« »

Thursday, 20 August 2009

India's Rape of own Commitments

Reporting Nehru's statement on holding plebiscite in Kashmir, The Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, in its January 2, 1952 issue quoted him saying: As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.

The drama of so-called accession of Kashmir to India by Maharaja Hari Singh was staged by the Congress leaders in connivance with British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who was made the first Governor- General of India by Hindus to over see completion of partition plan to damage Pakistan. The mere fact that no document of accession is available with India or on UN record is proof of a combined plot that was hatched by Hindu leadership with their British well-wisher.

India is continuously harping on the blatant lie that Kashmir is an integral part of India. How has a disputed territory suddenly become part of India when the commitments made by her to allow people of Kashmir to express their choice have not been honoured. No plebiscite has been held. The Kashmiris have not opted to accede to India in any plebiscite. The UN had already ruled in 1951 and again in 1957 that any elected assembly in Indian occupied Kashmir shall have no right to decide the future of the state as to the question of accession to India or Pakistan.

The honourable Prime Minister and other prominent leaders of that 'great nation' had made solid solemn pledges and commitments that people of Kashmir shall be given the right to decide their future. These commitments made by India to the world, Pakistan and the Kashmiris are reproduced from the book, 1 " The Undying Spirit".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s Telegram to British and Pakistan Prime Ministers, October 27, 1947.

"I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people, and we adhere to this view".

Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, replies to Maharaja's (alleged) request for accession to India, October 27, 1947.

"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
October 28,1947.

"In regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's broadcast to nation from All India Radio, November 2, 1947.

"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given (and the Maharajah has supported it) not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have referendum held under international auspices like the UN We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer".

" We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their way. It is for them ultimately to decide".

" And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of the State. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added to proviso to the instrument of accession of Kashmir".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
November 4, 1947.

"I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to the people of Kashmir.

I further stated that we have agreed on impartial International agency like UN supervising any referendum".

"This principle we are prepared to apply to any state where there is a dispute about accession. If these principles are accepted by your Government there should be no difficulty in giving effect to them".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 8, 1947.

".... where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as State’s, the question whether State has finally acceded to one or other Dominion should be ascertained by reference to the will of people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 21, 1947.

"Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Constituent Assembly, November 25, 1947.

"In order to establish our bonafides, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
December 12, 1947.

"We have given further thought, in the light of our discussion in Lahore, to the question of inviting UN to advise us in this matter. While we are prepared to invite UNO observers to come here and advise us as to proposed plebiscite, it is not clear in what other capacity the UN help can be sought...

"... I confess, however, that I find myself unable to suggest anything beyond what I have offered already, namely, to ask UNO to send impartial observers to advise us regarding the plebiscite."

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India, March 5, 1948.

"Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a plebiscite, with every protection for fair voting, and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India,
March 5, 1948.

"... Ultimately there is no doubt in my mind that, in Kashmir as elsewhere, the people of Kashmir will decide finally, and all that we wish is that they should have freedom of decision without any external compulsion".

White Paper on Kashmir issued by Government of India, 1948.

"The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite, on this there is no dispute. There will be no victimisation of any native of the State, whatever his political view may be, and no Kashmiri will be deprived of the right to vote".

Gopalaswami Ayyangar's address in Constituent Assembly May 27, 1949.

"No doubt we have offered to have a plebiscite taken when the conditions are created for the holding of a proper, fair and impartial plebiscite. But if the plebiscite produces a verdict which is against the continuance of accession to India of the Kashmir State, then what we are committed to is simply that we shall not stand in the way of Kashmir separating itself from India".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement at press conference in London, January 16, 1951 (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi January 18, 1951)

"... We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that, even without our agreement, no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's statement in Indian Parliament, February 12, 1951.

"We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s address at public meeting in Srinagar, June 4, 1951 (reported in The Hindu, Madras, June 5, 1951).

"First of all, I would like to remind you of the fateful days of 1947 when I came to Srinagar and gave the solemn assurance that the people of India would stand by Kashmir in her struggle. On that assurance, I shook Sheikh Abdullah’s hand before the vast multitude that had gathered there. I want to repeat that the Government of India will stand by that pledge, whatever happens. That pledge itself stated that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their fate without external interference. That assurance also remains and will continue".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s report to All- India Congress Committee (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi, July 9, 1951)

"Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future. It is here today that a struggle is being fought, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men".

Krishna Menon's Press statement in London
(The Statesman, New Delhi, August 2, 1951)

"It is not the intention of the Government of India to go back on any commitment it has made. We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir - a pledge made to the people of Kashmir because they believe in democratic Government... We do not regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement, as reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, January 2, 1952.

"Kashmir is not the property of either India or Pakistan, it belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmir people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir..."

We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution... As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision."

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, June 26, 1952.

"If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘we do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept it though it might pain us. We will not send an army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.

"India is a great country and Kashmir is almost in the heart of Asia. There is an enormous difference not only geographically but in all kinds of facts there. Do you think (in dealing a with Kashmir) you are dealing with a part of UP or Bihar or Gujrat ?"

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech at public meeting in New Delhi, as reported in The Times of India, Bombay, July 7 1952.

"In any event, from the start India was committed to the principle of letting the final word regarding accession rest with the people of the princely states and there could be no getting away from that commitment. In fact, that was why India had accepted Kashmir’s accession only provisionally in 1947, pending the expression of the will of the people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, August 7, 1952.

"... With all deference to this Parliament, I would like to say that the ultimate decision will be made in the minds and hearts of the men of Kashmir and not in this Parliament or at the UN.... First of all, let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of our people. The good will and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principle that this Parliament holds.... If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means; we will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions...

"I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense, and in spite of all we have done we would willingly leave Kashmir if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them at the point of the bayonet.

