Pakistan under the Microscope

Post Faisal Shahzad and Ajmal Kassab scenario has yet again provided Indian hawks to spew venom against Pakistan, lately I came across with a hate filled article in Wall Street Journal by an Indian Journalist Sadanand Dhume who has subtly tried to connect every terrorist having Muslim name with Pakistan. I usually don’t pay heed to what Indian media publishes about Pakistan since it’s their ‘moral responsibility’ to side with their country but when it comes to presence of Indian journalists in international media it becomes a matter of worry for us.

Sadanand Dhume’s article “Why Pakistan produces Jihadis” in WSJ has not only focused International Community’s attention towards Pakistan but its an attempt to isolate the nation from other Islamic countries which seems like a clever effort of building opinions to develop another international coalition against Pakistan with the support of Afghanistan. A typical RAW based agenda in Journalism.

In my opinion those readers having no idea of Soviet War have systematically been brainwashed by the Indian journalism must be shown other side of the picture as well and the sacrifices Pakistan has made by being the front ally in war against terrorism.

In the ten-year Soviet War in Afghanistan, Afghans were supported by a number of other countries, with the heavy military and financial support of US and Saudi Arabia offering. However, on ground Afghans were aided by Pakistan.

Pakistan having friendly ties with Afghan neighbors took in millions of Afghan refugees fleeing the Soviet occupation, the influx of so many refugees believed to be the largest refugee population in the world.

All of this had a heavy impact on Pakistan and its effects continue to this day. Pakistan, through its support for the USA and Mujahideen (the then heroes of United States) in Afghanistan, played a significant role in the eventual withdrawal of Soviet military forces from Afghanistan but at the same time Pakistan had to face disastrous consequences in terms of law and order situation and economic crisis.

Today Pakistan has again extended support to the US Government and declared war against the Taliban & Al Qaeda, the same Taliban/ Al Qaeda with whom the three partners jointly fought a war against common adversary but this time the war has gone global and Pakistan has to face much bigger impact than the earlier one as this battle is against one of those friends who knows Pakistan inside out. The Taliban!

Monday night’s arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year-old Pakistani-American accused of planting a car bomb in Times Square, has certainly brought Pakistan into America’s magnifying glass. The echoes of ‘do more” being heard once again with more pressure.

On the other hand India’s opportunist media and Anti Pakistan lobbies are hell bent on proving Pakistan a rogue state, even American authorities ignoring Pakistan’s contribution in war on terror and issuing random warnings to them.

After the fall of the Taliban regime many members of the Taliban resistance fled to the Northern border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Pakistani army had previously little control. With the logistics and air support of the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed numerous al-Qaeda operatives such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, wanted for his involvement in the USS Cole bombing, the Oplan Bojinka plot, and the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Likewise many other terrorists not only caught but handed over to the US investigation agencies till date.

But whenever any terrorist activity by non state actors take place, the situation comes back to square one, our restless partners in war against terrorism conveniently forget Pakistans’ sacrifices and the lives we waste in suicide bombings on almost daily basis –our numerous troops embraced death in this war – Pakistan’s healthy economy—with annual GDP growth of 8% falling under 3% in 2009.

The United States has carried out a campaign of indiscriminate Drone attacks in Federally Administered Tribal Areas killing hundreds of innocents without any explanation but in return the “front ally in war against terrorism” gets warning of “severe consequences” if the US can trace such attempts back to Pakistan as if Pakistan Govt has to keep a strict vigilance on not only 180 million Pakistanis but Pakistanis abroad as well.

In order to avoid further terrorist attempts, US and those who blame Pakistan need to understand common Pakistanis’ sentiments because rest of the war has to be fought through multi pronged strategy as the terrorism is a global phenomenon and the world community should focus on its root causes which stem from economic disparity and unresolved political issues.

United States should understand that every war has its consequences, when we attack enemy we naturally expect retaliation from them, same pockets of resistances we confront when thousands of civilians die in suicide bombings in Pakistan. If US has waged war against Taliban they should also be prepared for damages in return in the form of Shoe bombers or Faisal Shahzads but that doesn’t mean Pakistan has turned a blind eye towards attackers.

We have had this problem since 1980s. In the last two years, the government and the people of Pakistan have started addressing the problem in a full fledged manner. It will take the nation some time to root it out as the war against terrorism is not a mere one day match.

Advertisements

50 comments

  1. Only Pakistan is facing the consequences of war against terror in the form of suicide bombings, which result in loss of human lives and also, our economy is badly effected by this. On the other hand, US is playing at a safe side, they are not ready to tolerate a failed attempt of bombing by their own national. The terrorist act by Faisal Shahzad is condemned by almost all the Pakistanis and US and India need to understand that an individual act does not represent the whole nation.

    1. True that an individual act does not represent the whole nation. However, please understand that attack on a soverign state by the subjects of another state, where the attacking state is not prepaired to investigate the matter of its own but is defending its own subjects and demanding evidence for action from another state, is nothing but state indulgenece and an act of undeclared war. The collective will of a nation is represented not by demanding evidence from others in such matters but introspect and bring the culprits to justice of its own which tarnish the image of the nation world over. It is humbly suggested that only condemnation by individuals is of no consequence, the world see the will of the nation to fight the menace. Regards

  2. Following points are missing or ignored in this article

    1) Other Muslim countries (e.g. Saudia, Egypt) have stripped the nationalities of their known radical elements (Osama, Zahrawi). Pakistan till now calls its radical elements as their “Strategic asset”.

    2) Unlike other Muslim countries, Radical elements have huge inside support from Pakistani Army. Those who planned attack on Musharraf had serviced in Army. Two servicing army officers have been court martial’ed when they wanted to topple Benazir govt. and establish Khilafat in Pakistan. Retired Army chiefs like Aslam Baig and Hamid Gul are vocal supporters of Taliban.

    3) Many Al-Qaeda wanted terrorists have been caught from Jamat-e-Islami leaders’ home. JI is ideologically close ally of Pakistan Army.

    4) US or India are not the only two countries who complain about terrorism originating from Pakistan. China have complained about the same. London 7/7 bomb blasts had Pakistanis behind it. Iran have asked Pakistan to control its terrorists as well. Afghanistan have huge complaints against ISI. All these powers have conflicting interests hence we can’t assume that all are involved in global conspiracy against Pakistan. No other Muslim country is so much complained about.

    5) Pakistan is the only country in the world whose most prolific nuclear scientist has admitted on Television that he is involved in nuclear proliferation. The president of state has pardoned him. What nobody wants to discuss is that this couldn’t not have happened without the approval of military establishment in Pakistan.

    6) The terrorist factories in Pakistan (Lashkar-e-tayyab’s muridke center, jesh-e-muhammad’s Bahawalpur center, Jamia Binoria, Harkat-ul-Ansar etc) are fully operational inside Pakistan and all of them have such strong political support that nobody can dare touch them.

    In light of the above, it is fair to assume that terrorism does have in one way or the other been supported by military establishment and it so far unclear whether military have stopped doing so.

    1. pointed out very correctly. we have not nipped them in the bud and still not learning from our mistakes. and its not just military where they have sympathizers. take media, ullama etc. I feel helpless when they keep opnening up new madrassahs in my backyard.

    2. @ Hammad
      Very well written. Many of us Pakistanis seem to have lost our ability to think critically. Whilst the issues and the course of history may be nuanced and meandering, the direction and conclusions are not. It’s clear that some Pakistanis (namely the terrorists and their sympathisers) are hell bent on seizing power in Pakistan and provoking a civilsational conflict which in their warped world they believe they can win. The public is being deliberately confused and misled as to their motives. When outsiders protest or point to the issues, many Pakistanis take a very defensive line (as Tanzeel’s article does). A radical rethink by society is required with no sacred cows if we are going to self-correct. Do we have the time and tools to achieve this? I worry that Hilary Clinton is just voicing what the next move against Pakistan will be: i.e build a big wall around it. No doubt the religious/ nationalist lobby will be quite happy with such an outcome. Urgent rethink needed, not defensiveness. It feels as if Pakistan Army has already done some of this rethink but not decisively enough.

