Advani recalls Nehru's ''blunders'' on China, Pakistan

India, which is today trying hard to get a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, had refused it in 1952 in favour of China! The fact finds mention in the latest blog of veteran BJP leader L K Advani in which he sees the problems of the country with China and Pakistan as rooted in the foreign policy of Pt Jawaharlal Nehru.

''There can hardly be a more glaring instance of Nehrujis unconcern for the Indias own strategic interests than his refusal to accept a U S offer in 1952 of a permanent seat in the U N Security Council, till then held by Taiwan,'' says Mr Advani. '

'He insisted that the seat be given to China. Interestingly, this fact is mentioned in his recent book on Pandit Nehru by Shashi Tharoor, an MOS in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Government,'' said Mr Advani.

''When Mr Nehru declined to accept the U S proposal, his argument was that he did not want U S to marginalise China. We thereby only hurt our own interests,'' he said.

Mr Advani pointed out that in 2008, a conclave of foreign ministers of BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was held at Yekaterinburg (Russia), at which Russia pressed that the conclave support Indias plea to secure a permanent place in the U N Security Council. Russias move did not succeed because it was strongly opposed by China!

The Congress has always projected Pandit Nehru as an exemplary helmsman of Indias foreign policy, but Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, on the other hand, regarded Panditjis handling of Pakistan, as well as China, as two egregious blunders of his, the BJP leader said.

''Sadly, the shock that Nehru suffered when confronted by Chinas gross betrayal in 1962 virtually cost him his life. His mishandling of Pakistan has left terrorism and Kashmir as two festering sores for our body politic right up to this day,'' he said.

Mr Advani quotes approvingly from a book of Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International that ''Nehru rooted Indias foreign policy in abstract ideas rather than a strategic conception of national interests. He disdained alliances, pacts, and treaties, seeing them as part of the old rules of real politik, and was uninterested in military matters.''

'Ironically, Fareed Zakaria writes, Indias policies became'especially tough-minded and shrewd during the reign of Nehrus daughter, Indira Gandhi,'' says the BJP leader.

Mr Advani says that now all know that it was during her regime that Bangladesh was carved out, and that India took its initial step into the field of nuclear weaponry.

Those who have been following the development of India into a full fledged nuclear weapons state are aware that Pokharan I took place in 1974, during Ms Gandhis tenure, and the process then started was completed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee through Pokharan II, where on May 1, 1999 three underground nuclear tests were successfully conducted, he said.

Zakaria, Mr Advani adds, in his Penguin publication titled 'The Post American world', says that the ''central paradox of India'' today is that ''its society is open, eager and confident ready to take on the world'', but its state - its ruling class - is ''hesitant, cautious and suspicious of the changing realities around it''.

''Nowhere is this tension more obvious than in the realm of foreign policy, the increasingly large and important task of determining how India should fit into the new world''.

He says Zakarias book recalls that when Mountbatten suggested that there be a powerful chief of defence staff, Nehru turned down the suggestion, and a week into his new government, he walked over to the Defence Ministry and was furious to find military officers working there (as they do in every defence ministry in the world).

''Since then all armed service personnel work in New Delhis South Block wear civilian clothes''. Mr Advani said Pandit Nehru remained Indias Prime Minister from 1947 to 1964 and throughout his tenure he was his own Foreign Minister.

Quoting from the autobiography of K P S Menon, one of the India's first Foreign Secretaries, Mr Advani said,''We had no precedents to fall back upon because India had no foreign policy of her own until it became independent. Our policy therefore necessarily rested on the intuition of one man, who was Foreign Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.''

Mahe Rabi Un Noor Mubarak to all my Muslim friends

Mahe Rabi Un Noor Mubarak to all my Muslim friends

Chamka Mahe Noor Ka Hilal Marhaba Ya RasoolAllah صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم!