"I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign."

Joint Communiqué by Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, August 20, 1953.

"The Kashmir dispute was specially discussed at some length. It was their firm opinion that this should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State with a view to promoting their well-being and causing the least disturbances to the life of the State. The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite. Such a plebiscite had been proposed and agreed to some years ago. Progress, however, could not be made because of lack of agreement in regard to certain preliminary issues. The Prime Ministers agreed that these preliminary issues should be considered by them directly in order to arrive at agreements in regard to this. These agreements would have to be given effect to and the next step would be appointment of a Plebiscite Administrator".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
September 3, 1953.

"... We suggested the salutary rule that the Plebiscite Administrator should be chosen from some small and more or less neutral country of Asia or Europe. There are many such countries and there should be no difficulty in finding an eminent and impartial person from among them.

"As a result of the plebiscite over the entire state, we would be in a position to consider the matter, so that the final decision should cause the least disturbance and should take into consideration geographical, economic and other important factors.

"I should like to make it clear that there is no intention on my part to exclude the UN from this question of Kashmir. The Plebiscite Administrator would function under UN supervision but it seems to me quite obvious that while the UN can be helpful, any settlement must depend upon the consent and co-operation of India and Pakistan. Therefore, it is for us to agree and not to look to the UN to produce some settlement, without our agreement.

"... If we aim, as we must, at closer and co-operative relationship between India and Pakistan, we must find a solution of the Kashmir problem which is not only satisfactory to the people as a whole there but is also achieved without bitterness and sense of continuing wrong to India or Pakistan.

"... Obviously, the Kashmir problem is of high importance; in some way the most important problem before us, and we must tackle it".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Pakistan’s Prime Minister,
November 10, 1953.

"You refer to the question of regional plebiscite. I can only repeat what I endeavoured to put before you when we met. Our object is to give freedom to the people of Kashmir to decide their future in a peaceful way so as to create no upset, as we said in our joint statement...

"Therefore, I had suggested that the plebiscite should be for the State as a whole and the detailed result of the plebiscite would then be the major factor for the decision to be taken. The detailed result will give us a fairly clear indication of the wishes of the people not only in the state as whole but in different areas."

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, February 22, 1954.

"[The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir] did not come - it cannot come - in the way of our observing our international commitments in regard to a plebiscite, in regard to anything".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech, as reported in The Times of India, May 16, 1954.

"India will stand by her international commitments on the Kashmir issue and implement them at the appropriate time.

" The repudiation of international commitments would lower India’s prestige abroad".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in India Council of States, May 18, 1954.

"Every assurance we have given, every international commitment we have made in regard to Kashmir holds good and stands. Difficulties have come in the way and may come in its fulfilment, but the difficulties are not of our seeking but of others. But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, March 31, 1955.

"... Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir".

Letter from Government of India to UN, December 31, 1947.

"... The people of Kashmir would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of plebiscite or referendum, which in order to ensure complete impartiality may be held under international auspices.

" This was also in accordance with Mahatma Gandhi's view, since he had stated that the India Government sent troops by air to Kashmir telling the Maharaja that the accession was provisional upon an impartial plebiscite being taken of Kashmir irrespective of religion".

Gopalaswami Ayyangar at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"In accepting the accession they [the Government of India] refused to take advantage of the immediate peril in which the State found itself and informed the Ruler that the accession should finally be settled by plebiscite as soon as peace had been restored. They have subsequently made it quite clear that they are agreeable to the plebiscite being conducted if necessary under international auspices".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"On the question of accession, the Government of India has always enunciated the policy that in all cases of dispute the people of the State concerned should make the decision."

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"... We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"... Whether she [Kashmir] should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to India or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a member of the UN - all this we have recognised to be matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored there.

"We desire only to see peace restored in Kashmir and to ensure that the people of Kashmir are left free to decide in an orderly and peaceful manner the future of their State. We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January, 1948.

"The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbour and the world at large and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent with a right to claim admission as a member of the United Nations - all this we have recognised to be a matter of unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored to them".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 3, 1948.

"... As the Security Council is aware, the Government of India is fully committed to the view that , after peace is restored and all people belonging to the State have returned there, a free plebiscite should be taken and the people should decide whether they wish to remain with India, to go over to Pakistan, or to remain independent, if they choose to do so".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 6, 1948.

"... When the emergency has passed and normal conditions are restored, she will be free, by means of a plebiscite, either to ratify her accession to India, or to change her mind and accede to Pakistan, or remain independent. We shall not stand in the way if she elects to change her mind. That, I think, is the proper description of India’s attitude."

Sir Benegal Rau, at Security Council, February 7, 1950.

" It is therefore clear that the admission of representatives from any particular State into the Indian Constituent Assembly did not necessarily imply accession. As I have said, Kashmir had this right to representation ever since April 1947; it acceded tentatively, in October 1947 so that the accession came after the grant of the right and not the other way round".

Telegram from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, August 16, 1950.

"We have not opposed at any time an overall plebiscite for the State as a whole but you made some alternative suggestions because you came to the conclusion that there were no prospects of an agreement as to conditions preliminary to such a plebiscite....

"We have always recognised that any plan for a plebiscite should be such that the people concerned would be enabled to express their feelings freely and without fear....

"It has always been our view that, in the event of a plebiscite, the people of Kashmir should decide their future for themselves. Kashmiris who have gone out of the State should, of course, be entitled to return for this purpose. But I do not think that others have any claim to participate in a plebiscite campaign."

B. N. Rao in Security Council, March 29, 1951.

"The Constituent Assembly* cannot be physically prevented from expressing an opinion on this question if it so chooses. But this opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council."

* Which was to be convened by the Kashmir National Conference for deciding the accession issue - ED.