      1. @Tilsim

        This beautifully sums up what many of us are struggling to say, but it does so in language which gets the point across without threatening anybody’s dignity or self-respect. Especially the point about the Pakistan Army.

        I suspect that it is hardest for them, since from the inception of Pakistan, within days of its creation, it has been thrown into action, almost always against India. Defending a long border to the east with 700,000 men is not easy, considering the mismatch of numbers, and increasing mismatch of budgetary spends. Current military exercises are apparently, from reports which have trickled out, intended to counter rapid Indian mobilisation, attacks to occupy Pakistani territory, and also, it appears from the Pakistani Army’s manoeuvres, these are intended to practise denying the Indian Army the opportunity to cut through from the Indian border to the Indus.

        That is not to say that the Indian Army has any such intention, it is just that the Pakistani Army is not going to take any chances.

        Under these conditions, much though we would wish the Pakistani Army to concentrate not only on the war on terror but on the specific factions that wage war on India, this is unlikely to happen.

        The situation is a real grid-lock. India won’t go to peace without seeing off the JeM and the LeT and similar, Pakistani cannot let these bodies dissolve themselves without guarantees against India, India won’t stand down, Pakistan will watch India warily without letting down her guard.

        There goes the rest of the century.

  3. sometimes i think we are the only country on the globe which has absolutely everyone spitting and eyeing and then kicking and bashing and even though it all revolves around being Muslim but being Paki is sometimes or at most occassions something really horrendous and to worry about –

    I am not sure if being Paki and doing the right thing will sail us to safety- just a few airheads and here we are running away from our own identity!

    1. true, i heard many Pakistani Americans are posing themselves as Indians or Indian Muslims to protect themselves from possible attacks.

  4. Dear Tanzil,

    A good read. The ending message need to be heard more louder then just simply as a message. We know what devasting consequences we are facing, the message goes instantly out that “a terrorist producing country is in itself a victim of terror” and everyone laughs. We can’t fool ourself the biggest price we have to pay for is being US ally. Also being labeled as ‘an unfaithful dog who bites its master’ at the same time. I’m willing to sacrifice my today for a good tomorrow knowing for what purpose US is here in Afghanistan and for what purpose a fake and phony war in Iraq was fought. We cant blame others for spilling venom or shit over us, if we are not sincere to ourself no other will. I do blame my self for not looking beyond my nose for being naive what we are producing.

    Regards,
    Usman

    PS: What does Tanzeelism means??

    1. Usman thanks for understanding my point of view but I would like to know what Pakistan should do to combat this two way attacks, attacks from Taliban and the US threats ?

      Ps: Whatever you read in this blog is Tanzeelism : P (Check page Tanzeel)

  5. Its about time, the ISI has blocked the NATO supplies going through Pakistan and made it clear to them not to fall for the India / Israel lobby!

  6. What most Pakistanies fail to understand is that terrorism was thriving and was officially supported by govt. of Pakistan way before 9/11 happened. whatever price Pakistan is paying is paying because of that terrorism support policy.

    “Being US Ally” is comparatively only a small factor in terrorism growth & subsequent victimisation of Pakistan.

    1. Yes, being a US ally is of course a side show. However, this policy is one that resonates the most with the public as the source of our troubles. Last night Pervez Hoodboy was accused of being a lawyer (vakeel) for the US on a TV channel by a mullah in a panel discussion. He could not even fire back and say that the mullah was an apologist and vakeel for terrorists which ordinary Pakistanis have totally rejected. Instead he went on to explain his own opposition to the US presence in Iraq etc. I am sure ordinary viewers switched off from what Hoodboy was saying as it just made his position sound self-contradictory. Our political leadership and civil society needs to adopt much better arguments and methods. We can’t make arguments that sound as if we are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

  7. I came here on reading Tanzeel’s brief comment on PTH. It was dismaying to read this piece, based as it is on a monocular vision of a beleaguered Pakistan under siege from the USA and India. Some of the comments are nothing short of infantile.

    //I usually don’t pay heed to what Indian media publishes about Pakistan since it’s their ‘moral responsibility’ to side with their country but when it comes to presence of Indian journalists in international media it becomes a matter of worry for us.//

    The assumption being that the editors and management of the WSJ, usually, typically hostile to India on a daily basis, and unrelenting critics of Indian economic policy, including its determination to keep out the worst excesses of unbridled Anglo-American free-market capitalism, are naive and artless, and will readily accept whatever propaganda pieces are handed in by their journalists. If the passage above is intended to convey that the WSJ is an Indian plot, surely a little more knowledge and information about the way that large print magazines and newspapers work in daily life would be useful. What has been suggested simply cannot happen. It is a basic and fundamental mistake at the outset of the commentary.

    //Sadanand Dhume’s article “Why Pakistan produces Jihadis” in WSJ has not only focused International Community’s attention towards Pakistan but its an attempt to isolate the nation from other Islamic countries which seems like a clever effort of building opinions to develop another international coalition against Pakistan with the support of Afghanistan. A typical RAW based agenda in Journalism.//

    Poor Dhume! He has been known for adequate articles at best, nothing more, in the past. It seems now that he is capable of commanding the international community’s attention, and directing it towards Pakistan. Who is this powerful pundit who is said to be capable of the PR equivalent of the parting of the Red Sea? If there is no pre-disposition within the international community, based on past evidence from sources other than the worthy WSJ, could one newspaper hack create such an avalanche of opinion?

    Also, it is wonderful to read that with the same stroke, this nondescript scribe has the ability to turn the entire Islamic community against Pakistan. Very busy man, Dhume; and his R&W connections are of course proven beyond doubt by being mentioned in this airy manner by a superficial and irresponsible blogger with even less credentials than Dhume.

    And, oh, no evidence for all this, of course, just your word for it. You think, on reading the piece, that the WSJ has sold out to Dhume; you think that it has influence on the international community, far beyond the readership of the WSJ; you think that it has the potential to alienate the Islamic community from Pakistan; and you think that this has the imprint of a R&W plot. Since you think these things, they must be true.

    What are your views on the flat earth theory, by the way? Or the neo-conservative, born-again Christian theory of creationism?

    //Pakistan having friendly ties with Afghan neighbors…..//

    Really? Have you any clue to prior history, ever since the formation of Pakistan in 1947, if no further back, of relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or do you propose to re-write history according to your opinion?

    //Pakistan had to face disastrous consequences in terms of law and order situation and economic crisis.//

    You do realise that this was state policy and not accidental. It was not an infliction on Pakistan, it was a voluntary act, taken with full knowledge of the consequences. No doubt there was an administration in Pakistan in those days and no doubt it went through its own calculus of benefit and loss, and drew its own conclusions. If these were mistaken conclusions, a suitable starting point would be Islamabad, not Washington, not New Delhi, not Wall Street, New York.

    //Today Pakistan has again extended support to the US Government and declared war against the Taliban & Al Qaeda, the same Taliban/ Al Qaeda with whom the three partners jointly fought a war against common adversary but this time the war has gone global and Pakistan has to face much bigger impact than the earlier one as this battle is against one of those friends who knows Pakistan inside out. The Taliban! //

    Since your opinions feed your opinions, which are then presented as masterpieces of political and historical analysis, try to remember that some other things happened as well, which have been conveniently excluded for the sake, no doubt, of narrative flow.

    First, Pakistan became a reluctant partner in the war against terror only on the direct threat held out by Colin Powell; until that point of time, the government and the military dictator were strong, staunch allies of the Taliban.

    Second, even under these conditions of threat, the Pakistani civil and military establishment tried its level best to retain what in a masterly use of military euphemism is called ‘strategic assets’; armed thugs trained to kill civilians. Recall that only the shock of the Lal Masjid incident, and the increasing deaths of the sons and daughters and close relatives of senior military officers in Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Lahore brought about a realisation that Musharraf’s ‘good’ Taliban were just as lethal as his ‘bad’ Taliban.

