Our Announcements

Not Found

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

Archive for category INDIA’TREACHERY IN BANGLADESH 1971

SOBER ADVICE to BJP…by Mani Shankar Aiyar (Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha)

SOBER ADVICE to BJP
 
Makes sense.

​.. but will BJP pay heed to his advice ?

By

Mani Shankar Aiyar

(Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha)

The bigger danger is that overblown rhetoric can tip the subcontinent over the precipice. That is what we must remind ourselves in this centenary year of the commencement of the First World War. The parallels between the events that sparked WWI and the contemporary India-Pakistan situation are striking. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia were neighbours, much as India and Pakistan are neighbours. There was no comparison between the military power, the economic strength and the political clout of the two neighbours: Austro-Hungary, like India vis-a-vis Pakistan, was undoubtedly superior. Nevertheless, tension between the two neighbours was rife, as in the case of India and Pakistan. Serbia-based non-State actors were secretly readying for a major terrorist strike against the Empire, backed by powerful forces within Serbia but out of government control, much as Pakistan-based non-State terrorists are constantly preparing for terror strikes against key Indian targets, backed by powerful forces within Pakistan, but outside government control.
When a young band of Serbian terrorists slipped into Bosnia to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Government of Serbia did not know, even as it is entirely likely that the Government of Pakistan did not know that Ajmal Kasab and his gang had slipped into Mumbai to target the iconic Taj Hotel. But, as in India, so in Austria, the suspicion was so strong that there were rogue elements in the Serbian establishment that were backing the terrorists, no proof was needed: suspicion amounted to conviction. Therefore, when the Serbian terrorists struck, assassinating the heir-apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Empire needed no conclusive proof that the Serbian government was behind the assassination. It knew, as India “knew”, that 26/11 was master-minded by the Government of Pakistan. And even as the Pakistan government denied any involvement in such cross-border terrorism and undertook to set in train an investigation into the dastardly terrorist attack, so also, a hundred years earlier, did Serbia condemn the assassination and offer to investigate and bring to justice those responsible.

