|
|
|
E-Correspondence |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia |
|
|
Message from Faryal Virk on Akbar Bugti |
|
Message
Dated 30/09/2006
Dear Brigadier Khalid
I received a forwarded email that had your response to the South Asia Partnership's statement of solidarity regarding the death of Akbar Bugti. While I appreciate your perspective on the US 'plan' for redrawing boundaries in South Asia and the Middle East, I feel compelled to take issue with you on a few things:
1 - I agree with you that Akbar Bugti was not fighting so much for his people as for his own personal gain. However, whatever his agenda, can you justify the method of his removal? Military action does not work - we saw it with East Pakistan and then with the Balochis in Bhutto's time. Now that Gen Musharraf has completed his threat of 'you can run but you cannot hide' made a couple of years ago, do you seriously imagine that the underlying issues will be resolved?
2 - The marginalisation of the Balochi people is a fact, and over the years, the Pakistani government has done little to help the province, or rectify the issue pertaining to gas royalties from Sui. While one can argue that the government has done little for anyone in Pakistan over the last forty years, one cannot turn a blind eye to the Balochistan situation. But we do just that, allowing the Bugtis and Marris and other feudals in the region to take advantage for their personal gain.
3 - How does the removal of Akbar Bugti reduce or eliminate the grand plan for redrawing regional boundaries? Seems to me that it facilitates this scheme. If the military government of Pakistan establishes 'stability' in Balochistan, it provides a staging post for activities leading to the destabilisation of Iran, and enables the strategy desired by the US.
4 - Your message to the South Asia Partnership suggested that they are a subversive set-up. I have no affiliation with them whatsoever, but Pakistan and it's future is extremely dear to me, as I believe it is for you. I do not, however, believe that the expression of opinion weakens Pakistan in the long term. We cannot be blind to the fact that our country has almost no real government, the judiciary is a shambles, and the economy is propped up by unsustainable methods. Furthermore, we have a military that can do whatever it pleases in the civilian sector. Recent cases in point (note, these are in Punjab) include land appropriation in Okara (military farms) and Sheikhupura (country club and Mercedes plant) as well as housing/plots for army officers etc. As long as the state is weak, a government purporting to act on behalf of the people will do things that threaten our long term survival and will allow the dismemberment of the country. Therefore, to my mind, the expression of opinions, however diverse, may be good for the country if used a tool to oppose the subversive actions of governments.
I would not have written this email to someone else, but I had to respond because I couldn't agree with you, yet I generally like what you say on other issues. I very strongly believe that people like you can bring issues into the public domain, and provide the thought provoking analyses and opinions that might generate the momentum necessary to revive the collective conscience of the Pakistani people and government, for which I thank you.
Faryal Virk
North Carolina, USA
My Dear Faryal,
ASA. Your letter is that of a concerned Pakistani and deserves a detailed reply.
In Pakistan we believe several things that are factually untrue or utterly illogical. We hold beliefs that remain in circulation without scrutiny or evidence and over time become a part of conventional wisdom. But these are untruths, half truths or the propaganda of foreign enemies or anti-state elements within Pakistan. The phenomenon that: ‘Half truths are like half bricks; one can throw them farther’, operates in Pakistan with abandon. The result is that we Pakistanis disown our credits and eagerly embrace all discredits. Your letter contains several points that are a part of ‘conventional wisdom’ that started life as subversive propaganda. Let me explain.
i.In East Pakistan we were faced with a political insurrection that started as the ‘language’ problem but continued even after Bengali was recognised as a national language. We did not understand or acknowledge that it was the beginning of the onslaught of ethnic nationalism that undermined the very basis of Pakistan – the Two Nation Theory. The East Pakistanis had suffered at the hands of the Hindus much more than the West Pakistanis. If ethnic nationalism could be embraced by them, there was no other area that was safe from its subversive influence. The Muslim League – the custodian of the Two Nation Theory - was split and weakened by intrigue. There was no effective custodian of the polity of Pakistan, which gave the military under General Ayub Khan to step in. He gave the country a new Constitution and Pakistan enjoyed a long period of stability and prosperity. But he had to resign in the face widespread agitation when he tried to amend the Constitution to secure a third term as President.
ii.The political classes were sidelined for too long and were angry and restless. Educated in the school of ‘dushmanati siyasat’ in their local constituencies they were attracted by the slogan of ‘provincial autonomy’ and ‘opposition to military rule’. The ethnic nationalists capitalised on this mass conversion to their ideas and began to dominate the national political scene. In East Pakistan, the Awami League won a landslide victory and the NAP won big in NWFP and Balochistan. India had recruited Sheikh Mujib to its cause and provided funds to him generously that helped him win. We knew all the details of his treachery but Ayub Khan had been in power too long and the people were more eager to get him out rather than deal with traitors. The rest is history. India invaded East Pakistan that had suffered months of physical isolation and insurrection. The defeat in East Pakistan came as relief also in West Pakistan. The public thought it was ‘good riddance’ and that opinion has not changed.
iii.Pakistan was fortunate that a new party - the PPP under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – had emerged as the flag bearer of the polity of Pakistan. It won in Sindh and the Punjab. He had problems with NAP rule in the NWFP and Balochistan but he was able to deal with them. We thought we had left all our problems behind. But Late ZAB appeared to have a secular agenda. That gave the religious parties a chance to walk into the space left vacant by the decline of the Muslim League. They were able to start a strong agitation against Bhutto rule founded on the accusation that the 1977 Elections had been rigged. Even though Prime Minister Bhutto agreed to hold fresh elections, the agitation did not stop. It gave General Zia ul Haq the opportunity to rule for 11 long years without ever getting legitimacy that he craved for. He ruled by ‘danda’ while trying to resurrect the Muslim League as a vehicle for gaining legitimacy. In his eagerness to undermine the power base of the PPP in Sindh, he created the Frankenstein’s monster in the shape of urban based ethnic chauvinist party – the MQM. Ultimately, the USA had got tired of him and we know the rest.
iv.Benazir was the inheritor of the Bhutto legacy but she could not deal either with ‘uncles’ or satisfy the rowdy ‘workers’ with high hopes. More important, the remnants of Zia regime – Nawaz Sharif and his ilk – literally and criminally denied her rule over the Punjab. The Muslim League that General Zia had resurrected came to acquire the ‘danda’ power (aka street power) under Nawaz Sharif that was previously the hallmark of the PPP. Since both the PML and the PPP were well equipped with such power, fortune smiled on the leader who had the support of the Army Chief, or America or both. Benazir has admitted that she had the support of the Army on both occasions she became the Prime Minister. Nawaz Sharif is a creation of General Zia who came to power with direct military help to the extent that the ISI created the IJI for him when he was too inept to make an alliance himself.
v.The ineptitude of Nawaz Sharif was monumental. He felt comfortable only his ‘own man’ in every important office of the state. He had his brother as the Chief Minister of the Punjab and his accountant as the Finance Minister. He even replaced President Farooq Leghari (whose dismissal of Benazir paved the way for his appointment as PM for the second time) with his lawyer as the President of Pakistan. He was ever nervous about the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the COAS not being ‘his’ men. He went to the extent of the Supreme Court being attacked by his party men and succeeded in removing the CJ from office. He got General Karamat to resign as COAS as he was not ready to put up with interference in appointments in the Army. Then he met his nemesis in General Musharraf who finally ended the ‘glorious decade’ of democratic rule by NS and BB.