    You have projected the events of those days as voluntary, selfless participation by Pakistan; read that eminent blog-site PTH, the blog on “Our Inner Demons”, for the alternative picture, delivered by far more credible a voice than yours. Or read ATP, another respectable blog-site which commands an international following far beyond the numbers of Pakistani readers.

    As for the rest of the blog is concerned, it is difficult to sit through a full reading without serious concern. Do you truly believe this? Every paragraph, every sentence, even many phrases are tendentious and provably fallacious. Do you seriously think that a free-flowing expression of your prejudices and opinion can take the place of evidence-based analysis?

  8. Dear Vajra: Brilliant analysis. I followed this link from PTH and fully concur with you on Tanzeel’s mediocre review of Mr Dhume’s article

    Tanzeel, request you to articulate below issues for which we dont have ready answers ( Trust me I am not a biased Indian)

    1. why is it that every successful / unsuccessful terror attack (worldwide )ends up with links to Pakistan (mostly training) ?

    2. Is anyone bothered to figure out the levels indoctrination (of pre-eminence of religion) in your society ( incidentally by which educated and the uneducated converge for a ‘common cause’) – is it not the right time to put an end to the frankenstein you created before it consumes you ( and probably many others worldwide)??

    1. @ Prasad

      1. why is it that every successful / unsuccessful terror attack (worldwide )ends up with links to Pakistan (mostly training) ?

      Although Pakistan is a front ally in war against terrorism yet at the same time we are hit by American drones from the USA that claim hundreds of innocent lives, this indiscriminate bombing develop a sense of hatred and revenge among those Pakistanis who lose their entire families just like that as a result their relatives or left overs take revenge from innocent Americans as its impossible for them to hit Us armed forces.

      ————————————————-
      2. Is anyone bothered to figure out the levels indoctrination (of pre-eminence of religion) in your society ( incidentally by which educated and the uneducated converge for a ‘common cause’) – is it not the right time to put an end to the frankenstein you created before it consumes you ( and probably many others worldwide)??

      I have already mentioned the Soviet war issue in detail due to which we had to incite religious sentiments amongst Pakistanis and to create Jihadi organizations to combat Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and it worked at that time. However in the current situation we are in a process of undoing the Jihad culture, if you remember Musharraf’s enlightened Moderation theory? It was a part of that campaign.

  9. @Prasad

    I was in a disturbed state of mind when I wrote that, since very knowledgeable sources had informed me that Tanzeel is a prominent and active liberal, a man of balance and informed views. It was very disconcerting to read this piece after that introduction.

  10. @ Hammad

    1)“Other Muslim countries (e.g. Saudia, Egypt) have stripped the nationalities of their known radical elements (Osama, Zahrawi). Pakistan till now calls its radical elements as their “Strategic asset”.
    ___________________________________________________________

    Hammad, reason for stripping off their nationalities is the Arab countries ignorance towards terrorism and its causes; do you think disowning terrorists will root out terrorism from Arab countries? Majority of terrorists hiding in Afghanistan or Tribal areas of Pakistan are in the most wanted list of FBI, those are the same Jihadis who were installed in early 80s in Pakistan and could not go back to their countries since US labeled them terrorists. Pakistan cannot strip off Pakistani national’s nationality since they are very much in Pakistan and not in any other country. All what Pakistan can do is to operate them, which you can witness in Swat and Waziristan.


    2) Unlike other Muslim countries, Radical elements have huge inside support from Pakistani Army. Those who planned attack on Musharraf had serviced in Army. Two servicing army officers have been court martial’ed when they wanted to topple Benazir govt. and establish Khilafat in Pakistan. Retired Army chiefs like Aslam Baig and Hamid Gul are vocal supporters of Taliban.
    ___________________________________________________________

    How could you say they HAVE huge support in Pakistan Army, if it’s so then how Army have managed to apprehend miscreants in tribal areas and handed over terrorists to the US. Yes they had support in past that led to attack on Musharraf but those guys were not only court marshaled but given death penalty as well. If they had HUGE support by Army people, they would have been roaming freely.

    As far as Hamid Gul or Aslam Beg are concerned they are the RETIRED soldiers who have no say in establishment, there are thousands of people in Saudi Arabia or Iran who talk about support the idea of bombing Israel but that doesn’t mean their Govt also want it, same is the case with Pakistan, we have some people who even support Osama bin Laden but Govt’s official policy don’t reflect their statement.


    3) Many Al-Qaeda wanted terrorists have been caught from Jamat-e-Islami leaders’ home. JI is ideologically close ally of Pakistan Army.
    ___________________________________________________________

    Self contradictory, If JI is ideologically a close ally of Pakistan then why JI never ever had a chance to Govern nation even in Army dictators’ regimes and why the terrorists being caught from JI leaders’ house if Pak Army supports them ?


    4) US or India are not the only two countries who complain about terrorism originating from Pakistan. China have complained about the same. London 7/7 bomb blasts had Pakistanis behind it. Iran have asked Pakistan to control its terrorists as well. Afghanistan have huge complaints against ISI. All these powers have conflicting interests hence we can’t assume that all are involved in global conspiracy against Pakistan. No other Muslim country is so much complained about.

    ___________________________________________________________

    The issue you are raising here has more to do with usual neighboring conflicts, despite complaints China is the most trusted allies of Pakistan, so is Iran — I don’t think such trivial complaints matter for both countries. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, you can’t deny role of RAW there, ISI is there to counter RAW’s increasing influence in Afghanistan.


    5) Pakistan is the only country in the world whose most prolific nuclear scientist has admitted on Television that he is involved in nuclear proliferation. The president of state has pardoned him. What nobody wants to discuss is that this couldn’t not have happened without the approval of military establishment in Pakistan.

    ___________________________________________________________

    As long as IAEA is satisfied with the current stance of Pakistan and non proliferations efforts of Pakistan I don’t think we should call Pakistan an irresoponsible country. What had happened in past was due to lose control on nukes, even US bombed Hiroshima with nukes, does it make US irresponsible a well?


    6) The terrorist factories in Pakistan (Lashkar-e-tayyab’s muridke center, jesh-e-muhammad’s Bahawalpur center, Jamia Binoria, Harkat-ul-Ansar etc) are fully operational inside Pakistan and all of them have such strong political support that nobody can dare touch them.
    ___________________________________________________________

    I would request you to substantiate your claim with authentic references. Please also let me know what you mean by “terrorist factories”. It’s a vague statement that needs to be further elaborated.

  11. Is Hillary getting biased by Dhume’s article ???

    ‘US will not tolerate terrorists from Pakistan’

    Washington, May 10 (IANS) Warning Pakistan that the US would not ‘having people encouraged, directed, trained and sent from Pakistan to attack us,’ Washington has told it go after the common enemy of terrorism ‘hard and fast’.

    With the Pakistani American suspected Times Square bomber most likely connected with the Pakistani Taliban group, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS Sunday the US has a ‘very clear’ message for Pakistan.

    The message, she said is: ‘This is a threat that we share, we have a common enemy. There is no time to waste in going after that common enemy as hard and fast as we can and we cannot tolerate having people encouraged, directed, trained and sent from Pakistan to attack us.’

    Asked if the suspected bomber Faisal Shahzad was connected to a Pakistan-based terrorist group, Clinton said, ‘There are connections.’

    ‘Exactly what they are, how deep they are, how long they’ve lasted, whether this was an operation encouraged or directed, those are questions that are still in the process of being sorted out,’ she said.

    ‘The most likely connection, she said, is to a group called the Pakistani Taliban,’ Clinton said repeating what two other top Obama administration officials had said in Sunday talk shows.

    Earlier both Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s top terrorism adviser John Brennan had told different channels that the ongoing investigation pointed to Shahzad having links to Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP.

    Asked if the US was satisfied with the cooperation it was getting from Pakistan after the Times Square bombing, Clinton said: ‘I’ve said we’ve gotten more cooperation and it’s been a real sea change in the commitment we’ve seen from the

    Pakistani government. We want more; we expect more.’

