Caught In Between

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Rat Sarwari

Pakistan, ``one of the world`s most debt-ridden and aid-dependent countries,`` begging for more pennies from the US. Being the hypocrite it is, Paki govt is saying it isdoing this to fight terrorism, not make money.

Shame shame shame...how disgraceful...no self-respect.

{{Sanctions waiver welcomed, but Pakistan wants more

ISLAMABAD, Sept 24 (AFP) -

Pakistan`s welcome for the lifting of US nuclear sanctions has been tempered by the belief that it deserves more and memories of what many here view as Washington`s past betrayals of its traditional South Asian ally.

Although all sides deny it, the lifting of sanctions on both Pakistan and India has been widely seen as prompt reward for their support to the US-led war on global terrorism.

For Pakistan, which has been the target of multiple US sanctions in the past decade, the move carries enormous significance as the military government of President Pervez Musharraf struggles to drag the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

As well as the sanctions imposed in 1998, the waiver ordered by President George W. Bush at the weekend covers two earlier nuclear-related punitive measures.

The waiver will give one of the world`s most debt-burdened and aid-dependent countries easier access to billions of dollars of concessionary multilateral loans, and open the door to much-needed foreign investment.

While welcoming Bush`s announcement, government officials here insist far more needs to be done to help Pakistan cope with the economic fallout of its decision to support possible US military strikes against Afghanistan.

Speaking on Pakistan television, Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said the economy was already feeling the affects in the form of sharp increases in risk insurance costs and airline shipment charges.

``We are not supporting the international community in a war against terrorism for the sake of some economic bargains, but as a consequence of regional developments and the global economic impact, economic issues need to be addressed,`` Sattar said.

He also indicated his disappointment that the waiver did not cover US sanctions imposed after Musharraf toppled the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999.

Government officials said that as well as access to multilateral lending institutions, Islamabad would like to see some of its foreign debt written off completely.

Pakistan`s external debt currently stands at more than 30 billion dollars.

There is also some concern that the presidential waiver does not wipe the sanctions off the statute books -- meaning they could be reimposed in the event of further Pakistani nuclear tests.

That fallback position has revived memories of the last time Pakistan found itself a frontline ally of US foreign policy towards Afghanistan.

After the Soviet invasion of 1979, the United States pumped billions of dollars into Pakistan, much of it for use by the Afghan resistance.

No sooner had the last Soviet forces withdrawn in 1989, than Washington imposed sanctions related to Pakistan`s nuclear weapons programme.

``We are cognizant of the fact that the US did not show reciprocity at that time,`` Sattar said, reflecting commentaries in the national press on the fair-weather nature of US economic support for Pakistan.

``The United States has a poor record of clearing up the debris after completing its task,`` said an editorial in The News daily.

``Besides, there is no certainty that this (waiver) gesture will be followed by something more comprehensive which will be commensurated with the high expectations in Pakistan for having placed ourselves in the firing line.``}}}

Zafar

Yes, I agree that Taliban does have an ethnic element to it and that this has can can be exploited by those against the Taliban. American support for Taliban began going south when they refused to facilitate the pipeline from Turmenistan. Their military failure, their inept administration, the Bamiyan Buddhas and especially their policies on women, killed whatever little support they could count on, other than Pakistani strategic compulsions. At the same time OBL`s relationship with Mullah Omar had become problematic. Recall my post on the Bamiyan board, where I had opined that Pakistan expects no more public relations disasters and will look beyond the continuation of Mulla Omar in a leadership role. Recall, the fate of the original Mullah Omar.

A free vote in Kashmir is now 54 years over due. Is this not true? is it also not true that Indian policy has been to reject such a vote? The problem all along is the Indian refusal to acknowledge that it is disputed territory. Indian reliance on their military might and on their ability to rig elections. Responsibility for the state of relations with Pakistan is entirely Indian. If Pakistan is a State in which the military has disproportionate influence in society it is primarily because India has threatened the existence of Pakistan from day one. These issues need to be debated in India and a majority of Indians need to come to a decison about where they should stand on these issues.

