Monday, November 16, 2015

Russia is Restoring Balance of Power

By Sajjad Shaukat

Renowned scholars of international relations, Lord Castlereagh, Quincy Wright, Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz agree by remarking, “Checking the unusual dominance and hegemony of the world by a single power is very essential for the survival of other states which live in anarchic situation where there is no international agency to impose international law and to provide security…the concept of balance of power rests with the basic assumption that excessive power in the system is a threat to the existence of other units and that the most antidote to power is power.”

During the Cold War era, balance of power was maintained by the former Soviet Union and the United States. One could note stability in the world, as interests of the weak countries were being safeguarded by the opposite interests of the two superpowers.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, power-vacuum was created in the world. Waltz and other thinkers expected “unipolarity to give way quickly to multipolarity as other major powers of Europe and Asia would move individually and collectively to balance the preponderant power of the United States.”

Unfortunately, other major nuclear powers or any prospective alliance did not challenge America’s hegemony in accordance with the system of balance of power. In that backdrop, the US emerged as the sole superpower in the unipolar world. In consultation with his Zionist-advisers, American former President Bush, (The Senior) replaced the old bipolar order with the New World Order, with the US acting as a kind of global policeman to protect the political and economic interests of Israel and the American Jews who are owners of many big cartels—multinational corporations, oil companies, banks etc., including print and electronic media of the US in particular and the world in general. Thus, by dominating American internal policies, Zionist Jews mould country’s foreign policy for their own interests.

In the unipolar world, even the United Nations system underwent a tremendous change. It became an instrument of the US policy to establish American hegemony in the world. The Third World, a majority of whom comprises Muslim countries was compelled to realign their domestic policies according to Washington’s dictates. In order to obtain the hidden agenda of Jews, the US imposed its sudden terms of globalisation such as free markets, privatization and de-nationalisation etc. on the ill-prepared developing countries, which left behind shattered nations and a global financial crisis. It further widened the gape between the poor and the rich countries or G-7 countries. The corporations and international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank which are indirectly controlled by Jews have continued to drive the project of glaobalisation through the sole superpower. Besides, America’s child-killing sanctions against Iraq and Iran; late action to curb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, support to Israel’s aggressive occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, with vetoing any effective action by the UN to curb the Israeli state terrorism  greatly annoyed the Muslims all over the world.

When President George W. Bush became the US president, he and the neo-conservatives crossed all the limits in securing the political, economic and religious interests of the Jews and Israel at the cost of Muslims and patriot Americans. Under the mask of the 9/11 catastrophe, preplanned strategy of the neo-conservatives headed towards unexpected developments such as employment of pressure-diplomacy on the weak states—Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia etc., including almost all the Arab states which joined Bush anti-terrorism war. US did not bother for rise of more militancy and internal instability in these countries because it wanted to destabilise these countries for a greater Israeli.  

However, system of balance power is so essential for the world that even alliances and counter-alliances are made to check the dominance of a single state. But, after 9/11, no such alliance was made. Even, almost all the major Western countries including NATO states also joined the global war on terror, when Bush warned, “either you are with us or with terrorists.”

In this regard, Machiavelli who warns against “bandwagoning,” opines, “Active balancing is both more prestigious and more secure…failing to align with the weaker can leave you victim to the designs of the winner [Stronger], without the support of the weaker.”

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of 9/11 tragedy, US-led NATO’s occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by the American-Anglo forces, state terrorism by special military operations, extra-judicial assassinations and heavy aerial bombardment, which killed more than half million innocent persons there, and in other volatile Islamic countries like Somalia and Yemen where the US was indirectly involved, including Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and other cells, established in some small countries where suspected Muslims were kept and personnel of the CIA, the FBI and the military employed various methods of torture.

The drastic aftermath of 9/11 was fully manipulated by Israel to target Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan survived due to American prolonged war in Afghanistan and because of its army and intelligence agency ISI which are very strong in defending their country. Notably, by availing the phenomena of terrorism, Israel and India are still equating the ‘wars of independence’ in Palestine and Kashmir with terrorism. New Delhi considers Pakistan as its enemy number one, while Tel Aviv takes Tehran in the same sense by spreading rumors about its nuclear programme. Israel is also against Pakistan, as it is the only nuclear country in the Islamic world.