    ‘We’ve made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,’ Clinton said.

    Asked what she meant exactly, she said, ‘I think I’ll let that speak for itself.’

    America’s top diplomat also asserted that some people in the Pakistani government know about the location of top Al Qaeda leaders, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and the top leadership of the Afghan Taliban.

    ‘I’m not saying that they’re at the highest levels but I believe that somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda is, where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is and we expect more cooperation to help us bring to justice, capture or kill, those who attacked us on 9/11,’ Clinton said.

    ‘Assked why the Obama administration is not pressuring Pakistan to give up Osama bin Laden [or] his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri,’ Clinton said: ‘I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking.

    ‘They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country.’

  12. These are sensitive issues and first access information is always media in today’s world.Gross generalization in media against Pakistan has severely maligned Pakistan’s image on the other hand articles like these has resulted their (writers) own creditability at stake. If Pakistan is such a terror hub, as per such writers, then why don’t US bomb and invade Pakistan for hell like Iraq & Afghanistan. Media is just creating confusion among Americans. More and more Americans are now pissed off because of such war on terror , if you ask the same with common American. For now, Pakistan is a soft target for media, so nothing surprising.

    Hillary Clinton, has issued irresponsible statements against Pakistan in the past as well unlike Condeliza Rice. Again nothing surprising.

  13. @ Vajra

    //The assumption being that the editors and management of the WSJ, usually, typically hostile to India on a daily basis, and unrelenting critics of Indian economic policy, including its determination to keep out the worst excesses of unbridled Anglo-American free-market capitalism, are naive and artless, and will readily accept whatever propaganda pieces are handed in by their journalists.//

    Dear Vajra, There are issues in your comments that need to be addressed or may be I could not clarify properly. I never blamed WSJ for being party with anyone. I was randomly browsing and came across with this article by Mr. Sadanand who has blamed Pakistan for every kind of terrorism without discussing the backdrop of scenario, don’t you think Pakistan’s situation should be discussed in a broader perspective with all the details including sacrifices we as a nation are making?

    ————————————————-
    //It seems now that he is capable of commanding the international community’s attention, and directing it towards Pakistan. Who is this powerful pundit who is said to be capable of the PR equivalent of the parting of the Red Sea? If there is no pre-disposition within the international community, based on past evidence from sources other than the worthy WSJ, could one newspaper hack create such an avalanche of opinion? //

    It’s not about WSJ or Sadanand only, it’s about changing perceptions through systematic maligning campaign, you should know the power of agenda based journalism esp when you are writing in a prestigious journal. I ain’t saying his article will bring revolution or US would wage war on us but indeed its an attempt to malign country that might incite negative sentiments about Pak amongst readers.
    ————————————————-

    //You do realise that this was state policy and not accidental. It was not an infliction on Pakistan, it was a voluntary act, taken with full knowledge of the consequences. No doubt there was an administration in Pakistan in those days and no doubt it went through its own calculus of benefit and loss, and drew its own conclusions. If these were mistaken conclusions, a suitable starting point would be Islamabad, not Washington, not New Delhi, not Wall Street, New York.//

    9/11 was an accident and Pakistan had no option but to support US. When we received threats whether we were with America or against we had no option but to support them. It became state policy because Washington wanted us to be. At that time Pakistan could never thought of loss or benefit but India or Mr. Sadnanad ignoring the very fact by raising doubts over Pakistan’s contribution in war against terrorism.

    Why he forgot to mention sacrifices of Pakistan?
    ————————————————-

    //First, Pakistan became a reluctant partner in the war against terror only on the direct threat held out by Colin Powell; until that point of time, the government and the military dictator were strong, staunch allies of the Taliban.//

    //Second, even under these conditions of threat, the Pakistani civil and military establishment tried its level best to retain what in a masterly use of military euphemism is called ‘strategic assets’; armed thugs trained to kill civilians. Recall that only the shock of the Lal Masjid incident, and the increasing deaths of the sons and daughters and close relatives of senior military officers in Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Lahore brought about a realisation that Musharraf’s ‘good’ Taliban were just as lethal as his ‘bad’ Taliban.//

    Taliban were reality and Pakistan had no option but to accept them as a legitimate Government since they established control on 33 out of 35 provinces including Kabul. Abandoning the FORCE which was our neighbors and in majority could have harmed our national interests, we never wanted to ruin relations with Taliban, until they opposed Pakistan’s policy on the USA. Whatever happened in Lal Masjid was indeed the result of rooting out extremism in Pakistan but again when we support US, sacrifice our soldiers against Taliban, we will confront situations like Lal Masjids or suicide bombings.
    ————————————————-

  14. @Tanzeel

    Before I comment on what you have written, in response to my earlier post and in response to Hammad, whose views are really what I should have liked to have said myself, please accept my apologies for the excessive masala in my reply. I was in a disturbed state of mind, and the reply was over the top. Some of the sarcasm could well have been eliminated. What I have heard from a compatriot of yours about your liberal, secular stance in general makes me all the more sorry to have written in such coarse language.

    Please accept my formal and public apologies.

    I do have a lot to say about your responses, but shall do so only once this unfortunate lapse on my part has been cleared up and accepted by you as my lapse. Please be sure, however, that my responses are unlikely to be sparing of mistaken logic or fact; it is just that the next time around, I hope to couch it in more civil language.

    1. It’s okay bro. Things often heat up into sensitive discussions, I very much understand this. Will wait for your responses =)

  15. CIA HELPED create them. But, ultimately it was the ISI which did so. It was its responsibility to dismantle that infrastructure. USA was not from that region and hence it had no reason to be concerned. But, ISI had the brainwave to use those militants in Kashmir! That was a wrong move. Now, its paying for it.

    “A typical RAW based agenda in Journalism.”

    Well, RAW is no where influential in India as compared to ISI in Pakistan.

    1. CIA helped create them, funded, brainwashed. ISI supported the idea, man power and ground. CIA instead of leaving Talibans just like that should have established a government and infrastructure so that Jihadis could live peacefully in their land but they left warriors fighting amongst themselves.

      ISI is trying to coupe up with this situation and trying its level best to undo its creation but it will take time. America should be ready to reap the had sown.

      1. CIA helped ISI. Agree. But, ISI was the one who had the brainwave of using those Jihadis in Kashmir. I dont see why it was CIA’s responsibility to clean up the area. It was there to defeat the Soviet Union. It achieved that and went away. ISI cultivated those Jihadis.

        Besides, USA lives thousands of miles away and it doesn’t has to care. ISI on the other hand lived in the neighbourhood and should have ended this terrible relationship.

        You reap what you sow. No use blaming India,America,etc for your woes.

  16. n my experience of interacting with the Indians , i have rarely ( if any ?? ) come across one who is anything but ‘friendly’ towards Pakistan whilst you can find many Indian apologists among the Pakistantis.

    One thing that unites all Indians is opposition to Pakistan . Be it their Media personalities , the ‘Intellectuals’ , etc .

    You can read this recent article by Fareed Zakaria ( Indian Muslim) working for the ‘Tabloid-Like’ CNN and see for yourself .

    Once or twice you might hear some favorable voices but those are quickly put down by the majority of the indians and made to shut up/

    Some others who refer to Pakistan , is usually in a holier-than-thou attitude , that there is nothing wrong in India and all problems stem from the Pakistani side .

    Usually India drops this policy of seeing itself as the ONLY power of South Asia and starts dealing with Pakistan on the basis of equality – nothing would change

    1. Dear Waleed Khan,

      The only reason I can attribute is the fact that all the discussions hover around only 2 issues viz Religion and Kashmir. Barter that with trade and status quo. Discussions will then revolve around ghazals, movies et al.

      1. So you want to brush the issue under the carpet ?

        the one issue that is the bone of contention between the two countries ? the solution to which would open all ties ?