You and I have come a long way with each other, and I hope you will take this in a constructive spirit: the responsibility of the screw up in Kashmir is overwhelmingly, Indian. The unidimensional nature of Pakistani policy towards India is a reflection of the attitude India has taken to the existence of Pakistan.

In the present context, will Indian army be withdrawn to allow organizing for elections? What prevents intelligence services from targetting Mujahidden who organize for elections? If the option of seeking union with Pakistan is ruled out how can we know what the Kashmiri want? - I see a host of problems with the idea of elections within the rubric of the Indian constitution.

Elections, Under UN supervision, within the rubric of UN declartions on self determination, after the landing of a UN peacekeeping forces, and the withdrawl of Indian forces, will allow for confidence in the vote and it`s results.

On the other hand, if India is committed to a negotiated settlement, Indian security concerns and Indian economic interests can be safe guarded.

These can then form the foundation of larger relations between Pakistan and India. Whereas a vote under Indian constitution or UN rubric may bring about further polarization.



On the potential/opportunity of larger stakes:

We would be taking a ostrich like position if we did not acknowledge that such an opportunity is real. My call to ``thinking`` Indians is a call away from arrogance, to a return to reality. Imagine if a miniscule minority of the total number become radicalized? Do you not agree that unless India clearly shows that only a negotiated settlement is what it desires, that those who seek opportunity within the larger numbers, will be strengthened?

This business in Afghanistan has all the potential of becoming percieved as a war against Islam, will India escape the consequences of such? Look at the Indian response with regard to this situation thus far`` The Pakistani president reminded the Indian that his Air Force is ready, not to defend Pakistan, but for a ``do or die`` mission (read neutralize Indian nuclear capablity or die). Just think about it, it`s a real window in to the Pakistani Psyche, into the fear that exists.

Some Indians may be pleased at the kind of concern and fear that exist in Pakistan over India, I tell you this is a wrong, incorrect, dangerous understanding of who and what kind of personality the Pakistani is. In fact the existence of such a perception in Pakistan should be of great concern and fear with in thinking Indian circles. Has history of Pakistani military action not shown that when threatened, they are committed to taking the initiative?

By the way - Nasah has called us to participate on the Rodebaugh board - ``Dolce et Decorum est``, in this case, not, ``por patria mori`` but in a civilizing exercise. Take him up on this.

Girgit #455,

Someone`s getting frustrated... By the way, I told you to speak to the foot, not the hand.

And you continue speaking to my foot. tsk tsk

Shima 452,

The names you have quoted, hamdm, bilal etc gives you hope is the proof of the success of the pak education system. The above are much older, the ones not fully brain washed by the k for kafir education. YLH, srwari etc are much younger, in twenties and are a lot more of the jihadic mindset. They represent the hopelessness of pakistan, the voyage to the kalifayet times.

It is the YLH, srwati types that fills me with hopelessness. If one looks at the evolution of pakistan, the honour killings and the blasphemy laws and attack on ahmadias were not there initially, in the days of hamidm and bilals, but were introduced and sustained by the YLH generation, and suppoprted by their implicit acceptance of the system.

YLH and sarawris are copious in thier anti india posts, but are silent on the ahmadias or for that matter anything about pakistan they want to change. These have time and energy to write about the shersha suris, no time to cull a few data on abdus salam, that would be unjihadic, against the grain of their k for kafir education.

regards

jay

Reply #: 456

rsridhar

``Having said all this, I can’t see a quick and easy solution in sight.``

Zafar,

A quick solution may be forthcoming if Uncle Sam has his way. When all this ends, Taliban would be history, OBL will be gone and Pak Army would be put in its proper place.

SridharNaestrodamous

Just because you think so

Taleban will convert to there passive Buddhism

;

:

:

Osama will be sharing cell with mullah blind sheikh Omer

:

:

:

King Zahir will rule Afghanistan to glory & majestic grandeuer.