I have given my view of the history of Pakistan because this is unbiased mainstream view which is at variance with conventional wisdom, which once again, is that all our problems are due to military rule or the denial of provincial autonomy. But there is no Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on the scene to save us from the consequences of this warped conventional wisdom. I was a DS in the Staff College at Quetta in 1971 when the drama of East Pakistan was being enacted. The state of Pakistan acted like a blunderbuss; no one knew what to do. What I understood at that time in service, I am trying to do in my retirement. I will share with you my anxieties and the thrust of my efforts:
1.India has an aim - Akhand Bharat – which is almost its polity as well. India is not one nation; it is and has always been many nations and would find peace within and without only after it gives its several peoples their right of self-determination. Until it is willing to do that, all the neighbours of India would remain in danger and under pressure because it must put the blame on outside forces for the several freedom movements going on in India.
2.Another of our neighbours - Afghanistan - is also like that. Even in its most desperate and dire situation it courts hostility with Pakistan because it cannot face the fact that its polity – its principle of national solidarity – is the same as that of Pakistan – Islam.
3.No country can be occupied for long unless there is at least one organised minority willing to collaborate with the enemy. To achieve their aims, India as well as Afghanistan has to obtain the collaboration of at least one ethnic (or sectarian) minority. To obtain some legitimacy for their collaborators they have to invent (and propagate) an agenda – often denial of rights, or jobs, or representation or autonomy even after all those ‘problems’ have been addressed to the satisfaction of the majority. That is surely the case in Balochistan.
4.It is vital for Pakistan to flourish that it maintained its internal unity and harmony. That can be done by submitting to the demands of our polity and resisting demands that undermine the polity or unity of our country.
5.Since Islam has a universal dimension, to be true to our polity we must stand up and be counted whenever any part of the Muslim Ummah is suffering inequity and injustice - invasion or occupation.
6.I am glad that General Musharraf made the right choice when faced with insurrection in Waziristan and Balochistan. He decided to make peace in Waziristan and liquidate the insurrection in Balochistan. That was the implication of our polity. He did right. We must all support him.
7.The lesson to be learnt from East Pakistan is not that we used too much force. The lesson is that we were not able to mobilise the strength of our polity – the forces of its logic and its military in unison - to confront the collaborators. We are doing the right things today but we are not explaining well enough, why?
Sincerely
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
We will remove Musharraf with the power of the people: Nawaz Sharif |
|
Message
Dated 27/09/2006
From: Dr. Khalid Luqman Chaudhry [mailto:drkluqman@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 September 2006 21:27
To: drluqman@pml1.org
Subject: We will remove Musharraf with the power of the people: Nawaz Sharif
My dear friends, AOA
General Musharaf's book "In the line of fire," and his various interviews and press conferences, have brought to mind the following questions. Questions General Musharaf must answer, I 'm sure you'll agree.
1. If Richard Armitage, the then US Assistant Secretary of State, threatened to Bomb Pakistan and send it back to stone age, why did you hide the threat from the nation and what prompted you to share it now…besides the release of your book?
2. General Musharaf has been telling the Pakistani nation that his cooperation with the USA in the fight against terrorism is not because of any threat but was his decision for the national interes of Pakistan. What is the real reason?
3. He said in the book that millions of dollars were paid to the government of Pakistan for providing the names of terrorists, apprehending them, and handing over to US government. Later he told Wolf Blitzer that funds were provided to individuals who were informers. Can you answer,
a) Where is the money? How was it given to the individuals? Was it given in Pakistan or deposited in foreign accounts.
b) How much was your share. Was it deposited in your bank account in Pakistan , in USA or your brother's/ Son's/nephew's account in Boston/ New Jersey?
c) How many more Pakistani people are going to be sold by you in the name of the fighting terrorism?
4. Writing a book while being the Chief of Army Staff and President is unprecedented. What prompted you to do so knowing that it is against the nation's interest and the confidentiality/secrecy act? Why would you tell the world, even if it was true, that Pakistan did not have an operational delivery system at the time of nuclear detonation? Don't you think that proves you to be self serving and irresponsible? Isn't this an act of treason?
5. In your book, you mentioned Dr. Qadeer as self-centered, selfish and the problem in nuclear proliferation. Can you tell the nation that how come Dr. Qadeer Khan stole all the secrets and plans and even the heavy Centrifuges alone by himself while being strictly guarded by SPD.
6. You lied about the facts about Kargil. You mentioned that Kargil brought Kashmir issue at limelight. You are wrong. Pakistan's position on Kashmir is weakened now than ever. Please look the facts.
a). Indian Government's posture about Kashmir is the same as it was prior to October 12, 1999. Actually it had softened when India 's prime minister A B Vajpayee cameto Minaar e Pakistan , Lahore . Then it got stiffen again after you invaded Kargil.
b). You flip flopped on UN resolutions on Kashmir , time and again thus weakened the core issue.
c). United States and Europeans have done nothing to facilitate the process. Actually India has been emboldened by United States nuclear deal with India. What you got from USA was a promise of cooperation for Pakistan only. Personally you got your friendship with president Bush strengthened.
d). You have divided the Kashmiri freedom movement leaders. Hurriat Conference became two factions. Thanks to you. You have accepted India's assertion of Kashmiri freedom fighters as the terrorists.
e). You let India complete the fence at line of control hence accepting it as a border.
f). You let India start and pursue the construction of Bagliar dam project for three years and then brought it to the attention of World Bank. It was too late then.
And that is not all; there are a lot more questions that need answers. You can begin by answering these for the Pakistani people.
Anxiously awaiting answers,
Dr. Khalid Luqman
Dear Dr Luqman,
ASA. If the propaganda line of PML (N) is what you have produced; it raises more questions about the capability of Nawaz Sharif to head even a company rather than a country. Apart from what you say about the Kashmiri struggle for freedom, everything else you say reveals lack of responsibility and understanding of the affairs of the state.
1.Politics is about timing. At the time of the US threats, it would have been appropriate to reveal those to the nation if Pakistan was going to deny the facilities America asked for. Even your leader (NS) does not say that Pakistan should or could have prevented the invasion of Afghanistan. So, what are you complaining about? Now that a review of situation in Afghanistan has become necessary, it is a good time to reveal Pakistan’s view point. His revelation now underlines urgency of the review and his interviews and meetings in the USA have indicated what Pakistan’s recommendation is.
2.I am sure President Musharraf did not handle the reward money received from the US. Your response is typical of a businessman that your leader is. The more important point is the legality of handing over a prisoner without due process. I am not sure if due process was not followed but that is an important issue if it wasn’t.
3. There is no law that bars any one writing a book; a serving officer would, however, need the permission of the GHQ. Since he is the COAS, GHQ permission can be assumed. But the point you make about state secret is not valid. The yardstick is: would it help the enemy? It certainly does not. It underlines that Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent is now operational, which is an important message we want to send to India.
4. It is not nice to make nasty remarks about a Scientist who is a national hero. But it is wise to do so. If you do not understand that, may Allah (SWT) help you and those who listen to you!