Krishna Menon, Indian Representative at UN General Assembly, referring to Congo Problem, April 5, 1951.

"Irrespective of the voting of this resolution, an abstention or two, the fact is that is the law of the United Nations at the present time.... My government has always taken the view that resolutions, if they are passed, must be implemented."

Letter of September 11, 1951 addressed to the UN Representative for
India and Pakistan.

"As regards paragraph 4, the Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible."

Letter from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, September 11, 1951.

"... The Government of India agree that the Plebiscite Administrator should be appointed as soon as conditions in the State, on both sides of the cease-fire line, permit of a start being made with the arrangements for carrying out the plebiscite. To appoint the Plebiscite Administrator before would be premature.

"The Government of India would, therefore, prefer such a proposal to be omitted from the present document; it would be more appropriately included in proposals that deal specifically and in detail with the holding of the plebiscite and connected matters."

Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, at Security Council, December 8, 1952.

"We do not seek to go behind the UNCIP resolutions, or to ignore the vital elements of principle contained in them... We have always adhered to the UNCIP resolutions.... We cannot be a party to the reversal of previous decisions taken by the United Nations Commission with the agreement of the parties."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, January 24, 1957.

"... I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 8, 1957.

"It is possible, for any sovereign state to cede territory. If, as a result of a plebiscite, the people decided that they did not want to stay with India, then our duty at that time would be to adopt those constitutional procedures which would enable us to separate that territory."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 20, 1957.

"The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNCIP, the assurance given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight - that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, October 9, 1957.

"...These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it."

Krishna Menon, referring to Goa, The Statesman, Delhi, January 19, 1962.

" India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them."

UN Commission for India and Pakistan, January, 1949.

"As a result of these conversations the Commission on December 11, 1948, communicated its proposals to the two Governments. The main points of those proposals were: that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by way of a free and impartial plebiscite, that the Secretary General of the UN would nominate in agreement with the commission a plebiscite Administrator who would be a person of high international standing and who would derive from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir the powers which he considers necessary to organise and conduct a free and impartial plebiscite....

"Both Governments... accepted the proposals and declared the cessation of hostilities in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as from January 1, 1949."

UN Mediator Dr. E. Graham’s proposals to UN September 7, 1951.

"The Governments of India and Pakistan:

"4. Reaffirm their acceptance of the principle that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the UN"

Proceedings of Security Council, January - February, 1957.

"On February 21, the Security Council requested its President (Gunnar Jarring of Sweden) to examine with the two Governments any proposal likely to promote settlement of the Kashmir issue having regard to the earlier resolutions of the Council and the UNCIP. By an earlier resolution of January 24, 1957, the Council had affirmed its old stand to determine Kashmir’s future by plebiscite and declared that any action by the Kashmir assembly and its support by the parties would not constitute disposition of the State in keeping with that principle."

Resolution adopted by Security Council on January 24, 1957.

"The Security Council:

"Having heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

"Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its Resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948, 14 March 1950 and 30 March 1950, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan Resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations;

"Reaffirms the affirmation in its Resolution of March 30, 1951 and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle;

"Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute."

Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, pursued a policy of deception, a rape of his own pious commitments and remained a perfect disciple of Hindu Political Statecraft i.e. Chanakiya. Dr. Ayyub Thukar makes an interesting comment:

" Sir Owen Dixon was once forced to affirm that, the fellow (Nehru) is lying. Others have said of him that in and out of office, he was fond of riding a high moral horse. He thereby not only threw dust in the eyes of the world, he also succeeded in deceiving himself. He finally arrived like a Humpty Dumpty, at the stage where words did not mean what they connoted, but what he said they meant".

The deception by the prominent successive Indian Leadership has been blasted off for good by the Nuclear Blasts in the sub-continent. The scenario in South Asia has changed. The entire world community now accepts that Kashmir is the root cause of bad blood between India and Pakistan. The carefully worked out strategy by India to put the Issue in the cold forever has failed. Kashmir has come into the limelight, despite all efforts by India to the contrary. It is time that India realises the gravity of the situation and tries honestly to end the sufferings of Kashmiris forever; who are fighting to gain liberty from Indian occupation.

Sarabjit Singh’s case has a direct bearing on India-Pakistan relations.

At an informal meeting between a group of Indians and Pakistanis in the Swiss village of Caux, the venue of the second forum of human security in July 2009, one suggestion put forward was for the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad to abolish capital punishment.

It was argued that it would help improve relations between the two neighbours. Yes it would, if this suggestion were to be taken seriously.

Given the number of prisoners from each country languishing in the jails of the other at any point in time and the fact that a number of them have been on death row for years makes this an issue worth taking up. The charge most frequently slapped on such prisoners is of indulging in acts of terrorism or ISI/RAW-inspired espionage. Invariably the fate of one man is tacitly interwoven with that of another.

This strategy results in a tit-for-tat game with the two sides retaliating to each other’s actions in similar fashion. If there is a man linked to India on death row in Pakistan, be assured there will be one awaiting a similar fate in India. Today, Mohammad Afzal Guru stands convicted in India for storming the Lok Sabha in December 2001. In Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, we have Sarabjit Singh arrested in 1990 and convicted of carrying out serial bomb blasts in Faisalabad, Kasur and Lahore.

Sarabjit’s case will be coming up in court shortly and there are many reasons why thousands in Pakistan, as well as India, feel that he should not be hanged.

Sarabjit was sentenced to death in 1991 by Lahore’s anti-terrorism court. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that it was time-barred. An appeal to review the petition was again dismissed in June 2009 when the government-appointed lawyer for the convict failed to appear before the court on two consecutive occasions when the case came up for hearing.