      2. This is in response to your 2nd post. I am not saying brush under…Solution acceptable to either Pakistan or India cannot be achieved as far as Kashmir is concerned. A whole generation passed by fighting over this issue. I guess the best possible practical solution is to maintain the status quo for the benefit of kids who form majority of population both in India and Pakistan

        One cannot just sustain / exist eternally on a couple of issues ie Religion and Kashmir. You need trade ( mantra in 21st century) and alliance with China and India ( 2 fastest growing economy) for employment generation. Whilst China is a trusted ally of Pakistan, you will need to build that with India. Imagine TCS, Infosys to setup campuses in Pakistan – easily possible and young kids employable enmasse and over very short durations

        Hafiz Saeed and his band of cronies exist only due to Madrassa education and unemployment

        Let me repeat my earlier phrase – Barter Religion and Kashmir with Trade and Status Quo – ONLY WAY FORWARD if you have to eliminate your frankenstein

  17. @Tanzeel

    Thank you for your gracious response. I am encouraged by this. Please bear with me as I have some mundane tasks to get out of the way; my responses will be with you by the evening today.

    @Waleed Khan

    If you will permit facetiousness for a brief moment, the construction of your opening sentence may have been the exact opposite of what you intended.

    You wrote: “I have rarely….come across one who is anything but friendly towards Pakistan….”

    ‘One who is anything but friendly’ is ‘one who is unfriendly'(not strictly, but you know what I mean).

    So your sentence paraphrased stands thus: I have rarely come across one who is unfriendly….

    Alas, from the general tenor of your comment, this is obviously not your intention, and I am saddened by it being so. Without going into numbers and statistics and percentages, permit me to present certain observations for your consideration.

    Have you considered for one moment that the fault may not lie entirely with the Indians that you have met, and that they may have been brought to such positions by the actions of others?

    The vast majority of Indians were honestly speaking indifferent to Pakistan and Pakistanis in earlier years.

    There were occasions when the whole country other than the Punjab woke up and realised that there were people in the neighbourhood who didn’t like us; these were exceptional, and occurred in 1965, in 1971 and in 1999. Unfortunately, each of these three was increasingly unpleasant; the last was seen as betrayal. There is little consciousness in India of the Siachen episode, and no comprehension of Pakistani feelings regarding the episode. This is the bare fact, without any attempt to justify the fact.

    Sometimes, Pakistani observers have failed to see that the right-wing, even fascist BJP attacks on Muslims were couched in phrases and code words that seem inimical to Pakistan. They are not. The BJP is a timid party, and beyond attacking the helpless and isolated in mobs of hundreds, it has no intention of getting into serious hostilities with anybody. It took great provocation, in 1999, an insult to the BJP Prime Minister in Pakistan, followed by the discovery of the Pakistani Army on the peaks of Kargil, to move them reluctantly to offer military resistance. These are Muslim-baiters, mainly baiting Indian Muslims, and the code word used was Pakistan. Pakistan was never safer from any Indian hostility than from India under BJP rule; that does not imply that it was unsafe under any other, merely that other political sections were far readier to rise in defence of the country, no matter what BJP political rhetoric claims.

    Why do you find such few Indians speaking well of Pakistan, or speaking on a level plane, without condescension, or not ascribing all good to their country and all bad to Pakistan? This may have something to do with Indian attitudes changing, with the atmosphere in which you meet Indians and with Pakistani attitudes themselves.

    On the other hand, you will find on PakTeaHouse that there are notable exceptions to your observations, which I take at face value. You will find that not only there are sympathetic Indians, though not sycophantic, willing enough to praise the enlightened liberal, secular and democratic elements in Pakistani society and their gallant fight for the democratisation of the country; you will find that they actively chase away the other kind, the kind to which you seem to have taken a rooted aversion.

    There are other places like that, I am sure.

    What you have stated in your comment, that once or twice you might hear some favourable voices, but those are quickly put down by the majority of the Indians and made to shut up, is partly right. I’d like to see somebody shut me up. But you are right about the reactions of the majority. Consider why.

    There is a sympathetic set, but they find their voices drowned under the larger number of those still numb and wounded by the Mumbai incident and the growing number of violent incidents throughout the country, occurring without predictability in safe places.

    There were incidents in Bangalore, in the Indian Institute of Science campus, and a professor was killed. My brother-in-law teaches there, my wife passes the scene of the incident every morning on her way to her morning walk, my close relatives are within gunshot range of the place.

    There was the terrible occurrence in Mumbai; relatives were dining with their families within half-a-mile of the worst scenes of carnage.

    In Delhi, minutes before the massive bomb-blast in Greater Kailash, my aunt and cousin decided to turn back for a shopping bag, and missed the explosion by a matter of perhaps five seconds.

    When I defend the good things about Pakistan, of which there are so many, there is a universal chorus of contradiction, from all those who have had narrow shaves and near escapes, from all except my brother-in-law, who, from his invitations to Trieste, and his involvement in particle physics studies, venerates the great Abdus Salam, and is reluctant to hear negative things about a country that bred such a genius.

    Please tell me, how can the government come to have a policy of equality among nations and unconditional friendship towards Pakistan when the general population is gradually, even as we discuss this, turning from indifference to increasing hostility? It is not a static process; the number of those angered and brought to a feeling that enough is enough is growing every day. This is not a good development for either nation. It seems to me that Pakistani public opinion simply is not aware of this rising tide of anger.

    As a well-wisher of Pakistan, I can speak up and influence a small circle around myself. But this lasts just as long as the next act of terrorism, and the next set of pictures in the papers of dead and dying civilians.

    Tell us that India seeing itself as one among equals, and dealing with Pakistan on a basis of equality will stop the terrorism, and it will happen. But can you, with your hand on your heart, say so? Can you stop the rogue jihadi establishment from doing what it wants? Have you the national will to stop the Jaish-e-Muhammad, leave alone the Lashkar-e-Toiba? Can you stop the individual planners and leaders of Mumbai from walking your streets freely and preaching violent jihad against the kufr and the land of the kufr every week? Can you prevent the institutions of your state, who depend on their position as bulwarks against India to demand the lion’s share of your budget, the pick of the land, the choice of government positions, huge industries for their children, and lives of luxury for their families, from continuing to wage war against India by covert means?

    Are you citizens of Pakistan capable of delivering what you promise? Are you in control of your country? We can deliver what we say we will. Can you?

    Before you can answer that, you cannot find friendly Indians, except a few isolated hopefuls who continue to maintain a dialogue with anyone who will listen, in the hope that one day, you will democratise your country and speak to us as equals, not slaves of a military dictatorship or a puppet government under the paw of the military.

  18. @Tanzeel

    [About the complicity or otherwise of the WSJ management in Dhume’s article]

    The point was not that you were blaming WSJ. You should in fact blame WSJ. The point is that no journalist can write a piece like this without the approval and prior vetting of his management. So it is not an individual’s crusade against a country; it cannot be, it would not pass his management’s filters and processes for rooting out personal vendettas. Therefore, the point is that this was NOT an individual railing against Pakistan, that this was not an effusion of the personal prejudices of Dhume, this was an article in the WSJ which the WSJ is willing to stand by. Consider then how far this causes a distancing between individual caprice and institutional sponsorship.

    Just for the record, I dislike the far-right near-Fox News stance of the WSJ. My point merely is that this was not an individual effort by a rogue reporter, as your piece seemed to imply.

    [About the cumulative impact of agenda-based journalism]

    True, a campaign can cause damage. But your original piece was wholly about Dhume. It said nothing about other pieces, other journals; why not give us some examples? And state what, in your view, is wrong with those examples?

    In fact, consider your point of view in reverse: what if Dhume and the WSJ are not part of a conspiracy to put Pakistan in a bad light? What if there is mounting evidence that there are still, at this moment, elements of the Pakistani establishment betraying the sacrifices made by Pakistan, by Pakistani civilians and by Pakistani soldiers? What if this is not a conspiracy after all, but a mere narrative of reality on the ground? Why is it that the world sees it in one way, and a few elements in Pakistan see it in another? I ask this last question because even in your country, even among liberal, secular and democratic sections, there is a wide-spread acceptance (one NOT initiated by Indian friends, I wish to emphasise strongly) that Pakistan has strayed in the past, and that progressive elements, you, for instance, Tanzeel, should unite with other progressive elements to correct the situation.