26/11: Why India didn’t attack Pakistan

Before visiting Pakistan, Robert Gates warned from New Delhi that, should 2007 Mumbai like incident occur again, India would attack Pakistan, meaning thereby that the past Mumbai killings have been solely attributed to Pakistan and if such an incident occurred again, responsibility would be that of Pakistan, and in retaliation, India would be perfectly justified to attack Pakistan. In this situation USA would not be in a position to restrain India. Rather it may support this venture.
The message is fraught with ominous consequences and therefore demands a clear assessment of our ability to respond, if such a threat develops. This assessment therefore, is based on existing ground realities, which determine the military power balance between Pakistan and India. No doubt, the Indian armed forces are numerically superior to Pakistan, but they suffer from some inherent weaknesses and, it will take them a long time to overcome these.
Indian armed forces are in the midst of a transition,  replacement of the obsolete Russian weapons system with high tech American Israeli European weapons. India started this changeover in 2005 after signing the Strategic Partnership Agreement with USA and hopes to complete it by the year 2015. Already it has spent about a hundred billion dollars on the new acquisitions. Their entire military system at present therefore, is weak, because they have the old and absolute weapons and about thirty percent of the recently acquired new systems. They suffer from a predicament, similar to what we suffered in early seventies, because, USA bad abandoned Pakistan in 1965 and we had not been able to induct new weapons and equipment from other sources. India exploited this weakness and dismembered Pakistan. Thus, India suffering from such weaknesses, now, is not in a position to wage a full f1edged war against Pakistan.
India faces another serious problem, in that, despite their best efforts of the last forty years, they have failed to manufacture their own tanks, guns, cruise missiles, fighter aircrafts, battleships and submarines. This in essence, constitutes a major weakness of the Indian armed forces, because, the present day war cannot be won with weapons borrowed or purchased from others. And, contrary to the weaknesses of India and cognising the implications of self-reliance, Pakistan has achieved up to ninety percent of indigenisation of weapons and equipment. We have our own tanks, guns, cruise missiles, fighter aircrafts, battleships and submarines as well as we have a stock-pile of war reserves, of over forty days, as compared to just eleven days of war reserves in 1965 and seven days in 1971. Whereas India’s war reserves as of today are limited to 15 days only. Thus, Pakistan in this respect also enjoys a clear edge over India.
The third dimensional capability of Pakistan is, in the way of higher military education and superior military and operational strategy, which is the hallmark of our military leadership, and was demonstrated some twenty years back in 1989, during Ex Zarb e Momin. The Offensive Defence concept was practised and over the period, has been actualised as the fundamental doctrine of war. Offensive Defence means that our forces having fixed the enemy, will carry the war into their territory. Compare it with the Cold Start doctrine of India, of fighting a war on two fronts, which is more of a fiction than a realistic military doctrine.
Mr Robert Gates, as well as the Indian military planners, while taking into cognisance the existing military balance between Pakistan and India, must also consider the new phenomenon of the Asymmetric War, which, during the last thirty years, has established the supremacy of Men and Missiles, over the most modern and technologically superior armed forces of the world, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Kashmir. The Asymmetric War, in essence is the name of the Islamic Resistance, with its hardcore resting along the Durand Line. It is our strength. Thus, conventional as well as irregular armed forces, together provide the emerging shape of the Fourth Generation of modern warfare, as Joseph S Nye, the former Assistant Secretary of Defence USA and a professor of Harvard University, defines: “The hybrid wars, conventional and irregular forces combatants and civilians become thoroughly intertwined” to win wars and help establish the new order. In case, war is forced on Pakistan, it would be a long and decisive war, where new geo-political realities would emerge, establishing new frontiers of peace in the region.
Nuclear weapons are not the weapons of war because these have never been used as such. United States used it against the Japanese in 1945, which already had lost the war, nor had the capability to retaliate. American purpose was primarily diplomatic, i.e. to declare to the world that, America was entering the centre stage of world politics, to establish its global primacy and pre-eminence. There are other instances also, where nuclear powers, possessing hundreds and thousands of atomic weapons could not use them, to save themselves from very difficult and embarrassing situations. The Americans lost the war in Vietnam; the Soviets lost their empire in Afghanistan; the Israelis could not cover the shame of defeat at the hands of Hezbollah in 2005; the Americans having suffered defeat in Iraq, now are facing a worse defeat in Afghanistan, yet they find no recourse to use their nuclear capability. Their NATO partners are equally embarrassed, yet they cannot think of using their nuclear weapons to cover the shame of impending defeat. Similarly, India and Pakistan can fight only conventional wars and win or loose, but they dare not use nuclear weapons against each other, because it would destroy everything, leaving nothing but ashes, one could hope to capture and rebuild. And therefore, our people must not carry the wrong notion that Pakistan is powerful because it has nuclear capability. On the contrary, it is the conventional military capability, which provides security and lends resilience to the nation, as of now, and provides space to the po1itical government, to establish good governance.