Now a new lawyer, Awais Shaikh, has been appointed and he is committed to fighting his client’s case. A fresh application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its earlier decision to dismiss Sarabjit Singh’s petition challenging his death penalty. A mercy petition is also being made to the president for clemency. The former Indian cricket captain, Kapil Dev, has collected 100,000 signatures calling for reprieve for Sarabjit and the same is being done on this side of the border.

Sheikh’s recent visit to India and the warm welcome he received there symbolises the popular sentiment in that country in favour of Sarabjit’s reprieve, as pointed out by the foreign minister.

Thus Sarabjit’s case has now acquired the dimension of an India-Pakistan issue which can be a factor in promoting amity among the people of the two countries. True, there are people lacking compassion who would argue in support of an eye for an eye and stern punishment for those who have ‘wronged’.

But the problem with capital punishment is that it is a frightfully ‘ultimate’ action that is irrevocable. Can one really be sure if the convict has really committed the deed? Whether a man is judged innocent or guilty depends on so many factors beyond his control. The interpretation of the law, the quality of legal assistance the defendant is provided, the efficiency or otherwise of the prosecution, even the political, international and social circumstances at the time the alleged crime was committed etc. All of these go into the making of a case for or against the person in the dock.

In Sarabjit’s case it is said to be based on conjectures and surmises. His name is disputed and is not even cited in the FIR. Given factors such as these, jurists now regard the death penalty to be an anachronistic punishment that has, to use Amnesty International’s words, “no place in a modern criminal justice system”. And the main question to be asked is, has capital punishment really deterred serious crime?

One doesn’t have to repeat all the arguments advanced by the opponents of capital punishment over the decades that have been so convincing that 133 governments have seen the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty. It is time others followed suit. In Pakistan’s case it is all the more difficult to condone what can be described as a lapse on the part of the government.

Last year, on the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, Prime Minister Gilani had promised the National Assembly that all prisoners on death row in Pakistan would have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. This proposal was approved by the cabinet and reaffirmed by President Zardari when he took oath of office.

Why hasn’t this promise been fulfilled? Here is an opportunity for the government to show its commitment to two causes — that of human rights and that of peace in South Asia. The fact is that Sarabjit’s case has a direct bearing on India-Pakistan relations. The Indian government has been following the case closely, and has appealed a number of times to Islamabad to commute Sarabjit’s sentence to life imprisonment or grant him clemency.

Significantly, last year Sarabjit’s family members were granted visas to enable them to visit him in prison. It was then that he met his younger daughter for the first time. She was born after he had been arrested when, according to his family, he had strayed into Pakistani territory in a state of drunken stupor. His hanging was first put off for a month in April 2008 and then indefinitely.

The political implications of such cases, that also have strong humanitarian undertones, have not escaped public notice. Last year another Indian, allegedly a spy, Kashmir Singh, was released after 35 years in Pakistani prisons. Why not Sarabjit Singh who has already spent 18 years behind bars and was allowed consular access only four years ago?

evidence of fraud and corruption in Afghanistan's presidential election.

An investigation by the BBC has found evidence of fraud and corruption in Afghanistan's presidential election. Thousands of voting cards have been offered for sale and thousands of dollars have been offered in bribes to buy votes.
The Afghan Independent Election Commission that oversees the poll has also been accused of not doing enough to prevent abuses.
We were passed information that voting cards were being sold in the capital. An Afghan working for the BBC went undercover, posing as a potential buyer. He was offered 1,000 cards on the spot. Each one would cost about $10 (£6).
We were given some samples as proof of what was being offered. They are all authentic with the name, photo and home details of the voter on them.
Widespread abuses
The cards have been returned to the seller and no money changed hands. Others have also offered to sell us thousands of votes and some traders have even been arrested.

Voter registration cards are readily available on the black market
The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA), an independent monitoring group, has collected evidence of fraud, in particular during the registration process.
It found that in many places people were being issued with more than one voting card, that children were being given them and that stacks of cards were issued to men who falsely claimed they were for women in their household.
Government workers - supposed to be impartial - have actively and illegally campaigned for candidates.
Shahrzad Akbar, a senior analyst with FEFA, says that because they were only able to investigate a few parts of the country, the abuses could be even more widespread.
"We couldn't observe how it went in every single district or village. I am sure that there are cases of multiple card distribution that we don't know about.
"But those incidents that we do know about caused us enough concern to contact the Independent Election Commission and say, 'please prevent this!'"
Money offered
The Electoral Complaints Commission has been training its investigators in how to spot fraud on polling day. Like the Independent Election Commission, the body insists that any problems are isolated and manageable.

The authorities insist that any problems with the vote will be manageable
But there is evidence that some people working for candidates have deliberately tried to influence the outcome of the presidential election by offering bribes.
A tribal elder and former military commander in Baghlan province described how the system works.
As a key local leader he is able to persuade large numbers of people to vote for one candidate or another.
He says that he and other local leaders have been approached by teams from the two leading contenders in this election and offered money.
"If one candidate gives $10,000, then the other gives $20,000 and a third one offers even more. It has become such a lucrative and competitive business. I don't know where they get their money from."
Western officials concede the election will be flawed - that there has been corruption, that there is apathy and that the fighting will stop some from voting.
Mark Sedwill, the British ambassador to Afghanistan, insists that whatever the problems, it is still better than not having an election at all.
"If this was a western European country with a population at peace, then the kind of difficulties we're going to face wouldn't be acceptable," he said.
"But we're working up from zero. And this election will be better than the last one, it's run by the Afghans themselves and I suspect - and hope - that the parliamentary election next year will be better and that the next presidential election will be better again.
"So it's not a question of reaching some standard that's unobtainable - we have to remember the situation we're in."
Western officials believe that these abuses will not change the result precisely because they are being carried out in the name of so many candidates.
But as international forces fight and die to allow this election to go ahead, serious questions are raised about the credibility of the process and the balance between sacrifice and reward.