It was NS who lied about Kargil. NS expressed ignorance of the Army plans even though he was shown on TV visiting troops and congratulating them. It was vitally important for the morale and reputation of our armed forces that Musharraf set the record straight and underlined that the battle was not lost by the soldiers but by politicians. Before India invaded East Pakistan, Indira Gandhi went to all the major capitals of the world seeking their support. What did Nawaz Sharif do? He was more worried about delay in his sugar consignment to India because railway wagons had not returned. He sent his Foreign Minister to India begging for a cease fire only a few days after the battle commenced. He did not get the Air Force to provide support to the Kargil operation. He himself went begging to President Clinton and signed a deal which the Indian Prime Minister did not endorse and the troops had to withdrawn under fire. That is when most of casualties were suffered by our side. A chicken was sitting in the chair of the chair of the Prime Minister; it was a test of his nerve and he failed the country. The chicken is a hen now; good only for roasting.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Autonomy Bill: Too Little, Too Late. It is Not the Answer |
|
Message
Dated 21/09/2006
Autonomy Bill: Too Little, Too Late. It is Not the Answer
Immediate steps in right direction are needed to avoid another Hamoodur Rahman Commission
The military regime has allowed a private members’ bill in the National Assembly to bring some superficial changes to the mutilated 1973 Constitution giving some autonomy to the provinces. The bill may provide the besieged government a little breathing space in face of the universal criticism of its military operation in Balochistan and the assassination of Akbar Bugti. It may also be an attempt to revive some interest in the National Assembly as pressure is mounting on the opposition to quit the absurd parliamentary process in the country where one man has usurped the powers and the authority of all the state organs.
Whatever the case may be the proposed bill is not the answer to the present crisis. The situation is much worse. It wouldn’t be enough to abolish the concurrent list and bring a few trivial amendments to the Constitution. The past and the present military regimes have alienated large segments of population in Sindh, Balochistan and in some other places. Lot more needs to be done.
The first step to regain some confidence of the people would be for the military regime to immediately resign and hand over the government to a neutral set up to conduct free and fair elections. The new government could call a grand marathon conference to reach a consensus formula. A ‘Charter of Democracy’ signed by the opposition parties may work as a basic document. Such a conference should accommodate the demands put forward by PONM and other political parties and groups from smaller provinces.
The top priority needs to be given to stop military intervention in civilian affairs. Use of intelligence agencies for political purposes must end. Political wings in such agencies have to be abolished. Military expenditure has to be drastically cut. Military has to be made a truly federal force with equal number from all provinces in all ranks.
Senate has to be empowered. Its composition needs to be changed with equal number of seats (25 each) for the provinces. The present anomaly has to end where Sindh and Balochistan have 22 seats each, Punjab has 26 and the Pukhtoonkhwa (NWFP) has 30 Senate seats. Senate should make all the financial and other decisions.
Ownership of all the resources should go to provinces. The provinces should have the autonomy according to the 1940 Resolution. Also the agreement reached with Awami League in 1971 on the autonomy and other issues should be fully implemented in the present day Pakistan.
The provinces should amicably settle NFC, water and other important issues.
These may be first steps to a peaceful future for the 165 million people living in Pakistan. Things are changing fast. Immediate action is needed. Or the events may lead to a situation that would warrant another Hamoodur Rahman Commission.
Regards,
Aziz Narejo
Dear Mr Narejo,
ASA. I know you as a patriotic Pakistani concerned with socio-economic deprivation of Sindh and the political factors responsible for it. I have always agreed with you that political power is the means by which socio-economic deprivation can be readily addressed. In Sindh, political power is slipping out of the control of rural sindh into the hands of urban Sindh which is now dominated by well entrenched MQM. How did the MQM get entrenched? It has been a part of every coalition in federal government - of PPP, of PML(N) and now the military, which was its fiercest enemy. It virtually rules the country through Musharraf. I hope you and the PPP can learn a lesson from it. It is not through opposition to dams and calls for provincial autonomy that rural Sindh is going to restore itself to power in the federation. You might have noticed that MQM shouts even louder in opposition to dams and in support of provincial autonomy. By doing this they keep on the right side of their power base in Sindh but their real aim is to be the king or king maker of the federation.
Late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who you and I both admire, understood that the key to power in Pakistan is to be the champion of the federation. As you know that I have the dubious distinction of having been the senior most Army officer to have resigned in protest against his execution and I was one of the vociferous opponents of Zia regime. Our enemies wanted that we draw the lesson that it was the mullah-military alliance that hanged Bhutto. We fell into the trap and made Bhutto - the patriotic federalist - into a hero of the Sindhi Nationalist and Sindh as enemy of the military and the mullah. The truth is that it was the USA that organised the overthrow and execution of Bhutto and used Zia ul Haq and its secret ally Jamaat i Islami for it. The irony is that the real enemy of every populist leader in every third world country - the USA - is now courted by Benazir. Her constituency in Sindh can never compete with the MQM (the only truly anti-state party in Pakistan) in opposing the Mullah and the Military. Do you want to enter into competition with them on that?
Please think about what I have said. The PPP can never be better in reviling the Mullahs or decrying the Army as the anti-state nationalist groups are. Led now by the MQM, they have been doing it much longer with the help of a very stable albeit very small constituency. You are an intelligent person. Success in politics is obtained by recognising your constituency as well as your enemies, and building a political line that has wide appeal. I reiterate what I have said many times before - Punjab is not your enemy or adversary; it is your friend and ally.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Why Kashmiris have to be either pro India or Pro Pakistan? |
|
Message
Dated 07/07/2006
From: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sharaf Khan
Sent: 06 July 2006 17:57
To: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [kashnet] Why Kashmiris have to be either pro India or Pro Pakistan?
Brigadier Sahib,
It is high time you widened your horizon.Just because some one is pro Kashmir does not mean he is anti Pakistan and hence a "Traitor". It was exactly this kind of myopic vision that led us to utter humiliation in 1971. You have failed to learn any lesson from that disaster.
India will not hand Kashmir over to Pakistan on a plate.For the foreseeable future Pak army will not be in a position to liberate it by force. Lets have your brilliant suggestion for the most amicable solution which is acceptable to Kashmiri's above all and then to the Pakistani and Indian.Excuse me for quoting from a statesman whose name I do not remember anymore.
" The difference between a soldier and donkey is uniform "
I do not agree with him 100% but historically there have been cases where this statement has proved very correct. I am all for an independent J&K because that is the most amicable solution to the vexed problem, howeverlike millions of other like minded Kashmiris I will be ready to defend Pakistan when and if needed.People who only see black and white will not be able to comprehend this complexity and depth of emotion. We failed to see it in East Pakistan and even failed to appreciate it in the case of Urdu speaking peoples stranded in Bangladesh.
Regards
Sharaf Khan
From: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Derhal Malkan
Sent: 07 July 2006 11:57
To: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [kashnet] Why Kashmiris have to be either pro India or Pro Pakistan?
Very Well said Brig Sahib. These traitors are always in Munafiqeen group.
Sami Malik
At 12:18 PM 7/6/2006, you wrote:
The Kashmiri Hindus are in the Indian camp; Kashmiri Muslims are in the
Pakistan camp. Which camp are you? Traitors?
Brigadier (R) Usman Khalid
Director London Institute of South Asia
www.lisauk.com
My dear Sharaf,
Palestinians are much fewer in number than Kashmiris and they do not have the advantage of ideal terrain - forests and hills – to fight a guerrilla war that the Kashmiris have. The world is more familiar with and more sympathetic to their cause. They have no help and no base to fight from. Yet they have defeated the enemy. Do you know why? They do not tolerate collaborators; they kill them. If you ask the Algerians who bet the French, the answer is the same. If you ask the Viet Namese who beat the Americans, the answer is the same. If you ask Syed Ali Geelani, the answer is the same. I may be a donkey, but I know that much.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Mr. Musharraf planned nuclear attack on India, during Kargil conflict |
|
Message
Dated 07/07/2007
From: voiceofsindh@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Lal Gehi
Sent: 07 July 2006 02:00
To: bhittai@yahoogroups.com; voiceofsindh@yahoogroups.com; balochunity@yahoogroups.com; Subject: [Voice of Sindh] Mr. Musharraf planned nuclear attack on India, during Kargil conflict.