Nuclear weapons are also great equalizer, between nuclear capable adversaries. “Between India and Pakistan, perfect deterrence exists” – declared George Fernandis, the former Defence Minister of India, after Pakistan demonstrated its capability in May 1998. And that precisely is the function of the weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan’s policy of Minimum Credible Nuclear Deterrence, supported by the Policy of Restraint, together serves the purpose of a stable nuclear deterrence. Nuclear capability also doesn’t compensate for the conventional military capability, and working on this principle the conventional military capability of Pakistan has been so developed as to make it a real symbol of national power, to defeat all aggression from within and outside.
Such are the ground realities, which determine the capabilities of our armed forces which cannot be wiped off by contrived constructs of our adversaries, nor Pakistan can be scared of going to the brink, if a war was forced on it. J F Dulles has rightly said: “If you are scared to go to the brink you are lost.”
Robert Gates’ threat of war, Published: February 9, 2010, GENERAL MIRZA ASLAM BEG (RETD)
Here is the real reason why Bharat could not attack Pakistan.
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has acquired 18 F-16 of the Block 52 series taking its total to 64, a squadron of jointly produced (China-Pakistan) JF 17  Thunder fighters. It  has ordered some 36 J-10B fighters upgraded to the the Super 10– an upgraded version of the J-10 with a locally made Chinese TVC engine (beyond the WS-13). The PAF produced the K-8 trainer and is also working with the  Chinese to produce L-15 supersonic trainers. The “Shaheens” have  already ordered eight Erieye AEW&C from Sweden and now owns IL-78 Refueling tankers tankers for mid-flight refueling. The PAF is also producing the AWACs with Chinese help. It has received a dozen S-70 Super Cobra helicopters from the US. The PAFs current published strength is reportedly 383 combat capable aircraft including the older upgraded Chinese A-5, 129 F-7 PG/MG (Chinese revamped version of the MiG-21), nearly 113  upgraded Mirage III/V, some 64-plus F-16 fighters and a squadron of JF-17 of which some 500 are being built locally (25-75 per annum). PAF officials are aiming to finally acquire a whopping 150 J-10Bs from China in the next decade. The PAF is also eyeing the J-14 (J-XX, Chinas’ 5th gen stealth fighter which it calls 4th generation)
The IAF’s current strength is around 600 of which the MiG21 fleet of (FL, M, MF and Bis types) comprise 293 aircraft. The IAF has MiG-23 (BN&MF), Mi-17 helicopters, Mi-25/35 attack helicopters, Mi-26 super heavy helicopters, Mirage-2000 multi-role fighters, MiG-29 and Mig-27s.  The IAF  slowly phased out the Fairchild Packet C-119, the Dakota DC-3, Caribou, Otter, Toofani, Mystere 4A, Gnat, Ajeet and the Hunter and later the Canberra light bomber aircraft as well. It has about 30 1996 vintage Sukhoi 30MKI (Flanker: 140 have been ordered and 140 will be assembled from kits). It also is bying the PAKFA (aka FGFA) whose 5th gen credentials have been challenged by international agencies. The IAF has no credible trainer aircraft, a reason given t the highest crash rate in the world. The HPT-32s have been grounded. The HTT-34 was a total failure.
The Mig 21s have pretty much been grounded. The Il-76 have been grouned, so the IAF really has only about 300 aircraft of unprdictable value. Due to the unavailbility of the LCAs, has ordered 126 planes as part of the MCRC program. However the MMRCA (ten C-17, eight Boeing P8I LRMP (for the Navy), six Lockheed Martin C-130J, six second-hand Sea King helicopters (for the Navy) won’t be delivered for a decade. The IAF may also be buying 12 Mirages from Qatar.
The Chinese  People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF)  possesses some 1653 combat capable aircraft. ThePLA Navy has 290 of which some 30 per cent are current generation including 84 J-10, 116 J-11(Su-27), 97 Su-30MKK, 156 JH/FB-7, 516 J-8, and 540 J-7. Since its unveiling in 2003-04, the PLAAF has already inducted 84 J-10 fighters of the roughly F-16 class.China has the capacity build 40 to 50 fighters per year, a capacity it is increasing exponentially. China has built the first ever Airbus outside Europe and rolled out a Cessna-162 basic trainer the first of some 1500 of these aircraft. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology (AWST) Annual Review Resource Book 2009, ‘Aircraft Forecasting’ Report, China would rank among the major producers of modern fighters in the current decade with the capacity to produce 45 to 48 fighters of the J-10 and J-11 class. This means that the PLAAF would field some 1500 to 2000 modern fighters by 2020