Modi_at_BJP_HQ_650

Arun Jaitley thumps his chest and proclaims that we have given the Pakis a “jaw-breaking reply” (munh tod jawab). 
Oh yeah? The Pakistanis are still there – with their jaw quite intact and a nuclear arsenal nestling in their pockets. 
Rajnath Singh adds that the Pakis had best understand that “a new era has dawned”. 
How? Is retaliatory fire a BJP innovation? Or is it that we have we ceased being peace-loving and become a war-mongering nation? 
And Modi thunders that his guns will do the talking (boli nahin, goli). Yes – and for how long?
The Government struts around as if it has silenced the Pakistani guns. Nothing could be a more dangerous illusion. If the guns have ceased for the present to bark, it is because the Pakistan army has silenced its own guns, even as the Indian army has silenced ours. The idea that we have terrified the Pakistanis into submission by shelling a few homes and killing a few soldiers and several innocents might be a myth that washes here but it is far, far from the truth. The danger is that we will forget the limits that divide peace from war.
If losing half their country in 1971 and leaving 90,000 prisoners of war in Indian hands has not dimmed Pakistan’s zeal to protect itself, big words from our end are not going to make them grovel at Modi’s feet. Pakistan is a sovereign nation. It makes its own assessment of the threats to its security. And the kind of talk they have heard in recent days from our governmental chiefs only persuades them that they are right in regarding India as the biggest threat to their security. This marginalizes the sane voices across the border and brings Pakistanis of all hues and colours together in the defence of their homeland. The language of the “akhaara” is not the language of statesmen. And war is not a continuation of diplomacy by other means; it is a confession of the breakdown of diplomacy.
Dr. Manmohan Singh showed, especially during the first three years of his government, how much could be achieved by talking to Pakistan instead of shooting at them. Even Kashmir was tackled on the back-channel. It was agreed that territories could not be changed nor populations exchanged. What was needed was fostering exchanges of all kinds between Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC – the restoration of Kashmiriyat by fostering exchanges between people, relatives, friends, media, goods and  services across the LoC in a two-way traffic. Pakistan has repeatedly – even with the change of regime in India – shown that it is ready to talk with India. It is we who are stalling the dialogue. But as the history of the last 20 years has shown, proxy war in Kashmir did not come in the way of Vajpayee’s bus journey to the Shaheed Minar in Lahore; Kargil and the Parliament attack did not stop the invitation to Musharraf to come to Agra; nor did it prevent Vajpayee from going to Islamabad to sign a joint declaration that presaged the resumption of dialogue. 26/11 certainly threw the spanner in the works but was not enough to forestall the invitation to Nawaz Sharif to the forecourt of Rashtrapati Bhawan. So, a “munh thod jawab” is for domestic consumption, a pathetic attempt at proving the breadth of the Prime Minister’s chest.
The bigger danger is that overblown rhetoric can tip the subcontinent over the precipice. That is what we must remind ourselves in this centenary year of the commencement of the First World War. The parallels between the events that sparked WWI and the contemporary India-Pakistan situation are striking. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia were neighbours, much as India and Pakistan are neighbours. There was no comparison between the military power, the economic strength and the political clout of the two neighbours: Austro-Hungary, like India vis-a-vis Pakistan, was undoubtedly superior. Nevertheless, tension between the two neighbours was rife, as in the case of India and Pakistan. Serbia-based non-State actors were secretly readying for a major terrorist strike against the Empire, backed by powerful forces within Serbia but out of government control, much as Pakistan-based non-State terrorists are constantly preparing for terror strikes against key Indian targets, backed by powerful forces within Pakistan, but outside government control.
When a young band of Serbian terrorists slipped into Bosnia to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Government of Serbia did not know, even as it is entirely likely that the Government of Pakistan did not know that Ajmal Kasab and his gang had slipped into Mumbai to target the iconic Taj Hotel. But, as in India, so in Austria, the suspicion was so strong that there were rogue elements in the Serbian establishment that were backing the terrorists, no proof was needed: suspicion amounted to conviction. Therefore, when the Serbian terrorists struck, assassinating the heir-apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Empire needed no conclusive proof that the Serbian government was behind the assassination. It knew, as India “knew”, that 26/11 was master-minded by the Government of Pakistan. And even as the Pakistan government denied any involvement in such cross-border terrorism and undertook to set in train an investigation into the dastardly terrorist attack, so also, a hundred years earlier, did Serbia condemn the assassination and offer to investigate and bring to justice those responsible.
But Vienna would not be appeased. An eight-point ultimatum was sent to Serbia demanding full acceptance of the eight conditions within a month. Eventually, after much hemming and hawing, Belgrade accepted seven of the conditions but baulked at the eighth – that a joint Austrian-Serbian investigation be launched into the assassination. That was enough for Vienna to insist that if all conditions were not fulfilled, the far more powerful Austro-Hungarian forces would reduce Serbia to rubble in a matter of days.
The threat was meant to cow the Serbians. The Serbians went as far as they could, but baulked at abject surrender. In consequence, military plans began to roll – to the alarm of both Emperor Franz Joseph of Austro-Hungary as well as the German Kaiser whose belligerence was pushing Vienna further and further down the road to disaster. Their political misgivings were entirely understandable. For Russia had declared that any military action against her Slav cousin would invite Russian retaliation against both Austria and Germany. At the same time, Germany had made it clear that her first target was France. Treaty obligations made it incumbent for France to come to Russia’s rescue and vice versa in the event of war. Britain was committed to entering the war in these circumstances. The very balance of power that was supposed to have kept the peace in Europe for a hundred years was now pushing the world to the brink.
To prevent this catastrophe, the two Emperors who had been the loudest in proclaiming a “munh thod jawab” to Serbia tried at the last moment to stop the guns from booming, but were over-ruled by their respective military hierarchies. War was launched. The mighty Austro-Hungarian Empire conquered Serbia but ended up losing the War and disappearing from the map of the world. Germany won the opening rounds but ended in humiliating defeat. Defeat on the battle-field led to the Peace Treaty but contained the seeds of resentment that resulted in WWII breaking out 20 years later. It did not end till nearly a hundred million people – mostly unarmed non-combatant civilians – had been killed the world over. That was the outcome of Vienna saying “Boli nahin, goli”.    
Let us remind ourselves that it was the Father of the Nation who taught us that “taking an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind.” Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!


Mani Shankar Aiyar

, ,

No Comments

India’s Nuclear Threat or Political Suicide By Sajjad Shaukat

India’s Nuclear Threat or Political Suicide

 

 

 

 

By Sajjad Shaukat

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pakistan Ra'ad Missile

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In his interview to an Indian TV channel, leader of the fundamentalist BJP-led ruling party Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, a staunch promoter of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) said on July 12, this year that India needed only two years to defeat Pakistan militarily, and it would not shy away from a nuclear war because ultimately there would be no Pakistan left. He elaborated, “May be 100 million will die; no problem…but we have to neutralize China.”