Surprisingly, like his predecessor, US President Obama who brushed aside Jewish religious terrorism as part of the anti-Muslim campaign, left no stone unturned in following the secret agenda of the Zionists in the pretext of global war on terror. His perennial covert support to the Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians, Gaza blockade, silence over the Indian brutal tactics in the Indian-held Kashmir, killings of the innocent persons through drone attacks, backing undemocratic forces, toppling the elected government in Egypt, creation of more collapsed states such as Libya, Syria, Yemen etc., opening the doors for CIA-supported Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front) and ISIS (Daesh) militants, fueling sectarian violence and demoralization of its troops (NATO) in Afghanistan where they are facing defeatism might be cited as instance. Moreover, under the cover of the US project of democarisation of the Middle East, the region was deliberately thrown in worst form of terrorism, civil wars and instability.  

Taking cognisance of the grievances of the international community, and the sole superpower’s injustices, Russian President Vladimir Putin is rapidly restoring the balance of power in the world. In this connection, since September 30, various developments such as increasing Russian military presence in northern Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad, Russian airstrikes on the ISIS (Al-Nusra Front) terrorist facilities there and on Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, Russian coalition with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah to root out the ISIS militants, retreat of the CIA-supported rebels and mercenaries after their failure to topple Assad’s government, arrest of Israeli Col. Shahak in Iraq, his admission, proving links of Al-Qaeda and ISIS with America and Israel (Israeli Mossad), including the Vienna meeting where the US Secretary of State John Kerry agreed to keep the Syrian president in power, not to allow ISIS militant group to reign in Syria, absence of Israel in the meeting and America’s decision of  sending 50 special forces to Syria to help in taking down ISIS terrorists might be noted as example.

It is mentionable that during the Cold War period, regional balance of power was also part of the central balance of power. In this respect, during various annual summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), their leaders displayed strength against the rising dominance of the US in the region, and called for a multipolar system in the world. Participating in the summit, this year, Pakistan, Iran and India got permanent membership of the SCO, while the US still backs Indian hegemony in Asia to counterbalance China. Furthermore, agreement between Pakistan and China regarding China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which is also backed by Putin would prove a great game changer in Asia, as both Moscow and Beijing are likely to counterbalance America’s power.

Nonetheless, President Putin has exposed the secret designs of the US global war on terror—New World Order agents, their collaboration with the Zionist-led regime in America and Israel including fake war against ISIS.  

Putin has also clarified that he is attacking the New World Order, “not because he wants to establish some kind of super-power entity in the Western world, but because the New World Order is imposing an irrational, irresponsible and unlivable ideology upon much of the West.”

It is because of these reasons that Canadian-nominated new prime minister Justin Trudeau has confirmed that Canada would withdraw its fighter jets from the US-led mission against ISIS. And British Prime Minister David Cameron has also abandoned plans to carry out airstrikes against ISIS positions in Syria, after he failed to receive support from Labour MPs.

In fact, unlike Putin’s Russian nationalism, Bush and Obama pursued the Zionism instead of American nationalism. Some people also think that Moscow is watching its own interests. Undoubtedly, every country safeguards its interests. But, Russia cannot do it at the cost of larger interests of humanity as well as those of the Islamic World and the loyalist Americans by ignoring present era of social media and internet which has brought the bloody battles of the politicians in our bedrooms. However, Russia is successfully restoring the system of balance of power which is necessary for world peace and economic development.

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

Email: sajjad_logic_pak@hotmail.com                        Courtesy Veterans Today


Jammu Martyrs Day: Another Gloomy Day

By Sajjad Shaukat

Like other “black days”, Jammu Martyrs Day which is another gloomy day in the history of Kashmir, is celebrated on 6th of November by the Kashmiris and the Pakistanis on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) and by those, living abroad to remember the great sacrifices of 2.50 lakh inmates of Jammu including men, women, children and elderly Muslims who were mercilessly slaughtered by the armed Hindu gangsters, the Indian occupying and the Dogra military troops near Jammu Sialkot working boundary under a nefarious pre-planned conspiracy, while they were proceeding for migrating to their beloved homeland Pakistan. This tragedy occurred on this very day in 1947.