Nuclear-armed Iran threatens Israel with 'airborne death camp'

Manufacturing Consent for Attack on Iran

“Peres relayed Israel's concerns during a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev, in the Black Sea resort town of Sochi on Monday.”

Jaswant slams Modi for banning book

Criticising a ban imposed on his book by Gujarat government, expelled BJP leader Jaswant Singh on Thursday said it amounted to "banning

thinking" and likened the step to the one taken against noted author Salman Rushdie for his controversial work 'Satanic Verses'.
( Watch Video )

I am greatly saddened by it," Singh told reporters on the Gujarat government's decision to ban his book "Jinnah--India, Partition, Independence".

"The day we start banning books, we are banning thinking," said Singh, who was expelled by BJP for the book in which he has praised the Pakistan founder M A Jinnah.

He said the step taken by Gujarat government was "another example of (action taken against) Salman Rushdie and Satanic Verses" which was banned for its controversial contents on Islam.

Asked to comment on BJP's contention that he had been expelled for his uncharitable comments in the book against Sardar Patel and that his views on Jinnah were different from those of L K Advani, he said, "Let me understand why (I was expelled). Nobody has told me".

On his continuance as MP from Darjeeling, he said he got a telephonic call from his constituency that the people there wanted him to continue as their representative in Lok Sabha.

Gujarat government last night banned Jaswant's book on Jinnah alleging it was an attempt to defame the image of the country's first Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel by "questioning his patrioric spirit".

"Jaswant Singh's book questions role of Sardar Patel during the partition of India as well as his patriotic spirit. This is an attempt to tarnish the image of Patel who is considered the architect of modern united India," a statement issued by the state government said.

"It is a bid to defame Patel by distorting historical facts," it charged.

"So, the state government has decided to ban the book with immediate effect for wider public interest," it said.

"As per the ban, there cannot be sale, distribution or publication of the book in the state," it said.
Jaswant Singh, a 71-year-old party veteran who has served as finance and external affairs minister in BJP cabinets, said he was "saddened" by his expulsion.

The party is plagued by infighting
"It saddens me even more that I have been expelled on grounds of writing a book," he said.
Mr Singh has said that his book is a "purely academic exercise, which should be read and understood".
Analysts have criticised the BJP for sacking Mr Singh over a book.
"Jaswant Singh's book is a serious academic exercise, one long overdue. It is complicated, full of internal tensions. A serious political party should have space for that," wrote political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta in The Indian Express.
"In expelling Jaswant Singh the BJP has confirmed the fears of its worst critics: that the party is nothing but a party founded on endless resentment that makes it inherently insecure and anti-intellectual."
The Times Of India daily said Mr Singh's expulsion raised questions about free thinking and free speech in cadre-based, ideology driven parties.
"Surely it is not impossible for a political outfit to function without asking members to always agree with party views," the newspaper said.
The Hindu says it is for "historians to evaluate the scholarly merit of Mr Singh's work".
"But who is to say that a political figure, especially when he or she is out of power, is not to dabble in such sensitive areas," the newspaper wrote.

Gen Zia Ul Haq ki Miraas

China will launch an attack on India before 2012.