 

Swamy added that the only solution of Kashmir was war, as “there is no peaceful, democratic solution.” About the aftermath of the withdrawal of the US-led NATO forces from Afghanistan, he remarked, “Americans will hand over Afghanistan to Taliban and go…India should send at least 200,000 troops to Afghanistan…their [Taliban] appetite is Jihad and Kashmir is the obvious place…so we should be ready to go to war.” He further pointed out that Modi won the elections 2014 on the basis of Hindutva, and “those Muslims inside India who do not accept Hindu ancestry should be disenfranchised.”

 

However, it is wishful thinking of the BJP leader that India can destroy Pakistan through nuclear bombs. While both the neighbouring adversaries are nuclear powers, New Delhi should not ignore the principles of deterrence, popularly known as balance of terror.

 

After the World War 11, nuclear weapons were never used, and were only employed as a strategic threat. During the heightened days of the Cold War, many crises arose in Suez Canal, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam when the US and the former Soviet Union were willing to use atomic weapons, but they stopped because of the fear of nuclear war which could eliminate both the super powers. Therefore, the two rivals preferred to resolve their differences through diplomacy.

 

Similarly, many occasions came between Pakistan and India, during Kargil crisis of 1998, and Indian parliament’s attack by the militants in 2001, and particularly in 2008, in the post-Mumbai terror attacks when New Delhi started a blame game against Islamabad in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilization of troops. Pakistan had also taken defensive steps to meet any prospective aggression or surgical strikes by New Delhi. But, India failed in implementing its aggressive plans, because Islamabad also possesses atomic weapons.

 

Political strategists agree that deterrence is a psychological concept which aims to affect an opponent’s perceptions. In nuclear deterrence, weapons are less usable, as their threat is enough in deterring an enemy who intends to use its armed might. In this context, a renowned scholar, Hotzendorf remarks that nuclear force best serves the interests of a state when it deters an attack.

 

In the present circumstances, BJP is badly mistaken, if it overestimates India’s power and underestimates Pakistan’s power. As Pakistan lacks conventional forces and weapons vis-à-vis India, so, in case of a prolonged conflict, Pakistan will have to use nuclear weapons and missiles which could destroy whole of India, resulting into Indian political suicide.

 

It is notable that under the Pak-China pretext, the then Indian Army Chief, Gen. Deepak Kapoor had vocally revealed on December 29, 2010 that the Indian army “is now revising its five-year old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.” On October 15, 2010, the ex-Indian Army Chief Gen. VK Singh, while explaining the same concept had openly blamed that Beijing and Islamabad posed a major threat to India’s security, while calling for a need to upgrade country’s defence.

 

In May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then Defense Minister (BJP leader) George Fernandes had declared publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.” New Delhi which successfully tested missile, Agni-111in May 2007, has been extending its range to target all Chinese cities.

 

Notably, in 2010, during his visit to India, US President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list.” Owing to various agreements with US, India has been purchasing latest and sophisticated defence-related arms and equipments from America like Apache helicopters, the new F-35 fighter jets etc. Besides, New Delhi has also been buying arms from Germany, France, Russia, Italy and especially Israel.

 

Particularly, America which signed a deal of civil energy technology with India in 2008, desires to make India a major power to counterbalance China in Asia. In case of Pakistan, Balochistan’s geo-strategic location with deep Gwadar seaport, connecting rest of the world with Central Asia has further annoyed the US and India, because Beijing has already invested billion of dollars to develop this seaport. It is because of multiple strategic designs that the US and India seeks to dismember both Pakistan and Iran. Notably, by rejecting US growing pressure, on March 11, 2013, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari inaugurated the gas pipeline project with Iran. Pakistan also handed over the control of Gwader seaport to China.

 

During the trip of Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang to Islamabad, Pakistan and China signed several agreements on May 22, 2013 to strengthen and diversify cooperation in various fields including completion of the Gwader seaport. Premier Li Keqiang supported Pakistan’s proposal of China-Pakistan economic corridor to improve connectivity between Pakistan and China, saying that both sides decided on a long term programme—a strategic idea, assuring that Beijing was also ready to upgrade Karrakuram Highway and to sign Sino-Pak civilian nuclear deal.

It is mentionable that after the NATO forces quit Afghanistan in December, 2014, the puppet regime of Kabul will fall like a house of cards due to stiff resistance of the Afghan Taliban who will reemerge. India which has supported the Northern Alliance seeks to further strengthened its grip there to get strategic depth against Islamabad, will not be able to maintain its network and development projects due to successful guerrilla warfare of the Taliban. New Delhi which has shifted Afghan war to Pakistan, with the backing of Washington, will have to face the different war, as the Islamic militants are well-organized, having connections with one another from Somalia to Iraq and from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan or elsewhere. These non-state actors could reach India, especially the Indian-occupied Kashmir.

