be due for retirement by 2022 as a commissioned officer in Indian Navy after having completed 14 years of service by 2002.”

“I commenced intelligence operation in 2003 and established a small business in Chabahar in Iran as I was able to achieve undetected existence and visits to Karachi in 2003 and 2004 and having done some basic assignments within India for RAW.”

“I was picked up by RAW in 2013 end. Ever since I have been directing various activities in Balochistan and Karachi at the behest of RAW and deteriorating law and order situation in Karachi, I was basically the man for Mr Ani Kumar Gupta who is the joint secretary of RAW and his contacts in Pakistan especially in Balochistan Student Organisation.”

“My purpose was to hold meetings with Baloch insurgents and carry out activities with their collaboration.”

“These activities have been of criminal nature, leading to the killing of or maiming of Pakistani citizens.”

“I realize during this process that RAW is involved in some activities related to the Baloch liberation movement within Pakistan and the region around it.”

“There are finances which are fed into the Baloch movement through various contacts or various ways and means into the Baloch liberation (movement) and various activities of the Baloch liberation and RAW handlers go towards activities which are criminal, which are anti-national, which can lead to maiming or killing of people within Pakistan and mostly these activities were centred around of what I have knowledge is of ports of Gwadar, Pasni Jewani and various other installations, which are around the coast damaging various other installations, which are in Balochistan.

“So the activity seems to be evolving and trying to create a criminal sort of mindset within the Baloch liberation which leads to instability within Pakistan. In my pursuit towards achieving the set targets by my handlers in RAW, I was trying to cross over into Pakistan from the Saravan border in Iran on March 3, 2016, and was apprehended by Pakistani authorities while on the Pakistani side and the main aim of this crossing over into Pakistan was to hold (a) meeting with Baloch separatists in Balochistan for carrying out various activities, which they were supposed to undertake and carrying backwards the messages which had to deliver to Indian agencies.”

“The main issues regarding this were that they were planning to conduct some operations within the next immediate (near) future so that was to be discussed mainly and that was the main aim of trying to coming into Pakistan.”

“So that moment I realised that my intelligence operations have been compromised on my being detained in Pakistan, I revealed that I am an Indian naval officer, and it is on mentioning that I am Indian naval officer, the total perception of the establishment of the Pakistani side changed and they treated me very honourably and they did utmost respect and due regards and have handled me subsequently on a more professional and proper courteous way and they have handled me in a way that befits that of an officer and once I realised that I have been compromised in my process of intelligence operations, I decided to just end the mess I have landed myself in and just wanted to subsequently move on and cooperate with the authorities in removing complications which I have landed myself and my family members into, and whatever I am stating just now, it is the truth and it is not under any duress or pressure. I am doing it totally out of my own desire to mention and come clean out of this entire process which I have gone through last 14 years.”

, , , , ,

No Comments

Skip to toolbar