During the first week of November in 1947‚ hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris were killed by the forces of Maharaja Hari Singh‚ Indian army and Hindu extremists in different parts of Jammu region, while they were migrating to Pakistan. But, their brutalities were not confined to it. As part of pre-planned scheme, on November 5, 1947, announcements were made everywhere in Jammu, asking Muslims to assemble in police lines where from they would be sent to Pakistan. On November 6, Jammu Muslims including men women and children were seemingly dispatched towards Pakistan in trucks. But before they could reach the destination, Indian army, forces of Maharaja and Hindu extremists at Samba Reasi and other places martyred them in gruesome manner. Thus, over 2.50 Muslim inmates of Jammu city and adjoining areas were martyred.

However, the huge deaths had stunned the world. In this regard, the ‘Time” magazine, in its November 47 publication also pointed out the figure of 2, 50,000 deaths of Jammu people.

But, these sacrifices did not go waste, as they have kept the Kashmir issue alive. As regards the historical background, during the partition of the Sub-continent, the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which comprised Muslim majority decided to join Pakistan according to the British-led formula. But, Dogra Raja, Sir Hari Singh, a Hindu who was ruling over the J&K, in connivance with the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor General Lord Mountbatten joined India.

The design to forcibly wrest Kashmir began to unfold on August 16, 1947, with the announcement of the Radcliffe Boundary Award. It gave the Gurdaspur District—a majority Muslim area to India to provide a land route to the Indian armed forces to move into Kashmir. There was a rebellion in the state forces, which revolted against the Maharaja and were joined by Pathan tribesmen. Lord Mountbatten ordered armed forces to land in Srinagar.

When Pakistan responded militarily against the Indian aggression, on December 31, 1947, India made an appeal to the UN Security Council to intervene and a ceasefire ultimately came into effect on January 01, 1949, following UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether they wish to join Pakistan or India. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its promise of holding plebiscite. Instead, in March 1965, the Indian Parliament passed a bill, declaring Kashmir a province of India-an integral part of the Indian union.
The very tragedy of Kashmiris had started after 1947 when they were denied their genuine right of self-determination. They organized themselves against the injustices of India and launched a war of liberation which New Delhi tried to crush through various forms of brutalities.

It is notable that since 1947, in order to maintain its illegal control, India has continued its repressive regime in the Occupied Kashmir through various machinations.

Nevertheless, various forms of state terrorism have been part of a deliberate campaign by the Indian army and paramilitary forces against Muslim Kashmiris, especially since 1989. It has been manifested in brutal tactics like crackdowns, curfews, illegal detentions, massacre, targeted killings, sieges, burning the houses, torture, disappearances, rape, breaking the legs, molestation of Muslim women and killing of persons through fake encounter.

According to a report on human rights violations in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, since 1989, there have been deaths of 1,00000 innocent Kashmiris, 7,023 custodial killings, 1,22,771 arrests, 1,05,996 destruction of houses or buildings, 22,776 women widowed, 1,07,466 children orphaned and 10,086 women gang-raped/molested. Indian brutal securities forces have continue these atrocities.

In fact, Indian forces have employed various draconian laws like the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act in killing the Kashmiri people, and for the arbitrarily arrest of any individual for an indefinite period.

Besides Human Rights Watch, in its various reports, Amnesty International has also pointed out grave human rights violations in the Indian controlled Kashmir, indicating, “The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces.

In its report on July 2, 2015, the Amnesty International has highlighted extrajudicial killings of the innocent persons at the hands of Indian security forces in the Indian Held Kashmir. The report points out, “Tens of thousands of security forces are deployed in Indian-administered Kashmir…the Armed Forces Special Powers Act allows troops to shoot to kill suspected militants or arrest them without a warrant…not a single member of the armed forces has been tried in a civilian court for violating human rights in Kashmir…this lack of accountability has in turn facilitated other serious abuses…India has martyred one 100,000 people. More than 8,000 disappeared (while) in the custody of army and state police.”