million Filthy Naked Indian sadus bathed in India's river Ganges

million Hindu pilgrims bathed in India's river Ganges

Secular India?

Secular India has been no stranger to religious oriented fractures; among others, Muslims and Christians, both, have suffered the scourge of Hindu Fascists Hindu Zionists. India’s neighbor, and often its scapegoat for violence within, has been no stranger to ethnic disturbances either.
However, in recent years, the exception with the latter is that ethnic minorities, particularly Hindus and Christians, remain protected. If there is violence against these minorities, the matter is never hushed up. This is remarkable for a country that is always touted by the West and anti Pakistan forces as one with a hardliner ideology.

If we look at the recent upheaval that took place in Mumbai, for example, we observed a huge difference in institutional and public reaction; In India, violence broke out against Muslims in the streets. Many Muslim men and women faced insults, and many youth were physically assaulted by mobs. While the Indian media took an aggressive stance that only exacerbated the situation in the streets and did little to uncover any truth, in Pakistan, the feeling was different; the media were placid and awaited input from India as well as the international media. Some voices have been critical of the Pakistani media’s apparent lack of patriotic initiative. However, the people in the streets in Pakistan did not resort to violence, and our Hindu population was unharmed. Isn’t that quite surprising for a nation that is believed to support Talibanisation?
It is understandable that there would be fury in India in the aftermath of the Mumbai carnage. However, one must also take into account that out of the 187 lives that perished, 147 were Muslims. Shouldn’t Muslims back home in Pakistan have been more irate about this, particularly when reports began to filter through suggesting that all this had ‘Indian conspiracy’ written all over it?
Yes, conspiracy! Among a plethora of facts that can be furnished that expose the RAW and Indian Fascist Zionist hand in the Mumbai drama, I will present one that is most glaring: Hemant Karkare was gunned down with 9 mm pistols; he was shot in the back within the first 15 minutes of the Mumbai Mayhem. As opposed to this, the terrorists carried 0.30 mm firearms. It’s hard to believe that the terrorists on the rampage killed Hemant Karkare. To understand why Karkar was killed, we will have to indulge in another discussion. However, it is important to say that it was none other than Karkare who was in pursuit of a fascist Hindu Nexus that was responsible for a series of terrorist attacks in India. These attacks included the gruesome attacks on the Samjhota express as well as the drive against Christians in the town of Orissa. Indeed, to the dismay of many in India, among those involved in these acts were people in strategic positions, such as Colonel Prohit. So, we do have an idea about who all could have gained from Karkare’s death.
Now, let it be known that these are not my own statements or those of any other Pakistani writer. Instead, it is Indian Journalists themselves who have come forth with information about the RSS RAW Musad nexus that they suspect staged the Mumbai Drama. Writers such as Amaresh Misra are to be lauded for trying to reveal the truth in times when risks and feelings run high. It is because of writers such as Amaresh along with brave anti-terrorist operatives like Karkare that India manages to hold on to whatever secular threads it has left. One cannot help but fear what could happen should the Indian nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of Hindu fascists Hindu Zionists. With a solid base formed under the Indian secret service in tandem with Hindu fundamentalists, religious tolerance is low. This is only exacerbated by media support with the exception of a few who dare to speak the truth.
Zainulabedin Ameer

Indian Intervention in Balochistan Proved

Although Pakistan's civil and military leadership has repeatedly stated that Indian secret agency, RAW supports separatism in the province of Balochistan, and its evidence will be shown to the western countries at the right occasion, yet Indian intervention in Balochistan is not confined to verbal statements, it has in fact proved in light of the following developments.

In the recent past, the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), New Delhi organised a seminar titled: South Asia 2020 in connection with Balochistan. In their speeches, various scholars and thinktanks maligned Pakistan in one or the other way.


Besides the seminar, on November 5, 2009 a secret conference titled: Pakistan is Problem in Balochistan was organised by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi. It was headed by the former secretary of RAW and Indian former chief of army staff. In that conference, high ranking selective officials, journalists and three Baloch leaders, namely, Dr Wahid Baloch, Khan of Kalat and Munir Mengal participated.