There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century. The recession that shut the Chinese exports shop is creating an unprecedented internal social unrest. In turn, the vice-like grip of the communists over the society stands severely threatened.
Unemployment is on the rise. The unofficial estimate stands at a whopping fourteen percent. Worldwide recession has put thirty million people out of jobs. Economic slowdown is depleting the foreign exchange reserves. Foreign investors are slowly shifting out. To create a domestic market, the massive dole of loans to individuals is turning out to be a nightmare. There appears to be a flight of capital in billions of dollars in the shape of diamond and gold bought in Hong Kong and shipped out towards end 2008.
bharat-vermaThe fear of losing control over the Chinese masses is forcing the communists to compulsorily install filtering software on new computers on sale to crush dissent on the Internet, even though it is impossible to censor in entirety the flow of information as witnessed recently in Tibet, Xinjiang and Iran.
The growing internal unrest is making Beijing jittery.
The external picture appears to be equally dismal. The unfolding Obama strategy seems to be scoring goals for democracy and freedom without firing a single shot. While Bush unwittingly united and arrayed against himself Islamic countries and radical Islam worldwide, Obama has put radical Islam in disarray by lowering the intra-societal temperature vis-à-vis America and the Muslim world. He deftly hints at democracy in his talk without directly threatening any group or country and the youth picks it up from there – as in Iran. With more and more Chinese citizens beginning to demand political freedom, the future of the communists is also becoming uncertain. The technological means available in the 21st century to spread democracy is definitely not conducive for the totalitarian regime in Beijing.
India’s chaotic but successful democracy is an eyesore for the authoritarian regime in Beijing. Unlike India, China is handicapped as it lacks the soft power – an essential ingredient to spread influence. This further adds fuel to the fire.
mapIn addition, the growing irrelevance of Pakistan, their right hand that operates against India on their behest, is increasing the Chinese nervousness. Obama’s AF-PAK policy is primarily a PAK-AF policy. It has intelligently set the thief to catch the thief. The stated withdrawal from Iraq by America now allows it to concentrate its military surplus on the single front to successfully execute the mission. This surplus, in combination with other democratic forces, enables America to look deep into resource rich Central Asia, besides containing China’s expansionist ambitions.
To offset this adverse scenario, while overtly pretending to side with the West, the Chinese covertly ordered their other proxy, North Korea, to test underground nuclear explosions and carry out trials of missiles that threaten Japan and South Korea. The Chinese anxiety is understandable. Under Bush’s declared policy of being ‘a strategic competitor’ alongside the ‘axis of evil’, they shared a large strategic maneuverability with others of similar hues. However, Obama policies wisely deny such a luxury by reclaiming more and more international strategic space ceded by the previous administration.
highlight-1The communists in China, therefore, need a military victory to unite the disillusioned citizenry behind them. This will assist in marketing the psychological perception that the 21st century belongs to China and assert their deep belief in the superiority of the Chinese race. To retain the communist party’s hold on power, it is essential to divert attention from the brewing internal dissent. In an autocratic system normally the only recipe to unite the citizenry is by mannpulating their nationalistic feelings. The easy method for Beijing to heighten the feeling of patriotism and forging national unity is to design a war with an adversary. They believe that this will help them to midwife the Chinese century. That is the end game rooted in the abiding conviction of the communists that the Chinese race is far superior to Nazi Germany and is destined to “Lord over the Earth”.
At present, there is no overall cost benefit ratio in integrating Taiwan by force with the mainland, since under the new dispensation in Taipei, the island is ‘behaving’ itself. Also, the American presence around the region is too strong for comfort. There is also the factor of Japan to be reckoned. Though Beijing is increasing its naval presence in the South China Sea to coerce into submission those opposing its claim on the Sprately Islands, at this point of time in history it will be unwise for recession-hit China to move against the Western interests, including Japan. Therefore, the most attractive option is to attack a soft target like India and forcibly occupy its territory in the Northeast.
Ideally, the Chinese believe that the east-wind should prevail over the west-wind. However, despite their imperial calculations of the past, they lag behind the West, particularly America, by many decades. Hence, they want the east-wind to at least prevail over the other east-wind, i.e., India, to ensure their dominance over Asia. Beijing’s cleverly raising the hackles on its fabricated dispute in Arunachal Pradesh to an alarming level, is the preparatory groundwork for imposing such a conflict on India. A sinking Pakistan will team up with China to teach India “the final lesson”.
The Chinese leadership wants to rally its population behind the communist rule. As it is, Beijing is already rattled, with its proxy Pakistan, now literally embroiled in a civil war, losing its sheen against India. Above all, it is worried over the growing alliance of India with the United States and the West, because the alliance has the potential to create a technologically superior counterpoise.
All these three concerns of the Chinese communists are best addressed by waging a war against pacifist India to achieve multiple strategic objectives. But India, otherwise the biggest challenge to the supremacy of China in Asia, is least prepared on ground to face the Chinese threat.
How will India repel the Chinese game plan? Will Indian leadership be able to take the heat of war? Have they laid the groundwork adequately to defend India? Is the Indian military equipped to face the two-front war by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian Civil Administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare?
The answers is an unequivocal ‘NO’. Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front.
It is said that long time back, a king with an excellent military machine at his disposal could not stomach the violence involved in winning wars. So he renounced war in victory. This led to the rise of the pacifist philosophies. The state either refused to defend itself or neglected the instruments that could defend it.
Any ‘extreme’ is dangerous, as it tends to create imbalance in statecraft.
highlight-2We saw that in the unjust unilateral aggression in Iraq. It diminished the American aura and recessed the economy. China’s despotic regime is another extreme, scared to permit political dissent. This will fuel an explosion worse than the Tiananmen Square. Despite the use of disproportionate force and the demographic invasion of Tibet, Beijing’s hold remains tenuous. Pakistan’s over-aggressive agenda in the name of jihad haunts it now to the point of fragmentation of the State.