In this respect, European Union has passed a resolution about human rights abuses committed by Indian forces in the Indian held Kashmir.

It is of particular attention that in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the northern regions of the Indian-held Kashmir. Then researchers and other groups reported finding thousands of mass graves without markers. In this respect, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission officially acknowledged in its report that innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict have been buried in unmarked graves.

Notably, foreign sources and human rights organisations have revealed that unnamed graves include those innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death by the Indian secret agency RAW.

Indian authorities are not willing to talk with Kashmiri people on political grounds. New Delhi reached to a conclusion that only bullet is the right way of dealing with Kashmiris, demanding their right of self-determination. Surprisingly, Indian successive governments are trying to ignore the dynamics of the freedom movement of Kashmiris for the sake of their alien rule.

But, New Delhi is still showing its intransigence in order to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistan by neglecting the fact that Kashmir remains a nuclear flashpoint between both the neighbouring countries.

In this context, Egbert Jahn in his book, “Kashmir: Flashpoint for a Nuclear War or Even a Third World War?” has pointed out, “The Kashmir conflict is embedded in the wider conflict over the incomplete creation of nations and states on the Indian subcontinent, which during the east-west conflict even threatened at times to escalate into a nuclear world war between Pakistan and the USA on the one side and India and the USSR on the other. Until now, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan over the Jammu and Kashmir: in 1947–49, 1965 and 1999… finally, the Indo-Chinese border war of 1962…after these wars…and could unexpectedly again lead to a regional and under certain circumstances…even a major nuclear war or a Third World War.”

Meanwhile, like the previous year, Pakistan’s recent serious and sincere effort at the annual session of the United Nations—the recent speech of Pakistan’s prime minister and his meeting with the American president, highlighting the Kashmir dispute and demanding its solution has infused a new spirit among the Kashmiri people.

Nonetheless, 6th of November is commemorated by the Kashmiris and Pakistanis as the Jammu Martyrs Day-another gloomy day to remember the supreme sacrifices of lives, laid down by 2,50,000 people of Jammu, who were ruthlessly massacred by the Hindu extremists, Indian forces and the Dogra military troops on November 6, 1947.

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

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com


Sunday, November 15, 2015

Real face of Hamid Karzai

By Muhammad Jamil

Logar Provincial Police Chief General Daud Ahmadi quoted BBC's report that around 200 militants were trained by militants hailing from Pakistan and Chechnya in the Zarghoon Training Center in the province. Despite the fact that militants were involved in anti-government activities, the Afghan Security Forces were asked not to launch military operation by former President Hamid Karzai. The debate is raging in the Afghan electronic media; however neither Karzai nor anyone of his coteries has commented on the news item. According to the police chief, security forces on the orders from National Security Council recently launched an operation on the training center in which at least 27 Taliban militants were killed and 33 others were injured. He also stated that caches of weapons, ammunition and trucks loaded with explosives were confiscated during the operation.

When the American invaders descended on Afghanistan and occupied it after toppling Taliban, they dug out Hamid Karzai from some obscure niche and perched him on the Kabul throne. He was to be the page boy of spy agency CIA, which the Bush administration had anointed its satrap to rule the conquered land. CIA had found in Karzai an obliging valet to carry out task of pillory and demonization of Pakistan military and ISI. He therefore continued to cry cunningly that Pakistan was fuelling insurgency by providing sanctuaries on its soil on fleeing Taliban and their allied Al Qaeda fighters. It has to be mentioned that from the very start, Hamid Karzai had two Indian advisors occupying key positions in his own office in addition to some staff in NDS who planned vile acts against Pakistan to destabilize it. 

It is an open secret that there was a proposal for deployment of two Indian army's divisions in Afghanistan - the proposal that drew very serious consideration in New Delhi in 2008. At that time President Obama too was fretting about the troop surge in Afghanistan. The Indian contingent was to be separate and independent of that surge, and the move was prompted by none else but Karzai himself. The powerful Indian establishment was all set to go for this deployment, but was held back by some wise Indians who warned that India could bog down in Afghanistan, as were the Soviets earlier, the Americans now, and was India's own expeditionary force in Sri Lanka in the 1990s. Pakistan and the rest of the world understand that Karzai is inveterate Pakistan-hater, whose hostility against this country knows no bounds at all. 