:

:

:

Displaced Taleban from Zahirs to welthy kingdom will force the autere ascetic taleban to all encamp in Kashmir making it truely islamic state

:

:

:

Musharaf will be nominated for Nobel Peace for helping U.S. BUT Vajpayee will file protest of ``P.M. couldnt have done it by hinself`` so peace prize will go to Fire fighters & Police dept.Of NYC.

``It will be in America`s interest to have a govt in Pak that is friendly towards India (for economic reasons mainly). Gone is the Pakistan`s policy of having a strategic depth in Afghanistan vis-a-vis India. Also gone will be the jehadists who cross over into Indian Kashmir.``]



Yes the kind of sensitive rebuff Vajpayee refused as TAhmed said ``Leloji`` from U.S. as a result of offer from India to help.If U.S. was more comcerned about India economic spiritual & military health ,you areDREAMING ,NASTRO!!

Talebanwill exisist NOT b/C of Pakistan,Neither can Pakistan turn anybody Mujahdeen.Just try to convert the alcoholics & druggies& violent criminal that America spends fortune rehabilitating unsucessfully.You still dont believe in commitment of volunteers lok both at the fire fighters 300 of then dead & 18 terrorists.There is nothing more dear than LIFE itself except that which for which thses men risked there life!

``Having said all this, I can’t see a quick and easy solution in sight.``

Zafar,

A quick solution may be forthcoming if Uncle Sam has his way. When all this ends, Taliban would be history, OBL will be gone and Pak Army would be put in its proper place. It will be in America`s interest to have a govt in Pak that is friendly towards India (for economic reasons mainly). Gone is the Pakistan`s policy of having a strategic depth in Afghanistan vis-a-vis India. Also gone will be the jehadists who cross over into Indian Kashmir.

Sridhar

Re: spout

``yeah yeah yeah, speak to the hand...``

I`m flattered you`re using my language and words.

Now there, I decide when you will talk to the hand and when you will get an insulting response, NOT YOU.

Ras,

I understand that you should need to put your point of view in, since you were being dragged into the Aisha-Ylh-Ras group. Associations do make one uncomfortable especially when they are not voluntarily placed.

You have been the very first people I have very much looked up to here. The few people who go around the Bay Area representing Pakistan undeterred. It is a hard act to follow :) I tend to get very emotional when someone tries to badmouth Pakistan then turns around and talks of peace.

It is sad that you think, if you do, that I have written this to put the entire blame on Gandhi. He has been mentioned in the context of the fundamentalists we both are against. None of it is untrue and I dare anyone to find a statement or phrase in which I conclude that I have intended to put Gandhi on the spot. I do not believe in exaggeration: it steals from truth. I will not do it. And it is what I fight against. Therefore. If I have exaggerated in this regard, please point it out because I surely need to retract.

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari.

The part of this article that seems to have irritated many of our Indian readers and ``Friend``
is somewhat problematic but not completely inaccurate.

Aisha wrote:

``Islamic fundamentalists who vigorously supported Mahatma Gandhi, such as the Ali brothers shouted anti-Pakistan statements before Pakistan was made.``
The fact is that the Fundo-religious organizations (not necessarily the Ali brothers) within the British-Indian Muslim community did their best to oppose the formation of Pakistan and only got on the bandwagon when Pakistan`s existence could no longer be stopped.
But to stretch it to the point that the writer is saying that Mahatma Gandhi was responsible for Pakistan`s current predicament is highly inaccurate.
From my point of view Mahatma Gandhi was a great man and deserves the respect and admiartion that he has received worldwide. But not everything that he did was taken in a positive way by everyone (you just cannot please everybody, all the time). A section of the Indian Muslim community did FEEL intimidated by Gandhi`s use of Hindu religious symbols as a part of his non-violent movement. I am talking about PERCEPTION here and not that the Mahatma intended to alienate certain Muslim people and that there was any fault associated with this. And the fact that he was killed not by Muslim but Hindu fundamentalists should not be ignored.
Aisha was reflecting on that perception. I have heard similar thoughts expressed within the Partition Generation of my own family.
The Quaid M.A. Jinnah was not without his faults
either, but he has my utmost respect and admiration for making Pakistan. From people of Pakistani origin such a point of view should come as no surprize to our Indian friends.
In closing I personally like to encourage all writers and interactors on CHOWK who speak of a progressive future for Pakistan. While some write of this, I do believe that our relationship with India has to improve for that to happen. Aisha may not completely agree but as long as she keeps writing about Pakistan here and remains hopeful about its future she will have my backing. And by the way I do not always agree with what she writes and I do not hold think that she should agree with my views.