Mr. Mushrraf planed nuclear attack on India, during kagil conflict, without the knowledge of Mr. Nawaz Sharif, according to the book, " Gaddhar Kaun" by Suhel Vaech.
In interview with Ms. Shetal Rajput, on Aaj Tak, TV media, Mr. Nawaz Sharif confirmed the news, and said that, he knew the plan of nuclear attack on India, from Mr. Clinton, US president at that time, when Mr. Clinton asked Mr. Nawaz Sharif : did you know about the movement of Pakistani Nuclear weapons during the Kargil conflict, ?
Mr. Nawaz Sharif said No. !
Do you know that the weapons were directed towards India. ?!
Nawaz Sharif Said No.!
Mr. Jaswant Singh, Indian finance Minister, during that time, also confirmed the news on Aaj Tak TV media.
Mr. Nawaz Sharif also said on the media, that Mr. Vajpaee is a gentleman, and he was stabbed in the back by Mr. Musharraf, like he was. !
Peace. Lal Gehi
Pakistan has only one Enemy - India. When we say we have nuclear deterrent to outbreak of war, what does that mean? It means we have credible capability to strike India with nuclear weapons if India violated our territory, airspace or waters. Nawaz Sharif is an idiot; he does not understand. I hope India does.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
SANA Convention: Resolutions |
|
Message
Dated 07/07/2006
From: punjab_ngos_coordination_council@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Aziz Narejo
Sent: 06 July 2006 07:07
To: sanamedia@yahoo.com
Subject: [PNCC] SANA Convention: Resolutions
Sindhi Association of North America (SANA) held its 22nd Annual Convention in Toronto, Ontario-Canada (June 30 - July 3, 2006). A large number of community members attended the Convention. General Body session was held on 1st July. It unanimously approved following resolutions:
· Provinces be granted autonomy as promised in the 1940 resolution
The GB demands that all the provinces constituting Pakistan be granted provincial autonomy as promised and envisioned in the 1940 resolution. The GB reminds the rulers of the day that it was 1940 resolution on the basis of which Sindh agreed to be a part of Pakistan and if the resolution passed at Minto Park, Lahore, on 23 March is disregarded then the provinces, including Sindh, will have the legal and moral right to consider the options that will restore the promises of the 1940 resolution.
· Sindhi be granted the status of a national language
Sindhi is a very developed language, which has remained an official language of Sindh even during the foreign rule. To reduce its level to a regional language is tantamount to playing with the sensitivities of the people who inhabit the area from time immemorial and have fought many a war to defend the sanctity of their language and culture. This GB today, which constitutes the descendants of the defenders of the land, the language and the culture of Sindh, strongly demands that Sindhi language be given its rightful status as one of the national languages of Pakistan along with Punjabi, Siraiki, Balochi and Pushto.
· Solidarity with the slain and harassed journalists families
The GB is shocked and grieved at the brutal daylight murder of the brave journalist Munir Sangi. He was on duty when a member of a warring tribe shot him dead point-blank. The GB condemns the cowardly and spiteful behavior of the Larkana police, which took no measure to save the wounded journalist while he and his friends were crying for help. The GB offers it’s most profound sympathies to the grieved family and prays that the soul of Shaheed Munir Sangi be placed in eternal peace. SANA also condemns the murder of journalist Hayatullah and harassment of journalist Rasheed Channa and others.
· Demolition of Sindhi villages and take-over of Historical Buildings
The GB condemns the anti-Sindhi District Nazims of Karachi and Hyderabad who are hell-bent upon demolishing the old Sindhi neighborhoods in the two cities in order to sell the precious land to the land Mafia. The GB also understands that the fascist acts of the Nazims are in line with their party actions to ethnic-cleanse the major Sindhi towns of indigenous Sindhis and upset the demographic balance in favor of immigrant minorities.
The SANA GB also condemns the reports that the Hyderabad District Council has plans to take-over, demolish, and/or commercialize historical buildings such as Sindh University old campus, Dialdas Club, Basant Hall,etc. We demand that these and other historical structures be restored in original form and Sindh's history and civilization be preserved and promoted.
· Rightful share to Sindhis in employment opportunities
The GB is concerned at the unprecedented upsurge in the rate of suicide in Sindh due to poverty prevailing in the province ever since the beginning of this undemocratic anti-Sindhi regime. The GB attributes the deaths to the ever-rising unemployment caused by the Pakistani government’s usurpation of the resources of Sindh and a denial of the rightful share to the province. The GB is concerned at the recent World Bank study which shows that Sindh is actually in a worse situation than it was 75 years ago. The GB demands that the ban on the employment in Sindh be lifted forthwith and Sindhi youth be given their rightful share in the job market. The GB also demands that all the organizations working in Sindh be required to create employment for Sindhi youth and spend their resource for the uplift of the local people and the area.
· Return to Democracy
The GB sees the lingering dictatorship in Pakistan with concern. The GB demands that the country be immediately returned to true and unadulterated democracy and all political parties and groups and their leaders be allowed a level playing field. Sindhis not having a major share in the top military and civil bureaucracy are always the worst hit people of the policies formed during the autocratic regimes to benefit the kith and kin of the military brass at the cost of Sindhis. The GB is concerned that the seemingly endless military rule is detrimental to the future of the country and carries the potential to rock its foundations.
· Balochistan operation/Removal of army from civilian areas
The GB demands an immediate end to the brutal military operation in Balochistan. The GB reminds the military decision-makers of the Pakistan that a similar operation 26 years ago had resulted in the bifurcation of the country, and everlasting shame to the military in particular. This GB wants to remind the army brass that if the smaller provinces decided to secede, it would be very harmful to generals in that there would be nothing left for the military to loot anymore.
· Illegal Water projects
The GB demands of the Government of Pakistan to stop constructing illegal water projects on the river Indus as according to the international as well as Sharia laws a river always belongs to the lower riparian people. The GB understands that the time has come for the government to close the chapter on Kalabagh dam and scrap other mega dam projects and the Greater Thal Canal. The GB also requests all the human rights as well ecological organizations to increase pressure on the government of Pakistan to refrain from harming the ecology and people through illegal water project constructed to merely irrigate a few thousand acres of land in Punjab at the cost of millions of acres of fertile land and million of thirsting people for whom even the drinking water is not available in Sindh.
My dear Aziz Narejo,
ASA. I understand that SANA draws its members from Pakistani Sindhis and is not influenced by Sindh Hindus who are now citizens of India or the USA. If that is correct, I would like you to circulate my views and comments on SANA Resolutions because some of these are based on misunderstanding of facts. However, if SANA is no different to WSI or WSC, please ignore my comments and carry on your ‘good work’.
1. Autonomy according to 1940 Resolution. Since the Muslims were in majority in the East and the West and a minority elsewhere and the Muslim League represented all of them, its demands were: 1) Separate Electorate, 2) Sovereign Provinces, 3) Grouping of Muslim Majority provinces into regions in the East as well as the West. There is no mention of Pakistan or a sovereign Muslim state in that Resolution and yet it is called the Pakistan Resolution because everybody understood that was the ultimate aim of seeking regional grouping. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 conceded the Muslim demands and the Muslim League accepted it. It were the Hindu leaders of the Congress Party who rejected because ALL of Bengal, Assam and Punjab would have been a part of the Muslim majority regions. If these regions decided to separate after ten years as was provided in the Plan, there would have been a much bigger Pakistan. The Pakistan that eventually came into being was the result of our right as a Muslim nation to self determination. India as visualised in 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan would indeed have been founded on a ‘compact of states’ but that was rejected by the Congress and eventually by the Muslim League. India still does not have a polity (a principle of national solidarity) but Pakistan’s national solidarity is founded on the fraternal bonds of Islam. There is no doubt or ambiguity in this. Those who create doubts are subversives and should be dealt with as such.