There are countless stories of Hamid Karzai's foul play, corruption, nepotism, and his special favours to India during his long tenure. He still holds court and considerable sway in Kabul, and is responsible for sabotaging talks between Afghan government and the Taliban. In June 2015, he had warned Afghan government against Afghanistan succumbing to pressure from Pakistan, and deplored the unacceptable concessions by his successor President Ashraf Ghani. Of course, certain elements across the border are opposed to an improved relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, especially former president Hamid Karzai and his close aides, who are trying to create obstacles in normalization of relations with Pakistan. He had strongly condemned the Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries about intelligence sharing and said it was against Afghan's national interest. He had earlier opposed Ghani's decision to send army officers for training to Pakistan. 

Public insinuations by former President Hamid Karzai had caused a serious setback to bilateral relations between the two neighbours. With mounting terror attacks in Afghanistan, fingers are pointed towards Pakistan despite the fact that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had categorically stated that enemies of Afghanistan are enemies of Pakistan, without any exception. The fact remains that Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah and President Ashraf Ghani have more than once appreciated Pakistan's efforts for having taken action against terrorists groups. But the problem is that Afghan government is so internally divided and there are many groups on Abdullah's side, who are opposed to talks with the Taliban. On the other hand, Pakistani military and civilian leaders had thrown all support behind President Ashraf Ghani's efforts to bring peace to his war-ravaged country. But Afghan government had pinned high hopes on Pakistan that it enjoys influence over the Taliban. 

Anyhow, former president Hamid Karzai had relegated India to the periphery of his foreign policy. President Ashraf Ghani, of course, took steps to address Pakistani concerns about Indian influence in Afghanistan, and had sent a group of army cadets to an academy in Pakistan as opposed to India, where Afghan soldiers were normally trained, and had suspended a request for Indian weapons. But this was not acceptable to India's lackey Hamid Karzai. For his part, Nawaz Sharif had vowed to help target militants hiding out in border areas, and to work more closely to fight regional terrorists. "Any effort by any militant or group to destabilise Afghanistan will be dealt with severely and such elements will be outlawed and hunted down," Nawaz Sharif said. Ashraf Ghani's remarks that Pakistan and Afghanistan are not brotherly countries but have state to state relations have perhaps been made to appease his detractors to show that he is acting tough with Pakistan. 

Having that said, Hamid Karzai is misguiding President Ashraf Ghani that there can never be peace unless all foreign forces leave. He does not realize that Afghan forces are not ready to hold the fort; and what happened at Kunduz supports that view. Even in Afghanistan's north, which is considered relatively peaceful, the Taliban fighters are carrying out attacks with impunity. Anyhow, President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah can show magnanimity and bring the Taliban on board to avert the civil war. If they don't do it, the end result could be disintegration of Afghanistan, as more regional players will jump in the fray to secure their positions. It is, therefore, in the interest of all ethnic groups to find a common ground for power-sharing to make Afghanistan peaceful, stable and sovereign. If they continue to tread the beaten track, they all stand to lose. 


Kunduz attack: The web of intrigues Comment


By Waqar Ahmed

The attack on Kunduz city and its occupation by the Taliban forces was shocking for the world in general and for the Afghan people in particular. It showed the Taliban have the prowess to expand beyond the Afghan countryside and capture large towns, even briefly. The attack cast doubts on the competence of the Afghan forces and raised questions about their expertise and dexterity. On the other hand, certain angles of the unpleasant episode have highlighted the exact motive for the attack, its timings and purpose.
Those analysing the attack intensely and with deep perspective on the regional situation said that it was timed to coincide with the Pakistani delegation’s presence in New York and raising the issue of Kashmir at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). They say the attack did not come out of the blue; it was ostensibly orchestrated by actors in Kabul and New Delhi. It was done to steer away the world’s attention from the Kashmir issue, the Indian atrocities in the Valley and involvement in terror activities in Pakistan. Yes, there was a presence of the Taliban around the Kunduz city for quite some time but the timing of the attack and the way it was mounted had definitely wide-ranging sinister objectives. 