Ras

PS: Let us hope that for all our sakes (including India`s)that Pakistan is able to come out of this current crisis with both feet on the ground.

Re: various posts of Sigalph.

Thank you for presenting India`s case so well while other Indians watched from the wings. See, Sarwari, Romair, YLH etc. are the results of an educational system which has done the job effectively. Hate for India is the only unifying force in a rather fragile country, and it is this hate for India that has created the menace that is currently eclipsing the whole of Pakistan. It is rather sad that Pakistan`s brightest and most privileged children can not rise above the situation and see things at their own lights. If people belong to the elite class has such vision, what chance a child from a jihadi madrassa and a dark alleys has?

But I am hopeful, since this system also has produced, Asma Jehangir, Bilal, Sameer, Hamidm, Solitude and many more in our Chowk itself. Day will come when people like them will lead Pakistan to its glory that should have come to them long back. The days of Hamid Gul, Sallahadduin are getting over......

Reply Hobbyty #422

Hobbyty

I would agree with you that the Taliban initially brought much needed order (at least the cessation of active warfare) to most of Afghanistan, and for this they were initially welcomed by many. Resistance to them never entirely died down, but seems to have increased recently (pre-WTC) – is this true or just a perception? Would you say that it is true that there is a strong ethnic aspect to Taliban rule, and that this sets up a situtation where non-Pashto speaking peoples and the Taliban are destined for confrontation?

Re: Kashmir – how can we tell what Kashmiris want unless they all participate in free and fair elections with no options ruled out? We can’t.

Pakistan says they want to be Pakistani, and points to the militancy in the valley as justification for this view. In response, India says that many of the militants are not from Kashmir, however, but from (or by way of) Pakistani Punjab, NWFP, Afghanistan, etc. Without non-Kashmiris participation, would there be a significant proportion of the population taking up arms against the Indian state? And what proportion of the population does this anyway? Most of the population is not militant, and is not against the Indian state – they want to be Indian.

To which Pakistan responds by pointing at the civilian casualty figures in Kashmir, and the necessity for a large Indian army presence – which in their view clearly indicates that Kashmir is captive and is only in India because it is held there by force. To which India responds that the army is there because of foreign (read Pakistani and Afghanistani) terrorists. To which Pakistan responds….etc. etc. etc.

My point is that the facts in Kashmir can be read many different ways – and that it is dishonest to say that either of our readings is objective, and not subjective.

India’s objective is an Indian Kashmir. And the tools they have been using to achieve this are

(1) the Kashmir state constitution,

(2) the Indian Army and

(3) support of politicians in Indian occupied Kashmir who are pro integration with India. Given that what pro-Pakistani support there is is confined almost entirely to the valley, this is significant.)