    May I take your other two points in a separate post, to avoid boring the tears out of readers?

  19. @Tanzeel

    The other two points we have before us:

    [About the disastrous consequences to Pakistan on joining the war on terror]

    “9/11 was an accident and Pakistan had no option but to support US.”

    Are you aware of the implications of your statement? 9/11 was by no means an accident as an act of terror; it was carefully planned, carefully implemented, carefully coordinated over months. All that was accidental about it is that the Pakistani Government was not involved in planning it. What exactly is your statement supposed to mean? That there was no realisation that such an act could happen? That the government, its institutions, specifically, its military institutions, its sponsored terrorist groups, its sponsored and militarily-backed Islamic movement within Afghanistan, its entire paraphernalia of terror was caught by surprise, and unable to build a smokescreen to cover its own involvement and culpability in building the terrorist infrastructure and a safe haven for terrorists from around the world?

    Are you saying, then, that if not confronted, Pakistan would not have opposed the terrorist supporting Taliban? Or that Pakistan would have continued to support Al Qaeda? Is that where you’re coming from? If so, please put your hand up to be counted among the Al Qaeda civilian resources, working in plain view rather than under cover. I’m asking you to put up your hand on behalf of the establishment and the military institutions, since you seem to be implying that support for the Al Qaeda and Taliban was acceptable until the point came that the US put pressure on Pakistan.

    If this is the case, why are you pleading for consideration of your sacrifices? For one thing, these sacrifices would not have happened only if you had continued to support the terrorists, but they would have been replaced by rather worse consequences: the complete destruction of your military, for instance.

    For another, if you want credit given for your country’s sacrifices, how about the debit for the harm done to the world by the earlier sponsorship of terror, long after the Soviets had left Afghanistan?

    You can’t butter your bread on both sides.

    Either you are against terrorists, in which case the cost of dismantling the terrorist-favouring infrastructure that you built, including the refugees and their support, is to your account; or you are for terrorists, in which case you are in any case obliged to honour that relationship by sheltering the internally displaced.

    Truth to tell, this point of yours confuses the hell out of me. Given your ambiguous attitude, why should we blame Sadanand Dhume, when you are standing right there saying that Pakistan wouldn’t have joined the war on terror unless forced to do so, and that the country never expected to have to do this? It appears that this completely neutralises any credit you seek for joining this campaign in the first place; you never wanted to join, so why should you claim credit for joining, or for the consequences?

    [About Pakistan’s reluctance to move against the Taliban and against internal terrorist groups]

    Now the reluctance of the previous argument becomes clear. According to you, Pakistan never wanted to shut down the Taliban, never wanted to close down the rogue faction holding people hostage and sweeping through the south Punjab, and other parts besides. It was all going well when the inconvenient Americans pointed a gun at your head for helping to terrorise the whole world, and thanks to their gratuitous interference, all your troubles followed.

    If you put it that way, converting matters from knowledge of a felony both before and after the event to participation in that felony, what more can we say but to accept that Dhule was right after all?

    1. Vajra, as I told you I only read that article in WSJ, even it was written by some Pakistani I would have criticized him for writing this piece. I have no issues with Indian in general but we should call spade as spade.

      I would also like to know what you mean by establishment. In Pakistan establishment is considered as Army and the ISI and this time both are on board in war against terrorism as we are losing our soldiers in this war. Establishment will never want its own people to scarify their people.

      //Why is it that the world sees it in one way, and a few elements in Pakistan see it in another? //

      Because a common man have no idea of ground reality and the history and people like Dhume instead of comprehensively discuss the issue only write what they want to, because of obvious reasons.

      //I ask this last question because even in your country, even among liberal, secular and democratic sections, there is a wide-spread acceptance (one NOT initiated by Indian friends, I wish to emphasise strongly) that Pakistan has strayed in the past, and that progressive elements, you, for instance, Tanzeel, should unite with other progressive elements to correct the situation.//

      Indeed majority of Pakistani is against Taliban and want this war to be won in any case as we don’t want to see Talibanized Pakistan in future but at the same time we don’t want to be defamed by the people like Dhune who blame us for being non serious in this war and call Pakistan a terrorist producing country. It has now become our war we want to win it but not through anybody’s dictation. Try to understand our situation.

      1. @Tanzeel

        To start with, I have never been an admirer of Dhume’s articles. For that matter, neither have I thought a great deal of WSJ. My difference of opinion is regarding the excessive importance you are givng them both. I also don’t think that WSJ is even close to Indian public opinion. For that, Times of India, The Hindu and the Indian Express among print media, and NDTV, CNN-IBN and (I hate to say this) Times Now in the electronic media are probably closer.

        2. The Establishment: I precisely mean the Army and the ISI. May I explain separately? It would become long and unbearable to recount the entire argument here. As you know, there has been a lot of comment about the length and boring nature of my comments, and I am sincerely trying to correct this.

        3. The world vs. a few in Pakistan: Perhaps you have a point. Could I take some time to think this over?

        4. The war on terror is now Pakistan’s war on terror: I admit that over the last one year, a vast difference in sentiment has become visible and clear. I accept your contention that the majority of Pakistanis want the Taliban – ‘good’ Taliban, ‘bad’ Taliban, green Taliban, zebra-striped Taliban – out.

        If you see it from an Indian point of view, you will see along with this broad encouraging picture some shadows and dark spots. These relate to your reluctance to condemn the other terrorists, what YLH calls the South Punjab problem. This section, the JeM, the LeT in particular, is the one threatening India. As of now, there is no evidence that the establishment (we both mean exactly the same thing), or the political sections, or civil society, especially liberal, secular, democratic thought leaders such as yourself, have begun to take action, even to restrain the worst excesses of this section.

        Let me end by saying that no reasonable person in India doubts the sincerity of Pakistan’s war on terror. It is just that it doesn’t cover the factions which wage war on us. We wish you would get around to clobbering them as well.

      2. @Tanzeel

        I’ve been thinking. If you didn’t like the Dhume article, and you wouldn’t have liked it even if written by someone from some other national origin, a Somali, for instance, would you still write about an Indian conspiracy?

        I’m looking at the first three paragraphs of your original blog.

      3. @ Tanzeel – I accept your saying that majority of Pakistani are against Taliban. Are they not against the Terrorism inflicted from their soil on other nations? Please understand that attack planned and executed from Pakistan, by its subjects, on another soverign state, where Pakistan is shy even to investigate it at the first instanc, also defending its subjects, demanding evidence for action from another state, is nothing but state indulgenece, sponsership, abetment or the least a tacit approval. If so, whether terrorism is a policy presently of Pakistan State, its so called Establishment or public at large? To my understanding the answer is a big negative. If in Pakistan the answer is negative, than why it takes time to investigage such matters by Pakistan of its own? Why even a single evidence is demanded from other nations or refuted in public in such matters? With due repect to my brothers in Pakistan, I would like to stress that the collective will of a nation in such matters is represented not by demanding evidence from others, but by compationate thinking, by investigating metters to its core and by bring the culprits to justice of its own. Please note that such eliments tarnish the image of a beautiful nation like Pakistan world over.
        What is required is an introspection, the mass condemnation, a political will of Pakistani Society, its Government, the so called Establishment etc of such terrorist acts. Eliminating the linkages such terrorists have in Pakistan. My humble submission is that this will, drive and determination is not visible. Please realize that lip service is of no consequence, the entire World is watching you and analysing in its own way the will of the nation to fight thismenace. Regards

  20. Blame India all you want, but the idea that Pakistan is the epicenter of world terrorism is not just an Indian idea.

    E.g
    http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/05/four-metaphors.html
    which has recent articles variously calling Pakistan the nursery, the supermarket, the breeding ground of fundamentalist violence.