2. Sindhi as National Language. Urdu is not the language of any province of Pakistan; certainly not of the Punjab or the NWFP. It is the language created to serve a purpose. The purpose was to have a common Arabic Script, with which all Muslims are familiar, as the script for languages spoken by Muslims. Urdu is the product of that effort and serves the purpose of being the language of intercommunication among various ethnic groups in Pakistan. I do not know if Urdu has the status of a ‘national language’; if it has, it should be withdrawn. I do know that Urdu is used as a medium of instruction in our schools in all the provinces, Kashmir and Northern area but not in Interior Sindh. I understand it has hurt rather than helped the Sindhis; rural Sindhis are less able and willing to go to cities where the prospects for employment are better. No one can object to any language having any status but learning a more widely spoken language does help ones job prospects.
3. Solidarity with Slain and Harassed Journalists. I support and endorse the resolution.
4. Demolition of Sindhi Villages and Take over of Historical Sites. I support the resolution.
5. Rightful share of Sindhis in Employment. I support the resolution and urge that schooling in rural Sindh should be improved teaching more and more subjects in the English language at High School level to improve their skills and teach higher skills.
6. Return of Democracy. I fear that MQM is gaining the control of cities and towns in Sindh through democracy and the response of the Sindhis is to ape them. Their leaders believe they can profit by underlining the Sindhi ethnicity and formulating a narrow agenda based on fear and paranoia. Sindhi are a majority and should act like one.
7. Balochistan Operation/Removal of Army from Civilian Areas. The insurrection in Balochistan is not caused by anything Pakistan has done; it is the result of a conspiracy to break Pakistan on ethnic lines in which the USA and India are the principals. Their main instruments are Altaf Hussain of MQM, Sardar Ataullah Mengel and the sons of Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri. Nawab Akbar Bugti was needed because he had the largest private militia. He was caught in the web because he had a grouse over money for Suit Gas The state has a duty to liquidate private militias – whether they are of the MQM or of Baloch Sardars. I agree that Balochistan Operations MUST avoid casualties among non-combatants and the Army should not camp too close to populated areas. I believe that is indeed the case. I hope these facts are kept in view when commenting on military operations. Pakistan must react strongly to frustrate the enemy designs and all patriots have a duty to support their armed forces in the fight against the enemy.
8. Illegal Water Projects. I support that all the five dams and one barrage – Sewan Sharif – should be built over the next ten years. This vital for the agricultural economy of Pakistan and would bring the maximum benefit to the Province of Sindh. This scheme is undertaken in pursuance of the 1991 Water Accord, not in violation of it. To call it illegal is untruth and subversive propaganda started by our enemies to undermine Pakistan.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Culture as a strategy for survival-WSI Reveals its True Nature |
|
Message
Dated 29/05/2006
From: Bhittai@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 27 May 2006 18:22
To: On Behalf Of World Sindhi Institute
Subject: [Bhittai] Culture as a strategy for survival
During a trip to New York City to attend the UN ECOSOC sessions the directors of WSI Humaira Rahman and Munawar Laghari met with Mr Rinchen Dharlo , President of the Tibet Fund located in Manhattan, New York on 16th May 2006 . The purpose of the meeting was to become informed about the strategies for Tibet’s struggle in trying to survive as a nation and to preserve its culture.
As President of Tibet Fund, Mr. Dharlo coordinates the efforts to help the Tibetan communities both in exile and within Tibet by executing the Board’s decisions, raising funds to support the Tibet Fund’s projects, and supervising the administration and activities of Tibet Fund. Mr. Dharlo has thorough knowledge of and extensive experience working within the Tibetan community. He served for ten years as His Holiness’ Dalai lama Representative in Nepal, where he established a number of Tibetan schools. He also served for ten years as His Holiness’ Representative to the Americas where, in addition to his regular duties, he co chaired the Tibetan U.S. Resettlement Project which had successfully resettled thousands of Tibetan refugees in 21 cluster sites throughout the United States.
According to Mr Dharlo , despite over 40 years of occupation the Tibetan people refuse to be conquered and subjugated . Mr Dharlo said that a combination of demographic and economic manipulation, and discrimination, aims to suppress the Tibetan issue by changing the very character and the identity of Tibet and its people, . However through non violent resistance and the maintenance of strong cultural and linguistic activities the Tibetan people continue to survive as a consolidated nation and their issues are now well known to the international community.
After a very detailed and informative discussion regarding the activities of the Fund as well as the Tibet Office some information , views and news of Sindh was shared with Mr Dharlo., who listened keenly . It was agreed that essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Mr Dharlo was informed that WSI too believes in Sindhis right to exercise self determination and that WSI strives to achieve human rights and security for Sindhis in a stable Pakistan.
WSI Reveals its True Nature
WSI has revealed its true colour. It is an instrument of the neo-cons in the USA to destabilise countries the population of which see America as symbol of global coercion and hegemony eager to control the resources of the world. That WSI is so willing to co-ordinate its efforts with Americans engaged in creating an insurrection in Tibet reflects its aim and purpose; it is an instrument of US propaganda and voices the themes designed in the US to undermine China and the world of Islam.
Culture has been used as a tool of subversion by the USA and India, they believe, effectively. Since culture is ever changing, it is thought to be a flexible instrument for subversion – sometimes to cause division and atrophy (like in Sindh or Tibet) and sometimes to sustain hegemony (as used by India and the West).
Somehow, the wars to defend their culture have been fought by Muslims and no one else. WSI, you have misread the history of the South Asian sub-continent.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
CBMs have built Confidence of India to kill wantonly and oppress blatantly |
|
Message
Dated 24/05/2006
From: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of scientificsouls
Sent: 21 May 2006 23:07
To: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [kashnet] Lies, Lies and More Indian LIES!!
Lies, Lies and More Indian LIES!!
The current Indo-Pak engagement, duly substantiated by a set of Confidence Building Measures (CBM) stands out as the longest sustained and most substantive of the endeavours made by the two countries in search for a solution of the Kashmir Issue. Both countries have agreed to initiate measures for creating conducive environment for tackling the thorny, yet central Issue of Kashmir by working around its periphery.
The portents have been encouraging. The cease-fire, in place and holding since November last, is the longest such pause since last 57 years. The April 7 inauguration of the Muzaffarabad to Srinagar Bus Service comes about as the first civilian movement across the Line of Control to take place since Indian Forces took the control of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. The talks to open up more arteries of communication facilitating travel between the two countries are under deliberation. We have just seen another round of talks between the Defence Secretaries of the two countries to find a solution to the Siachin Issue. The rhetoric of turning Siachin into a "Mountain of Peace" was by a person no less than the Prime Minister of India.