Pakistan’s objective is a Pakistani Kashmir (despite what many liberal Pakistanis say on Chowk about being pro-self-determination for Kashmir). The tools they have used to try and achieve this are

(1) support for militancy in Kashmir,

(2) encouragement of a form of kattar Islam in Kashmir, which ties in with a certain support for the TNT (linked to point no 1), and

(3) MOST IMPORTANTLY though much lower key, insistence that all political activity in Pakistani occupied Kashmir (please note, by the way, that I’m avoiding emotive words in favour of terms we can both use without falling into a semantic squabble :-) thereby allowing us to focus on the substantive) take place in the context of Kashmir being Pakistani, with pro-independence (let alone pro-India) voices being silenced. This is further encouraged by allowing free immigration from Pakistan into Kashmir, which has totally altered the ethnic makeup of the Pakistani held areas of the state. (I can’t resist – please contrast this with the Hurriyat mob running around Srinagar issuing press statements.)

Having said all this, I can’t see a quick and easy solution in sight. I must agree with you about one thing however – we Indians are terribly arrogant. We may not be wrong, but we certainly are arrogant.

Aap ka dost

Zafar

PS Aap ne likkha: “Thinking Indians should be mindful that perhaps mining of 11 million Kashmiris is not at stake and that the real concern should the fact that there are bigger numbers of persons who are resentful and increasingly conscious of their increasingly limited future in India.”

Arre Hobbyty bhaijaan, you promised….

Reply Saminashah #374, #400

“At the risk of bringing my jahalat to the conversation, a simple question; what do the Pakistani jehadi supporters have to offer Kashmir in terms of a politically stable, human rights assuring,(both genders please), and economically sound model? Why interfere in someone else`s backyard when our own is in a less than functioning state?”

“Plus, a open comment to Chowkies: its getting a little personal on these boards...can we step back from our keyboards and take a few deep breaths?”

Saminaji, logic and good manners? Are you on the right board?

Kashmiris are victims of State terrorism not sponsors: FO



ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Foreign Minister and his Indian counterpart Saturday had an exchange of views on the situation arising from the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

This was stated by a Foreign Office Spokesman, Riaz Mohammad Khan while briefing the newsmen here Saturday.

They discussed the situation when Abdul Sattar telephoned Indian External Minister Jaswant Singh. Sattar told Jaswant that Pakistan President`s remarks during his address to nation were prompted by the brash of propaganda against Pakistan by Indian media.

He also informed his Indian counterpart of Pakistan`s decision to fully cooperate with the world community. He said Pakistan`s policy is cast in the mould of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

The Indian Foreign Minister appreciated the opportunity of consultations and asked Sattar to convey to the President that India had no intention to add to the current complexities that the government and people of Pakistan were faced with.

He said Foreign Minister has also held telephonic consultation with his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharazi on the current situation.

To a question the Foreign Office spokesman said people of Kashmir have been waging struggle during the last over half a century for right to self-determination. They are facing repression at the hands of more than seven hundred thousand Indian troops who have occupied their territory. He said Kashmiris and Kashmir freedom struggle are not sponsors but victims of state terrorism.

Asked whether Pakistan would follow UAE in serving diplomatic relations with Taliban, the spokesman pointed out that neither UAE nor Taliban had any presence in their respective capitals. As for Pakistan it is maintaining a skeleton staff in Kabul.

``Our Ambassador had returned to Pakistan about two months ago. After 11th September, as per normal practice in such situation, we have decided to reduce our presence in Kabul,`` he added.

He said the Taliban government embassy in Islamabad serves as a useful window both for the Taliban and the outside world to interact with each other. He said after Security Council resolution, Pakistan had asked Taliban Embassy to scale down their presence which they did.

He pointed out that historically Pakistan has always maintained its embassy in Kabul even during days of Soviet military intervention. Afghanistan is a land-locked country and depends on Pakistan for transit trade and supply of food. He said Pakistan has already asked the World Food Programme to maintain stocks inside Afghanistan to alleviate sufferings of Afghan people.

To a question he said a very large number of people are leaving Kabul, Jalalabad and other areas of Afghanistan are heading towards Pakistan. Several thousands of them have already gathered close to Pakistan border.