Strangely, two shady characters behind the assault on Kunduz were Mullah Abdul Salam Akhund and Mullah Muhammad Hasan Akhund. Both Taliban leaders were arrested by Pakistan some three years ago but were released on the intervention and assurances of former Afghan president Hamid Karzai. These two leaders are known to be close to the ex-Afghan president, whose antipathy and aversion for Pakistan are known to all. 

To top it all, the Kunduz city is located some 600 kilometres away from the Pakistan borders but the attack was still linked to the Pakistani intelligence. This was strongly denied by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
While the Taliban have been trying to capture key provincial districts and important cities to demonstrate their increased influence, there is more to the Kunduz debacle. The attack has shown the ineptness of former president Hamid Karzai, who was corrupt to the core and was unable to raise strong and competent Afghan forces in his long tenure as the Afghan president. 

Analysts point out that the Afghan forces suffer from lack of coordination, ghost soldiers, extreme corruption, besides displaying a lack of responsibility and accountability. It has even been claimed that the Kunduz captured by the Taliban was the result of a compromise between the defenders of the city and the occupying forces.
Unquestionably, the Taliban’s fleeting capture of Kunduz would alarm the Central Asian states besides Russia, which will now be more focused on their eastern and southern borders. But the timing of the attack has shown what it was all about. The incident was used by the pro-Indian Afghan chief executive Abdullah Abdullah to blame Pakistan at the UNGA. His criticism of Pakistan was totally quirky, deplorable and a vivid manifestation of the Indian attitude and approach. 

Meanwhile, the affairs of the coalition National Unity Government, led by President Ashraf Ghani, seem jagged while the relations between the coalition parties remain unpleasant and driven by strong power games. The Afghan government lacks the legitimacy that comes through good governance and strong institutions and seems out of touch with the currents swirling through the country. 


India building contacts with ISIS, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan


By Ali Abbas Rizvi

ISLAMABAD: The Indian government is now working on building contacts with rogue groups in Afghanistan, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, reports from Afghanistan have revealed.
Earlier, the Indian intelligence had developed close relations with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and used it to mount attacks on important military installations in the country besides killing civilians. While close ties of Indian intelligence with the TTP still continue, unarguably with the blessings of certain senior operatives of the Afghan intelligence, the Indians are now focusing on ISIS and al-Qaeda operatives to use them against Pakistan. 

In late 2014, Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had visited Syria and Iraq on the pretext of assisting Indian External Affairs Ministry (EAM) in evacuation of stranded Indians. However, it was reported that the secret visit was used to create contacts with the leaderships of extremist groups. Meanwhile, the Indian consulate in Kandahar was utilised by the RAW for creating coordination between the TTP and ISIS elements.
Analysts say evidence is growing that while making common cause with terror groups present on the Afghan territory, the Indians are seeking to mount a new state-sponsored campaign of terror attacks in Pakistan. It is known that Narendra Modi in a speech in Bangladesh had confessed that the Indian establishment had created the Mukti Bahini in East Bengal to dismember Pakistan. The game continues with New Delhi exploiting sub-nationalists in Balochistan and Sindh.

By making use of the ISIS phenomenon in Afghanistan, RAW is also attempting to generate skepticism about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. It has been propagated by the ISIS/Al-Khorasan elements that a nuclear device will be bought from Pakistan. 

India’s endeavours to replace the TTP with the ISIS are explicitly Pakistan, Afghanistan and China oriented. As the region is expected to witness increasing economic activities following building of the CPEC, India is desirous of countering such developments and curtailing the Chinese influence in the region with the ISIS phenomena.
TTP activists and disenchanted Taliban in Afghanistan are being lured to join the ISIS ranks, which is now called as “Al Khorasan” in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the highly successful Operation Zarb-e-Azb has greatly dented the TTP and its likes in Pakistan, eliminating scores of them and forcing others to flee to the western neighboring country. 