    Or
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-4668474-503543.html

    “Most surprising is the calculation by Britain’s domestic intelligence service, MI5, that three-quarters of the serious terror plots they are monitoring have Pakistani links. Britain’s Telegraph newspaper does the math and concludes that more than 20 current plots have some connection to Pakistan.”

    The media carries similar statements from US intelligence people.

    1. Arun

      Non state actors are everywhere. The important point is, what Pakistan is doing to stop terrorism. As we know Pakistan has apprehended lots of terrorists from Pakistan and shared intelligence reports with the investigation agencies abroad.

      Terrorism is not Pakistan’s official stance.

  21. @Vajra


    Thank you for your gracious and long drawn out reply to my simple post – i did not expect that .
    Coming to the post – Yes , i meant exactly that – They are not friendly with regards to pakistan .

    Have you considered for one moment that the fault may not lie entirely with the Indians that you have met, and that they may have been brought to such positions by the actions of others?

    Hmm ? By Others , you mean the Pakistanis ?

    See exactly what i meant to say in the first place . putting the blame on the other side . Indians are naive and harmless creatures . I mean what can be expected of someone who follows ‘gandhi-giri’ , the famed pacifist who inspired countless other personalities on the path to non-violence .

    you interestingly added ‘1971’ in your list of unpleasant occurrences by the neighbours . you might really need to educate your self . it was INDIA meddling in another INDEPENDENT country’s affairs and NOT pakistan destablizing one of India’s provinces .

    I won’t debate you on the 1965 War – since again it was India which launched a general attack towards Pakistan . I would give you the benefit since it was as a result of pakistan’s small incursion with the help of the kashmiri’s that prompted this attack . since the plan ( Operation Grandslam) backfired.

    Btw just for your information – your Prime Minister ManMohan Singh – admitted in Sharam As-Sheikh the Indian Involvment in Balochistan , For which he had to face quite a Backlash at home 😉 .

    God Knows in which other ways is India interfering with Pakistan – and just making the situation only worse for itself .

    Regarding Siachen ,no matter what level of consciousness is present . It were the indians who suddenly decided to occupy a waste land . You might want to google now on this subject too , so as to further educate yourself on India’s activities..

    Now really , I am losing you . you are saying that ‘timid’ party shouldn’t be held responsible for the massacre in Gujrat and what happened after the demolistion of the Babri mosque ?

    God Save us from such ‘timid’ parties , who play and incite the emotions of people just to further their own fascist agenda.

    I really didn’t know the indian people were so easily molded .

    Well Thank you for letting me know of such type of personalities . I would from now on look harder for such indian friends.


    yes , I can say that with my HAND on my heart . All ‘terroism’ indirectly or directly attributed to Pakistan would come to a stop , IF India making an honest effect to deal with pakistan on the basis of equality PRIMARILY on the Kashmiri Issue . The Names of the two groups that you took , were born as a result of what is going on in kashmir .

    it wasn’t like they suddenly decided to bring harm to india just because they suddenly decided that on a cup of kashmiri tea .

    To all other questions – Yes WE can . Atleast we are EVEN now making an honest effort . The War in our Northwestern part is evidence . Whilst we see no effort from India which keeps dangling it’s Mumbai attacks in front of the world community’s nose for any talks to start.

    Btw your admission that these are ‘rogue’ elements – shows that you are of those few yo truly believe that these groups are not supported by the Government of Pakistan and not used as a policy of state – which is appreciable . Stories of which is exaclty the opposite is perpetuated by the Indian Media . It’s good that you have shield from that jingoistic propaganda.

    the same media and the indian officials who decided to blame Pakistan for acts such as the Melagoen bombings and teh attack on the Samjhota Express ( in which our 50 people lost their lives) , whilst afterwards people for the indian army were found to have been involved .

    Btw any updates on that issue ?

    Please spare us the lectures on democracy – You should be concerned more about the state of your country. Where no less than a dozen insurgencies are raging across

    in the end i would like you to pray for those killed in almost weekly ‘Mumbai terror attacks ‘ that happen in Pakistan and in which around 20, 000 innocent Pakistanis have lost there lives.

    As much as you like to think that all is rosy in Pakistan – It is not .

    i am sorry to say , most of the Indian ‘hatred’ towards Pakistan is based on half-baked truths and incessant propaganda churned out by your bollywood styled – media .

    The problem lies on both sides . As they say ‘ It takes TWO , to tango’

    Your post is VERY pertinent and CLEAR example of what i had just referred – admitting NOTHING yet blaming others . Thank You for justifying my post .

  22. @Waleed Khan

    Thank you for your welcome. I wish that after reading your post, I could report that I feel encouraged about the possibilities of reasonable discourse between private citizens of the two countries. Apparently there are some of us who do not wish to see any such thing happen, and who only wish to score debating points, rather than understand or enter into each other’s points of view.

    I have just been beaten up (by an Indian) for writing long passages, so I shall practise writing short ones, and see if the beating up stops.

    1. Please note that no one, not I, not any other commentator, claimed that Indians were naive and harmless. If you take the trouble of reading my original post, all I sought to convey was that Indians were originally indifferent, until galvanised by repeated and unprovoked attacks. This is still my position, not any other wished on me, thank you very much.

    2. About the various wars fought between the two countries, it seems that you are determined to drag the whole matter out, and fight those battles all over again. They are finished and done with; if you wish to sit with them and brood over your wrongs for eternity, feel free. Personally, I should wish for my country that we move on.

    Do not, please, be under any mistaken notion that your misrepresentation of these facts cannot be controverted. It is just that I feel that the place is not here, and that there is no point in engaging in you-said, I-said arguments: what is popularly known in North India and presumably in Pakistan also as tu-tu mein-mein. If you want tutoring on the facts there, I can suggest better sources than Google, which lacks credibility with any serious student of military history. Instead, I will refer you, if you wish, to the comments of your own leaders, and every citation will be a Pakistani writer or commentator.

    About Manmohan Singh at Sharm al-Sheikh, what you have stated is categorically wrong. I hope that it is due to ignorance, and not due to deliberate distortion. The agreement was to agree to discuss any point that either side might have, including Pakistan’s desire to discuss Balochistan. It was precisely because this would be distorted and made much of in Pakistan, as an implicit admission of
    interference, that there was such huge opposition to giving Pakistan that freedom in the first place. Your wholly mistaken remarks indicate that these were not misplaced fears.

    3. It is sad that you continue to distort my statements. It is not difficult to form arguments for or against the issues that we have before us, without resorting to these rather juvenile tactics. An example below.

    You distorted my remarks about the ‘timid’ BJP. Before this conversation breaks down, I request you to go back, once again, to my original text. There was no implication that they were not wholly responsible for the murders in Gujarat, or that they were not wholly responsible for the betrayal of the Babri Masjid incident. What I said was clear: that they were attacking Indian Muslims, not Pakistan, and their frequent use of the word Pakistan is code for their hostile attacks on other Indians of a different faith.

    There was nowhere in my writing any support for their stand. On the contrary.

    I regret that you are putting words in my mouth which were never said by me, and creating controversy where there is none.

    4. It is sad that you should choose to be sarcastic on being informed that there are well-inclined Indians. Please recall your original statement:

    “n my experience of interacting with the Indians , i have rarely ( if any ?? ) come across one who is anything but ‘friendly’ towards Pakistan whilst you can find many Indian apologists among the Pakistantis.”

    Even when an Indian comes forward to explain, to communicate, to engage with you, if you choose sarcasm as your vehicle, what do you expect will be the response? With such a surly and unfriendly attitude, however well wrapped up in polite verbiage, what did you expect? Maybe, before detecting unfriendliness in Indians, you should ask what you present to them when they approach you – as I did.

    For myself, I shall continue to seek engagement and understanding, notwithstanding the occasional rebuff and rude response.