 

It is noteworthy that currently, more than half of India’s budget is allocated for armed forces, and defence purchases, leaving even less to lift millions of its citizens from abject poverty. Hence, various justices have further intensified regional and ethnic disparities in India.

It is worth-mentioning that the one of the important causes of the disintegration of the former Soviet Union was that its greater defence expenditure exceeded to the maximum, resulting into economic crises inside the country. In this regard, about a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the former President Gorbachev had declared it as the “bleeding wound.” However, militarization of the Soviet Union failed in controlling the movements of liberation, launched by various ethnic nationalities. On the other hand, while learning no lesson from India’s previous close friend, Indian new Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the BJP is acting upon the similar policies.

 

Nevertheless, under the mask of democracy and secularism, Indian subsequent regimes dominated by politicians from the Hindi heartland—Hindutva, use brutal force ruthlessly against any move to free Assam, Kashmir, Khalistan, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu and Tripura where wars of liberation continue in one or the other form. In the recent years, Maoist intensified their struggle, attacking official installments. In this context, Indian media admitted that Maoists have now entered the cities, expanding their activities against the Indian union. While, even under the rule of Congress which claims to be secular party, Indian extremist parties like BJP, RSS, VHP, Shev Sina and Bajrang Dal have missed no opportunity to communalize national politics of India. They also intensified anti-Christian and anti-Muslim bloodshed.

 

After serving the BJP for 30 years, Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party for praising Mohammad Ali Jinnah and echoing the pain of the Indian Muslims in his book, “Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.” While pointing out the BJP’s attitude towards the minorities, Singh wrote: “Every Muslim that lives in India is a loyal Indian…look into the eyes of Indian Muslims and see the pain.” He warned in his book, if such a policy continued, “India could have third partition.”

 

Past and present history of Balkan gives ample evidence that insurgency and movement of separatism in one country have drastic impact on other neighbouring states. Similarly, civil war and unrest either in Somalia or Sudan have affected all the states of Darfur region, while violent uprising in Egypt, Syria etc. has radicalized a number of the Middle East countries. Indian state terrorism in the Indian-held Kashmir in wake of Israeli continued atrocities on the Palestinians in Gaza will further radicalize Asia.

 

Nonetheless, irresponsible and unrealistic approach of the BJP-led government in the modern era of peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development could culminate into political suicide of the India union.

 

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

 

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

 

 

,

No Comments

HAMID MIR RAW & GEO’S TRUE PRO- INDIA/USA IDENTITY EXPOSED BY DEFAULT

GEO TV IS A BOOT LICKING TRAITOR

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

No Comments

BANGLADESH 1971- ASGHAR KHAN CASE – PAKISTAN 2012

 

 

BANGLADESH1971- ASGHAR KHAN CASE-PAKISTAN 2012

 

 

 

 

       

 

Lot of water has flown under the Bridge ever since 16 Dec 1971. There is a 

 

need to re evaluate the East Pakistan Tragedy in the present environment. We need 

 

to draw lessons?  Why do people revolt? What is Freedom? Can we subjugate 

 

people forcibly? How do we see the war on terror in FATA & Swat? How do we see 

 

the burning of Pakistan Flags in Baluchistan ? How do we see the Ethnic Target 

 

Killings ?      

 

 Bangla Desh Revisited.  I went to Bangla desh in 2004:  All my Bengali course mates 

 

invited me & my friends for lunch in Defence club Dhaka. They gave presents to all 

 

my Colleagues. Majority of them had revolted as Majors in 1971 and fully participated 

 

in their war of liberation. In 2004 they were as loving as in 1963, when we met first 

 

time in PMA. But I am sure we  would have killed each other like Animals if we 

 

had seen each other  during the 1971 in then EAST PAKISTAN . Thank Allah I was in 

 

Chamb sector.  

 

      How would we explain our actions of 1971 to our younger generations and 

 

compare the same to our present situation, will it be fully understood by them in 2012. 

 

Many of my best friends were involved in 1973 Attock case. They were the best of 

 

the lot, one of them having won the sword of honour from PMA another had been to 

 

RMA. Three of them had won the Sitara e Jurat. They were tried and sent to jail! 

 

       Asghar Khan takes retired retd COAS and ISI chief to Supreme court for 

 

distribution of Rs 140 million of Private money to Politicians, whereas Supreme court 

 

lets off Gen Beg for a bigger Crime of forcing the then Supreme court not to restore 

 

the Government of MK JUNEJO and Parliament?  Yayha khan is buried with full 

 

military honors by Zia Ul Haq. Zia Ul Haq and Gen PM are let off, for their actions by 

8th, 17th Amendments?       