American establishment’s rethinking


By Muhammad Jamil
David Ignatius, an opinion writer for the Washington Post in his recent treatise, is of the view that the United States has decided to work out a nuclear deal with Pakistan akin to the deal with India. There are reports or rumours suggesting that Pakistan would agree to some restrictions to its nuclear programme and weapons delivery systems, which are India specific. Ignatius reported or has been asked to throw a feeler to see Pakistan’s reaction if it would agree not to deploy missiles capable of reaching beyond a certain range. If the deal goes through, Pakistan will get US support for a waiver by the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. One would not know why the author, while apparently building a case for Pakistan, wrote: “The White House is exploring what could be a diplomatic blockbuster: possible new limits and controls on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”
Such remarks may create doubts about the sincerity of purpose behind offering Pakistan civil nuclear agreement akin to the one signed with India. Anyhow, it is highly unlikely that Pakistan would accept any stringent conditions, as it has never compromised Pakistan’s nuclear programme and delivery system even in the worst of times. However, the US deep state seems to be rethinking about the policy towards Pakistan, after having realised that Pakistan is of crucial importance and cannot be ignored. As mentioned in the report, many meetings have been held between Pakistan and the US in this regard; and David Ignatius has not said anything new but made it public. Of course, the offer has come in the wake of a recent surge of Taliban violence in Afghanistan, building pressure on the US to address the issues it evaded a decade ago. 

The proposed agreement would allow Pakistan to use nuclear technology for energy generation and commercial purposes, help solve energy problems and moreover enable it to be a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group – a coveted position. Pakistan, however, can learn lessons from US-India civil nuclear deal. India faced opposition to the deal in regard to concerns about liability, threats to Indian sovereignty, and the prospects of stopping the nuclear-related supplies if India did not fall in line what the US wanted. Internationally, there were voices against the Indo-US nuclear deal terming it against the letter and spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Although the deal was done by Bush administration primarily to give boost to its nuclear industry, differences had marred the deal, and the US could not benefit to the extent it expected. It took quite a while to overcome differences over issues like reprocessing and uninterrupted supply of fuel. 

The two countries had signed a deal in 2008 giving India access to civilian nuclear technology, but it was held up by US concerns over India’s strict laws on liability in the event of a nuclear accident. The US views India as a vast market and potential counterweight to China’s assertiveness in Asia, but at the same time it has apprehensions that India may use fuel covertly for weapons purposes. It is yet to be seen as to American demand on tracking the whereabouts of material supplied to the country, which was meant to ensure that India does not divert the nuclear materials to nuclear weapons’ production. Having that said, it appears that hypocrisy, strategic interest and greed of the US and the West for approximately hundred billion dollars had been victorious, and international covenants and laws were trampled.
Following the NSG waiver, India had signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia, France, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Canada, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Namibia. However, given the constraints on any agreement imposed by New Delhi’s civil nuclear liability law, it is unclear whether US companies will conclude any reactor supply deals with India. In Russia, France, Germany and Japan etc, the state provides sovereign guarantee to the suppliers, whereas US Export-Import Bank would under no circumstances provide such guarantee. In this backdrop, American companies would not conclude any deal with India, as in case of any malfunctioning or mishap they will have to bear the brunt. The US nuclear industry has looked abroad for business as demand in the US has fallen. But without the Export-Import Bank’s backing, it would be harder for US companies to seal nuclear deals abroad. 

The fact remains that the pact between the US and India exempts military facilities and stockpiles of nuclear fuel from scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations watchdog. India had remained outside the international nuclear mainstream since it misused Canadian and US peaceful nuclear assistance to conduct its 1974 nuclear bomb test, refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and conducted additional nuclear tests in 1998. But the US and the West want to sell weapons and materials, and India has cash to buy those weapons. Pakistan also has dubious past in the light of information about A.Q. Khan having been involved in proliferation. This seems to be one of the reasons that the US has equated India and Pakistan, and decided to offer civil nuclear deal to Pakistan. Secondly, the US believes that Pakistan has taken adequate measures to control terrorism in Waziristan and elsewhere. 