While this flurry is going about with considerable vigour for the last eighteen months, what remains conspicuously amiss is the lack of meaningful initiatives by India to provide relief to the brutalised Kashmiris, whose sustained sacrifices and struggle, in the first place, have provided the stimulus to bring Indians to the negotiating tables. Indian inaction is particularly disconcerting since Pakistan, at its end, has taken steps to tone down the heat of insurgency in the IHK. Indian politico-military leadership has admitted that infiltration from across the border has considerably scaled down and the combatant Groups too have toned down their operations against the Indian security forces and on the basis of these facts, Indians were expected take tangible steps to rein in their forces in the IHK and firmly ensure the respect of human rights by their trigger happy troops.
This keenly awaited CBM, so essential to win over the trust and support of Kashmiris, remains conspicuously lacking. In this context it is instructive to note that taking advantage of the cease-fire; Indians have quickly completed fencing along the LoC, a project that had remained unfulfilled due to resistance by the Pak Army. It is also unfortunate that despite announcement of withdrawal of forces from IHK by the Indian Prime Minister, no actual movement of troops has taken place out of the IHK and even we hear from Indian Rulers that Demilitarisation Plan is no longer on the negotiating Table while dealing with Kashmiri Issue.
Consequently a perception is taking hold that playing for time through the CBM game, Indians are pulling a fast one by turning their guns inward to smash the Kashmiri Civilians - once and for all. This insidious approach has seen enhanced level of violence against the civilian population of Kashmir. According to figures release by the Kashmir Action Committee, ever since the cease-fire along the LoC came into effect in Nov 2003, over 2500 Kashmiris have been murdered, 329 women molested, 495 women widowed, 1410 children orphaned and over 600 houses and shops torched by the Indian forces. Only the first fortnight of May 2005 in the IHK saw 72 Kashmiris murdered, 8 women molested, 17 women widowed and 29 children killed. Incidents of rape have particularly increased; showing a pattern that this despicable crime was being employed as a psychological weapon to break the will and demoralise the Kashmiri People. The recent rape of a mother-daughter duo, by an Indian Army officer in Hindwara made headlines in Indian media; even though it is a willing partner in the conspiracy of silence involving cover up of such incidents. Custodial deaths and unexplained disappearances have become common occurrence in the IHK. Still 15 school girls in different parts of the region are missing and the authorities are unmoved.
"In September [2003] the government fulfilled its election pledge to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) which it said had been "grossly misused" and which had led to widespread human rights violations. However, there were concerns over amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which included provisions similar to those in the POTA. There were also concerns that the definition of "terrorist acts" in the bill remained vague and open to broad interpretation. Several states indicated that they would introduce legislation containing provisions similar to those in the POTA", observed the AI report.
Empowered by these Draconian legislations Indian security forces continue to make a mockery of CBMs and the ongoing process of Indo Pak engagement. There is a swell op opinion that if the process of engagement has to yield results, progress on CBMs has to be orchestrated in tandem with initiatives to cut through the Gordian knot of the Kashmir Issue. This calls for a visible and sincere endeavour by India to console and comfort the Kashmiri population which stands bruised and bloodied by the no holds barred, collateral damage intensive operations by the Indian security forces.
Winning over Kashmiris' confidence and ensuring their participation in the ongoing process is essential since by sacrificing over one hundred thousand of their kith and kin over a decade and a half, they have won an inalienable right as a party to the issue resolution process. This aspect appropriately driven home during the recent visit of APHC delegation to Pakistan. While speaking at the reception by Governor Sind in Karachi, Chairman of the APHC Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said that CBMs could not contribute anything positive unless they addressed the miseries of Kashmiris. Here is the moot question: what is the point in pursing CBMs geared towards resolution of the Kashmir Issue if these don't ease the pain of Kashmiri population in the IHK? Kashmiris have shown their willingness to give peace a chance by toning down their resistance and the Indians have to respond in kind to move the process forward. Violence begets violence and if Indians persist with their ingrained practices, it will only provide fresh blood and this time not only Kashmir but all India in whole would be dragged in this stormed mess. In such a scenario, the painstakingly assembled edifice of CBMs and the accrued goodwill shall evaporate in thin air in no time.!!
I endorse the message by Scientific Souls entirely. The people of Jammu and Kashmir have lost 100,000 lives fighting the occupation of their state by India but the silence of guns along the Line of Control has not led to peace but intensification of the genocide in Kashmir. The ‘flexibility’ of Pakistan, for which neither the Kashmiris nor the Pakistanis were consulted, has been seen in India as its victory and in Kashmir as another ‘let down’ by Pakistan.
The UN recognises Pakistan to be an equal party with India in the dispute. Both Pakistan and India pledged before the UN Security Council that the people of Jammu and Kashmir would decide their political future in a plebiscite. India has gone back on its agreement that led to all out war in 1965, 1971 and limited Kargil operations that did not bring any change. The case of Pakistan is that the UN Resolutions entailed agreement on two points: cease fire and plebiscite. Pakistan agreed to a cease fire because India agreed to plebiscite. Now that India has gone back on its agreement to hold a plebiscite, the agreement to hold fire is null and void. Kashmir would be liberated by guerrilla war which has been fought half heartedly by Pakistan since 1989. Pakistan has a right – no, a duty – to support it with confidence; that is the CBM that the people of Jammu and Kashmir want.
Cowards argue that it would lead to an all out war. The fact is that India can afford an ‘all out war’ even less than Pakistan. Since both are now nuclear powers, such war would be nuclear holocaust. Besides’ India is embarked on a path to rapid economic progress and it cannot continue unless it resolves the 17 insurgencies going on in different parts of India. There are many good people in India who believe that the Kashmiris should be given their right of self determination; it is costing India too much to maintain hostility with Pakistan, the Muslim World and with China and get a bad name in process. These people of goodwill in India would be emboldened if Pakistan takes a stand that it will not negotiate any further agreements with India until the existing agreements: to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and the Indus Basin Water Treaty, are honoured. Pakistan not being able to take a firm and principled stand is the cause of the Kashmir Dispute having remained unresolved fir so long. Even though it is the Indian troops who killed 100,000 Kashmiris, raped countless women, and destroyed countless homes of the already most repressed on this earth, Pakistan also bears responsibility for not showing resolve.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Response to Nadeem Jamali-People, Country Suffer.......... |
|
Message
Dated 23/05/2006
From: sindhiana@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sindhiana@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nadeem Jamali
Sent: 22 May 2006 08:23
To: sindhiana@yahoogroups.com
Subject: (sindhiana) Re: [SindhSukar] People,Country Suffer as the Leaders Wait For the RIGHT MOMEMT to Return!
On 5/22/06, Aziz Narejo wrote:
Will the people of Punjab rise to the occasion? They should know whatwould happen if they didn't.Why should the people of Punjab rise?Punjab is doing quite well under the military rule; even better than it would do under democracy which too they will naturally dominate.
So long as Sindh is part of Pakistan, it will continue to live by rules made by majority Punjabis.If Punjab's and Sindh's interests
clash (as they clearly do in the case of Indus water resources among many others), whose interests will majority Punjabis favor? Look at
the history.
To borrow American political lingo: It's about self-interest, stupid!But it's also about world views. Until they free themselves, Sindhis will continue to live in a country guided by a regressive paranoid nationalist Punjabi world view.
Nadeem Jamali
Punjab is doing well because it is peaceful; Frontier Province is doing even better because it is peaceful and ideological. Sindh is afflicted by ethnic conflict; it neither has peace nor ideology. Baluchistan is even worse because of the additional problem of foreign interest and interference.
Conflict of interests is usually between classes, rarely between provinces which define land masses. There are no differences between the provinces unless one wants to create or imagine one. The water issue has been resolved by the 1991 Water Accord.