 

A/Cdr Mitty Masud in 1971, three Brigadiers in 1977 are retired 

 

for standing up for the truth, where as the young men of Attock case are sent to jail.

 

        Why none of the Senior Officers ever stood up against Yahya khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Zia Ul 

 

Haq for Forming IJI or Mehran Bank  1988-1999 and finally Gen PM.   Is there is 

 

anything wrong with our System to select officers for higher ranks both in civil and 

 

military? Presently Gen Aslam beg and Gen Asad Durrani are crying like children on 

 

TV and blaming each other. Why has Gen Beg and Gen Durrani forgotten the writing 

 

in the INGALL  HALL PMA” Matters not what happens to you, what matters is how 

 

you behave while it is happening.”

 

 

 

         Therefore it is high time we must discuss debate and find solutions to this aspect 

 

of adhering to the law and define what lawful command is and what is not? Other wise 

 

we shall have serious implications of discipline cases, when the ARMY is fighting the 

 

war of terror on the western border.

 

Indra Gandhi , Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sh Mujib the architects of the 1971’ were

 

murdered by their own people (1975-1984).

 

Lt Gen Aurora the Victor in 1971 war ; A decade later was talking

 

to BBC about the injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state,

 

(Sarmila Bose writing about the 1971 war)

 

Gen Yahya was put under arrest in an isolated rest house in Kharian

 

hills. He suffered a stroke became paralyzed and died after a prolonged

 

illness in his brothers house. Lt Gen Gul Hasan summarily retired by

 

ZAB on 2 March 1972; Suffered a rash of leukoderma, died after a bout

 

with Cancer, alone in services club Rawalpindi.” (Extracts from Page 218-

 

219’ East Pakistan the end Game’ By Brig AR Siddiqui.)

 

1975-1981 Bangla Desh. Maj (Maj Gen) Zia Ur Rehman, Maj (brig)

 

Khalid Musharraf, Maj (Maj Gen) Manzur and other officers, who defected to

 

join their war of Liberation were killed by their own Soldiers within first ten

 

years of independence of Bangla Desh. Many other Freedom fighters were

 

tried and hanged in Bangla Desh; some are still in hiding either in Bangla

 

Desh or in foreign countries.

 

Bangla Desh- 25 Feb 2009. In DHAKA, the entire lower ranks of

 

Bangla Desh rifles (Ex EPR) mutinied they killed all their officers in the

 

HQ including their Director General Maj Gen Shakil Ahmed, his wife and

 

others including 40 officers and their Families. Army was called to disarm

 

them.140 died, within two days, mostly officers and their families.

 

  ADVICE BY A SENIOR BENGALI ARMY OFFICER TO PAKISTAN-

 

2003.Maj Gen I A Karim  Ex GOC 6 ARMED DIV IN 1971 in his forward to Brig A R 

 

Siddiqui’s Book’( East Pakistan the End game-  OUP-2003)’.

 

 

 

         “The people of East Pakistan now BanglaDesh are devout Muslims and if I 

 

may say, more religious in practice than our brothers in the west.  But the religious 

 

bond that gave us Pakistan could not be sustained primarily due to ethnic differences. 

 

Presently, Pakistan, though overwhelmingly Muslim, comprises four different ethnic 

 

groups: Pathans, Balochis, Sindhi and Punjabis. The pakistan government  must, 

 

therefore learn from  past mistakes and cater for some of the peculiarities of these 

 

regions so that policies can be adjusted to ensure fairness in all aspects of governance 

 

in order to bring about harmony and avoid dissention.

 

           Gen Karim is right but is there anyone listening?or we as dumb as we were in 

 

1971.

 

         

 

          MAY ALMIGHTY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON US AND FORGIVE US 

 

AND OUR LEADERS AND GIVE THEM THE VISION TO UNDERSTAND AND 

 

FORESEE TO AVOID ANY MORE BREAK UP/BALKANISATION OF OUR 

 

BELOVED COUNTRY.    

 

   In conclusion I shall quote a write up on the death of “CHE’. “ It is men like CHE, 

 

who immortalize revolution, who brighten afresh the fading ideals and who are ever 

 

-living testimony to ultimate victory of cause of the liberation of mankind. Death for 

 

Che was more acceptable than the compromises that are made to carry out the 

 

revolution.”

 

 

 

, ,

No Comments