    5. You state that terrorism will stop if we deal with you on Kashmir on terms of equality. What does that mean? Who has dealt with you on terms of inequality? What form does that dealing take?

    It is no longer advisable to threaten any sovereign nation with terror in pursuit of your objectives of state. To equate a cessation of terror with a settlement in Kashmir is highly unlikely to achieve your objectives. No state will negotiate at the barrel of a gun, and it is not to your advantage to keep breeding terrorists. It is these same terrorists who are now leading to an increasing reputation for unreliability for all citizens of your country, including those who are liberal, secular and democratic, and it is an urgent necessity for you to shed this legacy of terror as a state-sponsored initiative.

    6. You talk about an honest effort in the North-West. It is notable that this honesty dawned on your officers and generals only when their kith and kin began to be blown up. Before that, they had no compunction in abandoning large tracts of territory, Swat being the latest, to terrorists or their front organisations. Honesty under compulsion should not be presented for reward. Honesty without such compulsion might be taken seriously, not this hypocrisy.

    7. Let me clarify what I meant by ‘rogue’ elements. I meant that parts of your establishment are acting at their own initiative. I mean that the ISI is still encouraging terror camps, no longer those in the North West, but still those in the Punjab and the foothills. This is increasingly clear from the reports of your own jehadi leaders’ public speeches, which would not have been possible if the state had not chosen to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to them.

    My information is not from the Indian media, it is from Pakistani sources. Available on request, since they are all public sources.

    8. You are perfectly correct in your account of the mistaken attribution of the Malegaon bomb attacks and the Samjhauta Express to Pakistani elements. This was an irresponsible statement by people who should have known better. As it happens, without US intervention, without US Admirals sitting on our heads, our bumbling, incompetent, inefficient policemen found the culprits to be Indians, possibly guided by one Indian Army serving officer who acted in a cowardly and treacherous manner and let down his unit and his service, and the Indian state, for all its lack of the dash and panache with which Pakistan manages to prove that all is well and nothing is happening, has commenced prosecuting these people. More such incidents have been discovered – again, you will be amazed to learn, without FBI or CIA intervention – and the perpetrators are under trial.

    Before you add a sneer or two to these remarks, learn that I have been a lifelong opponent of these forces; not I alone but my family as well, including my daughter who mobilised opposition to these jackals. We are not armchair pundits fulminating about our experiences of unfriendly Indians that we have met, we are activists. Believe me, I feel no need for certificates regarding my secularism and liberal stand from others. My track record – my family’s track record stands in public view. My own views have been on public display for over a year on Pakistani media.

    9. You were exasperated by the ‘lectures’ on democracy. Why? Is democracy a sensitive topic for you?

    We have trouble in the forest tracts of our country, it is true; but to juxtapose that with our democratic history is the jaded, tired counter, which has been described in the two sentences,”Your shirt is torn”, “So what? Your fly is open!” The fact that you are struggling to take control of your country is not in the slightest degree affected by the trouble that we have with the equitable distribution of resources and the resultant insurrection that has broken out. Your struggles will not be diminished by ours, not in the least little bit.

    10. Most certainly we think of those who have lost their lives in Pakistan – I cannot join you in prayer as I am agnostic – and I regret the ongoing loss of life. It is of not the slightest consequence that these are Pakistani lives; it is a tragedy whoever the living innocent was, whatever nationality, whatever religion.

    For you to even imply that there is not sufficient anguish or sympathy among Indians for this daily, ongoing travail is a shocking reflection of the mental attitudes that have led to this state of affairs in the first place. And for you to describe these as ‘Mumbai terror attacks’ seems to imply that the guilt and horror of Mumbai is in some way neutralised by these savages turning on their own. We should be united against them whether they slaughter Indian or Pakistani women and children and civilians, not sit comparing notes on who lost how many lives.

    11. Finally, if you discovered hostility and a combative intent in my post, then I have nothing to add. While I will personally continue to engage with whoever is willing to listen, there is not much point in engaging in these exchanges, where one side is so embittered that nothing short of abject surrender is likely to satisfy it. That, apparently, is what you would like to see. Do you think it is likely to happen?

  23. @Tanzeel, Farooq, Vajra

    Guys, i should have responded individually in detail to your posts but i find myself eternally short of time (and to some extent short of eagerness) to debate. All of you have interesting comments regarding my posts, accept my apologies for not returning the favor.

    @Tilsim,

    Tilsim :
    Urgent rethink needed, not defensiveness. It feels as if Pakistan Army has already done some of this rethink but not decisively enough.

    “decisive” is the keyword. The major cause behind this monster of jihad is 3 (and more) decades of propaganda over every possible by medium. The reverse of same should be a major contributor to solve this problem. Probably more ill-thinking pro-religious population is being created every day then its being killed.

    Using TV, Paper, and Internet, Nation can be taught that historically, how horrific it has been proven to Muslims whenever they have tried to wage Jihad against other nations. How severe and irreparable are the ideological differences b/w various Muslim sects for last 1000+ years and how What is the global agenda of Jihadees (topple present muslim govts. And establish Khilafa etc) etc.

    I would also like TV to show interviews of Al-Qaeda & Taliban key leadership (whatever videos are available), the videos of killings which taliban proudly releases, the videos of training of Pakistani jihadists (like Dr. Arshad waheed) etc so that a huge segment of population can realize that how interlinked & integrated all these parties (Taliban, LeT, JeM, JI) are as many people are totally ignorant towards their relationship and like to keep these parties in separate boxes in their mind which helps them in drawing a fake line between good jihadists and bad jihadists.

    @Tanzeel,
    For references, A regular read of daily news papers is a good source. But you might also want to take a look at Front Line Pakistan and Panjabi Taliban. Authors of both Books are Pakistanies.

  24. @Hammad

    I wanted to respond – hugely cheering your views! – but felt that I was taking up too much space on Tanzeel’s blog already.

    Further to what you have said to Tilsim, I’d like to remind everybody that there is a geo-political reason for fingers to be pointed at Pakistan.

    It has nothing to do with the recent awakening of a broad section of Pakistanis to the dangers the country faces in aiding and abetting terrorists. It has nothing to do with the lukewarm way in which the military and the intelligence services are pursuing the objective of freeing their country of terrorists. It has nothing to do with the barely-concealed intention of these establishment institutions to continue to use terrorists against a traditional neighbour held in great hostility to serve the purposes of these institutions.

    The answer is elsewhere, evident to all, but never discussed.

    Everyone knows that one country, not Pakistan, has been singularly responsible for financing regressive interpretations of Islam, for funding schools and institutions that have regularly bred teenaged warriors for cannon-fodder in Afghanistan, or Kashmir, or of late, Mumbai. Everyone knows of the strong connections of the more corrupt sections of the American ruling classes with this country, and of the extraordinary favours that it enjoys, even when the most horrific terrorist incident in human history was executed by a majority of this country’s citizens.

    If, hypothetically speaking, a super-power, one of the many on earth, were to seek to divert attention from its terror-sponsoring ally, would it not concentrate a good deal of attention on Pakistan? And would not the most right-wing journals and media talk constantly about the unique villainy of Pakistan?

    Think about it.

    1. @Vajra,

      USA is known to be supportive of Dictatorships (e.g. Shah of Iran, Zia & Musharraf of Pakistan, Saudi Dynasty etc), but unless i come across some evidence, i would consider the “attention diversion” theory to be amongst the thousands of other theories floating over internet.

      if, just hypothetically, i have to ponder over it, i would still like to give credit to my Pakistani fellows (knowing that we are far more “talented” and technology aware then most of the Muslim word) for whatever we are doing they blaming US-media attention for it.

  25. @Hammad

    Well, I hope you agree that it is as good a theory as SOME of the others! 😛

    No, quite honestly, I think that there is some deliberate baiting going on and the obvious beneficiary suggests itself.

    About your second point, . You don’t pull your punches, do you? I mean that with respect and more than a little surprise. I salute your candour; it obviously demands equal candour from your interlocutors. You are really raising the bar well above the level usual to these friendly exchanges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s