Musharraf's desire to perpetuate himself in power is the problem as Aziz Narejo has underlined. This problem is felt as acutely in the ruling classes of Punjab as in other provinces. Punjabi nationalists are a rarity; Punjabi view of the world is very international. They see Punjab to be their home and would not shrink from any sacrifice for any segment of the Muslim Ummah, which includes Sindh. They see that the problem in Sindh is that like Biharis in erstwhile East Pakistan, USMs present themselves as the 'defenders of Sindh against the Punjab'. Musharraf calls himself a Sindhi; so does Altaf Hussain. That does complicate the problem of Sindh.
The answer to the question: Will Punjab rise to the occasion? 'It will, if it knew what was the occasion'.
(This response is on this web site under E-correspondence)
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Reply to Abol Hasan-Charter of Democracy or Deception? |
|
Message
Dated 22/05/2006
From: PakistanAffairs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PakistanAffairs@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Abol Hasan
Sent: 21 May 2006 19:40
Subject: Re: RE: [PakistanAffairs] Re:Charter of Democracy or Deception?
Well written Dr Ayub Sahib
We shouldn't be blinded by hate. But in Brig Sahibs case it is not the hate for America , this is Loyalty to Pak Army. I have seen this time and again. All retired or in-service officers behave like one tribe. There main purpose is to defend Pak Army. You will find this pattern in the behavior of all ex officers like Hameed Gul, Aslam Beg or Moeen Haider etc.
I pray that we get rid of all shades of army officers.
Allah Hafiz
Abol Hasan
On 21/05/06, Ghayyur Ayub wrote:
Brig Sahib
>>>>The Charter of Democracy is designed in the USA to help Benazir deliver what America wants........ Benazir and Musharraf have both been told that they are the A Team; the USA is backing them............. America is wrong again; its design as spelt by Mr Boucher on which the 'Charter of Democracy' is based, cannot bring democracy to Pakistan, only instability. <<<<<<
You always amaze me by your lopsided and illogical assumptions you call analysis. Your 'analysis' about Charter of Democracy is as far fletched as your previous analysis on other related matters.
Linking CoD with Boucher shows your lack of knowledge about the document. Your hate for America is taking you to a dark valley where you fail to differentiate between right and wrong.
You cannot ignore America as a superpower in today's global politics. Without staying slave to her, a country can still survive and prosper by taking a middle path. Can't you see what Mahatir did to his country? Was he licking American's boot? On other hand do you think what Talaban did to their Muslim brothers was right? Did you forget the massacre of Hazarjaat? Their anti- America stance was neither Islamic nor politically correct. So I ask you which one would you follow? Mahatir or Mullah Omar?
The Charter of Democracy was formulated and signed by both the leaders with earnest intention; to bring Rule of Law by selecting clean Judges to the Superior Judiciary through a transparent procedure; to bring Real Democracy by establishing an Independent Election Commission headed by a Chief whose tract record is flawless; to install foolproof rules and bring Military under the Civilian government so that they do not sabotage democracy.
There are many more plausible clauses which were endorsed by two leaders who decided to forget and forgive past skirmishes and work hard to put the country on the right path. I advise you to please read the document again with cool calculated mind and asses your asumptions.
Dr Ghayur Ayub
From: "Usman Khalid"
Reply-To: PakistanAffairs@yahoogroups.com
Subject:[PakistanAffairs]Re:Charter of Democracy or Deception?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:11:44 +0100
My dear Zulfikar,
In 1979 when I resigned from the Army in protest against the execution of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and brought into focus the Article 6 of the Constitution, I thought I would at least be making a point. I failed to make any impression not only on General Zia but even on the PPP. I have since realised that it is the US that makes the decision who rules Pakistan. But the US Government does not have a favourite; they do have a preference that keeps changing with time. They have their communication points and agents (who are known to be their friends) in all political parties and the higher echelons of the military. The idea is that whoever came to power the American interests would not be jeopardised. That has not hurt Pakistan thus far because the orientation of the foreign policy of Pakistan has been more or less the same as that of the USA. After the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the public opinion in the Muslim World has been seriously inflamed against the USA. Pakistan is now under pressure to abet the invasion of Iran. Pakistan considers that a step too far and has refused.
The insurgency in Balochistan is being aided openly by the USA and Israel to increase pressure on Pakistan. For Benazir to become the choice of America to rule Pakistan, she has to agree to abet (with the help of distractions like the threat from the Taliban and OBL) the invasion of Iran and to de-nuclearise Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif lacks the finesse to act that role. But Benazir is ready and willing to take up the challenge of neutralising the armed forces and hoodwink the public opinion. The Charter of Democracy is designed in the USA to help Benazir deliver what America wants. Nawaz Sharif has already been duped, the MMA is likely to be brought on board (in support of the Charter) by the USA. General Musharraf would then have to agree to eat the humble pie and go quietly or dig in and be thrown out disgraced. Benazir and Musharraf have both been told that they are the A Team; the USA is backing them. Both of them know that the US is keeping its options open. That also means that options are open for Musharraf and Benazir as well. But the USA has a C Team also. This consists on PONM, MQM, ANP and other nationalist groups that are presently patronised and funded by India. Since the C team cannot come to power by the electoral process; the triangle of evil – USA, India and Israel – have East Pakistan like insurgency as the final option to break up Pakistan.
I am sure General Musharraf knows all this. More important, as the head of the National Security Council, he has the ultimate responsibility to deal with the threat to Pakistan's security. It has been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that a people can defend themselves even when their government cannot. But defence is more formidable when the people, the armed forces, and political leaders are on the same side. After the execution of a popular Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto by the COAS as the President, the people look at every COAS the same way – with distrust. The kleptomaniac regime of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif has shaken trust in democracy. This Charter of Democracy does not restore trust in either; it heightens the crisis by asserting that the military alone is responsible for policies of the state being unresponsive to the will of the people and responsive to the will of the USA alone. In the eyes of the people of Pakistan, the military as well as the politicians have failed them. This new twist in politics would only make the prospects for the C team better. However, I am optimistic because the people have seen through the political games being played. Ultimately, the National Security Council will have to take charge of the security of the country because neither the generals nor the politicians alone can be trusted. America is wrong again; its design as spelt by Mr Boucher on which the 'Charter of Democracy' is based, cannot bring democracy to Pakistan, only instability.
Brigadier (R) Usman Khalid
Director London Institute of South Asia
www.lisauk.com
My dear Abol Hasan,
You appear to think that ‘espirit de corps’ and comradeship (which you call loyalty to Pakistan Army) is something bad. It is not; it is vital for a fighting force to have bonds to underpin their sense of duty to the polity and the country (king and country in British parlance). Thank God that the soldiery of Pakistan does have feeling of comradeship on basis other than ethnicity. It is because of that there has never been a coup d’etat in Pakistan; take over by the COAS has been the result of a ‘nod and a wink’ from the establishment. The problem has been that every COAS as President begins to think that he alone is the establishment and he does not want to leave office once the job is done or when he reaches retirement date.
Sincerely
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
Current Baloch struggle is for legitimate rights or independence from Pakistan |
|
Message
Dated 22/05/2006
From: Abdul R. Baloch [mailto:arbaloch@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 May 2006 22:53
To: usmankhalid@lisauk.com
Subject: RE: Current Baloch struggle is for legitimate rights or independence from Pakistan
Junab Usman Sahib,
You Pakis are very renown for being hypocrite by choice and use the Islam for your ulteriror design. When It comes to recognizing the usurpation of inherent rights of the Baloch and other Nations from Punjabis, you guys use the Islam to prtotect the Punjabi interest. This illegitimate country was created by the Briritish and it's cronies like Jinnah to exploit the name of Islam and usurp the rights and subdue other nations in the region and impose your own stinky culture, language and your version of Islam.