The speech of Dr. Wahid Baloch, General Secretary of the American Friends Balohistan (AFOB) is of special attention. He distorted the history by pointing out that in 1948, Balochistan was forcibly occupied by Pakistani armed forces because Nawab of Kalat had refused to abide by the demands of Muhammad Ali Jinah. 

It is well-known fact that the partition of India was made on the basis of religious demographics that led to the creation of Pakistan. The people of Balochistan, overwhelmingly voted to join Pakistan in a referendum that was held on June 30, 1947. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 allowed the independent states to join either India or Pakistan. The Khan of Kalat acceded to Pakistan on March 27, 1948 as a result of the free will of the Muslims of the province. 

While vocally raising false allegations in line of the Indian conspiracy against the federation Pakistan, Dr. Wahid Baloch explained, Balochistan still remains under the occupation of Pakistan and the international community should interfere in preventing atrocities on the Baloch people, being committed by Pak Army and ISI. Dr. Wahid also indicated his misperceptions that several Baloch leaders, engineers and doctors were kidnapped, torture and killed ruthlessly through Pakistan's state terrorism. 

In fact, the secret conference organised by the Indian officials itself and participation of the Baloch leaders including anti-Pakistan elements proves that Indian RAW is behind all the events like hostage-takings, sectarian violence, targeted killings of the high profile leaders and other subversive acts being committed in Balochistan. Besides, people of Balochistan enjoy equal rights and opportunities like the people of other provinces of Pakistan. Meanwhile, on Dec 12, 2009, the signing ceremony of the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award was held in the port city of Gwadar. In this regard, Punjab province has shown much flexibility as a good gesture of sacrifice especially for Balochistan. So it is wrong to say that Balochistan is under occupation.

While favouring the Sardari system (Fedual lords), Dr. Wahid maintained that Balochistan is a tribal society which follows the directions of their tribal chiefs. In this way, he not only justified support for the Baloch Sardars but also for Khan of Kalat as they have been leading separatism in the province. As a matter of fact, the unrest actually started in Balochistan when various projects were undertaken by the previous government to develop the backward regions of the province. The sole aim was to eliminate frustration among the people by providing infrastructure and employment opportunities. The Baloch Sardars who had been backed by India and other external powers started opposing all the developmental projects. These Sardars who were running their own private jails and farrari camps resisted the government plans as they did not want to give up the old system of feudal lords. It was Pak Army which occupied private jails and farrari camps and thus set free several innocent people.

Dr. Wahid accused in the sense of foreign propaganda campaign against Islamabad that Quetta Shura and Taliban leaders have taken shelter in the capital of Balochistan with the help of Pakistan. 

In reality, Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) which has been fighting for secession of the province get logistic support from India, while another CIA and Indian-supported separatist group, Jundollah (God's soldiers) is also working against the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years, their militants with the cooperation of foreign agents kidnapped and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan, while committing other subversive acts in the province. 

While impressing New Delhi, Wahid Baloch said, We are a secular nation and not Islamist or extremist our secular culture is under attack by Pakistan and Iran for which we needs your help. He requested, We also need your help for newly established council of Balochistan so that we can established its offices all over the world.

Dr. Wahid read out a message of Balochs to the audience, appealing the Indian government to take a bold step in order to stand up against the tyranny and state terrorism of Pakistan inside Balochistan. He also appealed to the Indian high officials to raise the question of Balochistan on all international forums and the UN bodies. Concluding his anti-Pakistan speech, Wahid Baloch pointed out that the ultimate goal of Baloch struggle was to seek a greater Balochistan comprising territory on either side of the Goldsmith line in Pakistan as well as Iran.

Indian officials and RAW ex-officers in connivance with the participating Baloch leaders and friends also decided to continue the process and to establish some new organization which they decided before conducting the next meeting. Besides, Khan of Kalat expressed similar thoughts like Dr Wahid, indicating that the meeting has been a source of good interaction with the Indians, and they will use every source so as to get support for their struggle of independence.

Indian involvement in Balochistan plot could also be judged from the fact the Munir Mengal who repeated the thoughts of Dr. Wahid in the meeting held with the faculty of IDSA which assured him that India fully backs Baloch struggle and will definitely undertake necessary steps for making the same a success. It also pledged that all future activities of Baloch movement like guidance and help will be coordinated by a US team under the sponsorship of IDSA. Besides Munir Mengal also gave a presentation at ORF in which he also misinterpreted the economic aspects of Gwader Port as a threat to international community, opposing proposed China's naval base at Gwader. 