Thirdly, the US does not believe in propaganda by the Afghan government that Pakistan was behind Kunduz and other recent Taliban attacks. Fourthly, looking at what happened in Kunduz and at Nangarhar, there is realisation in the US that Afghan forces are no match to the Taliban or Daesh fighters. Finally, if relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan remain strained, militants’ outfits are likely to benefit from the absence of shared intelligence. It has to be mentioned that US and NATO forces - the world’s best fighting machine - also could not achieve their objective; hence expecting from Afghan forces to rein in or defeat the Taliban is asking too much of them. The US expects that in the near future there is going to be chaos and more bloodshed in Afghanistan; therefore to keep Pakistan away could be detrimental to its interests. 


Don't call me secular


By Ali Sukhanver

Mohammad Akhlaqs brutal murder at the hands of Hindu extremists has once again proved that India is not a secular state. The Washington Post narrated the details of this shameful incident on 30th September; Mohammad Akhlaq was in bed when the mob arrived. The commotion began in the distance, but crept closer and closer like encroaching thunder. Suddenly, there was a pounding at the door. Then the door broke inwards and men dragged the 50-year-old farmer from his sheets and into the street. They beat him with bricks found underneath his own bed; beat him until the bricks broke in their hands; beat him until Mohammad was dead.

The paper further says, The attack on Monday night in the northern Indian city of Dadri has shocked the country, but it wasn’t exactly a surprise. For the past six months, meat has been a matter of major debate in India. Slaughtering a human being for butchering a cow; it all is nothing but brutality and cruelty and this is wicked act has no doubt proved a blob of shame on the face of Secular India. 

According to authentic sources, Indias total population is somewhere around 1.3 Billion. Eighty percent of this population consists of Hindus. Roughly 250 million Indians belong to other religions including 25 million Christians and up to 140 million Muslims approximately. Most of the Hindus avoid beef for religious reasons particularly when they are in India. To them cow is a sacred animal and their religion does not allow them eat the meat of this sacred animal. But for the remaining twenty percent population cow is simply an animal whose milk and meat both are nourishing and delicious.
The Hindu extremists are so narrow-minded and prejudiced that they compel and force the non-Hindus to respect and honour an animal which is popular throughout the world for its milk and beef. In other words the Hindu extremists expect others to follow and obey the Hindu philosophy whereas they themselves neither respect nor honour other religions. We have a very horrible example of the Babari Masjid which was demolished by the Hindu extremists in 1992 and further a large part of the land of this mosque was handed over to the Hindus for construction of temple. More than 2000 people lost their lives as a result of several months of inter-communal riots between Hindu and Muslim communities after this demolition. 

In short whatever happened to Mohammad Akhlaq is neither strange nor unexpected. It is the tradition of the Hindu extremists to crush anyone whom they feel weak and helpless. Today the most frequently asked question all over the world is; what was the crime of Mohammad Akhlaq for which the Hindu extremists punished him but no one in India has any answer to this question. 

Another important thing that must be kept in mind is that all Hindus in India are neither extremists nor narrow-minded; there are so many Hindus who are kind-hearted, loving and caring for the people belonging to other communities but unfortunately such Hindus themselves are helplessly frightened at the hands of the extremists. The New Indian Express published a report on 3rdOctober 2015 which says, While the whole Indian nation was shocked at the lynching of Mohammed Akhlaq at Bisada village in Dadri, a contrary detail is that over seventy members of a Muslim joint family owe their lives to their Hindu neighbours. 

The Hindu men - Vineet Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Ashok organised a dramatic plan to save Abdul Mohammed and his family which included women and children living in the neighbourhood. As soon as Umesh learned about the mobs attack at around 11 PM while heading back home, all three of them helped the Muslims flee secretively. It was the time when a large lynch mob was heading towards the village mosque, which is just a stones throw away from their house. 

Michael E. Miller of the Washington Post says in an article, The issue of beef ban has raged in India for years. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, however, incidents have increased, as they tend to do whenever a conservative government has been in power. Modi is a Hindu nationalist who, as chief minister of Gujarat state, presided during religious riots in 2002 in which more than 1,000 people most of them Muslims were killed. For years afterwards, Modi was blocked from visiting the United States because of his role in the riots. 

The maltreatment with the minorities at the hands of the Hindu extremists in India has put a big question mark on Indias claim of being a secular state. India is in no way a secular state; it is a purely Hindu state where Muslims, Christians or any one following a different religious philosophy is not allowed to live peacefully.