You claimed in your posting that this country was created in the name of Islam and two nation theory, how could you dare to justify your great skeleton leader Jinnah(Quado) was a muslim. Two nation theroy was obiviously British created card to weaken the indian power in the region. Why Jinnah being a non believer, was much worried about a separate Muslims country in the Subcontinent? Could you swear on Quran to say that Jinnah was a practicing muslim? Your two nations theory had gone to the drain after creation of Bangladesh and constant struggle of other nations to get rid of this nuisance country. This is a recognized fact that the Muslims in India are living far better off conditions and are treated much better than Pakistan. It was ok, when you muslims were occupaying India for 500 years, it was your country, when Hindus regained controll of their land from muslim, you demanded a separate country in the name of islam. However, You justify every evils deeds of your shameful army and your generals even the killings of women and children of the Baloch people. Is this your Islam? Islam is suppose to be a tolerant religion, but when it comes to Punajabi interest and evil design, you justify your army's killing field and use the islam as shield to protect your interest.
Being a hard core conservative paki retired army officer, I believe that your hands are still soked with the blood of the inocent Baloch People. How many Balochs were killed by you in 1972s insurgency in Balochistan? The time has riped for you now, Mr. Brigadier, to redeem your sins in the court of Allah, he is always mercifull and might forgive you for killing the Inocent Balochs in 1970s. In the last leg of your age, do something real and stand up against the Paki killing field of inocent Baloch people. This is not time for you to depent army actions and justify killing of inocent human being, since you have done whatever you could in Bangladesh and Balochistan in 1970s. This is for sure, due to the sinister design of the Paki despotic regim, I hope sooner or later this menace country will be doomed and all minorities minorities and the regional countries will have a siegh of relief.
Sincerely,
My dear A.R. Baloch,
The trouble with you is that do not read what I have been writing. You just keep on parroting Indian propaganda. There are several Baluch tribes many of who live in Sindh and the Punjab. There are more Baloch in the Punjab than in Baluchistan. One Baloch Sardar - Farooq Leghari – was the President of Pakistan. The Chief Minister of Balochistan is ‘elected’ and he is always a Baloch. There is an elected government in Balochistan now; it is led by a Baloch Sardar. Who are you trying to liberate from whom?
There was an insurrection by Mengel and Marri tribes in 1972-73 and it was put down by the military as it was its duty to do. There was an insurrection in East Pakistan which the military was not able to crush because of the Indian invasion. The massacres of Muslims in East Pakistan are as much a part of the Indian propaganda as is the genocide of the Baloch now. We know that air strikes have been made against Farari Camps from which the BLA operates. These strikes are not random; these are launched against the large BLA camps; the camps in caves are still immune from attack; one hopes these would be dealt with at the appropriate time.
There are surely conflicts of interest between provinces and it is the duty of the federal government to resolve. The reason why the insurrection has started now is because three of your Sardars have taken money from India/America to start it. There are no issues that cannot be resolved in talks. But these Sardars would not talk except about the Government machinery to maintain security and order should be removed and the tribes left at their mercy once again. That makes sense because the enemy has not given so much money, arms and ammunition to resolve your social problems; they want you to fight and destabilise Pakistan. Baloch lives are being lost on both sides to advance the cause of the patrons of the rebel Sardars - India and Israel – not of the Baloch.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
People, Country Suffer as the Big Leaders Wait For the RIGHT MOMEMT to Return! |
|
Message
Dated 22/05/2006
From: sindhiana@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sindhiana@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aziz Narejo
Sent: 22 May 2006 07:31
To: sanamedia@yahoo.com
Subject: (sindhiana) People, Country Suffer as the Leaders Wait For the RIGHT MOMEMT to Return!
People, Country Suffer as the Big Leaders Wait For the RIGHT MOMEMT to Return!
BBC South Asia bureau editor Paul Danahar says in a report that Nepalis had once told him that they had been cursed with two things - terrible poverty and even worse politicians. The politicians that he says 'are so old that they can barely walk let alone lead a revolution'.
How did they do it then? How could they humble the king who had been revered in Nepal as a god? (The king of Nepal is supposed to be an incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu. It is for that reason the kings have been so revered down the ages by their subjects. BBC report)
How could that frail and weak opposition do a thing in a few weeks that our leaders haven’t been able to do in seven long years?
There could be many answers to that question. One of them is indicated in the same BBC report:
"Even the policemen in charge of beating back the crowds told me of their frustration at the king's actions.
And senior members of the king's last line of defence, the Royal Nepalese Army, assured me that, if it had come to the crunch, their troops would not have opened fire on the demonstrators."
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4953816.stm )
Now compare that situation with the past and the present record of the ‘valiant’ soldiers in our country. They killed hundreds of thousands of own countrymen, followers of the same faith, in East Bengal in 1971. They engaged in the most inhuman atrocities that included mass rape.
In 1983, they bombarded and strafed hundreds of villages and towns in Sindh with casualties running in several thousands while more were incarcerated and tortured during the MRD movement. Harassment of the citizens, poets, writers and activists in the province was common before that and has continued since.
Even today political activists like Dr Safdar Sarki (and many others) are in the custody of military intelligence agencies and are being tortured in dark cells. The whole province has been turned into a big concentration camp for the indigenous people who are being robbed of their economic, political and cultural rights.
Look what is happening in Balochistan. This is fourth time that the province is undergoing military operation.
There is one exception to the rule though. The military has never and may never ever resort to similar atrocities and mass murder in the Punjab as most of the ‘valiant’ soldiers and their commanders come from that province. It puts an increased responsibility on the shoulders of the common men and women, writers, intellectuals and activists in that province to wage a struggle against the military rule.
They must understand that each and every military ruler has caused Pakistan an irreparable and irreversible loss. Think of Ayub, Yahya and Zia. Musharraf is no different. He has already brought the country to the brink of civil strife with his illegal rule and the biased, unjust, unfair and oppressive policies. He is leading the country to a cul-de-sac with no point of return. Sooner the country gets rid of him better for the people and the country.
Will the people of Punjab rise to the occasion? They should know what would happen if they didn't.
Regards,
Aziz Narejo
Dear Aziz Narejo,
Asalam o alaikum
Terrible poverty and even worse politicians is the description that fits Pakistan’s political scene as well. But we are confused who is the King in this situation – the military or the politicians. Clearly those with huge (inherited or stolen) wealth getting control of the levers of state power are the King in Pakistan. The military rank is not inherited; after rigorous selection and hard training every one has to start as a Second Lieutenant. The military coup d’etat have been the means for destroying the hold of the privileged classes in more countries than bloody revolutions. But in Pakistan every General who took over as President wanted to become the King in perpetuity. Ayub Khan, Zia ul Haq, even Yahya Khan – all ended up being disgraced because of this reason. I am one of those who welcomed the take over by General Musharraf because even an idiot like Nawaz Sharif was trying to become the King destroying every institution of the state to tighten his hold over power. Now I am as bitter with his antics as those of BB, NS. Where do we go from here? Return of BB or NS is no solution; both were worse in their second term than in the first. I have proposed my solution (Seven Point Programme), what is yours.
+ Usman Khalid +
Director London Institute of South Asia
: :TOP: :
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
Copyright
®
London
Institute of South Asia UK |
|