America which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to make India a mini-super power of Asia by containing China and destablising Pakistan as well as Iran. Balochistan where China has invested billion of dollars to develop Gwadar seaport irritates both Washington and New Delhi.

Nevertheless, finally, Dr Wahid, Munir Mengal and Khalat remarked that their visit was very successful. They also met Indian deputy minister and other officials who told them that this is ever first meeting of its kind and things will further improve by the next such meeting. They also assured to the Baloch leaders that Baloch movement has not gain the momentum so far as expected, therefore, they could not support them openly, however, covert support will continue. While encouraging Baloch ledears to continue their struggle with full zeal and enthusiasm, the Indian officials paid 25000 dollars to each Baloch leader, assuring them more positive response by the next secret meeting to be held in February 2010.

Meanwhile on November 21, 2009, with the consent of the Baloch national leader Mir Hyrbyair Marri, Laurie Deamer who is active member of the Independence American Friends of Balochistan read out the resolution in the first international conference at the Nation Press Club in Washington DC. The resolution also raised same allegations in connection with Pak Army and state terrorism by implicating Islamabad and Tehran, emphasizing the necessity of an independent Balochistan. 

Nonetheless, while taking the breaking of Pakistan as inevitable and in the interests of the international community, especially the Baloch people and the United States, the conference called upon the US government and its affiliated departments to talk directly with Baloch independence, sending American leaders in Balochistan and abroad.

No doubt that after these conferences and secret meetings among the Indian officials, foreign agents and Baloch leaders, particularly Indian intervention in Balochistan has been proved.

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

Taliban confirm Hakeemullah's death

Pakistani officials and Taliban both confirmed the death of the Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud

AFGHANISTAN: World rejects India’s Taliban stand

A one-day international conference on Afghanistan rejected India’s argument that there were no degrees of Talibanism. British  Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hosting the conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, announced in his opening address the establishment of a $500 million ‘trust fund’ to buy “peace and integration” with warriors who are engaged in violence for economic rather than ideological reasons. A whopping $140 million has been pledged already for this year.
During his pre-conference discussion with the British foreign secretary David Miliband, external affairs minister S M Krishna had specifically said, “There should be no distinction between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban.” But this clearly fell on deaf ears. It was also unclear whether remnants of Afghanistan’ s Northern Alliance, once cultivated by India, would be accommodated in any way. There was also no reference to the erstwhile foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, who put up a spirited fight in the first round of the recent controversial presidential election and exposed fraud before withdrawing from the contest.
Krishna was allocated a seat in the second of three rows of attendees at the conference which in itself reflected India’s peripheral role in Afghan affairs in the eyes of the international community. This, despite India being the biggest regional aid-giver to Afghanistan, with a commitment of $1.3 million. Earlier in the week, Turkey, an ally of Pakistan, did not even bother to invite India to a confabulation on Afghanistan.
Krishna was among more than 70 foreign ministers and officials of international organisations who attended the convention at the 185-year-old Lancaster House, a coveted venue for summits and high level interactions.
Pakistan supports a differentiation between Taliban segments, including being generally soft towards the Afghan Taliban, which was sponsored by the Pakistani Army’s Inter-Services Intelligence. In an interview to a British daily on Thursday, foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claimed: “Pakistan is perhaps better placed than any other country in the world to support Afghan reintegration and reconciliation. ”
As a goodwill gesture, the conference was preceded by a lifting of United Nations sanctions on five leaders of the obscurantist Taliban regime, which was ousted by armed forces led by the United States after the 9/11 attack on New York by the Afghanistan- based Al Qaida. Among the beneficiaries is a former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil.
However, Brown warned, “But those insurgents who refuse to accept the conditions for reintegration, we have no choice but to pursue them militarily.” It is widely believed that hardcore elements among the extremists will not accept the amnesty.
In keeping with United States President Barack Obama’s plan to start withdrawing American troops in a little over 18 months, Brown also declared that to fill the breach the strength of the Afghan army would be increased to 134,000 by October of this year and to 171,600 by October 2011. Corresponding enlargements would also occur in respect of the Afghan police. The template for Afghanistan is similar to the one utilised in Iraq, that of handover of responsibilities province by province to national security forces.
Ashish Ray

Taliban flogging men Orakzai tribal region

Taliban militants flog two men and a teenage boy in a video that has emerged from Pakistan's tribal belt along the Afghan border