To yet another question the spokesman said there is an international coalition in principle to fight against terrorists. He said world leaders have emphasized that the UN must be engaged in fight against terrorism and that for the coalition to take any action there should be legal framework by the UN Security Council. He said there were already resolutions on the subject but there is possibility of further resolutions.

The spokesman said statement of US President Bush that their campaign is against terrorism and not against any country or people, is reassuring. He said many world leaders including Pakistan President have said that there is need for patience and deliberations. There is also emphasis and need for evidence so that the campaign is targeted on the perpetrators of the crime of terrorism. He said many leaders have emphasized that it should be ensured that innocent people don`t have to suffer.

About shooting down of an aircraft in Afghanistan, he said they don`t have any confirmed reports about the incident which may or may not have taken place.

Pakistan can never go for war against Afghanistan: CE

ISLAMABAD, Sept 22: President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Saturday said that the government is keen to develop Pakistan as a tolerant and progressive state, as envisioned by Quaid-i-Azam.

He said this while talking to the students from professional and postgraduate colleges and universities from across the country.

The president stressed that students are the future of the country and they want to see a progressive and prosperous Pakistan in accordance with the ideals of the Father-of-the-Nation.

He declared that Pakistan can never be for a war against Afghanistan and its people. ``Our struggle is against terrorism, where-ever it be,`` he emphasized.

Gen Musharraf pointed out that ``the world is for a war against terrorism and not against Afghanistan and its people.``

The President reminded the people that it is time to take decisions with wisdom instead of sentimentalism.

He said we can promote inter-state relations following moderation, patience and tolerance. He also emphasized that we must keep the interests of Pakistan uppermost instead of personal, factional and party considerations. Upon it depends our survival and progress.

The president said this is not the time to talk about personal, political or party interests. Instead, it is time to think about Pakistan`s solidarity and integrity. Pakistan, he said, was our identity and we must strive to uphold this identity and recognition.

He said the Muslim world considers Pakistan as a fort of Islam and we have to strengthen this fort. ``A right decision today will make Pakistan strong and prosperous,`` he stated.

Beenish Jamil, a student from Punjab University told journalists after the meeting that she had all the sympathies with the people who died in the attack on New York and Washington.

``We are certain that in the present situation the president will take all steps keeping in view the supreme interests of the country. We are with our President,`` she said.

Abdul Ali Khan Tareen a student from Quetta said, the Afghans should understand that this is not an issue against Taliban or Afghan nation, it is a war against terrorism. ``The people of Pakistan are with the government in the fight against terrorism.``

Nadia, Punjab University student said, the government has taken all decisions in the best interest of the nation and for the solidarity and integrity of the country so the student community fully supports president Musharraf.-APP

Ref ZZ #: 427

[also needs to be noted that `namaste` is not a hindu greeting. it is a sanskrit greeting and is used in many languages in various forms. `jai ramjiki` will be a hindu grretion. if u translate `salaam` in many indian languages, it will be `namaskar` or `namaste`]

`Namaskar` and `namaste` merely mean `salutation`. This is just a word in the Sanskrit language without any religious connotation.

[trimurti is not on indian rupee or like. it is 4-headed tiger (only 3 visible from front) that was on Ashoka`s stoopa. it is buddhist/ Asoka empire symbol, nothing hindu.

also the wheel u see on india flag is `asok-chakra` and as u know asok left hinduism to become buddhist. it is a`dhamma-chkara` of buddhists.]

The `trimurthi` would be the representation of the three primary gods of Hinduism -- Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Protector, and Shiva (Mahadev) the Destroyer -- as a three-headed deity.

The emblem of India is based on the Lion Capitol found in the Buddhist city of Sarnath.

The four lions support the Wheel of Righteousness (Dharma Chakra).

The Lion Capitol minus the Wheel is the symbol adopted by the Government of India as its emblem and the Wheel is enshrined in its flag.

So argue all you want, Pakistanis, that India uses a religious emblem in its State Seal.

It so happens it is NOT a Hindu emblem.