Similarly, India’s pacifism is the other extreme. 26/11s will occur on a regular basis as it infects policy-making. Such extreme postures on either side invariably generate wars. Armed with an aggressive Wahabi philosophy, Pakistan, in cohort with China, wants to destabilize a pacifist India. India’s instruments of state steeped in pacifism are unable to rise to its defence.
In the past sixty years, the deep-rooted pacifism contributed to the Civil Administration, ceding control of forty per cent of the Union’s territory to the Maoists and ten percent to the insurgents, effecting a shrinking influence internally, as well in the ‘near abroad’.
India must rapidly shift out from its defeatist posture of pacifism to deter China. New Delhi’s stance should modify, not to aggression, but to a firm assertion in statecraft. The state must also exclusively retain the capability of intervention by use of force internally as well as externally. If it permits the non-state actors to develop this capability in competition, then the state will whither away. On the contrary, the state machinery should ensure a fast-paced development in the Red Corridor even it if has to hold Maoists hostage at gunpoint. The state’s firm and just intervention will dissolve the Maoist movement.
Keeping in view the imminent threat posed by China, the quickest way to swing out of pacifism to a state of assertion is by injecting military thinking in the Civil Administration to build the sinews. That will enormously increase the deliverables on ground – from Lalgarh to Tawang.
Illusion of “China’s Attack on India Before 2012″
Chinese Response, By Chen Xiaochen
The 2000 km border between China and India has been a notable absence from press headlines in the years since then-Indian PM Vajpayee’s 2003 visit to Beijing. Tensions, however, have risen again as India announced last month a plan to deploy two additional army divisions and two air force squadrons of Su-30 Fighter Unit, some 60,000 soldiers in total, in a disputed border area in the southern part of Tibet, which India claims as its state of Arunachal Pradesh.
Adding fuel to the flames is an article by Bharat Verma, editor of Indian Defense Review, predicting that China will attack India before 2012, leaving only three years to Indian government for preparation.
highlight-3According to Mr. Verma, “growing unrest in China” due in part to economic downturn will leave the Chinese government looking for something to “divert the attention of its own people from ‘unprecedented’ internal dissent, growing unemployment and financial problems.” China will also want to strike India before the latter becomes powerful, which is the reason for the 2012 “deadline.” India, with its growing affiliation with the West, is yet weak under China’s fire.
But a “China’s attack” is not going to happen, and one wonders at the basis for Mr. Verma’s thinking. First, although it is true that China’s macro-economy has taken a hit from the global financial crisis, the extent of the damage is under control. Recent statistics shows China’s economy grew 7.1% in the first half of 2009, while its foreign exchange reserve has exceeded $2 trillion. China’s stimulus plan has been effective and given people confidence. China will survive the global downturn as well or better than the rest of the world’s economies.
And even if China’s economy was really all that bad, would the government try to distract “unrest” by taking military actions against India? Mr Verma’s reasoning rests on a lack of documentation. Looking into the past 60 years, China has no record of launching a war to divert public attention from anything. Moreover, while Mr. Verma supposes the Chinese Communist Party has no cards to play other than “invading India,” the Party, widely experienced in dealing with domestic disputes, will hardly in only three years have run out of all options facing potential social instability. Moreover, even if Chinese leaders considered such an option, they would certainly be aware that an external war would severely jeopardize domestic affairs.
Other reasons the author mentions in the article are also vague. The Western powers would not take kindly to a Chinese conflict with India, leaving China rightfully reluctant to use force in any case other than extreme provocation. US forces well deployed in Afghanistan and Pakistan could check any China’s military action in South Asia. And then there is also the nuclear problem: there has never been a war between two nuclear equipped nations, and both sides would have to be extremely cautious in decision-making, giving more room for less violent solutions.
Further, it is important to realize there is no reason for China to launch a war, against India in particular. Economic development, rather than military achievement, has long been the consensus of value among China’s core leaders and citizens. Despite occasional calls to “Reoccupy South Tibet (occupied Chinese territory),” China’s decision-making is always cautious. It is not possible to see a Chinese “incursion” into India, even into Tawang, an Indian-occupied Buddhist holy land over which China argues a resolute sovereignty.
Last but not least, China’s strategy, even during the 1962 border war with India, has been mainly oriented towards the east, where Taiwan is its core interest, while the recent Xinjiang unrest highlights China’s growing anti-terrorist tasks in the northwest – both issues are more important than the southwest border. If China were to be involved in a war within the next three years, as unlikely as that seems, the adversary would hardly be India. The best option, the sole option, open for the Chinese government is to negotiate around the disputed territory.
However, there is one scenario where there is possibility for war: an aggressive Indian policy toward China, a “New Forward Policy,” may aggravate border disputes and push China to use force – despite China’s appeal, as far as possible, for peaceful solutions.
Consider the 1959-1962 conflict, the only recorded war between China and India in the long history of their civilizations. After some slight friction with China in 1959, the Indian army implemented aggressive action known as its Forward Policy. The Chinese Army made a limited but successful counterattack in 1962.
Now, it seems “back to the future”. Mr. Verma asserts another war will happen before 2012, a half century after the last, regrettable one. India has started to deploy more troops in the border area, similar to its Forward Policy 50 years ago. Is Mr. Verma’s China-bashing merely a justification for more troops deployed along the border? Will India’s “New Forward Policy”, as the old one did 50 years ago, trigger a “2012 war?”
The answers lie mainly on the Indian side. Given China’s relatively small military garrison in Tibet, Indian’s 60,000 additional soldiers may largely break the balance. If India is as “pacific” as Mr. Verma says, and is sincere in its border negotiation, China-India friendship will remain. After all, China shares a long and mostly friendly cultural exchange with India as well as other neighbors. Now China is seeking deeper cooperation, wider coordination, and better consensus with India, especially in the global recession, and peace is a precondition for doing so. China wants to say, “We are on the same side,” as the Indian Ambassador did in a recent interview in China. Thus, “China will attack India before 2012″ is a provocative and inflammatory illusion.

India Destabilizing Pakistan

In the summit of Non Aligned Movement (NAM) in Sharm el-Sheikh Pakistan has mentioned the issue of Baluchistan, where India is encouraging militancy and separatism. Neither it is the first case of Indian interference nor the first time that Pakistani government showed its displeasure. India has a long history of interfere in the neighbouring countries to destabilize them. It is continuing its malicious activities in Pakistan for the last sixty years.
For this purpose RAW is its basic instrument. RAW was established with the purpose of creating internal disturbances in other countries. Pakistan remains RAW’s primary concern. It runs thousands of agents and spends millions of rupees in its operations against Pakistan. Propaganda, espionage, and subversion are the three-pronged attack against Pakistan by RAW in an attempt to destabilize it.
The US attack over Afghanistan in 2001 provided a big opportunity to RAW to accomplish its goal of destabilizing Pakistan. Since 9/11, Indian influence has increased tremendously. Raw has established consulates and trade missions along the Pak-Afghan border to destabilize Baluchistan and North West Frontier Province (NWFP). Several agents of RAW captured in FATA, Waziristan and other southern eastern areas provided that Indians had managed to penetrate deeply in collaboration with Indian allies in the region. An Indian senior official named as Malkit Chand supposedly working as third secretary of education & director of Indian cultural centre is found engaged in human trafficking of Pakistani Baloch students from Afghanistan to India for their special training. Balochi students particularly the children of Baloch nomads are being offered a sum of about us$200-300 per month when they are inducted to proceed to India. Chandra Mohan Mishra a third secretary at Indian embassy in Kabul and a person named J. Baby working as an attaché (technical) had held several meetings with Baloch militants during mid-2008. These Indian intelligence officials are also engaged in financing Pakistani youths and sending them from tribal areas to several other central Asian states.
India had invested over a billion dollars in Afghanistan so that it could build a base of operations against Pakistan. More than 10,000 Indian troops were stationed in Afghanistan under the garb of supervising the construction of Jalalabad- Chahbahar road project which was completed. Many mercantile shops run by Indians have an intelligence officer in the rear. RAW is providing them money, training, sophisticated weapons and satellite communication system. According to sources Indian intelligence officials working in the disguise of diplomats in embassy and consulates in Afghanistan have set up a vast covert operation network to destabilize FATA, northern areas and Baluchistan engaging dozens of Afghan, Indians, the drug dealers and the Afghan warlords.
In case of Baluchistan Indian role is not new. It is as old as the revolt itself. India is repeating the history and trying to separate Baluchistan just like East Pakistan. The Indian government claimed that India has its hands clean on the issue of Baluchistan and that it is practicing the principle of non-interference in other’s internal matters. Then how can India justify proofs of Indian involvement in Swat and Waziristan and Baluchistan?
Pakistan has stockpiles of evidence against Indian consulates in Afghanistan that are being used to fund terrorism in Pakistan through Baitullah Mehsud’s TTP as well as Brahamdagh Bugti and his Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA). According to Pakistan’s leading newspaper Dawn a dossier containing proof of Indian involvement in “subversive activities” in Pakistan was handed over by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh during their meeting at Sharm-el-Sheikh. The broad outlines of the dossier available with Dawn reveal details of Indian contacts with those involved in attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team and the Manawan police station. According to the paper “Operatives of RAW who remained in touch with the perpetrators of the attacks have been identified and proof of their interaction have been attached”. A description of the Indian arms and explosives used in the attack on the Sri Lankan team has been made part of the dossier, besides which the name and particulars of the perpetrators, who illegally entered Pakistan from India and joined their accomplices who had reached Lahore from Waziristan, have been mentioned in the dossier. It also said to list the safe houses being run by RAW in Afghanistan where terrorists are trained and launched for missions in Pakistan.
A substantial part of the shared material deals with the Baluchistan insurgency and Indian linkages with the insurgents, particularly Brahamdagh Bugti, Burhan and Sher Khan. Photographs of their meetings with Indian operatives are part of the evidence, which also describes Bugti’s visit to India and the meetings he had with Indian secret service personnel. The dossier mentions an India-funded training camp at Kandahar where Baloch insurgents particularly from Bugti clan were being trained and provided arms and ammunition for sabotage activities in the Pakistani province. Similarly, Talal Bugti said that 300 Baloch nationalists are getting training at RAW’s training center in Afghanistan. The Baluchistan Chief Minister said that RAW was running terrorist training camps in Iran and Afghanistan. It has now set up 30 to 40 such camps in Baluchistan, each with training facility for 30 people who are paid 10,000 monthly.
Christine Fair of RAND Corporation also unearthed some facts about the Indian consulates in Afghanistan and Iran. She said, “I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it’s unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you that they are not issuing Visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its missions in Mazar and is like doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan”. Similarly, the leading Newspaper of Sri Lanka, Daily Mirror, in its editorial has criticized the role of Indian intelligence agency RAW. It said, among its (RAW’s) most ambitious operations that are currently underway, is the move to separate Baluchistan province from Pakistan by supporting (the) Baluchistan Liberation Army”.
Afghan officials have also confirmed that India is using Afghanistan to stir trouble in Pakistan. On 2 April 2009 Afghan Government’s Advisor, Ehsanullah Aryanzai told, “India is using Afghan soil to destabilize Pakistan and Afghan security agencies are unable to stop Indian intervention due to absence of centralized government mechanism”. Indian spy outfits are using the Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar to target Baluchistan. As much as eight foreign spy agencies are cramming this Pakistani territory.
The Foreign Policy magazine recently confirmed that India is supporting the TTP in Pakistan. According to the magazine, “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there”.
India should stop its malicious designs against Pakistan and answer the world about the proofs given by Pakistani government regarding Indian involvement in Swat, Waziristan and Baluchistan. India is playing a double-game; on the one hand it is sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan and on the other blaming the later for all the terrorist activities on Indian soil. Similarly, India’s decision of linking the dialogue process with Mumbai attacks is quite absurd. The process is not only in favour of Pakistan but it is also in Indian interest to resolve its issues with Pakistan, which otherwise have the potential to bring the both nuclear countries at the brink of war. In the circumstances where India is fueling insurgencies, igniting minority issues and stealing Pakistan’s water, Pakistan is showing so much generosity to it by welcoming the dialogue process. As a peace loving country, Pakistan wants political solution to all problems. So, there is a need that India must stop sponsoring terrorism from Afghan soil to Pakistan and resume the peace process if it really wants to show the world that it is against terrorism. Written by: Mamoona Ali Kazmi

Banishment of Jaswant Singh exposes so called democratic face of India

Sectary General Pakistan Muslim league(Q) Mushahid Hussain Syed said that banishment of jaswant Singh had exposed the actual face of democratic India in the world adding democracy in India was more bitter than dictator ship.
Talking to a private TV channel here on Wednesday, Sec General PML(Q) said that the book written by Jaswant Singh should be published in the country because it contained the facts about the events happened during the partition and also about the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah .
He held civil society in Pakistan and India was surprised over this decision of BJP as party could not tolerate the truth about the Quaid-e-Azam after 62 years as they torched the books and expelled him from the party .
Mushahid further told that, few years back L .K Advani had visited Pakistan and he also praised Quaid-E-Azam and was also forced to resign from the party membership.
He maintained India claimed to be democratic country in the world but democracy was nowhere seen therein. There was no difference between democracy and dictatorship in India. This decision has exposed the democratic face of so called democratic India .
Mushahid Hussain condemned the decision and called upon the intellectuals in India to condemn it as well . He appreciated the role of vajpaye government who started peace process between Pakistan and India . He suggested that intellectuals of both the countries should read this book as the writer had authored the book with free mind with laying bare actual facts of partition.